Energy management on approach with A321s
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Energy management on approach with A321s
So arrivals in LAX and SFO often end up with ATC keeping you high and fast.
Unfortunately, the A321 seems to be particularly bad and slowing down and descending.
If ATC has you at 250kts, and you're descending on the glide path, its very hard to slow down, stay on glide path. Use of speed brakes can be counterproductive as the VLS hook rises so high...
Thoughts on the best way to deal with these arrivals?
Slow down, dirty up, and then try to catch up with the glide path which you had to abandon while slowing and configuring?
Extending the landing gear early seems to help but still it seems very difficult to go down and slow down, enough to arrive at 1000', configured and on speed.
Anyone have any rules of thumb regarding when you have to slow down/configure... i.e. by 15 NM (as an example), you need to be at speed X, config Y, Z feet....
if you don't do this by 15NM (as an example) then you have to configure out of sequence with gear (as an example)
if you don't do this by 12NM (as an example) then there is no way to configure with the altitude, speed that needs to be lost
Some days the arrivals in those airports are fine, and other days they are a pain in the @ss...
What type of reaction have you gotten from ATC if you tell them you need to slow down (earlier than they planned you to)?
Unfortunately, the A321 seems to be particularly bad and slowing down and descending.
If ATC has you at 250kts, and you're descending on the glide path, its very hard to slow down, stay on glide path. Use of speed brakes can be counterproductive as the VLS hook rises so high...
Thoughts on the best way to deal with these arrivals?
Slow down, dirty up, and then try to catch up with the glide path which you had to abandon while slowing and configuring?
Extending the landing gear early seems to help but still it seems very difficult to go down and slow down, enough to arrive at 1000', configured and on speed.
Anyone have any rules of thumb regarding when you have to slow down/configure... i.e. by 15 NM (as an example), you need to be at speed X, config Y, Z feet....
if you don't do this by 15NM (as an example) then you have to configure out of sequence with gear (as an example)
if you don't do this by 12NM (as an example) then there is no way to configure with the altitude, speed that needs to be lost
Some days the arrivals in those airports are fine, and other days they are a pain in the @ss...
What type of reaction have you gotten from ATC if you tell them you need to slow down (earlier than they planned you to)?
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So arrivals in LAX and SFO often end up with ATC keeping you high and fast.
Unfortunately, the A321 seems to be particularly bad and slowing down and descending.
If ATC has you at 250kts, and you're descending on the glide path, its very hard to slow down, stay on glide path. Use of speed brakes can be counterproductive as the VLS hook rises so high...
Thoughts on the best way to deal with these arrivals?
Slow down, dirty up, and then try to catch up with the glide path which you had to abandon while slowing and configuring?
Extending the landing gear early seems to help but still it seems very difficult to go down and slow down, enough to arrive at 1000', configured and on speed.
Anyone have any rules of thumb regarding when you have to slow down/configure... i.e. by 15 NM (as an example), you need to be at speed X, config Y, Z feet....
if you don't do this by 15NM (as an example) then you have to configure out of sequence with gear (as an example)
if you don't do this by 12NM (as an example) then there is no way to configure with the altitude, speed that needs to be lost
Some days the arrivals in those airports are fine, and other days they are a pain in the @ss...
What type of reaction have you gotten from ATC if you tell them you need to slow down (earlier than they planned you to)?
Unfortunately, the A321 seems to be particularly bad and slowing down and descending.
If ATC has you at 250kts, and you're descending on the glide path, its very hard to slow down, stay on glide path. Use of speed brakes can be counterproductive as the VLS hook rises so high...
Thoughts on the best way to deal with these arrivals?
Slow down, dirty up, and then try to catch up with the glide path which you had to abandon while slowing and configuring?
Extending the landing gear early seems to help but still it seems very difficult to go down and slow down, enough to arrive at 1000', configured and on speed.
Anyone have any rules of thumb regarding when you have to slow down/configure... i.e. by 15 NM (as an example), you need to be at speed X, config Y, Z feet....
if you don't do this by 15NM (as an example) then you have to configure out of sequence with gear (as an example)
if you don't do this by 12NM (as an example) then there is no way to configure with the altitude, speed that needs to be lost
Some days the arrivals in those airports are fine, and other days they are a pain in the @ss...
What type of reaction have you gotten from ATC if you tell them you need to slow down (earlier than they planned you to)?
I can suggest these two documents to start with : Descent and approach profile management and Aircraft energy management during approach.
Plenty of useful tips.
The real question in my mind is: Why are ATC descending you at 250 kts on the glideslope ??
What the hell are they playing at ? 250kts is right on VLO and way above VFE.
They need to be told in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable. File an ASR.
The phrase "negative, cannot comply" should be used in answer to any such requests from ATC. Remember, ATC are there to help you, not the other way around.
What the hell are they playing at ? 250kts is right on VLO and way above VFE.
They need to be told in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable. File an ASR.
The phrase "negative, cannot comply" should be used in answer to any such requests from ATC. Remember, ATC are there to help you, not the other way around.
Last edited by Uplinker; 3rd Dec 2015 at 10:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you guys for the responses. The approach energy management document almost addresses the issue that I was asking about.
Why does ATC do this? I guess because they can, from their point-of-view it increases capacity and not enough crews complain about it.
Why does ATC do this? I guess because they can, from their point-of-view it increases capacity and not enough crews complain about it.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my ATC perspective (not LAX or SFO), this sounds more like a straight-in (SI) approach to me.
As a SI (or bowling ball) you are often kept fast to close up on the one in front, when there wasn't enough room or appropriately located inventory, to put someone in front of you.
I don't believe it is good ATC technique to keep you high to descend on GP from say 7000' at 250kt. Go fast and get down to say 4000', then level off and slow before descending on GP would be more appropriate. But there may be airspace reasons why this doesn't happen.
The controllers are being put in a position where, if they slowed the SI they would end up with a hole in the approach that they cannot fill which, at capacity constrained airports is frowned upon.
Trying to put traffic from the downwind minimums behind a high speed SI is almost impossible and therefore unnecessary to keep the SI fast to close one gap when it will create another behind it.
The best solution to this is to remove the straight-in fix but that won't happen any time soon. At my airport, they recently introduced side-by-side straight-in fixes and we get side-by-side bowling balls and ragged spacing as a result.
If an ATC request is not acceptable then say "unable". A controller should know what you are capable of and if you don't tell them otherwise, they will continue to expect it.
As a SI (or bowling ball) you are often kept fast to close up on the one in front, when there wasn't enough room or appropriately located inventory, to put someone in front of you.
I don't believe it is good ATC technique to keep you high to descend on GP from say 7000' at 250kt. Go fast and get down to say 4000', then level off and slow before descending on GP would be more appropriate. But there may be airspace reasons why this doesn't happen.
The controllers are being put in a position where, if they slowed the SI they would end up with a hole in the approach that they cannot fill which, at capacity constrained airports is frowned upon.
Trying to put traffic from the downwind minimums behind a high speed SI is almost impossible and therefore unnecessary to keep the SI fast to close one gap when it will create another behind it.
The best solution to this is to remove the straight-in fix but that won't happen any time soon. At my airport, they recently introduced side-by-side straight-in fixes and we get side-by-side bowling balls and ragged spacing as a result.
If an ATC request is not acceptable then say "unable". A controller should know what you are capable of and if you don't tell them otherwise, they will continue to expect it.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does your Training Department advise?
Or don't they know?!
Sounds like the first hole in the Swiss Cheese is already lined up!!
Meantime I agree, say "unable but if you insist you can film the resulting G/A!"
Or don't they know?!
Sounds like the first hole in the Swiss Cheese is already lined up!!
Meantime I agree, say "unable but if you insist you can film the resulting G/A!"
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I go into LAX all the time (granted, in a 320 rather than a 321). It's really not that big a deal. Fly the airplane rather than the keyboard, and you'll be fine.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 41
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown 321s (and 320s+319s) into LAX and SFO I hear where you are coming from. The trick for me, is to get it dirty (an out of sequence gear down can help - especially if still going fast, the faster you go the more drag you get). Don't try to intercept the G/S at 4000 feet but rather closer in (respecting published altitude). This allows you to step down below the G/S in some cases and when you level you can get the speed back.
If you can get flap 2 out and gear down you're laughing. If your company permits it you can also select Flap 1+F (momentarily select flap 2 then flap 1 again) to have an in between. Once you get the flap out you can use more boards on the 321 too.
At the end of the day an airbus is a glorified cessna. The magic is there to make you look good some of the time. The other times, it can get in the way and be easier to FTFP and do some of that pilot stuff we all used to do.
If you can get flap 2 out and gear down you're laughing. If your company permits it you can also select Flap 1+F (momentarily select flap 2 then flap 1 again) to have an in between. Once you get the flap out you can use more boards on the 321 too.
At the end of the day an airbus is a glorified cessna. The magic is there to make you look good some of the time. The other times, it can get in the way and be easier to FTFP and do some of that pilot stuff we all used to do.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think LAX and SFO are problematic, just go a little further south down the road to SAN.
Back in the 80's a DL 757 went off the far end of rwy 27 and got stuck in the mud. Another casualty of getting too high, too fast, and too far behind the aircraft.
Conditions were night IMC with a wet runway as I recall.
I used to hate that approach.
Back in the 80's a DL 757 went off the far end of rwy 27 and got stuck in the mud. Another casualty of getting too high, too fast, and too far behind the aircraft.
Conditions were night IMC with a wet runway as I recall.
I used to hate that approach.
