BAW and NY approach at it
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve flown that approach a lot,and it’s a bit frustrating to be at the edge of what it can do all the time.
I don’t think Nigel helped as he went in aggressive from the off. I’d just say “ unable, 180 to 8/ 160 to 4 is the best “.
i went to Florida a while back and they wanted 190/5. Id love to know what aircraft/ airlines can do that and be stable at 1000’ or do other airlines use lower stabilisation points ?
I don’t think Nigel helped as he went in aggressive from the off. I’d just say “ unable, 180 to 8/ 160 to 4 is the best “.
i went to Florida a while back and they wanted 190/5. Id love to know what aircraft/ airlines can do that and be stable at 1000’ or do other airlines use lower stabilisation points ?
In terms of approach gates, the airlines I’ve been at want us to be stable by 1000. If not stable by 1000, we can continue down to 500 as long as the speed is the only thing out of limits. If we don’t have it by 500, go missed.
Given the large number of heavies handled at JFK and if this request is physically impossible to achieve then, I’m guessing that this specific request is not a common one from ATC, otherwise they would well know that it’s unachievable and probably wouldn’t bother asking in the first place.
I’ve heard war and peace from other BA aircraft when asked to do something they can’t in other parts of the world, when a simple ‘unable’ would have sufficed. They did themselves no favours here with the lecture.
I’ve heard war and peace from other BA aircraft when asked to do something they can’t in other parts of the world, when a simple ‘unable’ would have sufficed. They did themselves no favours here with the lecture.
The controller was one of the usual, rattling away like an auctioneer, probably with baseball cap on backwards to think she is smart. NO need to speak so quickly and if she can read this BA have to be completely stable at 1000 ft agl...if not its a mandatory goaround. That 180 to 5 ( and for me thats 5 miles from the runway ie 6 dme), means you wont get back to a typical 747, flap 30 145 kts by that 1000 ft.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in the barrel
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(...)
What’s the ultimate aim here? Is it for pilots to prove themselves worthy by rising to the special challenge posed by NY controllers? Or for ATC to facilitate the safe and efficient arrival of aircraft? Because if it’s the latter, I’m not sure that high-speed, often non-standard transmissions (with a bit of attitude thrown in for good measure) really help.
(...)
This. I don‘t do long haul and just know NY ATC from the live feeds, but what I‘ve been hearing there was partially shocking, especially with respect to treating crews whose first language apparently isn‘t (American) English. Almost as if they were proud of creating a certain apprehension for crews flying into JFK.
I do understand that the NY airports are a high volume traffic and hence high stress environment, but some things are just over the top.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 30W
Age: 40
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could have been mitigated by three methods.
They could use the USA’s 10kt discretion and flown 170kts to zalpo (5.4dme from touchdown) which works out as roughly the same decelerated profile as 160kts to 4dme at LHR.
However it did seem the crew were ready for 180 to zalpo direction from atc. If this were the case it would have been prudent to inform approach in the same way one would inform you were unable land and hold short when changing from Boston at CCC, not on intercept. This would have allowed the approach controller to put some extra space between aircraft.
Finally, if they are that worried, they could go via BA flight ops and inform jfk via back channels that 400’s cannot fly 180 to 5.
This ATC recording is sadly not the way to deal with it, unless the pilots were both very inexperienced at Kennedy or having a very ****e day.
They could use the USA’s 10kt discretion and flown 170kts to zalpo (5.4dme from touchdown) which works out as roughly the same decelerated profile as 160kts to 4dme at LHR.
However it did seem the crew were ready for 180 to zalpo direction from atc. If this were the case it would have been prudent to inform approach in the same way one would inform you were unable land and hold short when changing from Boston at CCC, not on intercept. This would have allowed the approach controller to put some extra space between aircraft.
Finally, if they are that worried, they could go via BA flight ops and inform jfk via back channels that 400’s cannot fly 180 to 5.
This ATC recording is sadly not the way to deal with it, unless the pilots were both very inexperienced at Kennedy or having a very ****e day.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the FAA AIM says you’re expected to maintain speed to within 10kt, but at airports like JFK, I would certainly not be that liberal with speed control.
Another potential difference between the EU and US- at most large airports, you needn’t brief the published missed approach procedure. You’re never going to fly it.
Another potential difference between the EU and US- at most large airports, you needn’t brief the published missed approach procedure. You’re never going to fly it.
Agree strongly with “Unable” as a response.
no need to clutter up the frequency with unrequested explanations.
Once upon a time, there were a bunch of “points” assigned to ATC candidates who were instrument rated pilots, but no more. The FAA meets its mandated quotas, and some are good, and others not so much.
I actually thought this controller was remarkably clear-spoken for a northeast corridor ATC.
no need to clutter up the frequency with unrequested explanations.
Once upon a time, there were a bunch of “points” assigned to ATC candidates who were instrument rated pilots, but no more. The FAA meets its mandated quotas, and some are good, and others not so much.
I actually thought this controller was remarkably clear-spoken for a northeast corridor ATC.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that's a smart-alec comment, but it merits an explanation nevertheless.
Most BA pilots will try to avoid JFK (and other eastern seaboard destinations) as the "credit"/ block hours aren't very efficient compared to most alternative destinations. Then factor in the weather etc and personally I prefer almost anywhere else. eg the Far East, South Africa or South America, or the Caribbean. The JFK hotel is terrible!
Also remember that the throughput of new and upgraded pilots means many are unfamiliar with JFK. I've been flying there since 1993 but havent had the pleasure for 3 years. I understand many US pilots fly a more limited route network - so most are probably very familiar with JFK (and its myriad idiosyncrasies) (look that up!).
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.
Most BA pilots will try to avoid JFK (and other eastern seaboard destinations) as the "credit"/ block hours aren't very efficient compared to most alternative destinations. Then factor in the weather etc and personally I prefer almost anywhere else. eg the Far East, South Africa or South America, or the Caribbean. The JFK hotel is terrible!
Also remember that the throughput of new and upgraded pilots means many are unfamiliar with JFK. I've been flying there since 1993 but havent had the pleasure for 3 years. I understand many US pilots fly a more limited route network - so most are probably very familiar with JFK (and its myriad idiosyncrasies) (look that up!).
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He first replied with ", I cant do that -I can do 160 to 4", he only became verbose when she made him G/A as a punishment. Nor was he rude (unlike you!)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missed
I know the FAA AIM says you’re expected to maintain speed to within 10kt, but at airports like JFK, I would certainly not be that liberal with speed control.
Another potential difference between the EU and US- at most large airports, you needn’t brief the published missed approach procedure. You’re never going to fly it.
Another potential difference between the EU and US- at most large airports, you needn’t brief the published missed approach procedure. You’re never going to fly it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a worldwide operator and regular visitor to JFK controllers are probably the rudest, most belligerent in the world. They shout at aircraft who don't understand their machine-gun like transmissions, even though the pilots clearly don't have English as their first language. They are sarcastic and aggressive on all frequencies particularly on GMC and god help you if you ask them to 'Say Again'.... even as an Englishman! There is a level of arrogance and readiness to bully pilots into accepting questionable clearances that you find nowhere else in the world.
I find IAD and PHL are similar in attitude and there appears to be the belief that theirs is the only and best airport in the world..... and you are simply an amateur. They are all blow-hard bullies.
I find IAD and PHL are similar in attitude and there appears to be the belief that theirs is the only and best airport in the world..... and you are simply an amateur. They are all blow-hard bullies.
Only half a speed-brake
For the record, saying roger and then flying 170 to 5,5 is so 20th century.
+/- 10 in the AIM or not, at the approach you fly what you are told the best you can.
Anyone spared a thought for the poor bugger who was actually flying the A/C?
+/- 10 in the AIM or not, at the approach you fly what you are told the best you can.
Anyone spared a thought for the poor bugger who was actually flying the A/C?
Court Line (UK BAC-111s of yesteryear - waxed handlebar moustaches and silly string-backed gloves) thought it would be a good idea for air traffic controllers to sit in the jump seat and see just how much money it cost to send a 111 around a 4 minute holding pattern. Everyone soon became on first-name terms as we are all nice chaps until BEA in the hold typically saw Court Line 111s zooming underneath them at a million miles an hour until the outer marker. All that stopped in a hurry.
Thread creep, but on the off chance that some USA controllers are attracted to this thread I’d like to remind them that it is an FAA rule that foreign carriers are not permitted to participate in land and hold short operations. Generally those airlines will also remind you of that by including it as a note in the remarks on their flight plan.
It would therefore be really cool if you a. Stopped offering it as a clearance and b. Refrained from getting stroppy wen it is declined.
It would therefore be really cool if you a. Stopped offering it as a clearance and b. Refrained from getting stroppy wen it is declined.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ASRAMTOO... Not an FAA rule. It is the Foreign Aviation Authorities who do not permit their operators to participate. FAA LAHSO Order
Any airport that gets funny with silly speeds to 4/5/6 miles simply gets 'Unable'.
If the controller wants to know more I can supply a UK telephone number of somebody who gives-a-****.
Any airport that gets funny with silly speeds to 4/5/6 miles simply gets 'Unable'.
If the controller wants to know more I can supply a UK telephone number of somebody who gives-a-****.