160kts til 4dme
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In t'sky
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a time, ATC at Stansted allowed us to fly 170 to 5, yet it was scrapped. I would be interested to know why, because the 737-8 F5 speed is around 165kts! We are left with two choice - dirty up for the sake of 5 knots, or just fly 165 and hope so the best. Some guys at STn even recognise this and give us 165 to 4.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends to a large degree on variables such as weight, winds etc, but generally I would be flap 1 at 180, and then select flap 2 when asked to reduce to 160. If this is not enough then either flap 3 or a bit of speed brake to bring it back to 160....
At somewhere between 4 and 5 miles I'd then go for gear down, managed speed to start reducing to Vapp, again depending on wind, aircraft type, Vapp and landing flap.
At somewhere between 4 and 5 miles I'd then go for gear down, managed speed to start reducing to Vapp, again depending on wind, aircraft type, Vapp and landing flap.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Istanbul
Age: 41
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a problem in my company as well,
If we are heavy and Vapp is relatively high , there is no problem reducing from 160kt but if we are light and Vapp is relativel low like 125-130kts , there is no way to be stable at 1000ft.
What i do is
180kt ( CONF 2)
at 6 miles Gear Down
Speed Selected 160kt
Flaps 3 and Full
at 4 miles , managed speed .
It bearly comes to a stable approach with the speed , and engines are spooled up.
If we are heavy and Vapp is relatively high , there is no problem reducing from 160kt but if we are light and Vapp is relativel low like 125-130kts , there is no way to be stable at 1000ft.
What i do is
180kt ( CONF 2)
at 6 miles Gear Down
Speed Selected 160kt
Flaps 3 and Full
at 4 miles , managed speed .
It bearly comes to a stable approach with the speed , and engines are spooled up.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons for keeping 160kts to 4DME is to try to reduce the noise footprint over heavily populated areas (as well as getting most efficient runway usage).
You will give yourself problems if you use the technique as described above....
As you say, it barely comes to a stable approach with the speed.
When you put your gear down in selected speed, power comes up to compensate for the drag, as you then go to flap Full you need even more power. The result of this is that when you go for managed speed at 4 miles it takes longer to slow down due to the power setting when you go managed. Result is noisy approach that struggles to be stable by 1000 ft.
If you are at Flap 2 and 160 kts at 4DME your power will be low, take managed speed,gear down, Flap 3 then immediately Full and you will find that by about 1100 ft you are fully configured, speed is within 5 kts and the engines are spooling up nicely......amend as required for tailwinds!
You will give yourself problems if you use the technique as described above....
What i do is
180kt ( CONF 2)
at 6 miles Gear Down
Speed Selected 160kt
Flaps 3 and Full
at 4 miles , managed speed .
It bearly comes to a stable approach with the speed , and engines are spooled up
180kt ( CONF 2)
at 6 miles Gear Down
Speed Selected 160kt
Flaps 3 and Full
at 4 miles , managed speed .
It bearly comes to a stable approach with the speed , and engines are spooled up
When you put your gear down in selected speed, power comes up to compensate for the drag, as you then go to flap Full you need even more power. The result of this is that when you go for managed speed at 4 miles it takes longer to slow down due to the power setting when you go managed. Result is noisy approach that struggles to be stable by 1000 ft.
If you are at Flap 2 and 160 kts at 4DME your power will be low, take managed speed,gear down, Flap 3 then immediately Full and you will find that by about 1100 ft you are fully configured, speed is within 5 kts and the engines are spooling up nicely......amend as required for tailwinds!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Amman
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
non standard flap 3
2 nights ago, it was a heavy A321 with us, LHR so I used flaps three and on 4.5 miles gear down and managed speed, which barely got the speed below 160 by 4 but enough to be stabilized by 1000. but then my Vapp 142
2 nights ago, it was a heavy A321 with us, LHR so I used flaps three and on 4.5 miles gear down and managed speed, which barely got the speed below 160 by 4 but enough to be stabilized by 1000. but then my Vapp 142
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Istanbul
Age: 41
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bengerman ,
Just to make it clear ,
4 DME = 1200ft
and you say
gear down+ flaps 3 +flaps full + reduce to Vapp + Spool Up
takes just 100 ft and you are stabilized at 1100ft??
There is no way of achiving it.Not in this world at least.
In my opinion this "160kt till 4 "thing is not just about noise, priority is the squencing of the aircrafts.The crowded airports like LHR they keep 2.5 miles between the aircrafts on final and they need precise speeds to use the airport at maximum.
And they are ridicilously strict about this thing that , there was a report i saw , saying we crossed 4 miles at 159 kt.
You are right about the noise( actually its not beyond the limits) but after i saw that report i use my tecnic.
Just to make it clear ,
4 DME = 1200ft
and you say
gear down+ flaps 3 +flaps full + reduce to Vapp + Spool Up
takes just 100 ft and you are stabilized at 1100ft??
There is no way of achiving it.Not in this world at least.
In my opinion this "160kt till 4 "thing is not just about noise, priority is the squencing of the aircrafts.The crowded airports like LHR they keep 2.5 miles between the aircrafts on final and they need precise speeds to use the airport at maximum.
And they are ridicilously strict about this thing that , there was a report i saw , saying we crossed 4 miles at 159 kt.
You are right about the noise( actually its not beyond the limits) but after i saw that report i use my tecnic.
In my opinion this "160kt till 4" thing is not just about noise, priority is the squencing of the aircrafts. The crowded airports like LHR they keep 2.5 miles between the aircrafts on final and they need precise speeds to use the airport at maximum.
And they are ridicilously strict about this thing that , there was a report i saw, saying we crossed 4 miles at 159 kt
And they are ridicilously strict about this thing that , there was a report i saw, saying we crossed 4 miles at 159 kt
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okivan, that's fine, you carry on doing what you are comfortable with.
The method I describe has been working for me for several years, no complaints from ATC and no real issues with being stable, after making appropriate adjustments for tailwinds, too close to the heavy in front, A319 with low weights etc.
The method I describe has been working for me for several years, no complaints from ATC and no real issues with being stable, after making appropriate adjustments for tailwinds, too close to the heavy in front, A319 with low weights etc.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Gdansk
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, over what distance is keeping to 160 kts required (i.e. where is the start point, if the end point is at 4 NM)?
Is this standard for busy airports, or is LHR special in this respect? Are most aircraft able to comply with this speed restriction (from turboprops to heavies)? Judging by the responses above, I would say yes...
Regards
NotaLOT
Is this standard for busy airports, or is LHR special in this respect? Are most aircraft able to comply with this speed restriction (from turboprops to heavies)? Judging by the responses above, I would say yes...
Regards
NotaLOT
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nota - Anything from 15-6 miles.
Technique we mostly use. 160 F2 (watching ND to see how quickly to achieve it....If you are already 2.5nm behind when told to reduce - Speed back quick!)
At 4.5d, managed speed. All that happens is the engines wind down to idle. 160kt normally maintained.
At 4d, gear/F3 then flap full quite quickly. As the gear comes down it creates additional drag which helps slow down. Generally achieve Vapp with (some) power at 1000'. Light A319's take a bit more!
Okivan's technique works, but creates additional noise to 4d, also as there is so much power on at 4nm the engines will take a while to wind down again and slow down.
Technique we mostly use. 160 F2 (watching ND to see how quickly to achieve it....If you are already 2.5nm behind when told to reduce - Speed back quick!)
At 4.5d, managed speed. All that happens is the engines wind down to idle. 160kt normally maintained.
At 4d, gear/F3 then flap full quite quickly. As the gear comes down it creates additional drag which helps slow down. Generally achieve Vapp with (some) power at 1000'. Light A319's take a bit more!
Okivan's technique works, but creates additional noise to 4d, also as there is so much power on at 4nm the engines will take a while to wind down again and slow down.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Out of interest, over what distance is keeping to 160 kts required (i.e. where is the start point, if the end point is at 4 NM)?>>
The instruction applies from the moment it is given until you are 4DME on the ILS.
The instruction applies from the moment it is given until you are 4DME on the ILS.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't get this method... Do ATC expect instant reduction to 160 kts, iaw bring out the drag to reduce to 160 and then apply power to maintain 160? Doesn't seem very efficient from both an environmental (fuel) and noise footprint perspective.
I really believe this system needs a revamp taking into account a speed reduction segment.
My operator requires us to go gear down at 5NM AND managed speed. If I hurry to slow from 180 to 160 I will never do 160 to 4nm.
I really believe this system needs a revamp taking into account a speed reduction segment.
My operator requires us to go gear down at 5NM AND managed speed. If I hurry to slow from 180 to 160 I will never do 160 to 4nm.
Last edited by 737Jock; 10th Dec 2012 at 11:31.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get from 180kts to 160kts we generally select flap 2, and even flap 3 if it's required. Once flap 3 is out it shouldn't be a problem. Often the reduction is at about 10dme on the ILS so if you're descending to 3000ft then you can stay below the glide (only slightly) using V/S and then when its asked for you can take flap 2 which will "bump" you onto the glideslope and give you the reduction to 160kts. Agreed, if there's a tailwind it's a struggle so will generally end up using speedbrake. In my company (a very heavy LHR user) we generally drop the gear and manage the speed from 160kts at between 4 and 4.3dme, works every time for being stable at 1000 (occassionally the speed may still be slightly high but only by 10/15kts and reducing). Only in a very light 319 could it be an issue, or with a tailwind.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South of the Pole
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap 2, 160kts (speedbrake if not holding it), 4nm, managed speed, Gear down, Flap 3, Flap full.
Configured by 1000ft which meets our company requirements, speed normally either stable or slightly out, but we have an extra 500ft to reduce once through a 1000ft.
Unless there is a stupid amount of tailwind then it pretty much works every time.
Some people get twitchy sometimes about the speed, but I have never had to go around at 500ft due to excess energy.
I was sceptical at first until I flew with a very good trainer who demonstrated it, since then I have been converted. If the speed is holding stable at 160kts you could push managed speed early and the majority of time aircraft will hold 160kt with the speed target at Vapp.
As ever so many techniques whatever makes you comfortable.
Configured by 1000ft which meets our company requirements, speed normally either stable or slightly out, but we have an extra 500ft to reduce once through a 1000ft.
Unless there is a stupid amount of tailwind then it pretty much works every time.
Some people get twitchy sometimes about the speed, but I have never had to go around at 500ft due to excess energy.
I was sceptical at first until I flew with a very good trainer who demonstrated it, since then I have been converted. If the speed is holding stable at 160kts you could push managed speed early and the majority of time aircraft will hold 160kt with the speed target at Vapp.
As ever so many techniques whatever makes you comfortable.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Doesn't seem very efficient from both an environmental (fuel) and noise footprint perspective.>>
Maybe not, but that's not the priority which is to achieve max landing rate as demanded by the airlines taking into account various other factors such as wake vortex separation..
<<I really believe this system needs a revamp taking into account a speed reduction segment.>>
What would you suggest as an alternative?
Maybe not, but that's not the priority which is to achieve max landing rate as demanded by the airlines taking into account various other factors such as wake vortex separation..
<<I really believe this system needs a revamp taking into account a speed reduction segment.>>
What would you suggest as an alternative?
Last edited by HEATHROW DIRECTOR; 11th Dec 2012 at 09:31.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a time, ATC at Stansted allowed us to fly 170 to 5, yet it was scrapped.
Technique we mostly use. 160 F2 (watching ND to see how quickly to achieve it....If you are already 2.5nm behind when told to reduce - Speed back quick!)