Final Approach Speed

FM_Weasel said:
What verbiage was used to affect this speed reduction? If it was something like "reduce to final approach speed" then I could understand the pilot's disagreement, since that is not a proper instruction.
Click to expand...

But pilots know what that means (slow down or take a tour). However, most probably blame the controller at an unfamiliar airport, or if it's somewhere like LGA, it's an eye roll or annoyance at the one plane jamming up the hub arrivals (150 kts up the river? Please for the love of all that is holy).

Then again, I've found that lots of pilots don't know what the minimum assignable speeds are from the AIM, and which are requests.
 
RobertB said:
Thanks for the quick reply. I was just wondering because I had a pilot get pissy earlier about being reduced to his final approach speed 8-10 miles from the airport. It was either run them tight 2.5 where they would see each other or start going out for 22-25 mile ILS PRMs...
Click to expand...
If you're are being told to reduce to final, it may mean that to truly get to final approach speed you may have to lower the gear to get final flaps out, (most planes wont allow you to get final flaps without gear, with out getting bells and whistles) to get to that slow speed. We'd prefer not to get the gear out before we have to, bc it's loud , inefficient on fuel, and really feels like we are dragging it in.....but more likely the guy was trying to catch a quick connection for his commute home ;-)
 
GypsyPilot said:
With a couple of exception (like ASE), we need to be configured by 1,000' above TDZE. This is tracked by FOQA.
Click to expand...

On our side they decided to make us be configured by 1,000 but stable by 500 (VMC). Kind of asinine as once you've got all the stuff hanging out there's really no reason not to be stable.
 
Kingairer said:
If you're are being told to reduce to final, it may mean that to truly get to final approach speed you may have to lower the gear to get final flaps out, (most planes wont allow you to get final flaps without gear, with out getting bells and whistles) to get to that slow speed. We'd prefer not to get the gear out before we have to, bc it's loud , inefficient on fuel, and really feels like we are dragging it in.....but more likely the guy was trying to catch a quick connection for his commute home ;-)
Click to expand...

If that's the case, he's also bad at math!

Here's a rough example... Let's say you're 10 nm out. The difference between 120 kts vs 200 kts is exactly 2 minutes. Realistically, it's going to be more like a minute or less by the time they get slowed up for flaps, stabilized at 1,000 ft, etc.

Every time I'm next to a guy freaking out about being slowed down a little, I wonder if they flunked high school algebra.
 
queeno said:
Being the passive aggressive controller that I was I would just have keyed the mic and said "WAAAAAAAAAAH" and then kept on going.
Click to expand...

That's what I would have been thinking, but I would have been saying is, "Roger. Cancel approach clearance, track the localizer, climb and maintain XXX"

And I'm not doing that to be a jerk, or to prove a point. I'm doing it of necessity...

If I am asking an air carrier (who is likely following and being followed by an air carrier) to "reduce to final approach speed" on an 8-10 mile final, it's because I'm treading a very, VERY fine line - and I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the pilots understand that and also understand what's going to happen if the slow doesn't lock things up.

If I got blowback from that instruction, there would be ZERO hesitation in pulling that aircraft out. Blowback = discomfort (on some level). If I'm giving that type of instruction, we're moving past the comfort zone into the "last option" zone. The blowback would be a red flag, and I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole.
 
GypsyPilot said:
If that's the case, he's also bad at math!

Here's a rough example... Let's say you're 10 nm out. The difference between 120 kts vs 200 kts is exactly 2 minutes. Realistically, it's going to be more like a minute or less by the time they get slowed up for flaps, stabilized at 1,000 ft, etc.

Every time I'm next to a guy freaking out about being slowed down a little, I wonder if they flunked high school algebra.
Click to expand...
You know, I think it's more of a psychological frustration. On the go home leg I am super motivated to get there. That 80kts difference pisses me off. Yeah Yeah, I know it means getting to the gate 20 seconds later, but by day last my rationality sort of fades and I just want to get there...ASAP.
 
GypsyPilot said:
If that's the case, he's also bad at math!

Here's a rough example... Let's say you're 10 nm out. The difference between 120 kts vs 200 kts is exactly 2 minutes. Realistically, it's going to be more like a minute or less by the time they get slowed up for flaps, stabilized at 1,000 ft, etc.

Every time I'm next to a guy freaking out about being slowed down a little, I wonder if they flunked high school algebra.
Click to expand...
Simple math to me says if guy 1 is abeam the airport and goes out 10 miles at 210 knots, turns south for 5 miles and slows to 180, then goes back to the airport for 10 miles at 120 knots takes roughly 9 minutes to get to the airport. Let's say guy 2 is abeam the airport and has to go out say 24 miles for an ILS PRM at 240 knots (with no aircraft to worry about compression or anything) it would take them roughly 14 minutes going 240 knots the entire way to crossing the threshold.
 
TripSix said:
That's what I would have been thinking, but I would have been saying is, "Roger. Cancel approach clearance, track the localizer, climb and maintain XXX"

And I'm not doing that to be a jerk, or to prove a point. I'm doing it of necessity...

If I am asking an air carrier (who is likely following and being followed by an air carrier) to "reduce to final approach speed" on an 8-10 mile final, it's because I'm treading a very, VERY fine line - and I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the pilots understand that and also understand what's going to happen if the slow doesn't lock things up.

If I got blowback from that instruction, there would be ZERO hesitation in pulling that aircraft out. Blowback = discomfort (on some level). If I'm giving that type of instruction, we're moving past the comfort zone into the "last option" zone. The blowback would be a red flag, and I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...
In total, two guys were given their final approach speed following one another when each was 8-10 miles out. Every other guy was given 160 knots to the FAF and they were 1.5-2.0 in trail crossing the threshold.

The overwhelming number of controllers I asked about this said the same as you... "Delta 123, cancel approach clearance. Climb and maintain..."
 
RobertB said:
In total, two guys were given their final approach speed following one another when each was 8-10 miles out. Every other guy was given 160 knots to the FAF and they were 1.5-2.0 in trail crossing the threshold.

The overwhelming number of controllers I asked about this said the same as you... "Delta 123, cancel approach clearance. Climb and maintain..."
Click to expand...

Sounds like a normal day at KORD !!!!!!
 
Kingairer said:
Just curious what the pilot said...was it just his tone? Or did he want answers and "the truth".
Click to expand...
"We'll reduce to our final approach speed, like the guy in front of us and probably the the guy behind us as well, because you turned us too tight on our traffic." Again, 2.5 MIT was resulting in 1.5-2.0 as the preceding aircraft was crossing the threshold so they had to be tight to see each other, hit gaps off the middle final (on ILS approaches), etc. The separation would've been the same had they gone out for ILS PRMs with a monitor plugged in and the tower seeing them at the FAF...
 
RobertB said:
"We'll reduce to our final approach speed, like the guy in front of us and probably the the guy behind us as well, because you turned us too tight on our traffic." Again, 2.5 MIT was resulting in 1.5-2.0 as the preceding aircraft was crossing the threshold so they had to be tight to see each other, hit gaps off the middle final (on ILS approaches), etc. The separation would've been the same had they gone out for ILS PRMs with a monitor plugged in and the tower seeing them at the FAF...
Click to expand...
Wow... That IS very mouthy. "Since you're not happy with spacing, turn right climb and maintain etc"....
 
RobertB said:
"We'll reduce to our final approach speed, like the guy in front of us and probably the the guy behind us as well, because you turned us too tight on our traffic."...
Click to expand...

Yeah.....um......

They would've come out.

For exactly the reason(s) I states earlier:

Despite the statement of compliance, the further statement of traffic proximity would have been the red flag. If the concern over the traffic proximity was high enough to vocalize it to me, my concern that I'm putting you somewhere you aren't comfortable just overrode the "we'll reduce."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top