Calling all B777-300 pilots flying into Heathrow
Guest
Posts: n/a
BKB,
There are some very basic statistics on CDAs in this BAA doc.
For the night time period at Heathrow very detailed CDA stats are produced as ATC have certain compliance targets to meet and we (ATC) see these on a monthly basis.
Couldn't tell you if CDA performance/compliance is monitored during the day, but CDAs themselves are more difficult to achieve consistently during the day time period when the traffic levels are much higher. There can often be separation issues which preclude a good CDA being flown.
As for the detailed night time stats we see, I don't know if they are made available anywhere to a wider audience. But overall I think it is fair to say compliance is pretty good. There are also measures afoot that should make compliance even better in the not too distant future.
As for the speed issue, I think consistency of operation would best help me. So if all the 777-300 operators are happy with 230/190/170 all of the time that's fine, we can accomodate that with little or no problem or loss of capacity. It's when the operation is inconsistent, as has been highlighted, that there are more likely to be problems or queries from an ATC point of view.
WF.
(anybody got a link to CDA stats?)
For the night time period at Heathrow very detailed CDA stats are produced as ATC have certain compliance targets to meet and we (ATC) see these on a monthly basis.
Couldn't tell you if CDA performance/compliance is monitored during the day, but CDAs themselves are more difficult to achieve consistently during the day time period when the traffic levels are much higher. There can often be separation issues which preclude a good CDA being flown.
As for the detailed night time stats we see, I don't know if they are made available anywhere to a wider audience. But overall I think it is fair to say compliance is pretty good. There are also measures afoot that should make compliance even better in the not too distant future.
As for the speed issue, I think consistency of operation would best help me. So if all the 777-300 operators are happy with 230/190/170 all of the time that's fine, we can accomodate that with little or no problem or loss of capacity. It's when the operation is inconsistent, as has been highlighted, that there are more likely to be problems or queries from an ATC point of view.
WF.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 777-200 operator I can't see why the 300 would be better served by 170 kts to 4d - isn't the landing flap limit speed still 170 kts like previous variants - in which case isn't it a problem to slow down inside 4 miles?
As for the 200, Just to let you know that 170 to 4dme would be quite a problem for some of us who are required to have landing flap set by 900ft or the SESMA goes off = because the speed bleeds off sooooooo slowly from 160/170 (the '200 30 flap limit speed) to the final approach speed (about 135) , and this means that we end up being below 1000RA with the landing flap still running out and the power off - not good...office job <G>.
(between u, me and the gatepost we already have to cheat a little - depending on hwc we normally start the reduction to final at 5 miles - and it will take some 15 seconds before anything significant happens on the speed (= about a mile) so you wouldn't even notice it on the radar - I hope!)
As for the 200, Just to let you know that 170 to 4dme would be quite a problem for some of us who are required to have landing flap set by 900ft or the SESMA goes off = because the speed bleeds off sooooooo slowly from 160/170 (the '200 30 flap limit speed) to the final approach speed (about 135) , and this means that we end up being below 1000RA with the landing flap still running out and the power off - not good...office job <G>.
(between u, me and the gatepost we already have to cheat a little - depending on hwc we normally start the reduction to final at 5 miles - and it will take some 15 seconds before anything significant happens on the speed (= about a mile) so you wouldn't even notice it on the radar - I hope!)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: alaska
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No dont worry jericho u just try and do what u have been doing before, just that these EK pilots thing they rule the airspace.
As the company gets bigger they think they are the only ones in the air, and only they can do what they feel like ignoring safetr and rules.
I have had many bad expeiences with EK. It use to be a well recognized company but now there are too many canadians and americans. They need to stay in their country and Lick George Bush's A_ _...
""""Oh I FORGOT THE AUSSIES TOO"""
As the company gets bigger they think they are the only ones in the air, and only they can do what they feel like ignoring safetr and rules.
I have had many bad expeiences with EK. It use to be a well recognized company but now there are too many canadians and americans. They need to stay in their country and Lick George Bush's A_ _...
""""Oh I FORGOT THE AUSSIES TOO"""
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triple7, Flap 30 speed on the -300 is 180k, (it needs to be, with approach speeds at MLW in excess of 150k), and few would disagree with your comments about how slippery your namesake can be and how slow it can be to decelerate, hence my comments that most of us feel we can continue to live with the 160k on finals restriction currently in place at LHR.
However, Jerrico’s question was addressed to 777-300 pilots operating into LHR, and (as were the other earlier posters), I was simply replying to it from that perspective. The ATCOs there do an incredible job in accommodating different types and all their many requirements, and if they’re willing to tweak the system that little bit more to accommodate the 777-300, all power to them. 170k to 4 or 5 miles would certainly make for far quieter approaches for the average -300.
Dr Dave, thanks for the stats on 777 sales. I probably should have said “the -300 will soon become the standard”, as I believe the bottom line it affords the beancounters will see it replace the Classic and the 747-400 to some degree on many routes over the next few years, particularly after the ER comes out, (and you seem to see an awful lot of ‘the few’ 300s in LHR as it is). In places like Heathrow, I can see the -200 one day becoming almost something of a curiosity – a modern day ‘Fat Albert’ among the far more plentiful -300s.
It’s also worth noting that, for EK, the Heathrow sectors are quite often operated by pilots under training, (some of them 200+ hour cadets). (Apart from the need to expose trainees with no previous European experience to Heathrow, for some obscure reason I’ve never been quite able to fathom, a 7.45am departure with a midnight return to base is apparently very popular with the training captains.) This may have some bearing on the less than uniform approach to the arrival by different pilots.
… as for the poster who followed you, I can only assume he thinks this is ‘Jetblast’. He seems to be a well-balanced individual, with a chip on each of his semiliterate shoulders. (“Too many Americans?” – one at last count, but it may be more by now.) There’s always going to be the odd prima donna making unreasonable demands of ATC, and I’m sure EK is no exception in having some in its pilot ranks, but I think 99% of any problems you may encounter could be traced to a trainee not coping as well with the busy environment as perhaps a more experienced pilot would.
However, Jerrico’s question was addressed to 777-300 pilots operating into LHR, and (as were the other earlier posters), I was simply replying to it from that perspective. The ATCOs there do an incredible job in accommodating different types and all their many requirements, and if they’re willing to tweak the system that little bit more to accommodate the 777-300, all power to them. 170k to 4 or 5 miles would certainly make for far quieter approaches for the average -300.
Dr Dave, thanks for the stats on 777 sales. I probably should have said “the -300 will soon become the standard”, as I believe the bottom line it affords the beancounters will see it replace the Classic and the 747-400 to some degree on many routes over the next few years, particularly after the ER comes out, (and you seem to see an awful lot of ‘the few’ 300s in LHR as it is). In places like Heathrow, I can see the -200 one day becoming almost something of a curiosity – a modern day ‘Fat Albert’ among the far more plentiful -300s.
It’s also worth noting that, for EK, the Heathrow sectors are quite often operated by pilots under training, (some of them 200+ hour cadets). (Apart from the need to expose trainees with no previous European experience to Heathrow, for some obscure reason I’ve never been quite able to fathom, a 7.45am departure with a midnight return to base is apparently very popular with the training captains.) This may have some bearing on the less than uniform approach to the arrival by different pilots.
… as for the poster who followed you, I can only assume he thinks this is ‘Jetblast’. He seems to be a well-balanced individual, with a chip on each of his semiliterate shoulders. (“Too many Americans?” – one at last count, but it may be more by now.) There’s always going to be the odd prima donna making unreasonable demands of ATC, and I’m sure EK is no exception in having some in its pilot ranks, but I think 99% of any problems you may encounter could be traced to a trainee not coping as well with the busy environment as perhaps a more experienced pilot would.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 37,000'
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone previously stated, the only unusual thing about the -300 is the higher speed between 4 miles and the threshold. Before that I will fly any reasonable speed you like.
To deal with the higher speed on final and to keep go-arounds to a minimum I recommend more spacing between the -300 and the previous aircraft on final. 6 miles behind the previous aircraft at loc intercept would be appropriate. We will then close on the previous aircraft all the way in.
Rwy capacity can be mantained by spacing the next aircraft 4 miles behind the - 300 at intercept and we will open on them after 4 miles.
Personally, from 10 miles back I adjust speed to keep at least 4-5 miles behind til 4 dme or I know I risk a go around.
To deal with the higher speed on final and to keep go-arounds to a minimum I recommend more spacing between the -300 and the previous aircraft on final. 6 miles behind the previous aircraft at loc intercept would be appropriate. We will then close on the previous aircraft all the way in.
Rwy capacity can be mantained by spacing the next aircraft 4 miles behind the - 300 at intercept and we will open on them after 4 miles.
Personally, from 10 miles back I adjust speed to keep at least 4-5 miles behind til 4 dme or I know I risk a go around.
Ohcirrej
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect RC, this will not work at our dinky little airport just off the M25 in London. With minimum spacing used on final approach to help you guys and the travelling public out of the holds (no-body likes going roundand round in the sky! "Look kids, Big Ben....Parliament!"), the objective here is to try and find the best way to achieve what we are trying to do, without asking unrealistic things from the Driver.
There are so many variables that can determine what gap between the -300 and the preceeding. And unfortunately, wake-turbulence separation minima shouldn't be used in the "pull-ahead" senario you suggest (5 miles for 737 behind MEANS 5 miles) We can descend the following on top of the wake to allow the gap to open out, but this can lead to a/c being above the glid-path inside 10 miles, and increases r/t loading (which has been discusses on the ATC Forum many, many times). This technique is used with Concorde, but as has been previously mentioned, if more and more 777's start turning up.........
The input from one and all has been great! Thanks again.
J
There are so many variables that can determine what gap between the -300 and the preceeding. And unfortunately, wake-turbulence separation minima shouldn't be used in the "pull-ahead" senario you suggest (5 miles for 737 behind MEANS 5 miles) We can descend the following on top of the wake to allow the gap to open out, but this can lead to a/c being above the glid-path inside 10 miles, and increases r/t loading (which has been discusses on the ATC Forum many, many times). This technique is used with Concorde, but as has been previously mentioned, if more and more 777's start turning up.........
The input from one and all has been great! Thanks again.
J
Last edited by Jerricho; 25th Apr 2003 at 02:07.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wish I Knew
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline % CDA
Aer Lingus 90
Air India 32
Air Canada 78
American 68
British Mid 91
BA 86
Cathay 58
Emirates 39
Gulf Air 80
Japan 42
Malaysian 76
Qantas 69
Saudia 78
SIA 75
Virgin 85
An extract of some CDA percentages for LHR, our Company makes them available so we know how we are doing at keeping the noise down for those folks who live in London. Seems some operators have further to go than others !
Aer Lingus 90
Air India 32
Air Canada 78
American 68
British Mid 91
BA 86
Cathay 58
Emirates 39
Gulf Air 80
Japan 42
Malaysian 76
Qantas 69
Saudia 78
SIA 75
Virgin 85
An extract of some CDA percentages for LHR, our Company makes them available so we know how we are doing at keeping the noise down for those folks who live in London. Seems some operators have further to go than others !
Some telling stats there!
411A - your hat should go off to the ATC guys and gals at LHR. They are are the best big airport ATC outfit in my experience (not great - but I've been around a llittle bit!) The Americans who come over the pond must be very impressed with the cool calm collected way the traffic is handled. Comparing LHR with say JFK or NWK, well - there is no comparison.
411A - your hat should go off to the ATC guys and gals at LHR. They are are the best big airport ATC outfit in my experience (not great - but I've been around a llittle bit!) The Americans who come over the pond must be very impressed with the cool calm collected way the traffic is handled. Comparing LHR with say JFK or NWK, well - there is no comparison.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course, the more we tailor approaches and speeds to each aircraft type, the more complex the (ATC) job becomes.
Since validation rates on Heathrow approach aren't great (less than 50%?) maybe we should be encouraging ALL A/C to be flown to the same standards rather than encouraging a 'bespoke' service.
Since validation rates on Heathrow approach aren't great (less than 50%?) maybe we should be encouraging ALL A/C to be flown to the same standards rather than encouraging a 'bespoke' service.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vertigo,
I would argue that validation success rates are our problem to sort, not the airlines.
We're a service industry and they're the customers. If it's realistic to achieve, we should do our utmost to accomodate.
Otherwise, why aren't we getting Concorde to fly 220/180/160? It can, but only at a serious penalty.
WF.
Since validation rates on Heathrow approach aren't great (less than 50%?) maybe we should be encouraging ALL A/C to be flown to the same standards rather than encouraging a 'bespoke' service.
We're a service industry and they're the customers. If it's realistic to achieve, we should do our utmost to accomodate.
Otherwise, why aren't we getting Concorde to fly 220/180/160? It can, but only at a serious penalty.
WF.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might I just say, as a mere pax, that this has been quite the most impressive thread that I have read on Pprune for many a long while. The posts to it have been, with just one somewhat unfortunate exception, clear, professional, informative and have undoubtedly contributed to the collective knowledge of a complex process, viz: getting a rather large aeroplane onto the ground in a manner that maximises both safety and commercial requirements.
I can't resist noting too, as an afficionado of UA's channel 9, that the ability of London's ATC men and women calmly to manage a fast-moving 3D jigsaw puzzle in the sky leaves me in complete awe!
I can't resist noting too, as an afficionado of UA's channel 9, that the ability of London's ATC men and women calmly to manage a fast-moving 3D jigsaw puzzle in the sky leaves me in complete awe!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dubai U.A.E.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
773 appears to be a little bit of a handful for ATC in UK, I admire the job they do however, and this type of thread, if not hijacked, will go a long way to clarifying issues. MAN probably don't see too many 777-300 but despite complying with ATIS instruction to report aircraft type on first contact( Thursday 24th) an Air Canada departure was cleared line up and take off with EK 773 at 4nm. Result Go around 2.8T additional burn.
Last edited by sandkfir; 26th Apr 2003 at 14:33.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flybystring’s stats on CDAs on page 2 seem to back up 410’s and the other 77-3 pilots comments on this thread that the ATC 220/180/160 speed requirements at LHR do force 77-3 pilots to spool up early on approach, causing more noise, where lighter aircraft with slower manoeuvering speeds can get away with a successful CDA using this schedule.
And wilco77, what brought on your outburst on page 2? Until your post, this was a refreshingly different experience for me, (usually more a surfer than a contributor) – a Pprune thread that actually was positive in all respects and that looked like achieving something.
Could we hear more of your <<“many bad many bad expeiences with EK”>> (from Alaska)? Perhaps with a dedicated thread on the M.E. page? I’m quite serious when I say that I’m sure there are many pilots in EK who’d like to address any issues you and others may have with a view to achieving a positive outcome for all, for instance: <<“…just that these EK pilots thing they rule the airspace. As the company gets bigger they think they are the only ones in the air, and only they can do what they feel like ignoring safetr and rules.”>>
And wilco77, what brought on your outburst on page 2? Until your post, this was a refreshingly different experience for me, (usually more a surfer than a contributor) – a Pprune thread that actually was positive in all respects and that looked like achieving something.
Could we hear more of your <<“many bad many bad expeiences with EK”>> (from Alaska)? Perhaps with a dedicated thread on the M.E. page? I’m quite serious when I say that I’m sure there are many pilots in EK who’d like to address any issues you and others may have with a view to achieving a positive outcome for all, for instance: <<“…just that these EK pilots thing they rule the airspace. As the company gets bigger they think they are the only ones in the air, and only they can do what they feel like ignoring safetr and rules.”>>
