Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Final approach speeds

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Final approach speeds

Old 16th Nov 2006, 08:03
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 169
120.4, please check your pm's.
Bubair is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 10:15
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 509
Are there any typical Heathrow types other than the B757 that would have difficulty with 170kts to 5?
A330's?

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Del Prado is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 10:42
  #83 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
In addition to the previous link I posted where this had been discussed you may want to look at pages 3 and 4 of this thread where admittedly 'old' SOPs are discussed

I have reopened the 'old' threads in case anyone wishes to post on them, and we can look at 'merging/copying. some of the posts if it is thought worthwhile.

Thank you for the offer, 120.4. Hopefully we can get a 'concensus'?
BOAC is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 11:43
  #84 (permalink)  
30W
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 521
Are there any typical Heathrow types other than the B757 that would have difficulty with 170kts to 5?
I'm not a LL operator, but have flown the 757 for the last 18 years, and currently a Training Capt on type. Be clear, there IS no difficulty flying a 757 at 170 to 5. It is more environmentally friendly than 160 on most occasions as one can fly down the slope at average weights, wind dependent, at 170kt in a F5 config and idle thrust. 160kt normally requires use of F15, and in many cases then some thrust to maintain it, hence more noise.

It is ONLY BA SOP's which seem to create this problem - other operators do not suffer the same fate. I suggest it's more a problem to be sorted with BA, than an industry wide issue.

To others who are quite honestly putting hands up here and saying they don't conform and slow prior to 4d. I don't believe anyone here is questioning your right as a commander of an aeroplane to slow up early. However, to accept a 'contract' with ATC that you have no intention of complying with is WRONG. When you read back the speed control, you have ACCEPTED that contract. You must conform with it - or advise ATC that you will not be doing so. 120.4 and colleagues will comply with your requests speeding wise (given suitable notice!). They won't force something of you that you are unwilling to do, but can't second guess your non-compliance if you accept their speed instruction.

For all LL pilots on this thread who have never been to West Drayton, get your butts there before they depart for warmer climates on the Southampton coastline and spend a shift on LL. You will be warmly received, you will (I feel sure), be impressed at the professioanlism, proficiency, accuracy and efficiency they achieve. When you see continual streams of traffic travelling down the ILS at exactly the required spacing intervals, you will understand the issue that this subject is causing them.

May it all be suitably resolved!

30W

Last edited by 30W; 16th Nov 2006 at 14:43.
30W is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 11:51
  #85 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Thank you for the offer, 120.4. Hopefully we can get a 'concensus'?
C'mon then, lets be 'aving you... All drivers in favour of operating their type at 170kts to 5d speak up now. If there is clear consensus that on balance that is a more suitable "standard" then I'll raise it with Ops. (They will want to do some maths to make sure the risk of catch-up inside 4 isn't significantly greater with different types before they promulgate it the standard. Of course that doesn't stop us using it on our own initiative so long as we continue to separate aircraft by the minima.)

It is time to speak up or shut up.

.4
120.4 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 12:50
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 148
You really don't need to start changing standards, 160 to 4 is common the world over. Speed limits terminating at 4 is in tablets of stone, and so is the recognition that there will be some erosion of separation inside 4 miles (not so for 5). Any time there is a sensible HWC 160 is achievable, the only time it becomes a problem is when there is a TWC or in some cases still air, or the crew haven't used power against drag in the run up to 4 miles when necessary.

It seems to me that crews should be encouraged to tell director what speed they can maintain to 4 and you can adjust the spacing accordingly. If pilots are liars they should be filed on individually. If a companies SOP's make them all liars then the SOP needs changed.

This shouldn't be a problem, pilots are capable of getting it right but some are just choosing not to. The guys in the light 319's etc aren't shy when they offer a good rate on departure but they keep quiet when they know they need to slow early, that's cr#p. 747 slowing early, if you spot it early tell him to speed up if they cant ,round you go they will get the message. I guess then we can have a fuel emergency thread again.

Leave the bulk of us alone, sort out the people taking life too easy.

IN
issi noho is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 14:28
  #87 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
IN

This issue has been raised three times on these forums now, stongly suggesting it is a problem and it has to be resolved. I came within 0.1nm of being suspended the other evening and twice found myself with significantly less than vortex spacing. Vortex spacing CANNOT be ignored, it is a legal requirement.

Every time we send somebody around we are wasting a slot on the approach and introducing another movement into the radar circuit; that adds significantly to the workload of ATCOs who are already working at the limits (the crosswind last night made it very hard work indeed to get minimum spacing) and doing that reduces the safety margins.

I don't need the hassle of trying to resolve this and I don't much care how it is done. If you don't want to change the standard, fine but it is a 939 (Breach of legislation & possible court action) next time a jumbo slows to 145kts at 6nm; that or +0.5 on every gap. Which do you want?

.4
120.4 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 19:43
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 148
If you 939 (i know what it is) it will stop.
issi noho is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 23:20
  #89 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Person
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,263
30W: you seem to have a problem with BA generally (I read your contributions to the large thread I started). But FYI as we operate with SESMA and are required by our SOPs to be stable by 1000', 160 to 4 causes difficulties on certain types.

We fly the most number of approaches into LHR and as we have such conservative constraints placed on us, I would be surprised if 120.4's management is not in dialogue with BA's.

I am not saying that we should all do it BA's way (I have flown for others myself) but I can see why BA goes for the restrictive 1000'. Landing incidents are usually preceded by a rushed approach. BA pilots do not wish to see their deeds plastered over the in-house magazine.
overstress is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 23:22
  #90 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Well, 120, it looks as if interest has faded in getting this sorted, so it will have to be the 939. That should improve command prospects in a few airlines
BOAC is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 23:47
  #91 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,546
120.4 you have done an excellent job here giving us an insight into the very difficult circumstances you are being forced to contend with but, with respect, a bulletin board is not really going to effect change!

If you believe your management are not discussing these issues with the appropriate people at BA I would be happy to find out who they should be talking to and give you some contact details.

I do find it suprising that this is not already happening.

PM me if I can help. Although I am just a humble line pilot we do have access to our management.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 00:30
  #92 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
M Mouse

Thank you for your support. You are of course quite right about this forum and I came to realise this today. Perhaps I let my irritation at our american friend get the better of me.

So, I have written to TC Ops and asked them to take up the matter with the airline community. This has to be debated at an appropriate level and a satisfactory solution reached.

Incidentally, I was watching speeds closely today. I deliberately gave a 319"not less than 160kts to 5d" and left just a little extra room behind to see what would happen. You won't believe it... the IAS read 155 at 5d and 148 at 4d! You just cannot win. If I had said 160kts to 6d would it have read 155kts at 6d too?

Thank you for your offer of help. Actually, I think it is the "humble line pilot" who can help us here. I will await a reponse from Ops and then PM you and BOAC too. In the meantime, I'll go look for that pile of blank 939s.

.4
120.4 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 01:38
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 148
.4

Is there a flight safety committee at lhr, this could be brought up at that forum.

It is human nature to push any rule to suit yourself, for every one who slows early there will be one who pushes their stabilised approach criteria. My own company has a 1000 ra stable with a caveat that allows you to continue if you're close to stable but not quite there, provided there is no doubt that you will be stable by 500 ra. The result is the line now treat 500 as the limit. No airline want/can allow the results of rushed approaches but that doesn't mean 160 to 4 is not achievable on most days, it just needs the workman to pull out the correct tool.

Changing to 5, well you've tried it, you would have to cover your a... with a second speed restriction to 4. The long and short of this topic is pilots should tell you if they cannot comply, if they don't they are disobeying an instruction and deserve to have their misdemeanour highlighted, CA939, 1261(or whatever you call it now),MOR or ASR there is plenty of choice.

No one wants to create a them and us scenario, but if you look to other areas where no tolerance is permitted; ie mentioning that fake bomb you packed in your luggage as you go through security, diversions to offload disruptive passengers, air rage in general etc. In these cases it really didn't take too long to change the mindset of the general public so you would imagine convincing fellow professionals should be a walk in the park.

The last option I throw out for consideration is that another operational message is added to the atis to remind pilots of their requirements.
These are already written in the notes for LL in the AIP and aerad guides but unfortunately the note above does say that aircraft commanders are requested to conform to low power, low drag operating techniques to the maximum extent practicable. It neglects to say conforming to the maximum extent consistent with the following speed restrictions ...


Anyway, best of luck. Personally I endeavour to not bother anybody with additional paperwork.

IN
issi noho is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 07:59
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 40
Posts: 4,311
Just thought, .4, another option is to see if you can come along to the next Heathrow Service Provision Working Group, where reps from the main LHR airlines meet with some of us from the Tower. Not sure if you have anything similar? I'd suggest you get in touch with our Manager ATC.
Gonzo is online now  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 08:08
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
All drivers in favour of operating their type at 170kts to 5d speak up now
Yes please. It gets my vote.

And 230k ex Lambourne and 190k for the final turn inbound would both work better - for my type at least - but I can live with the exixting speeds, (if at the cost of a bit more noise and a bit more fuel burn than would result from the higher speeds).

However, I appreciate these higher speeds won't suit all types.
Wiley is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 08:14
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 48
My understanding was that the Mode S speed is the target speed set, so you could for example set less than 160 at 4.5d but still be flying 160 at 4 as you wait for drag to take effect.
omnidirectional737 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 08:36
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,709
120.4
Think yourself lucky CX don't operate 777-200 a/c in LHR.
CX SOP's require us to be gear down flaps AT 30 by 1500' AGL. And then on Vref +5 and spun up by 1000' AGL. There is no way in hell we could give you 170 to 5 or even 160 to 4. Even the 777-300 using CX SOP's would be tough.

Watch out for companies that have tight SOP's like ours, it will give you a headache.
And pray CX don't send the 300ER to LHR in the next few years, although I'd love to fly into LHR again.
cheers
ACMS is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 09:06
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,400
Lightbulb

120.4

How about a bit on the ATIS stating: "All aircraft unable to maintain requested speeds, especially 160 to 4, to contact ATC before starting the approach". Add that to a few choice NOTAMs.

Oh, and can we get rid of the "Wingtip clearance... blah blah blah" while we're about it?
FullWings is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 09:11
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
ACMS

I think the whole point that 120.4 is trying to make is that if you can't do the speed, TELL ATC!!

If your company A/C have to fly a specific profile then let ATC know; they can then incorporate that. What is galling is when you tell a pilot to do something, something which you are basing legally required separation on, the pilot reads it back (which is in essence an agreement to comply), then does something different.

Radios are there for a reason!! It's not that busy in the cockpit on finals that you cannot state if you can't comply with instructions (if it is then that is a flight safety issue and should be addressed)


Omnidirectional737

The Mode S shows actual IAS, not the figure set (therefore we can see the speed bleed off as you slow down to the given IAS). It is only the Selected Flight Level that pops up straight away (we still use mode C for separation)
anotherthing is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 09:20
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,709
anotherthing
I think the whole point that 120.4 is trying to make is that if you can't do the speed, TELL ATC!!
I totally agree, tell ATC what you can do.
I was just passing on info about my operation with the thought that maybe we are not the only airline with "tight" SOP's
Watch out for companies that have tight SOP's like ours, it will give you a headache.
cheers
ACMS is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.