Calling all B777-300 pilots flying into Heathrow
Ohcirrej
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling all B777-300 pilots flying into Heathrow
Hey guys,
Not 100% sure if this is the best place for this, but I guess more of y'all probably check this Forum than the ATC. And if it gets moved, I tried.
A question about the B777-300's (mainly the Emerates guys, but if more and more start turning up, this may be on other ATCO's minds, so please ANY input will be appreciated) coming into Heathrow. After discussions between myself and co-workers, as well as Instructions from NATS "Powers that be", I feel there is a little confusion as to what you drivers would like from us with regards to speed control.
We have been briefed to expect 777's maintain a higher speed inside 4 miles from touchdown and make allowances for this (especially if following a 757!). However, the confusion lies in what sort of speeds you guys are comfortable with at a late downwind/base leg position. I have had more than one occasion where slowing one from 230kts to 180 (A/c passing about 5000ft, just before a base leg turn to allow for wind), and been informed with a "We are a 777-300" and left to wonder exactly why my instruction has got this reply (and without the time to ask!!!).
Also, as I mentioned, we understand the speed thing on final approach inside 4 miles, but at what distance out would a request of 160kts till 4 DME cause problems (eg 5/6 a/c on final approach all back at 160kts and the 777 at the back!).
Any suggestions would be more than appreciated, and will be passed on to others at EGLL Approach.
Thanks in advance,
J
Not 100% sure if this is the best place for this, but I guess more of y'all probably check this Forum than the ATC. And if it gets moved, I tried.
A question about the B777-300's (mainly the Emerates guys, but if more and more start turning up, this may be on other ATCO's minds, so please ANY input will be appreciated) coming into Heathrow. After discussions between myself and co-workers, as well as Instructions from NATS "Powers that be", I feel there is a little confusion as to what you drivers would like from us with regards to speed control.
We have been briefed to expect 777's maintain a higher speed inside 4 miles from touchdown and make allowances for this (especially if following a 757!). However, the confusion lies in what sort of speeds you guys are comfortable with at a late downwind/base leg position. I have had more than one occasion where slowing one from 230kts to 180 (A/c passing about 5000ft, just before a base leg turn to allow for wind), and been informed with a "We are a 777-300" and left to wonder exactly why my instruction has got this reply (and without the time to ask!!!).
Also, as I mentioned, we understand the speed thing on final approach inside 4 miles, but at what distance out would a request of 160kts till 4 DME cause problems (eg 5/6 a/c on final approach all back at 160kts and the 777 at the back!).
Any suggestions would be more than appreciated, and will be passed on to others at EGLL Approach.
Thanks in advance,
J
Ohcirrej
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that's what I thought as well, but I got caught out today (not heaping sh*t here...just trying to get an understanding!) by one who was assigned 190kts base, turned onto final about 12 miles out and had slowed himself to 160kts without being asked. Almost got a little tight for the A319 following behind at what I thought was a slower speed. (We won't go into the old "Slowing up without an instruction argument"..once again, not here to heap it!)
I remember the SI going out for the "standard" speeds, yet have seen pilots happily accept 180/160 kts as before. I always try and allow as fast as possible, but sometimes for what ever reason (too many a/c off the stacks when landing on 09...very easliy done) different speeds may need to be applied.
Just looking for drivers points of view as to why sometimes yes and othertimes no.......
I remember the SI going out for the "standard" speeds, yet have seen pilots happily accept 180/160 kts as before. I always try and allow as fast as possible, but sometimes for what ever reason (too many a/c off the stacks when landing on 09...very easliy done) different speeds may need to be applied.
Just looking for drivers points of view as to why sometimes yes and othertimes no.......
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: middle east
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho,
My guess goes something like this.
EK 777's routinely fly to Heathrow at Max zero fuel weight, which in turn means they will be landing close to max landing weight. This gives a Vref of around 145-148 knots. Clean speed is then around 225-228, so when you ask for 220 kts, some guys take the flap and slow, others stay clean and settle for the extra 5-8 kts and some guys point out that they are a 777-300 and ask if 228 is OK.
Next step is when you ask for 180. At flap 5, which is the preferred congiguration at this point, the min speed for the -300 would then be somewhere between 185 and 188 kts, so all the above happens again. (The aircraft has the capability of using flap 15 which would be a nice compromise between drag and speed, but the company does not allow us to use this flap setting on approach).
On final, when you guys ask for 160 kts until 4 miles, the preferred configuration would be flap 20, giving a min speed of 165-168kts, so it would not be possible to slow to 160 without taking full flap. If full flap (flap 30 ) is taken, then the speed would reduce to Vapp which will be 150-153 kts.
Your confusion is understandable and will be further compounded by the odd occasion that the aircraft are well below max landing weght, which would allow them to comply with the standard speeds, no questions asked.
I would like to throw the question back to you. Does it cause you guys a problem if you ask for 220 and we give you 228 and when you ask for 160 on final, will 170 compromise the distance from the preceeding aircraft?
The way i see it, the problems we face in the aircraft (having to use more flap than is optimal, which in turn uses more fuel) could be relieved by giving -300 operators the instructions to slow down, at a position slightly earlier than the preceeding aircraft . That will mean the -300 slows down earlier which will increase the distance between preceeding aircraft, but can maintain a slightly higher speed which will close the gap again.
Personally i tend to fly at the optimum flap settings and accept the slightly higher speeds because it seems to me that due to the patterns that we fly into Heathrow, you guys (atc) always have the flexibility to extend downwind slightly if spacing is becoming a problem. Once on final however that option is not available and the speeds need to be followed by everyone, not just the -300's.
Could another solution could be for the -300 operators to pass their approach or Vref speed when they check in with approach or director, that way you will know exactly what speeds you can expect.
Cheers
The Rev
My guess goes something like this.
EK 777's routinely fly to Heathrow at Max zero fuel weight, which in turn means they will be landing close to max landing weight. This gives a Vref of around 145-148 knots. Clean speed is then around 225-228, so when you ask for 220 kts, some guys take the flap and slow, others stay clean and settle for the extra 5-8 kts and some guys point out that they are a 777-300 and ask if 228 is OK.
Next step is when you ask for 180. At flap 5, which is the preferred congiguration at this point, the min speed for the -300 would then be somewhere between 185 and 188 kts, so all the above happens again. (The aircraft has the capability of using flap 15 which would be a nice compromise between drag and speed, but the company does not allow us to use this flap setting on approach).
On final, when you guys ask for 160 kts until 4 miles, the preferred configuration would be flap 20, giving a min speed of 165-168kts, so it would not be possible to slow to 160 without taking full flap. If full flap (flap 30 ) is taken, then the speed would reduce to Vapp which will be 150-153 kts.
Your confusion is understandable and will be further compounded by the odd occasion that the aircraft are well below max landing weght, which would allow them to comply with the standard speeds, no questions asked.
I would like to throw the question back to you. Does it cause you guys a problem if you ask for 220 and we give you 228 and when you ask for 160 on final, will 170 compromise the distance from the preceeding aircraft?
The way i see it, the problems we face in the aircraft (having to use more flap than is optimal, which in turn uses more fuel) could be relieved by giving -300 operators the instructions to slow down, at a position slightly earlier than the preceeding aircraft . That will mean the -300 slows down earlier which will increase the distance between preceeding aircraft, but can maintain a slightly higher speed which will close the gap again.
Personally i tend to fly at the optimum flap settings and accept the slightly higher speeds because it seems to me that due to the patterns that we fly into Heathrow, you guys (atc) always have the flexibility to extend downwind slightly if spacing is becoming a problem. Once on final however that option is not available and the speeds need to be followed by everyone, not just the -300's.
Could another solution could be for the -300 operators to pass their approach or Vref speed when they check in with approach or director, that way you will know exactly what speeds you can expect.
Cheers
The Rev
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have to concur with 99% of what the Reverend Doug says except that, knowing how tight the spacing between incoming flights can get at LHR, I fly the speeds I'm asked to fly, to the knot – (or at least Mr Boeing does at my command).
When I'm asked for 220K, I ask "would 230 be OK?" and invariably ATC says it is. (It's part of my descent briefing to the FO to ask for this when we are told to reduce to 220.) This allows me to stay clean until the final curl of the "S" from Lambourne onto finals, probably saving 200 to 300kg into the bargain, (which, believe it or not, can sometimes matter). Like just about every other type, once the flaps go out, the fuel flows really go up on the 777. (We’ve tried to have the fact that LHR ATC are happy to oblige in allowing aircraft to maintain min clean speed until the turn onto finals into the company Route Manual notes for Heathrow about five years ago, but the suggestion is still “with the editors”. This is why some will accept the 220K while others will ask for the higher speed.)
As Rev Doug says, the 180K during the final "S" onto finals is about 10K slower than ideal for a 77-3 at MLW, (which, at least pre-SARS, EK 777’s almost invariably are going into LHR), but it’s not really a problem, as we can see that on finals, the controller has lost much of the flexibility the "S" turn gives him in organising spacing, so personally, I find no problem taking the extra stage of flap that little bit earlier.
The 160K request comes far earlier than is ideal, but, ever mindful of the Big Picture (as we all are), it’s no real problem to comply. At MLW, a 77-3 can only achieve 160k by taking final flap, which means dropping the gear, which most of us would like to delay taking until around 1700’agl, or about 5 miles, (although the more conservative would take it earlier, at around 9 or 10 miles). This would make the punters on the ground a lot happier, (as the noise levels stay a lot lower for longer), and the accountants equally happy, as the fuel flows stay a lot lower for longer.
So, if you wanted to make everyone happier, you could consider stretching the spacing between a 77-3 and the preceding aircraft to allow the 77-3 to maintain 170K to 5 miles rather than 160K, (although, this being Aviation, you’d undoubtedly get someone complaining about no being able to slow down to approach speed from 5 miles (!), so let’s err on the conservative to cover the bad weather situation and say “170K to 6 miles”).
Jerricho, if you’re finding that different EK 77 drivers aren’t consistent in reacting to your requests and this is making life more difficult for you than it already is, I’d suggest you spell out here exactly what you want to see and we’ll see that those in a position to pass the word on to all of us officially get to see this thread (if they haven’t seen it already).
This is what Pprune should be all about.
When I'm asked for 220K, I ask "would 230 be OK?" and invariably ATC says it is. (It's part of my descent briefing to the FO to ask for this when we are told to reduce to 220.) This allows me to stay clean until the final curl of the "S" from Lambourne onto finals, probably saving 200 to 300kg into the bargain, (which, believe it or not, can sometimes matter). Like just about every other type, once the flaps go out, the fuel flows really go up on the 777. (We’ve tried to have the fact that LHR ATC are happy to oblige in allowing aircraft to maintain min clean speed until the turn onto finals into the company Route Manual notes for Heathrow about five years ago, but the suggestion is still “with the editors”. This is why some will accept the 220K while others will ask for the higher speed.)
As Rev Doug says, the 180K during the final "S" onto finals is about 10K slower than ideal for a 77-3 at MLW, (which, at least pre-SARS, EK 777’s almost invariably are going into LHR), but it’s not really a problem, as we can see that on finals, the controller has lost much of the flexibility the "S" turn gives him in organising spacing, so personally, I find no problem taking the extra stage of flap that little bit earlier.
The 160K request comes far earlier than is ideal, but, ever mindful of the Big Picture (as we all are), it’s no real problem to comply. At MLW, a 77-3 can only achieve 160k by taking final flap, which means dropping the gear, which most of us would like to delay taking until around 1700’agl, or about 5 miles, (although the more conservative would take it earlier, at around 9 or 10 miles). This would make the punters on the ground a lot happier, (as the noise levels stay a lot lower for longer), and the accountants equally happy, as the fuel flows stay a lot lower for longer.
So, if you wanted to make everyone happier, you could consider stretching the spacing between a 77-3 and the preceding aircraft to allow the 77-3 to maintain 170K to 5 miles rather than 160K, (although, this being Aviation, you’d undoubtedly get someone complaining about no being able to slow down to approach speed from 5 miles (!), so let’s err on the conservative to cover the bad weather situation and say “170K to 6 miles”).
Jerricho, if you’re finding that different EK 77 drivers aren’t consistent in reacting to your requests and this is making life more difficult for you than it already is, I’d suggest you spell out here exactly what you want to see and we’ll see that those in a position to pass the word on to all of us officially get to see this thread (if they haven’t seen it already).
This is what Pprune should be all about.
Ohcirrej
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for taking the time on this one folks. Does clear quite a few things up.
About the speed on final, of late we have been getting requests from BA 737's for "170 kts till 4 miles" which 9 times out of 10 we can accommodate (if it is requested with the Intermediate Director, not the Final Dir. Nothing worse than turning something onto final and being told "We are goning to be quick inside 4 DME"!) Some drivers do give us a heads up of "Were going to be fast inside 4 miles" which can really help (going back to the 777 behind a 757 or B146). And 230kts from the stacks is no problem at all, or even 190kts base leg. I'll definately be keeping in mind the 170kts on final approach, but it nice to know what can be asked of you guys in certain situations (Point Seven - BITE ME! *wink*) without making things uncomfortable.
And Rev Doug, about the speed thing, if for whatever reason you have been assigned 220kts/180kts, and you would like a little faster, feel free to ask (As I said, if possible with the Int Dir, loads going on on Fin). But on final approach, if assigned 160kts for what ever reason, an unexpected 170kts can make a difference. I know it's only 10kts difference, but especially with certain wind gradients, it can make a difference in really tight spacing situations. But it's nice to now know what's happening your side of things.
The next point of discussion could be "What happens when A380's start blatting about"?
Thanks again folks.
About the speed on final, of late we have been getting requests from BA 737's for "170 kts till 4 miles" which 9 times out of 10 we can accommodate (if it is requested with the Intermediate Director, not the Final Dir. Nothing worse than turning something onto final and being told "We are goning to be quick inside 4 DME"!) Some drivers do give us a heads up of "Were going to be fast inside 4 miles" which can really help (going back to the 777 behind a 757 or B146). And 230kts from the stacks is no problem at all, or even 190kts base leg. I'll definately be keeping in mind the 170kts on final approach, but it nice to know what can be asked of you guys in certain situations (Point Seven - BITE ME! *wink*) without making things uncomfortable.
And Rev Doug, about the speed thing, if for whatever reason you have been assigned 220kts/180kts, and you would like a little faster, feel free to ask (As I said, if possible with the Int Dir, loads going on on Fin). But on final approach, if assigned 160kts for what ever reason, an unexpected 170kts can make a difference. I know it's only 10kts difference, but especially with certain wind gradients, it can make a difference in really tight spacing situations. But it's nice to now know what's happening your side of things.
The next point of discussion could be "What happens when A380's start blatting about"?
Thanks again folks.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: east sussex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Praise be for sensible, resonable, logical posts without signs of mega-egos (even from 411) all of which enhance flight safety.
For 411 read 410
Apologies 410!!!!!!!
Apologies 410!!!!!!!
For 411 read 410
Apologies 410!!!!!!!
Apologies 410!!!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The job.
The ATC controllers job at LHR (or anywhere else) is to fit in as many aircraft as possible, and not compromise safety (read aircraft separation).
A very basic fact.
The aeroplane pilots job is to follow the ATC controllers instructions, so said aircraft separation is not compromised.
Another basic fact.
To expect the controller to 'know' just which aircraft is light/heavy (and therefore the 'ideal' speed for same) is complete nonsense.
A suggestion for a few, who seem to think that 'they' are the only aircraft in the sky, and all ATC procedures should be structured for 'them'.... do as the ATC tells you to, and stop complaining.
IE; leave the guy alone to do the job for which he is properly trained and certificated.
A very basic fact.
The aeroplane pilots job is to follow the ATC controllers instructions, so said aircraft separation is not compromised.
Another basic fact.
To expect the controller to 'know' just which aircraft is light/heavy (and therefore the 'ideal' speed for same) is complete nonsense.
A suggestion for a few, who seem to think that 'they' are the only aircraft in the sky, and all ATC procedures should be structured for 'them'.... do as the ATC tells you to, and stop complaining.
IE; leave the guy alone to do the job for which he is properly trained and certificated.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, you are given a lot of slack here on PPRuNe but your last post was nothing but a petty attempt to stir up more resentment. Your point was lost because if you had read the post properly, the originator was an air traffic controller trying to clarify something which is not consistent for various reasons.
Unfortunately, this time you have shown that your comprehension about the operation of some more modern jet types is not within your realm of 'expertese' and I amongst many others would be grateful if you stopped trying to plug your own brand of CRM at every opportunity. There are times when it is better to be thought a fool rather than opening your mouth (or typing something) and removing all doubt!
Which bit of "Calling all B777-300 pilots" didn't you understand?
Unfortunately, this time you have shown that your comprehension about the operation of some more modern jet types is not within your realm of 'expertese' and I amongst many others would be grateful if you stopped trying to plug your own brand of CRM at every opportunity. There are times when it is better to be thought a fool rather than opening your mouth (or typing something) and removing all doubt!
Which bit of "Calling all B777-300 pilots" didn't you understand?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: london
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A constructive point I would like to make!
I believe that aircraft are allowed 10 kts either side of the instructed ATC speed? If one`s situational awareness from TCAS ETC is clear , then a few knots from the exact instructed speed for SOPs should be fine without asking on the busy frequency.
Though, if in doubt...ask if your preferred speed is OK.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Danny, don't agree.
The ATC controllers job is hard enough without pilots complaining that speeds they are asked to fly for safety and maximazation of runway capacity are unreasonable.
Imagine flying into JFK for example, do you honestly think that any US air traffic controller would put up with pilots, when asked to fly a specific speed, would reply..."we're a 777-300" and nothing else?
If Heathrow controllers can put up with this nonsense, my hat is off to them. They do a good job certainly...why make it any more difficult?
If certain ME airlines desire to tanker fuel to the UK (have done so personally) and as a result have heavy landing weights (and higher maneuvering speeds) then they should plan to blend in with the other traffic, not cause problems for/with ATC controllers.
The ATC controllers job is hard enough without pilots complaining that speeds they are asked to fly for safety and maximazation of runway capacity are unreasonable.
Imagine flying into JFK for example, do you honestly think that any US air traffic controller would put up with pilots, when asked to fly a specific speed, would reply..."we're a 777-300" and nothing else?
If Heathrow controllers can put up with this nonsense, my hat is off to them. They do a good job certainly...why make it any more difficult?
If certain ME airlines desire to tanker fuel to the UK (have done so personally) and as a result have heavy landing weights (and higher maneuvering speeds) then they should plan to blend in with the other traffic, not cause problems for/with ATC controllers.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an operational TC Controller and I agree with the good OLD Heathrow Director!!. If we say a speed we mean that speed, not plus or minus 10 knots. If this speed is not OK for the aircraft, please say so, so that we can change our plan. When we have Mode 'S' on the ground, we will be able to see the IAS from the FMS.
Guest
Posts: n/a
luke77,
The +/-10kts allowance is incorrect.
Assigned speeds should be flown "as accurately as possible" says the UK AIP. Two aircraft on final, one deciding to fly 10kts slow and the one behind 10kts fast could be embarrasing for all concerned
The AIP info on speed control into Heathrow is here.
WF.
I believe that aircraft are allowed 10 kts either side of the instructed ATC speed? If one`s situational awareness from TCAS ETC is clear , then a few knots from the exact instructed speed for SOPs should be fine without asking on the busy frequency.
Assigned speeds should be flown "as accurately as possible" says the UK AIP. Two aircraft on final, one deciding to fly 10kts slow and the one behind 10kts fast could be embarrasing for all concerned
The AIP info on speed control into Heathrow is here.
WF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not a 777 pilot, but I've operated in/out of Heathrow for a couple of decades. I hope that my comments are allowed ! 
From day one I was told that accurate speed control (on pretty basic kit then) was absolutely essential. Achieving this with the current equipment is simple. If flap is required, then lower some flap ! There's no excuse for this "plus or minus 10 kts" rumour either.
The LHR controllers are truly amazing, even allowing for the fact that they're "specialists". Lets not push it too far, despite their willingness.
If weight considerations mean that a required speed, most probably the "160 kt to 4d", is not possible, then that obviously cannot be avoided, but the obvious course of action there is to tell a controller well beforehand. If you're prevented from complying because of "Company regulations" then the Company, not LHR ATC, needs to change it's ways !
Two questions for 777 pilots -
[1] -- How much extra fuel is burnt, at (to be pessimistic) max landing weight, if flap is lowered to comply with the standard speeds (as achieved by everyone else) ?
[2] -- What is this burn as a percentage of typical total burn ?
From day one I was told that accurate speed control (on pretty basic kit then) was absolutely essential. Achieving this with the current equipment is simple. If flap is required, then lower some flap ! There's no excuse for this "plus or minus 10 kts" rumour either.
The LHR controllers are truly amazing, even allowing for the fact that they're "specialists". Lets not push it too far, despite their willingness.
If weight considerations mean that a required speed, most probably the "160 kt to 4d", is not possible, then that obviously cannot be avoided, but the obvious course of action there is to tell a controller well beforehand. If you're prevented from complying because of "Company regulations" then the Company, not LHR ATC, needs to change it's ways !
Two questions for 777 pilots -
[1] -- How much extra fuel is burnt, at (to be pessimistic) max landing weight, if flap is lowered to comply with the standard speeds (as achieved by everyone else) ?
[2] -- What is this burn as a percentage of typical total burn ?
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company won't allow Flaps 15...
Reading the posts above, if seems that Mr Boeing has constructed a flap setting which would allow the 777 to fit in with ATC requests - 15deg. - rather as the 737 has flap settings which are not often used.
They are useful in certain circumstances, however and if properly briefed, make sense. Maybe the company concerned should receive a copy of this thread - to highlight the problems.
They are useful in certain circumstances, however and if properly briefed, make sense. Maybe the company concerned should receive a copy of this thread - to highlight the problems.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here I am, doing something I promised myself I’d never do – answering one of 411’s posts. 411, this might be one case where it might have paid for you to have heeded Danny’s comment re your lack of exposure to modern aircraft. You say:
To set you straight, the “certain ME airline” (and many other 777 operators) that you allude to don’t tanker fuel into LHR causing them to arrive there at MLW. It’s simply yet another glowing testament to the Boeing designers that the aircraft in question can arrive in LHR at MLW after a seven hour flight having departed with MZFW.
Believe me, we aren’t tankering any fuel to arrive at LHR within a tonne (and sometimes less) of MLW – quite the opposite – which is why I agree entirely with –410’s comment that saving 200 or 300 kg in the approach can matter. If holding has been required, (it’s more the exception when it’s not), it’s not uncommon to be within a few hundred kgs of min diversion fuel when commencing the approach – and still be just a tonne or two under MLW.
Anthony Carn, I appreciate your point that 200 kgs after a 60+ tonne uplift doesn’t seem very much, but this (see above) is why people are keen to save even an ‘insignificant’ few hundred kgs in the approach by delaying flaps for as long as they can. If the ‘S’ turn is a big one, as it frequently can be for approaches to 09, a 777-300 can burn as much as 1500kg between Lambourne and touchdown if you ‘dirty up’ early.
Heathrow standard procedures require each aircraft to state aircraft type to Director on first contact, so the incredibly efficient ATCOs are in the loop from the start as to what type they’re dealing with for each aircraft they handle, and for long haul aircraft at least, the 777 is getting very close to becoming the standard, with the -300 fast outnumbering its ‘light twin’ smaller brother, so it might be in everyone’s interest for the System to follow Jerrico’s excellent lead in attempting to come up with an optimum procedure that suits as many people as possible – (including ATC).
Could I add my endorsement that for this 777 pilot, 170K to 4 miles would be ideal in most cases, for all the same reasons 410 stated on page 1. But as I can see that this would add to the already very heavy workload of the ATCOs, 160K works. I can’t see why “certain 777 pilots” are saying they will be “a bit fast” within 4 miles, (unless it is to warn the ATCO that even at final approach speed right to touchdown, the 777-300 will still be doing around 154K).
This kind of thread id Pprune at its best. Let’s have more of it.
If certain ME airlines desire to tanker fuel to the UK (have done so personally) and as a result have heavy landing weights (and higher maneuvering speeds) then they should plan to blend in with the other traffic, not cause problems for/with ATC controllers.
Believe me, we aren’t tankering any fuel to arrive at LHR within a tonne (and sometimes less) of MLW – quite the opposite – which is why I agree entirely with –410’s comment that saving 200 or 300 kg in the approach can matter. If holding has been required, (it’s more the exception when it’s not), it’s not uncommon to be within a few hundred kgs of min diversion fuel when commencing the approach – and still be just a tonne or two under MLW.
Anthony Carn, I appreciate your point that 200 kgs after a 60+ tonne uplift doesn’t seem very much, but this (see above) is why people are keen to save even an ‘insignificant’ few hundred kgs in the approach by delaying flaps for as long as they can. If the ‘S’ turn is a big one, as it frequently can be for approaches to 09, a 777-300 can burn as much as 1500kg between Lambourne and touchdown if you ‘dirty up’ early.
Heathrow standard procedures require each aircraft to state aircraft type to Director on first contact, so the incredibly efficient ATCOs are in the loop from the start as to what type they’re dealing with for each aircraft they handle, and for long haul aircraft at least, the 777 is getting very close to becoming the standard, with the -300 fast outnumbering its ‘light twin’ smaller brother, so it might be in everyone’s interest for the System to follow Jerrico’s excellent lead in attempting to come up with an optimum procedure that suits as many people as possible – (including ATC).
Could I add my endorsement that for this 777 pilot, 170K to 4 miles would be ideal in most cases, for all the same reasons 410 stated on page 1. But as I can see that this would add to the already very heavy workload of the ATCOs, 160K works. I can’t see why “certain 777 pilots” are saying they will be “a bit fast” within 4 miles, (unless it is to warn the ATCO that even at final approach speed right to touchdown, the 777-300 will still be doing around 154K).
This kind of thread id Pprune at its best. Let’s have more of it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
> for long haul aircraft at least, the 777 is getting very close to
> becoming the standard, with the -300 fast outnumbering
> its ‘light twin’ smaller brother
Not sure that this is true though. Based on Boeing's own figures:
777-200 Orders: 86 Deliveries: 81
777-200ER Orders: 406 Deliveries: 304
777-200LR Orders: 5 Deliveries: 0
777-300 Orders: 65 Deliveries: 46
777-300ER Orders: 56 Deliveries: 0
Total Orders: 618
Total Deliveries: 431
%age 777-300 orders of total 777 orders: 19.5%
%age 777-300 deliveries of total 777 deliveries: 11.9%
Strikes me that the 777-300 still has a long way to go.
> becoming the standard, with the -300 fast outnumbering
> its ‘light twin’ smaller brother
Not sure that this is true though. Based on Boeing's own figures:
777-200 Orders: 86 Deliveries: 81
777-200ER Orders: 406 Deliveries: 304
777-200LR Orders: 5 Deliveries: 0
777-300 Orders: 65 Deliveries: 46
777-300ER Orders: 56 Deliveries: 0
Total Orders: 618
Total Deliveries: 431
%age 777-300 orders of total 777 orders: 19.5%
%age 777-300 deliveries of total 777 deliveries: 11.9%
Strikes me that the 777-300 still has a long way to go.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Twilight Zone
Age: 57
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it’s not JUST about fuel burn on draggy arrivals...?
I think that we should bear in mind that the main aim of the Constant Descent Approaches into LHR, (which EVERYONE does - right) is to try and cause less noise in the London area.....?!(anybody got a link to CDA stats?)
PPRuNe can be a very useful medium by which to iron out little glitches such as type specific speed & configs, therefore lessening the occurrences of flap 20 gear down draggy/noisy approaches.
I think that we should bear in mind that the main aim of the Constant Descent Approaches into LHR, (which EVERYONE does - right) is to try and cause less noise in the London area.....?!(anybody got a link to CDA stats?)
PPRuNe can be a very useful medium by which to iron out little glitches such as type specific speed & configs, therefore lessening the occurrences of flap 20 gear down draggy/noisy approaches.