BAW and NY approach at it
 

Impossible on A330 and B777

Rumor has it he was last spotted somewhere east of Recife on a 130 heading, still not answering the question.

It would depend on a lot of things: Vref, wind, terrain, icing, density altitude, etc.

I can do 160/4 in the 777-200 and 170/5 in the 777-300 in benign conditions without too much drama at average weights but 180/5 would probably need a fair amount of speedbrake and early gear/flap deployment. Don’t know about the 747 but probably more difficult.

Anyway, the whole idea of Stabilised Approaches is that you have freed up capacity to monitor for external/internal issues, such as deviations, windshear, other traffic and so on. Being rushed in on a high-workload, last-minute will-we-won’t-we approach is not a great idea. Smacks of “are we up here because you’re down there or are you down there because we’re up here...?” :rolleyes:

Ridiculous, this kind of rubbish happens all too frequently. JFK approach need to wind it in.

I guess it's all what you're used to. D12.0 at ROSLY, D6.8 AT ZALPO (the FAF), D.1.4 at the threshold. If the DME were biased to read 0.0 at the threshold, then ROSLY would be D10.6, and ZALPO would be D5.4. Can't see where the DME being biased would matter outside the FAF.

But, someone who wants zero at the threshold could request the RNAV Y Runway 22L.

JFK
 

Up until six months ago fought that JFK fight every day.
ATC there are great, they really are, but like all of us, they learn on the job. If an operator regularly flys at 180 until 3 miles, an expectation has been set and they'll ask for that. Previous crews likely backed themselves into a corner or were unstablised and continued to 'make ATC happy'.
In the US, use the word 'Unable'. there's no need to invoke 'FAA standards' like this crew did. Leave it at that one word and make it ATC's problem.
Then either ask for their phone number; or use your company' channels to explain what your procedures and requirements are. ATC do want to work with everybody.

My take - both the controller and the pilot on the radio were being needlessly snippy toward each other.

The low altitude airspace around JFK can be very congested at times (limited options for vectoring) and arrival flows tightly spaced to maintain expected arrival rates. It is a very challenging piece of airspace to work.

The JFK final controller was trying to manage a flow of traffic based on the expectation that everyone could hold 180 KIAS to 5 DME. Maybe not the best plan in the world, but I'm guessing that they use that plan often enough, and crews (mostly) comply, so that was the plan for the moment.

British Air said they were unable to maintain the requested airspeed. Fair enough. At that point, the controller needs to either slow everyone behind BA down, possibly causing a domino effect back to the previous controller, or pull BA out of the sequence and reinsert them with additional spacing. That decision had to be made in fairly short order, however, the radio calls to work this out could have been handled a bit more diplomatically by both sides.

The proper place to have resolved this dilemma was on the previous frequency. The need to maintain a certain speed to a certain DME could have been inserted into the ATIS broadcast or passed on by the first approach controller at which time the proper spacing could have been worked out. By the time it wound up in the final controller's lap, the options to fix it were limited.

Check Airman

Suggest you move this to ATC Issues then you may get a response from the World's best controllers - London!:)

B48N ( long retired LHR controller )

Yep.
Director or Final frequencies are possibly the worst places (not that any other frequency is the right one) to start a conversation about Your aircraft energy capabilities, especially around very busy intercontinental airport. Anybody flying in radar controlled busy airport terminal areas knows that You will be very likely assigned speeds on final approach, so better be proactive and include during the briefing what speeds You are able to make at the estimated arrival GW with current weather forecast, and adjust the figure (i.e. 180 kt to 6 nm) once You are getting to finals and are aware of your tail/head wind component. In that scenario, probably "Unable, we can make 170 kt to 5 nm" (that is basically 180 kt to 6 nm) would have worked wonders. For sure JFK controllers are in some cases not easy to deal with, but You need to come up with a plan anyway.

By ACMS: I fully agree.
My company is paying their company.
So, i think, we as pilots, have more rights to complain about ATC. (I know this will upset some people....)

Now, IF, JFK atc is paying my company for their service, they have a point (but they do not..)

I flew many times to jfk, you just cannot even plan what they want, they do last minute changes even in low vis, changing runways etc.

Tell me/us way in advance what you want and we will adapt (help you girls and guys) but don't leave for the last 3-4 minutes.

I understand you girls and guys have to cope with a lot of traffic and nationalities, so why don't you all start with speaking a bit slower?
I am used to your accent, many or not (esp. grnd freq.......is even more freq congestion!)

We can all work together but it has to come from 2 sides, and IMHO we as pilots are more in our rights than ATC, especially after a 8-10 (or more!) LH flight.

Off for the weekend, back next Thursday in......JFK

T.P.

The response on the tape is plain wrong, but that is a case closed. Why did the controller ask for something unthinkable needs a bit of investigating.

Falling back on the CRM class: Ask not what you hear nor what they are saying, ask what their thinking is.... an honest question: If the NY ATC demands a speed until "5", do they mean the 5DME reading (offset towards the runway by 1,2NM which would be massively important with my type) or 5 NM distance from the threshold?

I can see either being a possible mindset. Which one is it?

Check Airman If instructed to keep 180 until 3.8 to THR, what would be the best response from your pilot group - I gather you're reasonably local?

What's important is that he took the time on the frequency to announce that he was flying a 747, that his company has criteria that must be maintained, and that he didn't believe the controller breaking him off was "an FAA-approved procedure". Riveting and powerful stuff that we couldn't have enjoyed had he just replied "Unable".

Perhaps some BA fleet management need to visit New York and have a chat with the controllers regarding their company criteria and landing a large widebody on a short runway. . It does however seem completely unreasonable for the controller to ask for 180 to
5 and those who comply must have very lax stable criteria.

So to sum up; NY/JFK needs education on widebody operations and everyone else must be doing it wrong. Therefore, some BA fleet manager is just the guy to ride in and set it all straight.

Got it.

Did not.

180 to 3.8 is completely different universe, non-Newtonian most likely. Closet cleaning time.

[agree with you about the lashes for the airborne radio operator]

You follow your employers rules so who gives a square root about other operators.A professional controller should know what a widebody is capable of and the gates operators have to operate to. The rest of the world certainly seem capable of managing it but a lot of US controllers think talking fast equates to skill and thus they are often very mediocre at controlling.
The suggestion was for a meeting between pilots and controllers. It is a very popular concept this side of the ocean.

ATC discretion (I do believe) is to cancel the approach clearance. Interesting reading the AIM and ATC manual.

Absolutely concur with this sentiment.

Ah, now I understand! BREXIT will fix this!!

ATC meeting with Operators to discuss aircraft performance/procedures/etc: Not a new idea, happening for ages in the US at airports large and small. Certainly not a concept limited to the other side of the ocean despite the belief in having pioneered everything that works.

JFK/NY TRACON: Been routinely handling 747s for 50 years this coming January. Departure point of first commercial 747 flight ever (Pan Am).

US Controllers being mediocre due to fast-talking and don't even know it, rest of the world is so much better at efficiently moving airborne metal: An amusing assessment for anyone who's operated in and out most of the rest of the world.

Fast-talking NY controllers: Bring your "A" game. Try to keep up. If asked a question by ATC, try just answering it before transmitting a dissertation that doesn't.

BA pilot in love with the sound of his own "radio voice" chewing-up the freq, gonna 'splain to the American ATC girl about her own FAA-approved procedures: Not entirely unpredictable, yet still comedy gold.

Every place around the world has it's own "special challenges" that need adapting-to whether it be procedural or communications or lack of infrastructure, whatever. Any pilot not knowing this hasn't traveled much or been paying attention (for instance, when flying in the UK I always pack a big Oxford dictionary in my flight bag in case I need to look up another word like "deconfliction"). Yet there seems to be an expectation from a certain cadre of pilots who can't handle the fact that flying into NY or other points in the U.S. isn't just like "home" and become indignant about having to adapt, and prefer to instead begin banging-on the supposedly "inferior" ATC handling.

If the aim is the efficient and safe movement of aircraft, then answering a simple question by ATC when asked instead of immediately being triggered into Pompous Mode and avoiding it would serve as a start.