Final approach speeds
 

Without wishing to start a bun fight...

Twice in the last two days I have been forced to reposition traffic already established on the final approach, because the traffic ahead has slowed below its assigned speed.

In both cases the lead aircraft was heavy and if a heavy slows down before instructed it will nearly always lead to a loss of votex separation behind it, which we are legally required to resolve. I recently saw a video of an incident where the poor guy lost separation between two aircraft on base leg because he was trying to sort out a loss of vortex spacing on final, caused by traffic slowing down. The Final Director's r/t is often saturated and we don't have time to be doing this!

I like to think that we are sympathetic to your energy management needs and thankfully, it is quite common now for traffic to advise us early of a specific speed requirement. As a general rule we know that B757s are slow inside 4 and that B773s & MD11s are quick; we know that the A319 is slippery and difficult to slow down but if you cannot deliver the assigned speed you have got to tell us.

Heathrow is operating at the limit and this is all the more reason why you must obey the speeds; capacity depends on it.

Finally, for those who are not yet aware, we now get a mode S readout of your Indicated and Ground speeds. If you cheat, we know it is you and not the other guy. I am sorry to be moaning here but I have had enough of it. Tonight I went into paper work over it and from now on, he who slows down goes-around.:{

Please!

.4

160 to 4 is always manageable at LHR, when you generally get a long final...180 to 4 can be a problem, but have only been asked for that in Germany.

Just as an aside, my company is pushing for CONF 3 landings on the 320 and 321 as a fuel saving measure...can make for some fast ol' approach speeds with heavy aircraft...I generally advise ATC if it's getting close to 150kts. Limits the potential for embarrassment..;)

As a bus operator at LHR you have my sympathy if a/c cannot maintain assigned speed. If certain airlines are frequent culprits just send a letter to the fleet manager highlighting your concerns and the problems this can cause. Most fleets have regular newsletters and bulletins etc... So hopefully the pilots will get a gentle reminder in one of their communications.

Incidentally, as an aside we often struggle to reduce from 180 - 160 in the 319 and are reluctant to increase drag by using gear or spoilers b/c of noise. If this has happened do you have any issues with us dialling in 150kt when the gear comes down (usually at the 6nm mark) as the a/c is still reluctant to slow but it keeps the thrust at idle for longer and lowers the noise footprint? I only suggest this if we can see that we have started to catch the guy in front by struggling to slow down in the early stages of the approach.

.4 - Problem is our SOPs are already designed around "breaking" your 160 to 14 (1410'?). Gear now goes down latest at 1680', and that will govern when you slow from 160K. Add any "comfort factor" in (as some do) and we are defeating your aim.

Why? The airlines are getting more and more sophisticated software in the QARs, tighter SOPs, and we got more b*llockings in fleet magazines and by phone by not adhering e.g. to stable by 1080' - this needs you to slow to Final Speed, and have the power up - which as you say, can be v difficult in a 319 (since there is so much speed to lose).

A letter to the BA office might help, since there are all sorts of rumours about what is acceptable to comply with "160 to 4" e.g. "there's a 10K tolerance" etc. I am not that happy disregarding an instruction on every occasion, so some clarity / agreement would be welcome!

I know the aviation world is international and as such things are different, when they should be the same.

In the US, Vref+ additive inside the outer marker/FAF is quite normal, especially when IMC.


while I have seen greater speeds, isn't that about standard for you guys. interesting to see that you use a mileage instead of faf.


and the all mighty dollar/pound again with different configurations to save fuel...the marker of landing safety is slow landing speed...oh well.

I hope Air France read this and take note.
Also, why do one airline (BA) have a problem with 160 to 4 and another (bmi) don't?

NOD - - not sure why that affects? Is this some AB thing or a new SOP? At LGW with the 737 I used to take F15 at around 5 miles (obviously with the gear down) and hold the 160 till around 4.2 when drag was available (with slightly early landing flap) to achieve the 'company' SOP. The best I had was a while ago at BRU when they NOTAM'd '160kts to the OM - if you cannot do it you will not land at BRU' - I think that was about 3 miles - and the good old wunderkind BA flt managers did nothing until I said I would be regularly be diverting to the alternate OR breaching SOPs. Then they woke up. :)

As said above, 160 to 4 is not really a problem.

NOD,

Endorsing BOAC's comments - just because you put the 'Gear Down' doesn't mean you MUST slow below 160kt! Configure as required before 4d except for final landing flap, but MAINTAIN 160kt to 4d. At 4d reduce and complete landing config. With the gear already down, speed will reduce perfectly well to complete a stabilised approach.

120.4

Was it the same Heavy type on both occasions? It may assist by naming the type as contributors may know of something specific to it that may enlighten the reasons for your experience. I don't operate into LL, but agree with an earlier poster. Please send around the offender, not the follower.......


30W

air france
 

Dear Mushroom 2, I don't know about AF but i am reading it and I happen to fly for AF. What is your problem with AF and final approah speed at LHR???Happy flights.

I think the AIP says someing like "must be flown as accurately as possible", there's certainly no 10 knot tolerance as far as we're concerned.

Just as an aside they've changed the rules for 2.5nm spacing and we're now going to be able to do it much more often than we have in the past. There's no tolerance though and in theory if we get to 2.49nm on the approach we've lost separation and should be suspended and investigated.

So, if you chaps and chappesses keep fiddling with the speeds yourselves and separation gets lost on final, don't be surprised if delays build up quickly because there'll be nobody left available to work...we'll all have been withdrawn/suspended!

A sincere thanks for responding positively.

The two aircraft involved were both B744, one UK based, the other Far Eastern. The UK based one was indicating 145kts at 6nm from touchdown having been given 160kts to 4. The other was indicating 160kts at 9nm having been given 180kts. (As a rule I always slow from 180kts to 160 kts at 8nm [7nm for medium types] unless there is a very strong headwind, as there was last night.)

Later last night, a B757 who had advised me he would be 122kts inside 4nm was still indicating 190kts at 6nm having been given 180kts shortly after leaving BNN; that is some 20nm after being given the speed instruction! Believing he was going to be slow, I had tucked him up slightly tight behind the preceeding and was then embarrassed to find him 2.5nm behind at +30kts! It reduced to 2nm which is the bare minimum before I am unpplugged by the GS.

The issue here is not the particular speed you need to fly, it is that we must know if you are having difficulty complying promptly. The alternative is that we add .5nm to every gap to protect ourselves and then you will spend much more time going around in circles, burning expensive fuel.

MATZP:
I have only recently become aware of how slippery the 319 is; I now look out for them as a matter of course and give 160kts a little earlier. I also tend to give the B757s 160kts to 5nm and make a spacing allowance for the difference. Would that assist the 319s too?

.4

120.4 - there have been several threads on this topic, including speeds off the hold - 'Search' is a bit slow today so I cannot link to them. However, one of the suggestions was to 'rejig' the ATC parameters and make it '170 to 5' which it was felt would help some of the operators as SOPs tightened up.

The converse is also a problem surely - i.e. AC slowing down TOO late with the result that preceding landing traffic is then put under pressure to expedite it's runway vacation despite having adhered to the speed constraints! I've experienced this on a number of occasions and it strikes me as tho' certain operators seem to figure more prominently in such events.....

Speed control
 

120.4 I think I may have been on finals when this incident happened. The heavy had slowed early and the A/C behind was a 319 which as you said can be difficult to slow down. I overhead you tell them they were doing 180kts to which they replied "we're trying" . As the heavy was mainly at fault why did the tower controller make a smart comment upon landing and roll out to A-10 (A/C behind still 700' agl) "are you having speed control problems" to the 319? Controllers concern is always appreciated but this appeared to be somewhat of a smarmy comment.

Of course runway occupancy should be kept minimal but good SA is also paramount to operations. There isn't always a need to vacate at A9 or earlier so why imply the AC should have vacated earlier. 700' agl leaves plenty of time. By rolling to A10 brake wear is reduced and passenger discomfort is kept to minimum. I hope I have got the wrong end of the stick as Heathrow controllers are always professional and don't resort to being facetious or condescending. If the controller was annoyed then he should have said so. Aside from this keep up the good work.:D

Thanks BOAC

I do remember something about that a number of years ago but it seemed to die a death. As I remember, it was principally aimed at reducing the effect of strong wind conditions on the landing rate. It seems to me the touble might then be that the types that are typically slow once de-restricted may then be slower for longer and as the traffic behind would then be 170kts for longer it may lead to greater catch-up.

I don't feel qualified to give an opinion really but if you feel that it is worth looking at then can it be raised through some mechanism and let's trial it? I know a gentleman (CM) who has done a lot of work with NATS' staff on the mathematics of final approach spacing and speeds.

As Porco has correctly pointed out, with the rule changes for 2.5nm spacing, we cannot leave speed fluctuations unchallenged as they will quickly drop us in the doodoo. And I promise you, the first time somebody does it to me will be the last time; I will flat refuse to do anything less than 3nm.

.4

which is more important?....using speed brake to slow for 180 to 160 with insignif noise consequences....or do nothing and grimice and watch the speed painstakingly slow to 160....by that time your at 4 miles......(sometimes even the gear is used if I am high on the CDA) Think about it.

when LHR say slow to 220, 180, 160 what ever.....i proactively do it cause I am keeping my space in the sequence and looking after no.1

Hi Callo

I'm not sure if it was the same incident. The Tower ATCO involved with the UK based B744 is known for his willingness to speak his mind and I do understand his frustration. If we present less than vortex minimums to the Tower ATCO then we are effectly handing him an illegal situation and he is quite within his rights to send the unseparated (cos that's what it is) traffic around.

I'm sure most try to be professional about it but it can be very difficult to hold your tongue. I confess that in the case of the Far Eastern gentleman, I said to him, "Capacity at Heathrow depends on you flying the speeds, Call tower 118.7". I felt a bit bad afterwards, but I hope he understood my point. Anyhow, his ops. section is about to get a letter from NATS about it and I am sure he will understand then!

.4

Bit of tail waging the dog here.
Not all pilots are of the same caliber.
If a pilot feels safer slowing down as per company SOP's then so be it flight safety is paramount.
Only excuse to not telling ATC is because you can't get a word in edgways.:)

Too many people flying around think the TCAS TFC display gives them the necessary information and/or authority to disregard ATC instructions.

Not suggesting you do, matz, but you did sort of bring it to mind. I get very unhappy when chaps I fly with say things like "ooh look we're getting a bit close to the guy in front I'll just slow down a bit", without asking/telling ATC. Admittedly, none have had experience in the LTMA yet but I think this influence of the TFC display has a negative impact on the ATC/pilot 'team' aspect of ops.

I'm sorry it's hassle for you guys in ATC, but please do file that paperwork if you have a problem. In most progressive companies, criticism of this type will be acted on constructively. You may think you're doing us a favour by keeping offically quiet, but that's probably only at the expense of the next group of guys to experience the same problem - maybe with a less successful outcome.

It also avoids the 'no-ones complained so it must be OK' excuse beloved of airline/NATS management.

120.4 as I said I think you guys do a great job in what is easily one of the most challenging airports in the world. I also understand how frustrating it can be when people only half heartedly comply with instructions.

I don't blame the controller at all for venting his anger but I wonder if it was a case of mistaken identity. Who had caused the problem? Also why not just say "do you understand the effect you have by not complying" etc instead of smart, condescending messages. We're a simple bunch who don't like mixed messages. Its just a minor point in what is otherwise a top class operation. (controllers not Heathrow)

.4, just be glad you gave up gatwick. I'd say most aircraft are 145/150 IAS at 4dme there.
2 this morning (A330's) slowed to 160kts without being told to. First one I told him of his error then instructed him to maintain the 160 to 4 dme, next time I check his speed he's 140 at 5!

Heathrow had a loss of separation last week with 2 aircraft on base leg caused entirely by the distraction of taking corrective action with an aircraft that slowed early.

You can't even follow a pattern of aircraft types or airlines that are particularly bad, in my experience it comes down to individual crews not following their clearance. Filling in reports isn't the way forward, with our new electronic reporting system it takes me half an hour to file a report, that's my fatigue break. The best way is to reposition the offending aircraft or send it around but it's not always possible when you've traffic close behind.

If 160 to 4 cannot be achieved then we should be talking about bringing in a new standard and accept the inevitably lower movement rates but it's dangerous to be issued and readback a clearance of 160kts to 4 when you have no intention of following it.

DP:

Spot on. We have to resolve this professionally, adjusting the procedures if they are not leaving us sufficient scope.

Callo:

I'm not sure if the Tower have the Mode S readouts that we now get so perhaps they are not always able to tell who the offending party is. Radar derived Ground speed is very inaccurate.

Personally, I hate the idea of emabarrassing anybody on the r/t. I think the paper work route is probably the right way but that seems so official and heavy. As DP points out, these days it takes most of your break.

.4

We don't have Mode S speed readouts in the tower, only radar derived GS.

Unfortunately, there are one or two ATCOs here who believe that if an aircraft (especially BA short haul for T4) rolls to A10E on 27R then they must be taking the :mad: . The comments regarding "Do you have a tail wind?" or "Do you have a braking problem" are not helpful.

That's what they're for! :)

235Kts is a typical clean speed for a B744 at high landing weights. I have frequently requested a higher speed before entering a hold, even up to 240 kts. Providing ATC know it is not a problem. There has never been occasion when such a request was refused. This may not be the case at other airports such as EGKK. The argument regarding an inability to advise ATC is without foundation. 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. There is no excuse for accepting a clearence and then knowingly not comply with it. You wouldn't cross the NAT tracks at .84 when your clearence is .86. Is there no flexibility on SOP's? Our company SOP is to cruise at ECON speed. If ATC request a specific speed then I will do my best to comply. If your Company SOP is to put the gear down and flap XX and fly the required bug speed at a specific point then frankly there is no hope!!!

You are quite right Ice Pack - however
It is speed control and not speed advice - no pilot would dream of stopping climb or descent at a different level to the clearance issued without reference to ATC, or deviate from a heading without reference - so why do crews feel that they can fly whatever speed they wish to without advising ATC?
No controller would refuse you the speed you want - but you have to tell us
Otherwise the one aircraft you are flying is nicely adhering to company SOP's for YOUR flight safety - but what about the aircraft behind you that is no longer separated and potentially getting vortex wake off your aircraft - and no longer in the comfort zone of safe flight

We can only achieve minimum spacing if we have all the information available, otherwise - as one post said there will less folk who will be prepared to vector to minimum spacing.
At a place like Heathrow anyone who works there could imagine the knock on affect that will have - and the reason for the increase in spacing? - Flight Safety is paramount :ok:

louby
(off the soap box :p )

30W You have obvously never flown a A319 and have to comply with BA's "stable by 1000'" criteria ;)

I have flown in and out of LHR for nearly 12 years. I can confidently state I have never flown 160 to 4D, nor have ever seen anyone do so. It maybe BA only, but we ALL slow up early - we have to (usually slow from 160K ~4.5d - 5d). 120.4 is raising a valid point that what ATC expect, and our SOPs are not compatible... and Mode S and whatever changes are inbound to LHR will highlight these differences, and something will have to change...

You should not be in a position where every approach requires speedbrake to comply with a profile... apart from it destabilising the approach, the tree huggers would rightly jump up and down :ugh:

It is beginning to sound like the requirements of modern aircraft and the ATC system have got out of sync. ATC precedures that require air crew to fly outside SOPs are not acceptable. If that is the current position, as NOD seems to suggest, then we need to look again at the whole issue of speed on final but the cost could likely be a drop in capacity.

.4

- 3 solutions, then?

1) ASR (MOR?) saying that you cannot comply with ATC requirements due to company SOPs
2) Notify ATC on every check-in with director of same
3) ATC change to 170 to 5 or something BA can hack.

In 'days of old', 1000' was a 'review point', and 500' was the 'decider'. Has that changed?

Still essentially the same, except the 1000' is being leaned on more. At one stage we had to ASR each time we were not stable at 1000' ! Use of speedbrake <1000' gets you a b*llocking, and if anything else happens, and they find you not stable by 1000'... then the words "poor" seem to crop up in the Fleet Mag writeup, and an invitation to contribute to the next edition ;)
Don't get me wrong, I am often not quite sorted by 1000', and take your attitude above. However, as I said above, we should not have an SOP and ATC requirement that are not compatible... and where a Training System specifcally tells you what "160 to 4D" is to be interpreted as ;)

Are you sure about that NoD? I flew the 319 for 5 years (perhaps including a tour with you) and 160 to 4 is achievable unless you are very light (in which case I always mentioned the Vapp to Director). It requires flap 3 and the gear down with the power up then a judicious timing of the managed speed selection at somewhere between 4.5 - 4d so that the engines go to idle and you cross 4d with the speed at 160kts but the green arrow pointing down. Granted this was tricky when the engines had to be at power at 1000ft but once that requirement was removed and idle power at 1000ft was permissible it became a doddle.

Have you flown an A319? Using the speedbrake at 180kts produces a lot of noise, an uncomforable nose down pitching moment and does absolutely nothing to your speed. The only thing that slows an A319 effectively below 200kts is the gear.

All the books over here state the +/- 10 knot tolerance, so I'm guessing it's probably a splash over from that.

IcePack is correct...tail wagging the dog, and whinging from ATC.
The aircraft Commander decides what speed to fly on final (within reason) and he should absolutely NOT be put in a position of ignoring or violating his companies laid down procedures, just because an air traffic controller can't do his job properly.

Now, I have flown into LHR for many years in the past, and indeed have had the pleasure of doing so in a very versatile aeroplane...TriStar.
160 to 4, no problem, nor is 180 to 4.
Tell me the speed, I fly the speed.
However, some other designs clearly are not so versatile, SO it is up to ATC to make accomodations.
IF they cannot, they should find another job.

If, on the other hand, ATC cannot for some reason accomodate, then airline companies should be told they must shift their scheduled service somewhere else.

Hello Chaps,
Very interesting! Am I understanding this. A lot of pilots are saying that they are knowingly not complying with mandatory ATC instructions and are knowingly endangering aircraft that are following them AND they are not advising ATC that they cannot/will not comply with an ATC instruction, contrary to the ANO/UKAIP.:)
How would you feel in an A319 if the B747 in front of you did that and we did not notice as you hit its vortex wake at 1,000ft?:)

Wow 411A, talk about missing the point in a huge way :rolleyes:

A Heathrow bod remind me.........was it BA or BMI when they got those shiny new 737s that were requesting 170kts to 4 DME (something to do with extending the gear on final)? Thing is, they would ask on first contact and you could plan for it (they didn't ask for it all the time)

The issue being discussed is fluctuations in speed without informing ATC. If it can't be done or something different is required, say someting and it can be planned (there's that word again) for. Nobody is looking to push anyoone outside of SOPs or performance envelopes, just trying to play the game together. I think you'll find those controllers "who can't do their jobs properly" may surprise you.......or pull your ass out of the sequence to be repositioned for dropping the controller and the guy following in the s***.

Jerricho - the 170 to 5 request was due to the change by Boeing to 737 'Classic and Jurassic' min flap speeds which meant that whereas 'before', 160kts could be flown 'gear up', now it needs gear down. The 'NG' can manage without. Its all on the other thread.

NOD - we used to manage in the 'Jurassic' 737 with Vref as low as 118kts!

In the case I mentioned at BRU I ASR'd it and asked for 'advice' on how the company wanted me to fly the approach. Pure coincidence, I know, but shortly after that BRU dropped the requirement.:)

A colleague of yours on another thread mentions the managers large bonuses. Why not get them to earn a bit of them? If they 'chide' you for your 1000' performance ask them how you SHOULD fly it.

In any case, slowing to 150 at 5D makes very little difference to spacing - work it out guys.:ok: The original post here was about apparent blatant disregard for ATC speed control.

The 319 is most unlikely to catch the 747 given their different handling characteristics. I've flown both so I know. I've also experienced reduced seperation and the answer is to proceed with caution. Just because you're a bit close doesn't mean you are going to fall out of the sky.

Some assumptions on this thread are worrying.

Porco Rosso,

Not sure what you guys have been told, but this is certainly not the case. The rules have been changed so as to, in effect, 'legalise' the situations where FIN has aimed for 3 and got anywhere between 2.5 and 3. The inbound spacing to LL will still be 3 miles, whereas separation can now legally be anything down to 2.5 miles. The rules on when we adopt 2.5 miles spacing have not changed.

120.4, anytime you want to refuse doing 2.5 is fine by me!!! :ok:

411A, you're coming down the ILS at 160 to 4 in your lovely old L1011, as instructed, with a medium 5 miles behind you, and an A320 now about 2.5 miles in front of you which has just reduced back to 120kts at 6 miles rather than 4 without telling us. Please tell us all how we can 'accomodate' that to your satisfaction

120.4 ...OK, but keep in mind that Vref [approach speed] for any airplane can vary, depending upon landing weight; in the case of a 74, Vref can vary in excess of 35Kts. :ooh: