There seems to be two issues here. One regards the crews who are slowing slightly before 4nm to be stable at 1000' AGL. The other regards the crews who slow down miles before they should without advising ATC. The latter crews seem to be the problem. Personally in the London TMA even if I am given no speed control I will advise ATC of any significant change of speed. For the former issue I've worked out some figures on the back of a fag packet. An aircraft starting to decelerate 0.5nm early the aircraft will arrive at the runway 2 secs later will effectively be 100m further back and 20 ft higher. IMVHO this does not seem to be enough to really effect separation.

CM Don't know what "rules" (FCOs) you have? But I see no removal of the requirement to have Approach power set at 1000' :confused: Also, tail wagging dog again - so to comply with ATC's requirements you purposefully bung all the drag out early (F3, gear) so creating noise and wasting fuel. We now have a gear down ~1600' at 160K procedure for noise / fuel, and one should take flap when one "needs to" (approaching min speed for flap), not using Flaps as Drag ;)
It is not the "design" that is the problem.... it is the paranoid attitude of the Airline Managers about everthing being absolutely sorted prior 1000', and having the tools to pursue you when you are not :rolleyes:

We can all devise clever "tricks", some amounting to poor airmanship / fuel wasting / noisy, and "just crack" the 160 to 4D and 1000' stable. We are not talking about "clever pilots" on a "good day". We are talking SOPs, for all pilots, on all days. 160K to 4D and truly stable by 1000' are, IMHO, incompatible - hence the thread. One will have to give....

Without wanting to tell anyone how to suck eggs, give this a go, even in a very light ac-
On 319 160 Conf2, at 4.4nm push managed, gear down conf 3 conf Full. You will cross 4d within a couple of knots of 160, but crucially thrust idle. Fully stable at 1000agl. Variables in ambient conditions will have to be considered when pushing managed (tailwind, high temp etc). Bottom line is dont let thrust spool up within 5 nm i.e. putting gear down with speed selected 160 which has the effect as far as I'm concerned of destabilising the approach!.
I've found it best to include this in my brief, otherwise p2 gets a spasm in their left hand:)

Heavy aircraft high speeds
 

There are plenty of occasions before becoming established when you are able to advise of your operational requirements. Tag it onto the end of a readback.

Flying a 744 with a landing wt of 302.0 tonnes means a Vref of 158kts and a Vvat of 163 min or as much as 170kts. Makes 160 to 4nm and then slow down hard to do so we just tell the ATC bods nice and early and they are as pleased as punch at a bit of prior warning. Also I always nominate the turn off I expect to take so as to make their job a bit easier. It's a two thing you know and NO excuse for not knowing or being able to let them know. It was all talked about in the briefing so let ATC know asap.

Nige - not sure where it'll be quoted now (no longer on the fleet) but the removal of the 1000 approach power set requirement on the 'bus was made by FCN several years ago specifically in response to the inability of the A319 to achieve the 160 to 4 requirement and approach power at 1000. I believe DW may have been the author of said FCN. Maybe its slipped from common knowledge but the rules defintely changed, in no small part due to agitation from those of us who'd been flying the minibus since it arrived in BA. I don't see a problem in using a high drag approach to comply with ATCs requirements at LHR. We fly the aircraft suboptimally all the time, with controlled rate of descents instead of dirty dives near MSA, slowing down and dirtying up early only to find we're being dragged in low and slow (FRA springs to mind) and all manner of other scenarios. We do it because it's in our corporate interests to make LHR work, and if you ask the managers if they'd prefer to save a splash of fuel at the expense of reducing the landing rate at LHR I think I know what the answer will be.

Why can BA not make an exception at LHR where we have a lower height at which we must be fully configured and stabilised. The reason for the slightly conservative BA numbers was/is to keep a firm grip on the avoidance of rushed or high energy approaches.

At LHR due to the clockwork precision and consistency of the controlling this is never an issue. Therefore an exception could be safely accommodated.

I notice that the 411a has to add his standard (and tedious) format comments which seem rich coming from a resident of a country where I have experienced more cockeyed, uncoordinated, impossible to achieve and sometimes downright dangerous ATC controlled approaches than possibly anywhere else in the world.

MM... oh come on :eek: BA Mgmt and commonsense in the same sentance... whatever next :ugh:

411a

I am not known for rising to the bait on these forums but, by golly, you are driving me close. You are absolutely right... That is the whole point of the thread: I cannot do my job properly (which is to safely squeeze every ounce out of Heathrow's miserley two runway infrastructure) when air-crew do not fly the instructed speeds or advise me if they are not able to.

Please note: I am not critizising aircrew for not being able to fly the speeds but rather for telling that they will and then not doing it. That action puts me outside the law and is in danger of getting me suspended when I am already operating at minimum spacing. If the SOPs are no longer up to air-crew requirements then we must change the SOPs and accept the loss in capacity.

We operate ATC at Heathrow with a pen and the Mark 1 eyeball. We have no tools to help us. Could YOU judge when to slow down to give exactly a 2.5nm gap, when the lead aircraft in any pair crosses 4DME, with a 30kt crosswind so that one is seeing a tailwind and the other a headwind at the point they turn in, when one aircraft is a slow B757 and the other a fast A319 ... WHEN THE AIR CREW WON'T FLY THE SPEED YOU GIVE THEM ANYWAY??? AND KNOWING THAT IF YOU GET IT 0.1NM TIGHT YOU ARE ANSWEREING TO SRG?:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:



There, I 've don it, I have finally lost my rag over this.

By the way, the UK AIP is clear, there is NO tolerance on final approach speeds - they must be flown as accurately as possible.

Sorry :O :O

.4

dear 120.4


you have really started something here and I think it is a good thing.

While I have never been to England, certainly KORD must qualify as a busy airport with demanding speed control.

I was flying as copilot to a complete arse of a captain. we were told to do 160 knots to a certain point and we acknowledged same...

the captain slowed to 145 knots and boy was ATC yelling.

threats to take us off the final etc.


I asked the captain why he didn't speed up...he said: I am stable now and don't plan to change my power setting.

There are actually pilots who believe they must not touch the throttles once stable...more power, faster, yes you might have to retrim and put the nose down a bit to keep the glide slope.

Part of this is training. I had a checkout one time in a piper, I was the instructor and had another CFI getting checked out to fly a T tail turbo lance. He asked me what power setting to use on final...I told him it changes with conditions, mainly wind, but why not start with about 17inchess of MAP.

there we were on final, getting lower and lower on the GS and I asked him what he planned to do (again, this chap had a cfi commercial instrument)...HE told me that I WAS WRONG AND THAT 17 inches of MAP would not hold the glide slope ( very high winds down the runway).

I was in shock...here was someone who didn't know enough to add power...this chap is now a captain for a major airline.

DEAR 120.4...sometimes pilots are simply not familiar enough to be too precise with planes...modern airliners of course have a great amount of automation which should allow people to fly within 1 knot of assigned speed...but

is it clarification? is it something you say in your clearance? maybe say...maintain 160 knots to 3 mile final and NOT ONE KNOT LESS till then.

emphasis mine

I will take flack for this, but there are some marginal pilots out there...others are quite good but stubborn about bumping up the throttles...FUEL EFFICENY don't you know.

And some controllers just accept as fact that planes are slippery etc. well, they can all pretty much do 160 knots on final...but some pilots won't want to use more flaps etc.

I wish you luck and perhaps an all users meeting with pilots and controllers might help.

And yes, that 737 flap/rudder stuff did muck things up a bit...so put out more flaps and gear and yes you might have to add power just like my checkout student was so reluctant to do.


good luck

jon

120.4: I feel your pain!

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that under normal circumstances, i.e. no tailwind, icing, etc. I can't see why any aircraft shouldn't follow the 220/180/160 regime on approach to LHR, if they use all the aerodynamic devices available to them. If they genuinely are not able (Vat>160, for instance) then they should inform ATC at the earliest opportunity.

As BOAC says, 160 to 5 isn't going to make a significant difference but 160 instead of 180 for several miles is.

If I was doing an instrument rating and didn't fly ATC instructed speeds, I would fail - simple as that. What's the problem in real life? (Quickly dons fireproof jacket ;) )

Reading this thread is very interesting. Having it based on LL is good but it can (and should) be widened to all airports where AC are given speeds to fly. At a certain airport to the north of London some operators are well known for not flying the correct speed. They are asked for what speed they are flying and the reply is usually "coming back to 160 'til 4" so you ask what is your speed now? and then you are told 180.

WHY???

You know that they have been told a speed to fly but they seem to think it is optional, when it is an instruction like any other. If you can't fly it, tell everyone, and it will be accommodated but blatantly ignoring it causes much more workload to everyone including that AC. Basically I think that MORs are going to be filed before anything changes, but as stated before that is my break used up before I return to the fray.

These speeds are for everyone's benefit so lying and not complying really isn't a good idea. Please try and comply and if not tell us.

Thank you to all the pilots who help us make this crazy system work. :ok:

120.4 and others ... sorry if I am talking out of the back of my hat, but I couldn't help noticing the coincidence of ATC experiencing problems with unexpectedly slow aircraft last night and the (moved) post about mountain waves in the London area also last night (which apparently can have the effect of slowing down aircraft TMG unexpectedly). Could the two be linked?

On the general question of pushing tin to the limits, I have to say I am uncomfortable with any NATS management culture that has allowed commercial pressure to have any place uppermost in a controller's mind whilst operating. And I am not sure I like the idea of some controllers standing up and saying enough is enough and many others not doing the same. Where is the self-regulation above individual level?

Using a mark one eyeball and a pen to run the Heathrow show in 2006 is a scarey enough thought without suggestion that hairy concepts like "ATC is expected to manage separations to optimise airline fuel savings" are in play.

I am also slightly surprised at how many pilots might still be learning how to stay in front of their type, but it's heartening to see some well-positioned gurus able to point the way;)

I am totally amazed that so many of you (pilots) can not manage 160 to 4 under normal circumstances.

It may not be so eco friendly or quiet, but if that is what ATC ask you to do then it is not rocket science to do it.

Do management really give you a hard time if you have to drop the gear a mile early? I don't think so, and if they do just say that you had to in order to comply with ATC speed requirements.

411A, your comments show that you have no understading of the current industry. The skies are WAY too crowded for the prima donna pilot who will "only fly the speed I want to fly" just through sheer obstinance.

yawn o friggin brawna....if you cant comply frig off else where....what a bunch of wooozies even on your 744s. If your vref is is 164...tell em at OCK...BNN ...LAM wherever...they'll accom you....there paid to....they dont guard the gates of heaven....they are normal folk and their remit is to cram....

Talk to them......they'll talk to you....piss them off ..they'll eat you...talk early to sort you.

Just like NY.


Ze Bear

I think the gist of 411A's comments were that he was glad he flew a type that had good healthy performance at slow speed and not one of the modern types being moaned about.

That airport North of London, hmm. I can understand the attitude of some pilots, I know the approach is operated by West Drayton, and that the controllers on duty may work other approach duties too, but giving 160 to 4 then handing over to tower who clears you to land right away tends to make a mockery compared to KK for example, (my other daily grind) where I stick rigidly to the speeds given and you can see the traffic departing and lining up long after I pass 4 miles DME.

Like 411A, my olde worlde 146 is more than able to fly 160 to 4 easily at whatever weight, but since we were assimilated by the Borg the management have also made us do this at Flap18 gear down, when we always came into LL with flap24 and gear up until 4 miles. Unstable? B00ll0cks is it.

Anyway, thanks Willie for kicking us out, we'll soon be able to fly 250 below 10K again! Yippee! Can't wait.

That fancy Mode s, good innit? 120.4, do you get anything useful like that from 146 squawks or just the basic stuff downlinked?

Slightly Off-topic: With tighter spacing I find intensely annoying when someone checks in on Tower with their life story just as you're passing 280' and the bloke ahead has just cleared and Tower are about to give you landing clearance. How about callsign only with Tower as well?

And get bloody Beeline to learn to talk short and sharp.

Also: When we exit why don't Tower tell us to take A or B taxiway*? At least we can keep rolling that way and clear the runway proper like.

(*- Apologies to theose perverts who turn Left off 27L)

Hmm - letter to Chirp on the way I think.

A little more off-topic:
Just wondering if it'd help in any way to squawk Vref from the FMC on the next generation of transponders. That could give you some idea of the deceleration from 180/160 as well. Or there's already too much stuff on the labels?

Flapo

Nothing like that off the 146 I 'm afraid, I'm pretty sure they are all elementary Mode S only. But then again quite a number of the Buses are as well.


.4

OK1

Yes, it may well do. I don't think we would use it directly but aim to incorporate it into ATC tooling. If we had a useable final director support tool it would ideally advise ATC when to slow each aircraft to their preferred final approach speed so that it would cross 4DME at the optimum spacing for its weight.

In the case of a B773 (fast) following a B757 (slow) we would then know when to slow the former to achieve optimum runway performance with minimal risk of a go-around. I believe that 26 parameters are downlinked at the moment but I don't know if Vref is one of them. (I often ask, especailly from B757s.) Anybody else know?

Only any good of course if all air-crew deliver it.

May I take this moment to say that on the majority of occasions when you select the Mode S IAS you do see a line of 160s going down the approach, certainly within 1 or 2 kts.... but it only takes one to get suspended.

.4

Anotherflapoperator:

The benefit to Tower of you doing 160 to 4 even if it's quiet is that it's standard, and Tower knows you'll be coming down at 160 to 4. Thus he doesn't have to co-ordinate either 'standard' speeds or 'own' speeds for every inbound individually. It helps to know in case he gets one departure he might be able to squeeze away. Far easier to judge when he knows what speeds you'll be flying down the approach.

Dunhovrin:
Because there is no way Arrivals could co-ordinate every single inbound with GMC. When it's going ape, even GMC doesn't know which way you'll be going until he's on the R/T to you. Yes, we try and sort it out if it's a possible go-around, or if there'll be a gridlock if you come off at one particular exit, but Arrivals just doesn't have the picture of what's going on in GMC to decide. And personally, as GMC, I'd look unkindly on someone deciding where my a/c were going for me. If you can't get in on the R/T, move fully off the runway onto A, but then stop and keep your options open. I was stitched up big time the other day by an A319 coming off short from 27R, turning left on A without talking to me, abeam a company push from stand 101. What he hadn't seen was a Cathay 747 being towed towards him. I had to get the 747 to reverse back. Lucky he was being towed! :}

When Mode S was introduced, I wondered how long it would be before we had the first ‘Why did you touch that button? event.

Operating in and out of LHR can be the most frustrating experience, those of us who have to do it often bear the scars. The issue of speed management on final approach is complex though, and we would be wise not to dismiss it lightly.

Finals 27R is not the M25, we don’t drop the clutch, shift up a gear and slow to 40 every time the cash-cow-cameras change their minds. Bear in mind that the aircraft in ‘the tube’ are all different. Some are heavy, some light, some with GS mini function, some like the 757 might be doing 90kts inside 4, some have different high lift configuration, some need extra drag, some might need that last few moments of low drag to avoid a low fuel event.

Your mode S updates once a scan, and you might catch a 747 whilst he’s experiencing a 20kt gust. Because of inertia, the aircraft stays where it was whilst the ASI reads +20kts. That won’t happen on a 320, but his ASI will vary according to GS mini when managed speed is selected for landing.

If that sounds confusing, then good. It shows that this business is a panoply of operational problems and compromises. No-one operates in and out of Heathrow with intent to bust the limits. We try our very best to play the hand we’re dealt.

If the beancounters have just leant on you to pack ‘em in tighter, tell them from me to poke off.

If we wind the spring at LHR any tighter, someone’s going to get hurt.:=

Gonzo, this has been sold to us as a change in procedure partly to tie up with what actually happens in practice but also to increase the envelope when 2.5nm can be used.

Take a look at the opening paragraph of our SI if you can get hold of it.

As for the tail wagging the dog. I don't try and do 2.5nm, or even 3nm spacing, for fun. I do it because that is what is required to to keep the airlines happy at a capacity constrained airport.

If one part of the airline industry is demanding maximum landing rate every hour of the day and another part of the same industry is saying we can't fly the required profile then the airlines need to sit down and agree exactly what is acceptable to them and what isn't then tell us in a co-ordinated fashion.

There's no reason why 99% of the aircraft going into Heathrow can't maintain 160 to 4d and still meet the stabilised by 1000' radio criteria. It really irks me when I see people reluctant to use ALL available means, be it flight controls (yes, speed brakes are a flight control) or gear to comply with ATC speed requests, especially in places like Heathrow where it is critical. Flying the aircraft in an efficient and economic manner is not the name of the game on finals to Heathrow. So get over yourself and use the whatever it takes to comply. With the Airbus, configured to CONF 3, Gear Down, 160 Kts selected, manage speed inside 4.5d, take CONF Full and all is well by 1000' radio every time. There is no excuse. The only way you won't be stable by 1000' radio is if you are a regular Chuck Yeager doing a glide approach who can't handle the shame of having the gear out a few miles earlier than he would like or god forbid the speed brakes.

Actually, Phoenix, 'tis the Commanders choice, whether he wants to comply...or not.
Of course, if he can not (or will not) and can get a word in edgewise (somethimes difficult) he absolutely should, no doubt about it.
It is the controllers job to provide the separation, plain and simple, anyway he can.
IF speed doesn't do it, then sending an aeroplane around from time to time is certainly within his/her perogative...as it should be.
You must understand that certain airlines have rather rigid standard procedures, and especially if a (for example) new First Officer is being trained, the line training Captain is going to darn well see to it that these SOP's are complied with.
If the price is going around from time to time, or holding a bit longer, so be it.
And speaking of going around, this may well only affect a few, who continually plan to uplift absolute minimum fuel at departure, thereby possibly embarassing themselves once they arrive in the London TMA.
For these, I can only say...its your own damn fault.:ugh:
Tough beans.

120.4, don't lose your rag over this whole affair, just send the malcontents around from time to time, and ignore the complaints.
Hey, the young co-jocks need the flying time anyway.

In itself that statement is true. Commanders have the choice to ignore (or not) ATC instructions at any time. Whether this is a wise thing to do when those instructions are for the maintenance of separation is quite another matter. If ATC say "Turn right heading 300 degrees, descend 3,000 feet" and the Commander decides that he'd rather go left and climb to 5,000' and that brings him into direct conflict with another aircraft, then he'd better start getting ready for the inquiry. And obtain his own tea and biscuits.

I think PhoenixRising has said it all in a concise manner a few posts ago.

Airbus Unplugged

A quick query as you have me confused; I hope I do not confuse you with the first paragraph of my query due to the wording ;)

Our Mode S shows the IAS that you have selected. Obviously as you slow down with inertia, the IAS in our Mode S will tick down til it gets to the required setting (much the same way as when we tell you to fly a heading.... you select the heading but our mode S follows your compass round until it hits the requested heading).

I was of the opinion that a gust of wind as you mentioned would not change the IAS reading, it merely changes your True Air Speed and ground speed, therefore, we can tell if you are at 160 by 4 dme because that is what your IAS readout should say. If you are established at 160kts and you experience a 20kt gust, does this cause the IAS to change??

Surely if that is the case, then when we ask you to do a set speed when you are farther out i.e. 290kts surely your mode S readout would show us what you were doing with regards to the wind i.e. if you had a 50kt tail wind, it would show up on our radar as speed of 340kts.

Just wondering really, because this does not happen with mode S.. we can see what (IAS) speed you are flying at that point in time (or radar update point), as well as the ground speed, which is the resolution of IAS to TAS to GS. Wind variations do not show up on the IAS part of our mode S readout.

In the 744 we are not even presented with TAS information, only IAS. If we are established at 160kts and experience a 20kt +ve gust then yes, the IAS will rocket up to 180kts, then back down to 160kts when the gust passes. I'm not sure I understand what information your mode S readout is presenting you with. Is it the target speed we have selected (but not necessarily yet achieved) or is it the instantaneour IAS the aircraft is currently at?

A couple of months ago on final app in BRU we catched up a plane who was 20kts slower than instructed. The controller told him: " ... go around, I will vector you again with more space behind you"

Now that IS tail wagging dog!

CM: it's instantaneous IAS as reported by mode S from that particular radar sweep, not the target IAS. This is as opposed to selected flight level which is the SFL from your MCP. http://www.levelbust.com/articles/mode_s.htm has some pertinent info.

@.4 if you catch the lack of speed compliance early enough, sometimes a quick 'xxx123 report your speed' is enough. Responses (when supposed to be at 180 and clearly going slower) have varied from 'xxx123 one-eight- er... one seven, oh we're one sixty' to the blatant 'xxx123 we're at one-eighty, and we have a problem with one of our airspeed indicators'. :hmm: <Pause> . 'xxx123....Roger'.

As stated by others, different speed requirements will be accommodated, however we need to know about it first. Otherwise, the tight margins can be eroded very quickly.

Cheers W.E.

I agree that speed control is vital in busy TMA's.When VMC,you can forego the profile to get the target speed.A lot of todays pilots dont know how to do this because:
a)they're SOP- fixated
b)they cant fly without an AP
c)they cant re-programme the MCP in a timely fashion to ensure speed gets priority over profile(thus keeping AP engaged)

Over-reliance on automation and SOP-fixation in busy TMA's lead to screw-ups.Examples:
a)You hear inexperienced pilots asking busy TMA's for descent because their VNAV profile is making them all panicky.ATC tells you when to descend!
b)Pilots ignoring the last assigned speed because their SOP says that they should be at some other speed
c)Pilots taking off with incorrect lateral nav data(probably after a late rwy/SID change)and blithely selecting LNAV and engaging the AP and watching the a/c turn the wrong goddamn way..they dont know anything else but the magenta track and so thats what they do.
d)Pilots selecting VNAV and then watching the aircraft level off at 3000' when you've been cleared to 5000'.
e)Pilots following a 757 3 behind and not doing their own vortex separation(keep high)..they cant fly without AP so the aircraft maintains glide and flies right into the wake.

If the only way to control speed is extra drag then use it as Phoenix suggested.Good God we can take the gear at 20 miles if we have to but its lousy airmanship.Speedbrake is ineffective at low speeds and is often limited by flap setting anyways.

If IMC,then profile is as critical as speed control and you've gotta do what it takes.

It seems to me that we are getting sidetracked from the original post - and I am guilty of that too.

It would appear that BA SOPs conflict with 160 to 4. This is an issue for BA to sort out, not ATC. If it requires 170 to 5 or whatever, then BA should push for it - moaning here will not do it. The rest of us can cope. In any case even an instant speed reduction from 160k to 150k at 5d instead of 4D makes, I think, a difference of about 200ft in separation - which is lost in the mists of Vref spread anyway.

The major issue is total non-compliance. Short of actually executing pilots like 411A, the only solution is for ATC to begin formal reporting. The on-board data recorders will show the companies whether it was so.

I beg to differ, BOAC, by my calculations:

"Slow" Aircraft A is 150kts at 5DME and, at that speed in still air (2.5nm per minute) will take 24 secs to reach 4DME.

Aircraft B behind, travelling at 160kts will travel 1.067nm in the same 24 secs.

The reduced separation of 0.067nm is approximately 400 feet not 200 feet?

Your 200 feet would I think be the correct answer assuming a linear speed reduction by Aircraft A from 160 to 150kts between 5DME and 4DME not an instantaneous one at 5DME.

I accept your 'instant speed reduction' is not real, but I suggest a single nautical mile of the final approach i.e. 24 seconds is not a very long time period to be analysing as fully "containing" or bounding the problem scenario. I am NOT a PP so I could be very wrong when I say that I guess the problem begins earlier. If that is the case, multiples of 400 feet every 24 secs soon eats into safe separation even if everyone else in the sky has nailed it as instructed.

I have treble-checked my maths and have hit Submit and now stand meekly to be corrected:8 :\

Dunces cap on and standing in the corner!

Surely we're dealing with horizontal separation not vertical, which would only be accurate to the degree stated if both were on an ILS hugging the glide, LHR still has NPA's.

MATS pt 1 allows for a reduction in separation inside 4 miles, until then comply with ATC instructions or advise ATC that you cannot and offer what you can do. IFR inside CAS, nuff said.

IN

411A;

You are letting yourself down again; embarrass has two 'r's and two 's's.

Mind you, I suspect that you have never been embarrassed since you were 18 months old!

Honesty hat on as a 737 BA driver (So Gatwick - But the same issues apply)

Just for understanding purposes, the 1000' 'gate' applies to radio altitude, not aal - Important where it comes to 08R at LGW as Russ Hill moves the goal post.

To see the variation in target speeds on our fleet let me give some examples -A 'heavy' 737-400 has a Vref of 138Kt, so we aim to fly 143Kt. 17Kt loss - No problem. A 'light' 737-500 (look out for the inbound LUX and HME services) have Vrefs down to 108Kt, aiming to fly 113kt - 47 Kt loss which is quite a problem.

On the fleet we have quite a range of experience, the newbies are trained to slow by 5. I do try to encourage people to go further before slowing, but they don't always feel comfortable doing it. Thing is, using common sense you can judge when to slow down to achieve the 1000' radio altitude gate, and most of the time on 26L you can go all the way to 4d. On 08R, you can't do it in a 737-5, 737-3 or even sometimes in a 737-4 due to Russ Hill. But not everyone thinks about the goal - Just the fleet worst case hence they slow down early!

Now this is a BA type problem. There was no problem going back 5 years on the 737, as we had to be stable by 800' Radio but things changed and that backward step prevented us fitting in with ATC. But then we fitted in with BA and that was deemed to be a good thing.

Hope that helps - I do tend to ask for 170/5 coz it does 2 things (we meet the speed that is agreed and we keep the gear up significantly longer) but a few of my colleagues don't seem to see the benefit. Keep the pressure on and I am sure that our management will see fit to come up with a plan that keeps the traffic flowing. You have to sell it though - If they can come up with a plan, just think they might get some extra slots due to greater efficiency. With that carrot, I'm sure they will talk....

[off topic] At gatwick, I do sometimes use 170kts tactically to fine tune the spacing. I guess that's more benificial to 'heavy' 734's? [/off topic]

Are there any typical Heathrow types other than the B757 that would have difficulty with 170kts to 5?

I don't see how we can allow the situation to continue where aircrew are being asked to operate outside SOPs and so it seems to me that we need to consider officially raising the possibility of a change in the ATC requirement. I will raise it with TC ops if I get enough of an indication here that 170 to 5 would be more suitable all-round. Of course, just as now, exceptions would still be okay provided we are told before the base turn.

I would still like to understand why the aircrew of a competent, British B744 operator would choose to be at an IAS of 145kts at 6nm from touchdown in normal conditions, having accepted 160kts to 4d. That is not satisfactory.

.4

If its a BA 744 then one would have to question the competence. 145kts in a 744 is roughly final approach speed and at typical landing weights would require gear down and landing flap selected. Short of flying the ILS with an enormous tailwind I can't think of any reason to be fully confgured and slow at 6d. If it was BA then please write to the company and a reminder will be issued to crews.