BAW and NY approach at it
There is still a carnarsie approach. Just it’s called the VOR/DME 13L/R. Still an instrument approach with defined minima. Whether they’ll re-instate it once the resurfacing works are done on 13L/31R I have no idea. Haven’t done a VOR/DME on to 22L in a very long time. Always seems to be the ILS at the moment. Though I admit I’m an infrequent visitor.
from what I understand from the video, he was already doing 160 when at around 8-9 miles out controller asked them to speed up.. I think the answer to the question was pretty obvious.. I'm no expert on flying a 747 but I can only imagine speeding it up to 180 and then slowing it back again to 160 within 3 miles when already established on a glide is a bit of an exercise with limited value. The whole debate about which airspace is busier is useless.. the approach controller has one job to do - get planes in line and deliver them to tower. By asking BA to cancel the approach you don't really solve the problem, you literally add more moving pieces to your puzzle.. All she needed to do was to ask following guys to slow down..
Nor was he established on glide slope at any point, not even close. He was at 2000' when he intercepted the LOC at 13.8 DME and remained there until she broke him off the approach at about 11 DME. She made her request for him to maintain 180 until 5 DME when he was over ROSLY at 12.0 DME, at which point the G/S would be about 1400' above his altitude. G/S intercept for him at 2,000' would be just before ZALPO at about 7.0 DME, 5 miles to run when she made her initial request and just less than 7 miles when he intercepted the LOC.
ATC didn't ask BA to do anything within 3 miles, let alone speed up 20 knots then reduce 20 knots. Over ROSLY the Controller issued the instruction to "maintain 180 or greater until 5 DME...", not "Increase speed to 180.." After his rejection of 180 @ 5, the only thing asked of BA was how long before they needed to slow to 160. That's it. An appropriate answer would have been one of mileage, either DME or miles-to-go. Either one would have sufficed but it was not forthcoming.
BA knew that 5.0 DME is only 3.6 miles from the threshold, about 1200' AGL, and shedding the extra 20 knots down to Vapp by the limits for a stabilized approach his company sets may be a problem, so he wanted 160 at 5. That's all well and good and the Controller didn't argue his point, but he was missing her point that slowing to 160 while still 12.0 DME out over ROSLY was too slow-too early for the program.
She couldn't issue him a clearance for him as he verbalized it.."160 or greater until 5" (simply substituting 160 for 180)...when he did over ROSLY because although it would solve his too fast-too close problem for him 7 miles later at 5 DME, such wording would also clear him to immediately slow to 160 if he wanted to while still 12 miles out and jam up the works. She therefore explained that she needed him to maintain something more than 160 "from now" ( where he was, 12 miles out, 5-6 miles from ZALPO) and asks; "so when are you going to slow to 160", whereupon he states he "Gets that" yet blows-off what she needs/asks completely to instead talk about his 747 and announcing that he has approach criteria. She says okay, then points out he still hasn't answered her question which was, again: "When are you going to slow to 160?".
So far there's only one condescending, argumentative personality who isn't listening during these exchanges, and it isn't the NY Controller. She didn't press him on the "until 5", she accepted he couldn't and only wanted to know for how long he could do 180 but, clearly, someone checked onto the frequency with a pre-packaged attitude, ready to make a statement if hearing something not to his liking. Clearly, because he immediately levered his clipped-tone verbiage into the exchange instead of answering. It's obvious that he had no intention of working with her from the get-go.
At 1:12 in the clip at appx 11.0 DME just inside ROSLY, as a way of answering her query and proving he still didn't "Get it", BA declares "reducing now to 160 knots". The transcript on the clip is wrong; he's not asking her a question about reducing, there's no inflection of a query, he's declaring what he's doing.."reducing now"..(something else that points to his current speed being 180, not 160). She already knows that him slowing to 160 while still 11 miles out is not going to work. She had already informed him that slowing to 160 at that point wouldn't work but when she had done so he made it clear he didn't care by his non-response.
When she breaks him off the approach he's still at 2000', 11 miles out, appx 4 miles from G/S intercept, 5 miles from ZALPO (which he'd cross at 1800'), and 6 miles from where she would have originally wanted him to reduce. There was still plenty of mileage and time to make it work to the benefit of all parties, but Capt "Don't tell me how to fly my 747" insisted on slowing down to a speed (160) he said he could do at 5 miles descending on a G/S while still in level flight 11 miles out.
These type of speed-controlled approaches aren't unique. Hong Kong, for example, routinely requires 180 until 7.0 followed by 160 until 4.0 (1100' AGL already well-established on the G/S so there's plenty of aircraft in the process of shedding of knots from 160 to Vapp while passing downhill through 1000' AGL) , and 125+ to the threshold. They've also disseminated the info that aircraft not able to adhere to these minimum speeds may be broken off the approach due to traffic behind in the name of traffic flow. So you see, your simple answer that all a Controller "needs to do is ask following guys to slow down" doesn't really work past a certain point or level of congestion. At many airports if you want speed control at your own leisure or whim, it'll take at least a Pan Pan to do it.
Again, if instead of a protest and lecture he had just given her a mileage to work with it may have ended differently, but as he was droning straight in on the LOC at 2000' from almost 14 miles out waiting for the G/S he chose differently. In level flight at 2000' speed 180, was it really so difficult to tell her they could maintain 180 until 6.0 or G/S intercept at 7.0 instead of being triggered?
After being broken off, during the ensuing exchange she said she needed to him to maintain 180 for "at least 3 more miles", which means if he had told her he could do 180 until 6, 7, or possibly even 8 when she asked (which would've been 3 more miles), she could have worked it out. At no point, however, did he ever try and work with her on a mileage estimate even when prompted.
Laughably, he presumes to think what she's done to him isn't an "FAA-approved procedure" after his radio mini-investigation revealed he was broken off the approach due to anticipated, diminishing separation with the traffic behind due to his early speed reduction, confusing FAA pilot right-of-way rules regarding slower preceding aircraft with what ATC can do with you in Class B airspace. Did he really think he caught her out with a "Gotcha" or reckoned he could slow anytime because it gave him the right of way and she'd just have to adjust everyone behind? It's clear by the tone of his voice that he thinks he has a better grasp of FAA procedures than she does, or that she's breaking them. Speaking of mindset, what kind of pompous ass does it take to fly to a foreign country and then chew up the frequency telling the controller they don't know their own ATC procedures?
The Controller, on the other hand, remains unruffled throughout despite his condescending tone, blather, and refusal to work with her. Anyone moaning about NY Controllers should find a better example than this one to support it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're confusing LGA & JFK.
LGA 22 arrivals (generally from the south) use the Hudson as downwind. The instruction is typically fly to the Verrazano bridge and follow the Hudson. with the statue of Liberty on the left (aka 'the lady') I christened the procedure "The Britch, the Bitch & the Ditch...'
Just south of the George Washington Bridge 'The GW' you'll get a vector for base.
Kennedy has te Wonderfull VOR/DME 22L (the Canarsie curve..) IIRC AN Emirates 380 grazed the employee parking lot after misunderstanding the procedure last year and LGA the Expressway Visual. Aside from Kai Tak (RIP) and the River Visual into DC; the most fun you can have at work...
LGA 22 arrivals (generally from the south) use the Hudson as downwind. The instruction is typically fly to the Verrazano bridge and follow the Hudson. with the statue of Liberty on the left (aka 'the lady') I christened the procedure "The Britch, the Bitch & the Ditch...'
Just south of the George Washington Bridge 'The GW' you'll get a vector for base.
Kennedy has te Wonderfull VOR/DME 22L (the Canarsie curve..) IIRC AN Emirates 380 grazed the employee parking lot after misunderstanding the procedure last year and LGA the Expressway Visual. Aside from Kai Tak (RIP) and the River Visual into DC; the most fun you can have at work...
Congestion is a function of both traffic and airspace volume/complexity, making movement numbers just as relevant to any discussion that tries to compare levels of congestion. Not sure why those who first sought to compare NY TRACON chose London TMA and their controllers to do so except to pump the tires of the latter while ignoring the effects of congestion. The 2 locales are not equivalent.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: somewhere between Miami and Havana
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congestion is a function of both traffic and airspace volume/complexity, making movement numbers just as relevant to any discussion that tries to compare levels of congestion. Not sure why those who first sought to compare NY TRACON chose London TMA and their controllers to do so except to pump the tires of the latter while ignoring the effects of congestion. The 2 locales are not equivalent.
My hat is tipped to ATC in both London and NY.
B
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13L
You're right. I was thinking of LGA. Those approaches are really fun. River visual into DCA, Canarsie into JFK and the Expressway visual into LGA (bonus points if you get the steam from that factory as you're rolling out on final). Quite fun to turn everything off, look outside and fly. I hadn't heard about EK screwing up the CRI app. What happened there?
Incident: Emirates A388 at New York on Dec 4th 2017, at about 200 feet in the middle of turn to runway 13L
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RNP 13L/R is approved and in use (when the field is using the 13s).
RNAV Visual 13L was only for testing the above procedures or something, has been NOTAMed not available.
Complete JetBlue fleet, most Delta and American Airlines planes are flying it.
Maybe even CPA got approval, not sure.
The plates are not public though.
The lower minimums are of limited use as it's unlikely that all operators going into JFK are going to get approved for it.
But it's nice for noise due to CDA and also in case the weather gets worse you will likely have less go-arounds while they change runways or the approach.
RNAV Visual 13L was only for testing the above procedures or something, has been NOTAMed not available.
Complete JetBlue fleet, most Delta and American Airlines planes are flying it.
Maybe even CPA got approval, not sure.
The plates are not public though.
The lower minimums are of limited use as it's unlikely that all operators going into JFK are going to get approved for it.
But it's nice for noise due to CDA and also in case the weather gets worse you will likely have less go-arounds while they change runways or the approach.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RNP 13L/R is approved and in use (when the field is using the 13s).
RNAV Visual 13L was only for testing the above procedures or something, has been NOTAMed not available.
Complete JetBlue fleet, most Delta and American Airlines planes are flying it.
Maybe even CPA got approval, not sure.
The plates are not public though.
The lower minimums are of limited use as it's unlikely that all operators going into JFK are going to get approved for it.
But it's nice for noise due to CDA and also in case the weather gets worse you will likely have less go-arounds while they change runways or the approach.
RNAV Visual 13L was only for testing the above procedures or something, has been NOTAMed not available.
Complete JetBlue fleet, most Delta and American Airlines planes are flying it.
Maybe even CPA got approval, not sure.
The plates are not public though.
The lower minimums are of limited use as it's unlikely that all operators going into JFK are going to get approved for it.
But it's nice for noise due to CDA and also in case the weather gets worse you will likely have less go-arounds while they change runways or the approach.
I haven’t done the RNP for JFK. That was always raw data. Done the RNP into LGA and DCA though. I’ll admit they work well.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your job is not to "punish" a captain for what you perceive as rudeness. First of all, that's hundreds of passengers with potentially hundreds of missed connections. Second, your job is to separate aircraft. Not to fly them, or tell the people who actually learned how to fly how to fly the damned thing. If the captain is informing you about his constraints, you deal with it in a professional manner. Not by playing judge, jury, and executioner.
Despicable behavior.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was JFK based flying 757/767/777 and I think she was out of line. 170 is the max they use to the marker.She screwed up then she compounded it by pulling the out of line. I’d be so ok’ing mad over that and Iwou,d be making a phone call to a supervisor when I landed.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was JFK based flying 757/767/777 and I think she was out of line. 170 is the max they use to the marker.She screwed up then she compounded it by pulling the out of line. I’d be so ok’ing mad over that and Iwou,d be making a phone call to a supervisor when I landed.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Not At Home
Posts: 2,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We often have to deal with unrealistic (to us,
maybe not to others) requests and sometimes frustrated responses. We are paid to handle them professionally and safely.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PukinDog’s interpretation is the one that most matches mine. This wasn’t some slick CDA à la LHR, where one must manage one’s speed whilst going downhill. I don’t fly the jumbo, but on my heavy dropping the gear 1nm or 1/2 scale below glide path from 180kts would get you back to 160 to go down at. Who knows - perhaps Nigel had a raging tailwind at 2000ft. But I doubt it.
Hearing one of my colleagues adopt such a tone with atc also makes me cringe. I’m not as au fait with FAA regulations as he obviously is, but given that the aircraft ahead was cleared down to 2000ft - and possibly significantly faster - perhaps the break-off instructions were the only way to avoid a loss of separation. One of the big advantages of atc in the USA is that they have available to them and frequently use the option of visual separation and visual approaches which often take the sting out of these situations. Alas in IMC it’s not so easy.
Hearing one of my colleagues adopt such a tone with atc also makes me cringe. I’m not as au fait with FAA regulations as he obviously is, but given that the aircraft ahead was cleared down to 2000ft - and possibly significantly faster - perhaps the break-off instructions were the only way to avoid a loss of separation. One of the big advantages of atc in the USA is that they have available to them and frequently use the option of visual separation and visual approaches which often take the sting out of these situations. Alas in IMC it’s not so easy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PukinDog’s interpretation is the one that most matches mine. This wasn’t some slick CDA à la LHR, where one must manage one’s speed whilst going downhill. I don’t fly the jumbo, but on my heavy dropping the gear 1nm or 1/2 scale below glide path from 180kts would get you back to 160 to go down at. Who knows - perhaps Nigel had a raging tailwind at 2000ft. But I doubt it.
Hearing one of my colleagues adopt such a tone with atc also makes me cringe. I’m not as au fait with FAA regulations as he obviously is, but given that the aircraft ahead was cleared down to 2000ft - and possibly significantly faster - perhaps the break-off instructions were the only way to avoid a loss of separation. One of the big advantages of atc in the USA is that they have available to them and frequently use the option of visual separation and visual approaches which often take the sting out of these situations. Alas in IMC it’s not so easy.
Hearing one of my colleagues adopt such a tone with atc also makes me cringe. I’m not as au fait with FAA regulations as he obviously is, but given that the aircraft ahead was cleared down to 2000ft - and possibly significantly faster - perhaps the break-off instructions were the only way to avoid a loss of separation. One of the big advantages of atc in the USA is that they have available to them and frequently use the option of visual separation and visual approaches which often take the sting out of these situations. Alas in IMC it’s not so easy.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From time to time. At the larger airfields noise preferential routings tend to reduce the benefits. In my experience they’re more for the scenario where there’s no-one around, rather than a tool to expedite the flow of traffic like you see in the USA sometimes.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive the silly question, but do you not do visuals in the UK?
... and then there's noise abatement too.
But of course, there are places where it's allowed. Sometimes with restrictions (min XXXX ft until est final).
Saw a beautiful visual the other day by a Widerö Dash 8 up in northern Norway. I thought it was a helicopter, it was heading mid-field from a distance. Levelled the wings at about 2-300 ft after a 90+.deg turn to final. I had only seen fighters do that before.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your job is not to "punish" a captain for what you perceive as rudeness. First of all, that's hundreds of passengers with potentially hundreds of missed connections. Second, your job is to separate aircraft. Not to fly them, or tell the people who actually learned how to fly how to fly the damned thing. If the captain is informing you about his constraints, you deal with it in a professional manner. Not by playing judge, jury, and executioner.
Despicable behavior.
Despicable behavior.