Why does only UK give 'track miles to run'?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that was correct but I know that things were constantly changing at the ATMDC last week. My understanding on Friday morning was that they decided on November, using the dates previously set aside for the Gatwick FAST trial, but can't swear to that.
I will pass on the info about airmiles rather than track. Thanks for the complement!
I will pass on the info about airmiles rather than track. Thanks for the complement!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London UK
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responding to CRP-5, yes of COURSE I plan for the worst case, and if left to my own devices would have no problem with a shortcut - it gets us on the ground quicker, uses less petrol etc.
This happened to me yesterday:
They make you start descent early (up to a hundred miles) down to say 270. This interrupts briefings etc. if they're ongoing, and costs more fuel (I've now learnt to get everything done VERY early).
They keep you at typically FL200-270 until you are high so you have to ask for descent :The usual reply:
"Contact 123.xx for further descent" You bring the speed right back to reduce energy.
A minute later the new frequency gives you a descent of just a thousand feet - not enough time to increase speed or use the speedbrake. You're now well above the profile: "request descent"
"Standby, or contact the next frequency". This maybe happens several times more with small step descents.
Eventually you get a decent descent to an altitude, but you may be approaching 10000', and getting close to the localiser, so the chance to increase the speed to 300 kts against speedbrake is limited as you want to be slowing down. In the meantime each controller cuts the corner more, vectoring you eventually to the centrefix. And as the saying goes, "you can go down or slow down, you can't do both"! You don't want to ask for repositioning as it costs time and fuel, and you may lose your place in the landing order, so you give it a go. Yes, we were stable by 500', but only just and it was so unecessary - the same doesn't happen in the UK, so why in Spain / Italy?
Fair enough if its due terrain, but each controller doesn't seem to co-ordinate with the next one, and none seem to understand that jets can't do a steep approach at 250/210kts and make a comfortable profile. None seem to attempt a constant descent, ideally intercepting the glide at 180kts from very slightly below it.
Yes, I enjoy the challenge in some ways, and it certainly keeps it interesting - in a lot of ways it was good fun. BUT it leads to an unecessarily high workload on the flight deck with PF shouting for flaps/gear etc, usually having to fly manually as the autopilot will not hack it. The PNF is trying to talk to numerous ATC frequencies, read checklists, ID navaids, plus work the MCP panel as the PF is hand flying. Plus you have rapid high speed descents into possibly terrain critical airfields (Milan?) - the capacity to monitor everything is less and the potential for error is increased due the high work load. The approach is unsatble up until 1000' when it should become stable (ideally), plus a much increased chance of a go-around if it isn't (or isn't going to be) by 500'.
That's what I don't like, and there isn't a lot you can do about it except ask for repositioning, more track miles etc. which is unpopular, causes delays, uses fuel etc. etc. I will do this in the extreme case if it's obvious you're not going to make it, but its usually marginal, so we normally give it a go and make a successful landing. However, it does lead to the much increased workload as I said above.
This happened to me yesterday:
They make you start descent early (up to a hundred miles) down to say 270. This interrupts briefings etc. if they're ongoing, and costs more fuel (I've now learnt to get everything done VERY early).
They keep you at typically FL200-270 until you are high so you have to ask for descent :The usual reply:
"Contact 123.xx for further descent" You bring the speed right back to reduce energy.
A minute later the new frequency gives you a descent of just a thousand feet - not enough time to increase speed or use the speedbrake. You're now well above the profile: "request descent"
"Standby, or contact the next frequency". This maybe happens several times more with small step descents.
Eventually you get a decent descent to an altitude, but you may be approaching 10000', and getting close to the localiser, so the chance to increase the speed to 300 kts against speedbrake is limited as you want to be slowing down. In the meantime each controller cuts the corner more, vectoring you eventually to the centrefix. And as the saying goes, "you can go down or slow down, you can't do both"! You don't want to ask for repositioning as it costs time and fuel, and you may lose your place in the landing order, so you give it a go. Yes, we were stable by 500', but only just and it was so unecessary - the same doesn't happen in the UK, so why in Spain / Italy?
Fair enough if its due terrain, but each controller doesn't seem to co-ordinate with the next one, and none seem to understand that jets can't do a steep approach at 250/210kts and make a comfortable profile. None seem to attempt a constant descent, ideally intercepting the glide at 180kts from very slightly below it.
Yes, I enjoy the challenge in some ways, and it certainly keeps it interesting - in a lot of ways it was good fun. BUT it leads to an unecessarily high workload on the flight deck with PF shouting for flaps/gear etc, usually having to fly manually as the autopilot will not hack it. The PNF is trying to talk to numerous ATC frequencies, read checklists, ID navaids, plus work the MCP panel as the PF is hand flying. Plus you have rapid high speed descents into possibly terrain critical airfields (Milan?) - the capacity to monitor everything is less and the potential for error is increased due the high work load. The approach is unsatble up until 1000' when it should become stable (ideally), plus a much increased chance of a go-around if it isn't (or isn't going to be) by 500'.
That's what I don't like, and there isn't a lot you can do about it except ask for repositioning, more track miles etc. which is unpopular, causes delays, uses fuel etc. etc. I will do this in the extreme case if it's obvious you're not going to make it, but its usually marginal, so we normally give it a go and make a successful landing. However, it does lead to the much increased workload as I said above.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An addendum to my last.
The reason we currently underestimate mileage is because when we say TRACK miles few of us have taken account of the wind and so the figure given is really AIRmiles.
As was pointed out by Bright-ling we have always just added up in separation plus catchup with no serious allowance for the wind. SASS takes full account and even corrects IAS for TAS in its calculations. Last week's trials showed an insignificant difference between the SASS estimate and the actual mileage flown. If it seems more appropriate to the crews to give airmiles it is easily done, its just that the discrepancy has been picked up by BA before. It seems likely to me that if we give you true track miles more aircraft will level off.
[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: 120.4 ]
The reason we currently underestimate mileage is because when we say TRACK miles few of us have taken account of the wind and so the figure given is really AIRmiles.
As was pointed out by Bright-ling we have always just added up in separation plus catchup with no serious allowance for the wind. SASS takes full account and even corrects IAS for TAS in its calculations. Last week's trials showed an insignificant difference between the SASS estimate and the actual mileage flown. If it seems more appropriate to the crews to give airmiles it is easily done, its just that the discrepancy has been picked up by BA before. It seems likely to me that if we give you true track miles more aircraft will level off.
[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: 120.4 ]
