BAW and NY approach at it
Heathrow typically runs Eleventh or Twelfth in total movements. Seven of the top ten are in the US. But total movements of all three NYC airports together dwarfs Heathrow
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was once on a 757 JFK, behind a 747, cleared for take off, I told the tower that we needed 2 minutes separation after a heavy. I got a long lecture telling me how to behave in JFK the next time.
IMHO that’s how the system should work, with no place for arrogance, belligerence and lecturing from either pilots or ATC.
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000
London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000
Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.
The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.
For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.
Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.
If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.
Last edited by PukinDog; 6th Oct 2019 at 03:43.
Comparing just the 4 busiest (by aircraft movement) airports in each area last year...
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000
London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000
Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.
The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.
For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.
Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.
If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000
London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000
Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.
The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.
For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.
Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.
If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the great questions. My answers are in red. Not definitive, by any means, just a few techniques that may make your next trip easier. When I start visiting Europe, I expect I'll have to come here and ask you guys a few questions.
A good question. Taking the JFK case as an example.
The biggest difference I note (this is going to be specific to JFK with a comparison to LHR) is that an approach to JFK has a large number of unknown variables. From a visiting pilot’s point of view we never really know the plan.
I realise comparing LHR arrivals to JFK is perhaps unfair, given the complexity of NY terminal airspace, but going into LHR we have an arrival that will end at a specific hold, from there we will be given track miles to run, and consistent speed instructions (220 leaving the hold -180 on base - 160-4dme).
Generally, only a handful of our STARS will terminate at an IAF. Personally, I prefer this, as a runway change is easier to accomplish. You will be given the runway assignment on initial contact with the approach controller. As I said earlier, going into an airport like JFK, I always make use of the secondary flightplan, so I’m ready for a runway change. Sometimes you get lucky, other times not. Best to be prepared.
No such speed instructions are published for pilots in the US. A particular facility may have a profile they use, but I’m just guessing. We just fly whatever speed's assigned. I believe they make their own corrections for wind if necessary. I think you guys get track miles to run to help with CDA planning, which is a requirement, I’m told. There’s no such requirement on this side of the pond, so if it’s easier to dive and drive, have at it. We do. If you really must know, you can always ask ATC where they plan to turn your base.
In terms of what speed to fly, in general, do 250kts until advised. Especially at those very busy airports. When you think you need to slow, just ask ATC, they’ll let you know if it’s appropriate. At my home airport, they don't seem to get too fussed, so they'll just say "speed your discretion".
At some airports (JFK being one), you’ll fly level for a bit at 10,000. Do NOT slow to 250. They’re keeping you at 10,000 for a reason. Maintain your descent speed until cleared below 10,000.
Obviously this can vary given traffic and weather on the day but it gives us something to hang our hats on. JFK tends to be a mix up of vectors with very little info on distance to go and ATC expectations of speed. It leads to visiting pilots erring on the side of caution and expecting a last minute loss of track miles so we often start to slow up in expectation of this, which results in issues similar to the one in the transcript you shared. I think it really comes down to ATC sharing the plan as soon as possible - again I appreciate NY airspace is a special case and life isn’t straight forward for ATC.
Again, it’s not the custom to be given track miles by the approach controller. The closest I’ve ever heard is them telling you how far out the base turn will be, but even that’s not usual. Foreign crews seem keen to know what speed and distance to expect. Again, 250 until advised. They'll progressively slow you until you hear something like "170 to the FAF"
I understand erring on the side of caution. A slam dunk is no fun if you’re caught out. As a GENERAL rule, let’s say the the fix prior to the FAF is at 3000, and you’re on downwind at 8000. If you’re cleared down to 3/4000, they’re ready to turn you onto base. Time to get down and slow down.
But asking a visiting heavy to fly 180 to inside 6dme isn’t going to work for most operators. BA approach SOPs are conservative, I’ll admit that, but that’s what we have to fly to, and we need ATC to work with us on that.
It can also be a problem at airfield like ORD and BOS when multiple runways are in use. The structure of these airfields, runway layout, airspace restrictions etc make ATC a challenge but the result seems to be the system is designed to protect controllers and make their lives easier, with pilots expected to work with the results. Pilots like consistency and don’t like surprises. Tell us the arrival runway as soon as possible. If we are going to get extended vectors then tell us. If we are going to need to keep speed up then tell us when we can expect to slow down etc. I appreciate it might seem like extra workload for a busy controller, but we don’t visit these airfields everyday and as a result we tend to be overly cautious when we aren’t clear what the traffic pattern/speed expectation is likely to be.
ORD can be a pain as well with the runway roulette. The same rules as in NYC apply. Go as fast as possible for as long as possible. In the winter, when icing is an issue, this can be a problem.Instead of aiming for a continuous descent, i find it easier to just get down ASAP, and decelerate when level. Far less stress involved.
I don’t have a magic answer, NY airspace is what it is and comes with a unique set of challenges for all involved.
A good question. Taking the JFK case as an example.
The biggest difference I note (this is going to be specific to JFK with a comparison to LHR) is that an approach to JFK has a large number of unknown variables. From a visiting pilot’s point of view we never really know the plan.
I realise comparing LHR arrivals to JFK is perhaps unfair, given the complexity of NY terminal airspace, but going into LHR we have an arrival that will end at a specific hold, from there we will be given track miles to run, and consistent speed instructions (220 leaving the hold -180 on base - 160-4dme).
Generally, only a handful of our STARS will terminate at an IAF. Personally, I prefer this, as a runway change is easier to accomplish. You will be given the runway assignment on initial contact with the approach controller. As I said earlier, going into an airport like JFK, I always make use of the secondary flightplan, so I’m ready for a runway change. Sometimes you get lucky, other times not. Best to be prepared.
No such speed instructions are published for pilots in the US. A particular facility may have a profile they use, but I’m just guessing. We just fly whatever speed's assigned. I believe they make their own corrections for wind if necessary. I think you guys get track miles to run to help with CDA planning, which is a requirement, I’m told. There’s no such requirement on this side of the pond, so if it’s easier to dive and drive, have at it. We do. If you really must know, you can always ask ATC where they plan to turn your base.
In terms of what speed to fly, in general, do 250kts until advised. Especially at those very busy airports. When you think you need to slow, just ask ATC, they’ll let you know if it’s appropriate. At my home airport, they don't seem to get too fussed, so they'll just say "speed your discretion".
At some airports (JFK being one), you’ll fly level for a bit at 10,000. Do NOT slow to 250. They’re keeping you at 10,000 for a reason. Maintain your descent speed until cleared below 10,000.
Obviously this can vary given traffic and weather on the day but it gives us something to hang our hats on. JFK tends to be a mix up of vectors with very little info on distance to go and ATC expectations of speed. It leads to visiting pilots erring on the side of caution and expecting a last minute loss of track miles so we often start to slow up in expectation of this, which results in issues similar to the one in the transcript you shared. I think it really comes down to ATC sharing the plan as soon as possible - again I appreciate NY airspace is a special case and life isn’t straight forward for ATC.
Again, it’s not the custom to be given track miles by the approach controller. The closest I’ve ever heard is them telling you how far out the base turn will be, but even that’s not usual. Foreign crews seem keen to know what speed and distance to expect. Again, 250 until advised. They'll progressively slow you until you hear something like "170 to the FAF"
I understand erring on the side of caution. A slam dunk is no fun if you’re caught out. As a GENERAL rule, let’s say the the fix prior to the FAF is at 3000, and you’re on downwind at 8000. If you’re cleared down to 3/4000, they’re ready to turn you onto base. Time to get down and slow down.
But asking a visiting heavy to fly 180 to inside 6dme isn’t going to work for most operators. BA approach SOPs are conservative, I’ll admit that, but that’s what we have to fly to, and we need ATC to work with us on that.
It can also be a problem at airfield like ORD and BOS when multiple runways are in use. The structure of these airfields, runway layout, airspace restrictions etc make ATC a challenge but the result seems to be the system is designed to protect controllers and make their lives easier, with pilots expected to work with the results. Pilots like consistency and don’t like surprises. Tell us the arrival runway as soon as possible. If we are going to get extended vectors then tell us. If we are going to need to keep speed up then tell us when we can expect to slow down etc. I appreciate it might seem like extra workload for a busy controller, but we don’t visit these airfields everyday and as a result we tend to be overly cautious when we aren’t clear what the traffic pattern/speed expectation is likely to be.
ORD can be a pain as well with the runway roulette. The same rules as in NYC apply. Go as fast as possible for as long as possible. In the winter, when icing is an issue, this can be a problem.Instead of aiming for a continuous descent, i find it easier to just get down ASAP, and decelerate when level. Far less stress involved.
I don’t have a magic answer, NY airspace is what it is and comes with a unique set of challenges for all involved.
And I still don't understand why, on arrival into LAX I am cleared for the approach passing FL200, with only a few speed adjustments, no vectors or altitudes, and when I fly into EWR, I get worried I haven't gotten a speed/heading/altitude/frequency change in the last 43 seconds (and preferably all 4 at the same time).
Re LAX: Coming in from the east on the Angel and Hollywood arrivals yes, from the north and south there is vectoring and speed adjustments though not excessive. Those being to fit in with the arrivals from the east.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I still don't understand why, on arrival into LAX I am cleared for the approach passing FL200, with only a few speed adjustments, no vectors or altitudes, and when I fly into EWR, I get worried I haven't gotten a speed/heading/altitude/frequency change in the last 43 seconds (and preferably all 4 at the same time).
I would suggest that given the volume of airplanes, and the complexity of the airspace due to having so many airports so close together, there is no other place in the world with such a demanding ATC environment. A Heathrow predictable conga style arrival is simply impossible so yes crews need to bring their “A” game to NYC. Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen
That being said neither side covered themselves in glory that day, but at the end of the day as several posters stated a pilot should either comply with the clearance or simply say “unable” ideally followed by what they can accept.
I always chuckle when the Europeans, and especially Brits condescending explain how wonderful their system is and how bad the cowboy Americans are, unfortunately the inconvenient fact is that for pretty much ever, the US has had the lowest number of aircraft incidents and accidents per 100,000 hrs flown than any other country.........
That being said neither side covered themselves in glory that day, but at the end of the day as several posters stated a pilot should either comply with the clearance or simply say “unable” ideally followed by what they can accept.
I always chuckle when the Europeans, and especially Brits condescending explain how wonderful their system is and how bad the cowboy Americans are, unfortunately the inconvenient fact is that for pretty much ever, the US has had the lowest number of aircraft incidents and accidents per 100,000 hrs flown than any other country.........
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the radio procedures are very pressured and the controllers speak very quickly, often use too many words, and are simply frequently rude. The hazard is well recognised and the fact that US pilots leap to their defence is not a sign of loyalty or strength but a weakness.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC needs to slow down, use ICAO standard R/T, and avoid slang. More time is wasted when foreign airlines have to go back and forth with ATC to understand what the 'local' language meant.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has nothing to do with 'My airport has more movements than yours'. Most pilots only get to operate within their own continent but as a long-hauler I hear controllers communicating professionally all over the world - with the notable exception of JFK and a couple of other eastern seaboard cities.
There is no excuse for rudeness, impatience or aggression on the radio. Likewise sending a heavy aircraft on final to the back of the queue because he is unable to adhere to speed control designed for little aeroplanes is the same arrogant mindset the CBP officer shows when he sends someone away who simply does not understand him. I have sipped a beverage (or two) down-route with some really nice US pilots who are a credit to our profession. Sadly every village has an idiot who does the rest of you no favours.
BTW.... in my experience... the nicest controllers are in Texas. I don't know why,... they always sound calm, hospitable and without stress. Maybe that's a Texan thing?
There is no excuse for rudeness, impatience or aggression on the radio. Likewise sending a heavy aircraft on final to the back of the queue because he is unable to adhere to speed control designed for little aeroplanes is the same arrogant mindset the CBP officer shows when he sends someone away who simply does not understand him. I have sipped a beverage (or two) down-route with some really nice US pilots who are a credit to our profession. Sadly every village has an idiot who does the rest of you no favours.
BTW.... in my experience... the nicest controllers are in Texas. I don't know why,... they always sound calm, hospitable and without stress. Maybe that's a Texan thing?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I be the first to point out that movements isn’t the right metric for comparison? ORD with, what’s it now, 4 or 5 parallels vs others with 2 runways.
Movements per sq millimetre of pavement is closer. Then complexity on top.
Movements per sq millimetre of pavement is closer. Then complexity on top.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting away from the 'mine is bigger than yours' argument. Controllers everywhere need to realise that talking quickly and using slang is not cool. Neither is treating pilots as if they fly to a particular airport at least twice a week. If a clearance is unreasonable or unrealistic in the circumstances, pilots need to say so asap but don't be surprised if you are given an extended routing as a result.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe me, I have the same issues when I go to JFK. Between the accent, the non-std RT and the speed at which they speak, it’s difficult. NY is the only place I’ve been told, as an IFR aircraft to “follow the river”. Admittedly, that’s fun when you turn off the automation, look outside and fly.
Pretty rich, considering the only display of arrogance (with a dose of condescension) in the clip came from the cockpit, not the controller.
The controller spoke concisely, didn't use slang, and was perfectly understandable. All he had to do was answer the question, but he opted to become patronizing instead. If he shares the same mindset of imagined superiority on display here, it's not surprising.
The controller spoke concisely, didn't use slang, and was perfectly understandable. All he had to do was answer the question, but he opted to become patronizing instead. If he shares the same mindset of imagined superiority on display here, it's not surprising.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PukinDog
If he shares the same mindset of imagined superiority on display here, it's not surprising.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing just the 4 busiest (by aircraft movement) airports in each area last year...
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000
London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000
Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.
The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.
For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.
Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.
If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.
New York
JFK - 456,000
EWR - 453,000
LGA - 372,000
TEB - 175,000
Total - 1,456,000
London
LHR - 475,000
LGW - 286,000
STN - 190,000
LTN - 134,000
Total - 1,085,000
Difference: 371,000, or 1,000+ per day. In other words, to reach comparable traffic numbers the London 4 would have to add 1 LaGuardia airport.
The NY TRACON is 2nd busiest in the U.S., handling (flights in, out, and transitioning through) 1.92 million flights in it's airspace in 2018. #1 busiest TRACON is SoCal (LAX area) handling 2.13 million flights.
For comparison with the above TRACON numbers, NATS in all it's zones at all altitudes across the UK handled about 2.4 million flights during the year.
Of course, the traffic handled by both the NY and London areas' single busiest airports (JFK and LHR) pales in comparison to Chicago O'Hare (904,000) and Atlanta Hartsfield (895,000). LAX (707,00) and DFW (667,000) are distant #3 and #4.
If Heathrow were a U.S. airport, in terms of aircraft movements (475,000) it would rank #8, squeaking-out San Francisco (470,00) but well-behind Las Vegas (540,000), Charlotte (550,00) and Denver (603,000) in addition to the aforementioned DFW, LAX, ATL, and ORD.
LGW is 25 nm from LHR. In 20 nm NYC has EWR, JFK, LGA and TEB. So in the space that LHR has 475,000 movements NYC has 1, 485,000.