Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BAW and NY approach at it

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BAW and NY approach at it

Old 9th Oct 2019, 15:29
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Posts: 507
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
NYC controllers aren't all bad

Just to add to the noise I suspect the NYC area handles a lot more GA in a week than London or any place in Europe does in a year. The GA traffic is usually VFR and I doubt it gets covered in the movement numbers. Despite the workload the controllers are very accommodating to GA.
I used to fly my bug smasher out of Central NJ often headed east and skirting the NYC class B. I'd usually get flight following and would frequently get unrequested directs throughout the Bravo. With very few exceptions the NYC approach controllers were very helpful to us little guys even when very busy.
They do like people to do as they are told, or if not a very quick reply.
I have heard pilots dumped from flight following when it was clear they were not getting the program. "Radar services terminated , have a good day" - meant - you don't want to play by my rules get out of the sandbox.
One day we were given a short cut north of LGA at 6000 or something.
Over the frequency : "Cactus XXX, hold at 5000 , crossing traffic is a Trinidad at 6000"
The kids loved it ! Take that with your two engines and fancy hat! Just stay down there and wait for us!
You knew you were on thin ice when they started prefacing communications with sir.
When I came back from a trip the kids would ask "did they sir you Dad?"
Good days.
I am always amazed they manage the job so well.
20driver


20driver is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 15:37
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's incompetent controlling.
The controller needs to develop better techniques to anticipate compression on final approach. Forcing the leading aircraft to maintain unreasonable speeds is not the solution.

Also, changing the approach on the Endeavour aircraft last minute on base leg is pretty poor practice.

At my place of work (UK ATC) that controller would need to answer some serious competency questions.

mike current is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 16:53
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mike current
That's incompetent controlling.
The controller needs to develop better techniques to anticipate compression on final approach. Forcing the leading aircraft to maintain unreasonable speeds is not the solution.

Also, changing the approach on the Endeavour aircraft last minute on base leg is pretty poor practice.

At my place of work (UK ATC) that controller would need to answer some serious competency questions.
Seeing as you are so competent can you tell me if a 747 needs to be at 160 at 11 dme in order to meet BA's strict stabilised approach criteria?
oggers is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 17:15
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Check Airman


Those RNAV overlays are cheating. They take all the sport out of it!

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.
there no sport about it mate when you’re doing it at 4am on your body clock, after a long 8 hour Atlantic crossing. Listen, im all for flying visual approaches etc, but time and a place, and IMO a major international airport using a ridiculous VOR with a visual manoeuvring segment onto a short runway in a 260tonne B747-400 isn’t it.
3Greens is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 21:40
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 3Greens

there no sport about it mate when you’re doing it at 4am on your body clock, after a long 8 hour Atlantic crossing. Listen, im all for flying visual approaches etc, but time and a place, and IMO a major international airport using a ridiculous VOR with a visual manoeuvring segment onto a short runway in a 260tonne B747-400 isn’t it.

Truth. I’m with you on that.
Meester proach is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 21:42
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 172_driver
In Europe paper shufflers think pilots can't fly (and they're right, sometimes...) and ban it collectively

... 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.

Their stabilised criteria would be different to ours then. 200 wings level is a no no.
Meester proach is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 21:49
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by oggers
Seeing as you are so competent can you tell me if a 747 needs to be at 160 at 11 dme in order to meet BA's strict stabilised approach criteria?
That's not what happened.

The controller requested 180 or greater to 5.
The pilot said he was unable and suggested 160 or greater to 5.

I think 160 or greater to 5 at 11 DME is maybe slightly on the slow side but perfectly acceptable.

Also, if the controller had been a bit less aggressive, maybe they would have been met with more cooperation.

e.g.
"180 or greater to 5"
"unable"
"Roger what's your best speed sir"
"160 or greater to 5"
"Roger. Best speed please and no less than 160 to 5"

The Norwegian behind wasn't committed on a closing heading yet IIRC so there was plenty of time to manage the spacing.

Also I doubt that 747 was doing 250 reducing to 160 by magic. It was already on a slower speed. Controllers can see that. Trail dots, ground speed, mode S. They can predict the impact on the next one in the sequence. It's what we do every day. Bring earlier speed control on no. 2. Widen out the heading. Etc.

Breaking off the approach out of spite is just an unprofessional power trip that achieves nothing other than demonstrating instability in a job the requires the opposite.

mike current is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 08:56
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Onboard
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't get it. VApp fully configured at MLW is about 165kts
i would give it a little more thought if I were you. Or just end your observation after the first sentence.

From other contributors, on both sides, there have been some very good contributions. Has certainly made me think again about how this situation could have been handled.
Toolonginthisjob is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 10:29
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Into JFK on the 744 pretty much all pilots will use max Flap (30) and Autobrake 4 due to the short runways. (Anything below 2500m is short!) That gives a vRef +5 of around 140kts on final.

In Europe the speed control is generally 220 or min clean (~230kts for 744) until base then 180kts to 7 or 8, then 160 to 4 where you slow to final speed. On a still air day at high weight the last one can be problematic. To achieve it you have to fully configure for landing then reduce the selected speed as late as you dare approaching 4 miles in the hope that the speed will be within SAC by the time you hit 1000'RA.

I have noticed at many large American airports the speed control is rather 'loose' in that you reduce to 250 by 10,000' but the next call is on base leg to come back to 190-210. This is guaranteed to have any 747 pilot shuffling on his seat in discomfort and consequently we are asking to slow down before that. I have also noticed an American trend to do all their ATC at 2000', ie you descend everybody into the pattern at 2000' and then start vectoring them around. That's fine for small aircraft who can slow down quickly but intercepting the ILS G/S from only 2000' means you need to be fully configured for landing flying level at 2000' with the power up to overcome the gear/flap drag. That is also a recipe for an unstable approach, let alone the noise footprint it leaves. In USA they are not big on CDAs.
Magplug is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 10:30
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydnet,NSW,Australia
Posts: 113
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That’s right time traveller, the young uns just can’t be be told. We do after all live in the 21st century and how dare we reproach anyone doing a crap job. I’m not BA, but I get the BA pilots frustration with JFK ATC. Been there done that.
rockarpee is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 10:31
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
a bit of pragmatism and cooperation from both ATC and crews helps keeps the show on the road.
There you are time_traveller - fixed that for you.

Faults on both sides here.
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 10:41
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hotel time zone
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do recall chuntering around at 2000', but I'm pretty sure I wasn't fully configured until after the glide slope. I wasn't BA though, so if you have more restrictive stabilisation criteria, then fair enough.
Time Traveller is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 13:08
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mike current
That's not what happened.

The controller requested 180 or greater to 5.
The pilot said he was unable and suggested 160 or greater to 5.

I think 160 or greater to 5 at 11 DME is maybe slightly on the slow side but perfectly acceptable.
Nonetheless mike you didn't answer the question 'did he need to be that slow that far out?' because you don't know either. And if he didn't, her plan would've worked. All she did was ask "ok but I need more than 160 from now so when are you going to slow to 160?". To my mind a completely reasonable question when he was still at 12 dme.
oggers is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 13:34
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Onboard
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Time Traveller
If you mean, they weren't at MLW, yes I'm aware of that, but that's a few knots
Shall we call those “few knots” over 35kts slower than the requested 180kts, or ‘just’ 25kts slower than your MLW figure?

Last edited by Toolonginthisjob; 10th Oct 2019 at 22:39.
Toolonginthisjob is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 16:07
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by oggers
Nonetheless mike you didn't answer the question 'did he need to be that slow that far out?' because you don't know either. And if he didn't, her plan would've worked. All she did was ask "ok but I need more than 160 from now so when are you going to slow to 160?". To my mind a completely reasonable question when he was still at 12 dme.
I don't fly the 747 for a living, so I can't answer that question.
Where I work, 160 or greater from 11DME to 5 would be perfectly acceptable. Whether he needed to be that slow or not at that range, is not for me to judge. He could have been a little faster perhaps, but he was still perfectly within the parameters for me as an ATCO to work with.

And yes, it was a reasonable question, and the pilot's answer wasn't satisfactory, but there is ways to deal with that. "you still haven't answered my question, so whenever you get round to that, that'd be great" isn't the best way to handle that in my opinion.
I would have said "Roger, confirm your best speed to 5 DME" - and adjusted the plan accordingly. End of story and end of drama. We speak to hundreds of pilots a day. If I should take a strop every time an answer is incomplete or unsatisfactory we might as well just shut the airport down.

The way I understand it (and I could be wrong, as I don't work in ATC int he USA) the Norshuttle behind was on heading 280 and maintain 2000 - not a clearance for the approach, which means she was just tightening their pattern. Would have been sufficient to leave them on their previous heading for 10 or 20 seconds more to make up for the lack of anticipated speed from the 747. It really isn't that difficult!!




mike current is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2019, 16:27
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,822
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Being an occasional visitor to JFK, I can sympathise.

One of the differences between US/UK is that generally in the UK you are given a speed, like 220 downwind, 180 on base and 160 to 4 on final - note these are exact speeds. In the USA it can be a mixture but "XXX or more” or “not less than YYY” is more common as they haven’t the airspace/time/inclination to sort spacing out earlier in the approach, which sometimes causes issues like this as not everyone’s numerical interpretation of “more” is the same.

I wouldn’t want to do 180 at 5 in a 747 but 170 at 5, 180 at 6, 190 at 7, etc. would probably be doable: how to get this across to ATC when you’ve only got 3 seconds of airtime and they’re looking for an argument? “Best speed" I suppose but neither side really knows what that is until it happens.

Got to love JFK, that’s why we use it a lot for command checks (which may have been the guy in question, so go easy...)
FullWings is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2019, 00:38
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FullWings
Being an occasional visitor to JFK, I can sympathise.

...

Got to love JFK, that’s why we use it a lot for command checks (which may have been the guy in question, so go easy...)
Entire world operations can be interesting.
misd-agin is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.