120.4, please check your pm's.

A330's?

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

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'?

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

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

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

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

If you 939 (i know what it is) it will stop.

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.

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:p

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

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

.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

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.:ok:

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.

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.

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

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?

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
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
cheers

I don't think it's fair to say that we've lost interest. Just that this forum is all too vulnerable to hearing the same characters banging on all the time.

Mode S transmits the instananeous IAS, heading, selected altitude and aircraft groundspeed/track information. I hope we will have revealed that every operator/airplane combination has a different set of hoops to jump through. Many of those have flight data recorder audit trails, requiring the commander to excuse himself for this approach or that landing (if we could but remember them amongst all the others).

It's all too apparent that BA are not flavour of the month at the moment at LHR, but just like everyone else they're doing the best they can with the hand they're dealt.

Many factors lie outside the control of the pilot on the day (especially the all too frequent ground difficulties) but the individuals at the controls are not trying to be difficult. They are however all too aware that transgressing the (sometimes ridiculous) rules will result in an interview with the school bully.

If we're up against it, and you're up against it, that says to me it's time to turn round to the beancounters and say BACK OFF!

It's either that or we'll be discussing who was to blame for the big one.

160kts to 4 miles is almost impossible in the 757 when operating at shuttle weights. Factor in the anti-ice and the inevitable tailwind on base/finals whne landing on 09L then it becomes a real challenge to even get the aircraft stable.
120.4 i understand your frustrations but my priorities lie firmly in keeping the aircraft safe and getting it established and stable on the approach for what i
(and my company SOP (BA))consider to be in an appropraite position to continue to a landing. This inviarably involves reducing below 160kts at 5 miles ish. LHR runway capacity doesn't even figure in my thought process. Although, i might add i will do my best to avoid sending anyone around..which i haven't in 10 years of flying at LHR.

My company SOP states that we should be stable at 1000'ATRE and must be stable by 500'ARTE. The final flap and speed reduction must be taken at 1500'ARTE. This is quite plainly at odds with what you ask.

FWIW 160kts to 4 miles is easier in the 767 as you obviously haven't got as much speed to lose.

3 greens

Quite understand your position. For some time now I have been giving B757s 160 to 5d in recognition that 160kts to 4 is asking them to lie. It is quite noticeable that the B76s find it much easier.

The trouble is that in keeping your aircraft safe you are likely to be introducing a wake vortex issue for the B73s, A320s etc. behind you. That puts them in an unsafe situation and makes me illegal; Can't be right can it? This conflict of interests must be addressed.

.4

.4, quite right...something needs to be done as it is p155ing both sides off at the moment. Quite how one enacts such change however is perhaps why we continue with this practise :ugh:

3 Greens -

Small point - If you are BA then I'm sure you know its 1000' RA. Check FCO 2838. Totally agree with the point that agreements have to be adheared to.

Another for 3Greens - - since 4D equates to 1410'ARTE, 'taking land flap and speed reduction' AT 1500'ARTE is no issue, unless you are saying you must be 'on speed' AT 1500'ARTE?

I still think you Nigels should ask one of your 'wunderkind' how you are supposed to do it - and get the answer in writing:)

BOAC - as an ex-Nigel you may expect that they're rather busy replying to a deluge of e-mails from the current Nigels on another topic... ;)

I totally agree.

Quoting from 120.4 earlier...

"The UK based one was indicating 145kts at 6nm from touchdown having been given 160kts to 4."

With my simple calculator, based on a 25kt. headwind, the chap at 145 kts two miles earlier than instructed "lost 6.5 seconds" in the 2 miles. If there had been less headwind then the "lost" time would have been less.

120.4, are you under so much pressure to reduce the spacing that it may affect safety?

Having flown the Trident, 757, 767, and 777 into Heathrow for years I agree with the earlier post regarding the 757. There is nothing worse than sitting on the edge of your seat (in cloud on the approach), anticing on watching the IAS dribble back to V-ref +5. The old brain database remembers such approaches and suggests never again. The next time, perhaps with a junior copilot you suggest slowing up just that little bit ahead of the 4,5 or 6 miles (whatever it maybe) but struggle to get a word in on the radio.

We're only human after all. We've all sat on the edge of our seats, luckily most never actually fall off!

If the pressure, 120.4, is placed on your shoulders to reduce spacing why, with safety paramount, do the powers that be not look at parallel landings, surely that would help your wake problem.

Woodpecker -

I am sure 120.4 will come up with a definitive answer (I am just a TMA area controller). It depends what you call affecting safety. As an Area controller, I am allowed to use 3 miles separation in the LTMA instead of the usual 5 miles, because of congestion. The heathrow directors are allowed to take that down to 2.5 miles within certain criteria.

That 2.5 miles is an absolute minimum. If 120.4 breaks that because someone is not flying as they have been instructed, he will be suspended.

This will cause more delays as we are tightly manned as it is. When busy and all positions are open, we cannot afford to lose one ATCO, otherwise we start running out of the legal time we can work between breaks.

The 2.5 miles is because Heathrow is such a busy airport. If airlines want it pushed up to 3 mile spacing so that they can have a plus or minus 25kt leeway on speeds, then this will mean that AC will always hold for more than 10 minutes in all but the queitest or times. I do not think the airline bosses will be happy with that.

Parallel landings are used, first thing in the morning, to ensure that delays are not allowed to build (if we start off with holding at 0630, it can take several hours to catch up - the airport is running at such a high capacity)

Using parallel runways during the day as a standard way of operating, would not work with ground movements and departures thrown into the mix. I am sure 120.4 would be able to elaborate a little more on that one.

What I am getting from this thread, more than anything else, is that 120.4 would like to be told if you cannot comply with the speed instruction, for whatever reason (slippery A/C, company SOPs). If he does not get told, then how can he adjust the guy behind or ahead to maintain the separation?? Heathrow controllers are not Gods (though some like to think it :E ), they cannot know what you are going to do by reading your mind.

If their is a specific company policy regarding certain A/C, then let ATC know at OPs level. Once known it is fairly easily adjusted for, in the same way that heavys/mediums/lights need different spacing.

Woodpecker

Thanks for your interest.

I haven't done the maths myself: remember, he has also been losing time whilst he has been slowing to 145 kts. Additionally, although we "discount" spacing drift inside 4nm, as the following traffic would be maintaining 160kts until it gets to 4d the time interval between them continues to reduce after the heavy gets inside 4nm. Who knows where that becomes unsafe? We don't.

In this particular case I instructed the following traffic to go around when its spacing behind the heavy was 4nm; it should have been (and had been!) 5nm. Fortunately, although the Tower controller initially indicated that the departure runway would not be available for the following traffic, they managed to change their plan to suit me and shortly after the traffic had commenced its climb I was able to offer it a late visual switch to 27L.

Please, lets be clear here: I applied the minimum legal spacing for that aircraft pair because that is the demand of the airline community; that spacing was established some 7 or 8 miles previously and I applied common speeds to maintain it. If we don't apply minimum spacing when ever we can then then Heathrow's already oversubscribed capacity will be diminished.

Heathrow's runways are scheduled at a rediculous 98% of capacity, Frankfurt, I believe, is 90% and Paris 80%. As a point of note: Heathrow approach is deliberately flowed at 2 or 3 aircraft per hour above the anticipated landing rate so as to keep pressure on to achieve minimum spacing. Under those circumstances, traffic that is at 145kts at 6nm instead of 160kts to 4 is placing the ATCO in an illegal position, and the following traffic in a dangerous position that we are not permitted to ignor.

During the week a Heathrow colleague was suspended after traffic that had read back the correct heading took up and incorrect one and infringed separation. The ATCO was not at fault but it was a number of hours before he was re-instated and this can have significant consequences for delays.

I have absolutely no desire to, nor would I ever put aircrew in a compromising position. If our standard speeds are not working for you then we have to change them because not flying them puts us in a compromising position. This cannot be right.

Mixed-mode is being looked at now; infact I was centrally involved in the concept design. There are many issues, and politics to resolve before it can be implimented. Current rules have DfT restrictions.

Hope this helps

.4

So he started the go around and then reverted to a visual.

OK, I'm sure he did it all perfectly, but we've had the CAA all over us (the TRE's) trying to ensure go arounds particularly those not commenced from minima are flown correctly and all the appropriate checklists completed prior to the next approach.

oh for the good old days

4 dme from runway is about 1200' (maybe 1264 afe)...and being stable at 1000' afe is about right for most planes


remember the days when you would place your Marker beacon receiver on HIGH sensitivity, and put your gear and flaps down at the first beep...switch it to normal and note your time (in case gs failed)...and that was around 1500-1700 feet afe.


so perhaps 120.4 must come up with something new...slow everyone down farther out and let everyone fly stable instead of trying to cram a few more planes in per hour...the powers that be will have to come up with something other than pushing the tin.

and I know everyone on this forum wants to fly safe and the controllers want it safe too.


add the winter time need for anti ice and all that ...


jon

An update, as promised...

It seems I was not the only one to have raised this issue recently with LTCC Ops. It is hoped to be an agenda item at the next Safety Partnership Meeting involving the major UK operators.

.4

Did our level best today, even caught the late turn on to the localiser with the tail wind on base. I did think it was a bit harsh to blame one of my colleagues for being left and right of the ILS though.

It was 40kts across!

Give us a break.:rolleyes:

Airbus U

It was an interesting day wasn't it?

Twice this evening we had traffic back at 145kts at 6nm, both A340s and one of them caused traffic to switch to 27L. The operations department of one of the carriers gave us a slight clue to some of the speed problems but it could stand clarifying here from a driver or two.

A346s apparently use a "ground speed lock" or something? Please can a Bus-driver elaborate on that: What does this actually do, does it apply to all airbuses in all conditions or just gusty wind, is it okay to override or are you mandated to use it etc.

.4

I'm joining the thread late and I haven't read all of it.

However, if this is going back to the "160 to 4/170 to 5" debate, I've flown 737s and 777s as well as A320s and all are capable of anything up to and including 180 to 4 (clearly with the exception of a tailwind on finals) whilst complying with the BA SOP of stable, power up and in landing config by 1000R (I've always taken that to mean 1000' aal).

All require gear down and slightly unusual configurations to achieve it but all are well within flap and gear limitation speeds. We have to be sensitive to noise and CDAs which make us reluctant to do this, particularly at LHR (I have a friend in Richmond who invariably has the gear dropped just over her house for the A320 to achieve 160/4 in a quiet configuration).

"and all are capable of anything up to and including 180 to 4"
Thats some kind of unusual configuration in an airbus to lose 50 kts in 1nm. Please tell us more?:)

- and, of course, HF, your managers will receive a 'notice' of your 'misdemeanour' at 1000 radio which, may be significantly higher.

EG Inbound FNC and crossing the VOR (which is 6 minutes or more away from touchdown on R05) below around 1300' (absolutely safe) will normally trigger an 'event' due to the small ridge of land on which it sits.

Are there any types that can NOT fly gear down, land flap, 160kts at 4 miles and still not reduce back to approach speed by 1000 Rad Alt?

I find it hard to believe that with a headwind that this is so difficult to achieve.

BOAC- you should know better than to suggest that Flight Data Monitoring systems are used to attribute 'misdemeanours' to crews who may be operating entirely safely and appropriately in the circumstances, like the FNC approach you mention! All FDM data has to be taken in context, and used properly is an outstanding tool for highlighting areas where operational procedures may be having an impact on safety. If crews 'fear' it then its credibility suffers and its usefulness is diluted.

As an aside, 1000' RA rather than 1000' aal would be daft - that would imply that BA are happy for crews to be stable at 730' above the R09 at JER but not at 1001' aal at LGW? Surely stability criteria must refer to time to landing, not the distance to the terrain directly underneath the aircraft?

For info 120.4, the 'ground-speed lock' on modern airbusses (airbii?) is usually referred to as 'Ground Speed Mini' - mini meaning minimum rather than little.

What this system does is compare an entered value of the surface W/V as given by ATIS/TWR with the current wind and ensure that the correct groundspeed is flown, so that when the wind changes (i.e. drops) with descent, the total energy of the aircraft is not compromised and high sink rates due to shear are avoided.

Therefore GS Mini, in strong headwind conditions, often demands a higher IAS, to ensure enough knots are left if the current strong wind suddenyl drops away.

Use is very strongly recommended in windy conditions due to the protection it provides against shear, but it should never demand a lower speed than the approach speed, only higher, so using it as an excuse for flying slower than 160 to 4 is nonsense.