LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015
 

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/...fact_sheet.pdf

According to the AIP, the trial actually starts on September 17th (AIRAC 1512).

The existing RNAV 3° approach will be withdrawn during the trial, though of course the conventional 3° ILS/MLS will continue to be available.

Some Airlines like ours have strict stabilized criteria which can make it a challenge to follow the LHR speed control requirements. This 3.2 deg slope won't help that at all......:eek:

So it will be interesting to see how it goes for some LH WB operators......

Out of interest, do you use the current RNAV approach?

If you use the ILS, you can ignore the trial, it's not compulsory.

I am sure the trial will be a resounding success and the airport authority will already have their PR party piece at the ready to placate the tree huggers. Never mind that the reality of the situation will be aircraft shooting the glide with gear and speedbrakes thrown out much earlier and a significantly higher noise footprint as a result. And let's not get into fuel burn........

Expect requests for the microwave approach to cease and be replaced with requests for the trial RNAV instead.

Increasing the glideslope at an airport purely for noise, in fact for anything for anything other than terrain, shows that the airport is not putting safety first. Pilots all know that an increased glideslope is more demanding, especially in a light headwind, and will increase the workload. Increased workload can lead to increased errors. This is nothing more than LHR trying to appease residents at the expense of flight safety.

The trail will probably prove a success because crew wont accept the steeper approach if the HWC is insufficient, on a training flight, marginal conditions, when fatigue levels are elevated etc, so the results in optimum conditions will look OK.

As MCDU2 says the crew will have to compensate by using high drag techniques which are high noise and you can kiss drag reduction techniques like Flap 3 goodbye.

Very poor show by LHR. Let us hope that other airports do not follow suit and 3.2deg does not become the new norm.

Yep, that extra 50 fpm is gonna be a serious challenge. :rolleyes:

Chesty Morgan, exactly my thought. That extra .2 degrees won't make a huge differnce flying wise, if it helps noise wise it's worth a try!

From the expressions of horror from the pros, it seems that what looks to the layman like a tiny change (0.2 degrees) really is a big deal for them.

Does anyone have any experience or feedback from the Frankfurt trial?

It is an additional, unnecessary factor to be managed on the approach with no safety gain. It means that there will be more unstable approaches with their consequent dangers but with no great benefit. There will be additional noise generated and the approaches will be less efficient and will burn more fuel so less environmentally friendly. None of which would be an issue if there was a performance issue that needed to be addressed like at Marseilles or Naples. However, the only reason here is to appease people that have made the choice to live near an major airport. The noise levels have reduced significantly since the 80s and we didn't do steep approaches then for noise abatement. This is all about politics and reason or sense will have no input to the argument. I suspect the decision has already been made and now we are having a trial to prove the case, i.e. the trial will be deemed to be a success or failure or whatever it is intended to be irrespective of the data.

So 3.2 degrees isn't dangerous if there are hills around?

3.0deg, 160 to 4, Airbus Flap 3, and stabilised by 1000R is all fairly marginal.

Throw in 3.2deg, and I wonder which of the others will give??

NoD

It's a cheap attempt to "sell" the third runway to already hacked off residents - nothing more, nothing less. Looks good as a news item but has no legs - it won't live past it's "sell by" date.:ugh:

Imagegear

Indeed, Nige, one wonders how hundreds of 320 and 737 approaches everyday cope at Malaga with 160 to 3.8d on a 3.2 degree slope.

Go arounds and carnage are rife.

There's quite a few "much more interesting" glide slopes due to terrain, and I don't think there is any real world evidence this is unsafe. 3.2 is within autoland certification limits of transport a/c (no coincidence there), and I agree it shouldn't be such a huge change from 3. Worth a trial. Who knows, maybe it could even sharpen the skills of some pilots...stay ahead of the a/c, and configure early.

(And actually I think it's an interesting question, whether the added noise from being fully configured earlier will be offset by the steeper slope. I'm curious to see the results)

I know this is not the ils but there must be a reason the manufacturers put a slope limit for auto land. More "hard" landings I fear. Enhanced safety not.

LHR - Steeper Approaches trial 14 September 2015
 

Chesty, my experience of Malaga is more limited than LHR but I would have to say that the controllers there generally have kittens if landing traffic is sequenced within 10 miles of each other. So although they ask for 160 till 4 it's not especially critical and most folks seem to fly the speed they need. If you slow early at LHR then it's likely you or the next aircraft will go around.

I know it's a long time ago but wasn't the 23 ILS at LHR 3.5 degrees?

3.3 degree ILS 27 at Bombay never seemed to be a problem.

I have no idea of the physics of this. So, a genuine question; is an extra 0.2 degrees likely to make an appreciable difference ?

What makes you think that will happen?

There has been a 3° RNAV approach available at Heathrow for some time now and it doesn't actually seem to be used that much.

I seem to remember Prestwick RW31 had a 3.5 degree GP...

If the speed control was up to the pilot the 0.2 deg. wouldn't be an issue. At LHR the ATC puts you under strict speed control to achieve separation, e.g. 160 kts to DME 4. The idea that you can't go down and slow down is very true here.

Relating to my type, a solution would be to configure (extend gear and flaps) early. Now, due to excess drag, I would have to fly with partial thrust on which would negate the noise benefits.

The problem, as I see it, is not the glide slope angle. It's the glide slope angle with tight speed requirements and the current flying technique of keeping the aircraft in a low drag configuration as long as possible.

I can feel the sarcasm dripping ;)

My point is not safety - as above 3.2deg (and more) are perfectly safe. All I am saying is with LHR TBS, the real emphasis on 160 to 4 (and not earlier as most used to do), F3 approaches, and a "strict" 1000R (for some companies) stabilised approach, I do not seeing this achieving a noise aim... We'll either use more flap, take the gear early, slow up early or bust the SAC. None are safety issues I agree :ok:

Mauritius 14 is 3.8 then 3.5 deg and is perfectly stable (wide body EK and that's just my waistline).

This issue of political correctness in the world today concerning everything including pleasing people who decide to buy houses around airports is crazy. I can appreciate there is a noise issue but you the resident bought there so live with your decision, or move. To anyone who bought a property pre 1930 when it was called Harmondsworth I apologise and will try my hardest to be idle thrust over your house.

J

I thought they were about to withdraw the ILS for improvements and the only approach avail will be the RNAV?

Or did I mis read that?

I would guess there is a slight fuel saving per approach.....hence the reason BA are so interested.

That will be the REAL driver behind this project....

If you habitually overfly Harmondsworth on either arrival or departure, then your thrust setting is the least of your problems. :O

There is no suggestion that 3.2° RNAV approaches will be mandatory for any arriving flights. The conventional ILS, MLS and 3° PAPIS will continue to be available.

Pilots will, as usual, request their desired type of approach (ILS, Microwave or the trial 3.2° "RNAV Yankee") on first contact with Heathrow Director.

I agree, but as soon as you lot stop accepting 160 to 4 or start making more noise how long do you think the "trial" will go on for?

We are agreed :ok:

The "Go Around" option will be the result v the SAC. Not sure how much noise & fuel that will save :{

If you think you can't be stabilised according to your SOP with 160 to 4, just advise the ATC. Is it really that difficult to say "unable"?

"I would guess there is a slight fuel saving per approach"

I seriously doubt that.

"There is no suggestion that 3.2° RNAV approaches will be mandatory for any arriving flights. The conventional ILS, MLS and 3° PAPIS will continue to be available.

Pilots will, as usual, request their desired type of approach (ILS, Microwave or the trial 3.2° "RNAV Yankee") on first contact with Heathrow Director."

It's a trial. How could you do a trial if you have no data to compare with. I have some faith airport bureaucrats can actually measure noise, and publish the data. Yes, people who buy a cheap property but don't like aircraft noise can seem a bit annoying, but if a 3.2 approach would help, why not give it a try.

Trial in winter -> Cold OAT -> NPA's are flatter than normal -> What is this going to prove?????

An earlier poster mentioned coping with an extra 50 fpm as a result of this, is that correct? If it is, and considering a final approach from say 6 miles out where the aircraft is currently at say 2000ft when it starts to 'descend on the glide' it takes say 2.5 minutes to fly the approach meaning that at 6 miles the aircraft is a mere 150 ft higher than today and close in the difference would be even less , From other posts it would seem that this small change still requires a bit more drag and therefore a bit more power and therefore noise it would seem the whole thing is a complete waste of time

I think that the word 'planes' is used 4 times in the first 2 short paragraphs of the 'factsheet' says it all.

4.8 into Innsbruck :D

Surely the real problem will be the preceding aircraft's wake using the 3.2deg profile whilst you are using minimum separation on the 3 deg?

"Pilots will, as usual, request their desired type of approach (ILS, Microwave or the trial 3.2° "RNAV Yankee") on first contact with Heathrow Director."

Please no! Don't start requesting ILS approaches, the first call is already too cumbersome.


With this talk of more drag earlier might one of the objectives of this trial be to reduce noise further out at the expense of more noise complaints closer in?

Del Prado

how could you suggest such a thing? Never happen in England would it , reducing noise for posh/middle class people in Kew and Richmond and increasing it for working class and large Asian population close to LHR in Hounslow

pb