[jhb_airlines] Re: FPI

  • From: "Mike Brook" <mike.brook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:03:20 +0100

Although totally water-logged on my return from a VERY wet Devon I
consider myself suitably chastised.

I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
I will never again attempt to intercept the ILS at 200 knots
etc (ie 100 times)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bones
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:53 PM
> To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI
> The fascinating thing about FPI or any other real time ATC
> simulation is
> that when it gets busy it becomes very much like real world
> traffic. Allow
> me to explain.
> Life isn't all rosy in real ATC either. In FPI we get foreign
> pilots and we
> have many newcomers who are still developing their skills.
> The former may
> have the language barrier to overcome and the latter may just be slow
> because they are still trying to keep ahead of the aircraft,
> never mind the
> ATC on top of this. In real life we also get foreign pilots
> with slow uptake
> and, especially in mixed VFR/IFR airports, some real
> dipsticks whose flying
> skills would make even yourselves cringe. The trick is for
> ATC to assess how
> good, or bad, pilots are and to adjust instructions
> accordingly. That's why
> bad pilots get lots of orbits - it keeps them out of the way of other
> traffic until ATC feel it is safe to bring them in.
> Real life ATC isn't as difficult as FPI (believe it or not)
> because the
> professionalism is greater and ATC expect pilots to follow
> the rules and to
> respond immediately to instructions. This allows tighter
> vectoring, more
> aircraft in a smaller area and snappier landing and take off
> rates. We can't
> do this in FPI because the pilot skills are not quite up to
> the mark and so
> we use a bigger chunk of airspace, keep aircraft a little bit
> more apart and
> are generally more cautious about crowding everyone in.
> I'm not saying that all pilots are slow. A good number of
> aircraft last
> night were as good as I see in real life and I know I could
> rely on them to
> do exactly as I asked. However there were also one or two
> foreign pilots
> who, although competent, had to think about what they had
> been told and so
> were not as crisp as most of you. That however is the rub -
> it just needs
> one slow pilot in a stream and it blows it apart. In a busy
> environment
> EVERYONE has to be good.  I'd love to get five or six of you
> into a stream
> landing at Heathrow all exactly four miles apart - but I know
> I can't yet
> until skills are just a bit better.
> As in real life, a controller very much bases his
> instructions to aircraft
> on a gut instinct - primarily based on how the pilot sounds
> when he talks to
> you. Those with confident RT tend to get trusted and vectored in more
> tightly. Those with less verbal confidence are given more sea
> room. For
> example I trust most of you enough to offer an eight mile
> final but some
> aircraft I will give 10nm or even 15nm to because I feel that
> they need it.
> Subjective I know but that's the way it works.
> The other problem is also true to real life - as it gets
> busier pilots have
> to become more disciplined or else ATC can't keep the flow
> tight. This is
> essential in a multi aircraft environment otherwise traffic
> flow grinds to a
> halt. I trust almost all of you to fly the heading and
> heights I throw at
> you but the one factor that really makes life difficult (and
> makes FPI stand
> apart from real ATC) is speed management. Speed matters.
> There are a few
> good reasons for this but I will only mention a few.
> If you are the only aircraft on the tube then it might be
> thought that speed
> control isn't essential. Actually it is - because speed
> control is not just
> used for aircraft separation. Speed control also allows ATC
> to judge the
> right points for vectoring onto final - the turn onto base
> leg and the turn
> to intercept an ILS. If speed is too high the radius of turn increases
> significantly and it becomes almost impossible to judge the
> correct points
> for an ILS approach.
> The critical turn is the one putting you on a 30 degree
> closing heading to
> the ILS. Think about this and you will see that there isn't
> much leeway in
> the timing of this turn. If your speed is too high and the
> radius of turn
> too great then you will probably go through the ILS (and I'll
> bet everyone
> has experience of this). If the opposite happens and I turn
> you too early
> then you will intercept the ILS, not at 10nm but at 9 or even
> 8nm - which
> means you may find yourself descending on the glideslope
> before hitting the
> localiser (something that real pilots do not like at all). If
> the RT is busy
> just at the point I need to turn you then things will still
> go wrong but
> this happens in real life too <vbg>.
> In a busy TMA speed control is even more essential because of
> the other
> traffic around. It's no fun having an aircraft at FL80 doing
> the correct
> 250kts if a white van driver is thundering up behind him at
> 350kts. The
> latter is the one who mucks it up for everyone because he has
> turn rates the
> size of Wales. He will also have other problems - a high
> cockpit workload
> because higher speeds mean less time (far less than you might
> realise) to
> run through cockpit procedures coupled with almost continuous ATC
> instructions because he is whistling through the traffic
> pattern at a much
> higher rate. High speed does you no favours at all.
> ATC very rarely manage speed control in real life because
> they are fixed in
> the procedures. It's up to you to follow these but I'm sure
> not everyone
> scrutinises the STAR's and SID's in fine detail or knows what
> a speed gate
> is. I would therefore like to make a suggestion to improve
> the situation -
> both to help ATC and yourselves and get FPI looking just that
> little bit
> more professional.
> Pilots using the STAR procedures should ignore what I say
> because I will
> assume you are obeying the speed gates on the charts. For
> example the BNN
> STAR to Heathrow has a speed gate (correctly a SLP or Speed limitation
> Point) at WCO NDB of 250kts and this applies REGARDLESS OF
> LEVEL i.e. it
> overrules the mandatory 250kts below FL100 rule. Not so clear
> on the STAR is
> the 220kt limitation on reaching BNN.
> Now it is impossible to suggest you all read the STAR's for
> every airport,
> nor am I going to suggest (as I used to) speed reduction based on DME
> distance from an airfield because you are not really going to
> keep an eye on
> the DME when you are busy (and some airfields don't have this
> anyway). A
> much simpler rule is one based on height because you are
> always aware of
> this. Here is my suggestion.
> -------------------------------------------------
> 1. I see some aircraft descending from high altitudes at
> 450kts or more but
> this isn't real - and this is where an approach in FS
> actually starts to go
> completely wrong.
> Depending on aircraft type the descent should be between
> 250kts and 300kts
> IAS - which means you start descent quite fast (probably
> 420kts TAS) but
> your speed gradually reduces as you get into lower altitudes
> (because TAS
> and IAS begin to merge) to about 320kts TAS by FL100. Yep, I
> know some FS
> aircraft don't obey the speed selector - the default B737 will stay at
> 275kts regardless of what you dial in - but this means the
> ROD is too high
> for the aircraft and you need to reduce it. Work out a ROD
> that keeps your
> aircraft following the dialled speed and I will guarantee
> your life will be
> a lot easier. Once you are happy with a ROD you know works
> update the FSNav
> data so it gives to correct TOD points and you may also need
> to amend the
> aircraft.cfg file so that the autopilot automatically enters
> your new ROD
> rather than the default 1800fpm. The line is:
> default_vertical_speed=1500
> 2. 250kts at FL100. We all know this is mandatory but I want
> to enforce it.
> To get your speed back by FL100 means dialling in speed
> reduction beforehand
> and I suggest the speed really should be on the way down as
> you are passing
> FL120 - at 1800fpm you are only talking about 66 seconds
> here. This is where
> Point 1 comes into play too. You can't really expect to
> reduce from 450kts
> to 250kts in just over a minute and trying to do so means
> that even this far
> back on the approach you are already fighting to keep on top
> of things.
> Manage Point 1 and the FL100 restriction is a doddle as you
> will only be
> reducing from about 320kts to 250kts. You shouldn't have to
> be working hard
> at this point in the flight but here FS may make things a lot harder.
> 3. Not a real world procedure but I suggest that you reduce
> speed to 220kts
> at FL70. It's not unrealistic because this is the stack
> height and speed
> gate for many STAR's. You will not believe how much more
> thinking time you
> will get once you get the speed back at this point.
> 4. 180kts at 4000ft. I say 4000ft rather than 3000ft because on some
> approaches you will not be cleared down to 3000ft - but the
> logic is still
> the same. 180kts is the best speed to be closing on the ILS
> and I'd be happy
> to see even 165/170kts. If I see anyone approaching the ILS
> above 200kts in
> future I shall get very cross.
> The above is easy to remember and you don't need to cross
> check against
> anything other than the altimeter. If you can do this I will
> guarantee that
> things will get a lot slicker in FPI - ATC can manage you
> better and you
> will also (probably) get shorter turns onto finals because
> the turning radii
> are lower (so reducing speed may get you in quicker because your track
> distances will be reduced).
> The real point of all the above is flight management. If you
> feel that a
> situation is running away from you there is usually a reason for this
> further back in the flight. Good speed control is simply good flight
> management and gets you flying a nice arrival procedure with
> hardly any fuss
> at all.
> bones
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kev Townsend
> Sent: 28 July 2005 10:42
> To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI
> Thanks All for the plaudits, It's fantastic that all you guys
> turn up to
> enable an experience like this!
> I did have problems communicating with Mike Brook, although I
> received him
> perfectly, I was unreadable at his end, but with a little
> ingenuity and
> some help from Alistair and Mike he made a standard departure
> and we got
> him over to Bones at London Control without incident. He gave
> me a shout on
> approach to Ronaldsway, and all was working perfectly so NFF
> as they say!
> The nature of the SID / STAR procedures at Stansted,
> particularly when most
> movements are to the North West rely heavily on the BKY VOR. Outbounds
> follow the SID south of the track of Incoming flights via
> CPT, and I felt
> sure that I gave all clearances Initial 6000', particularly to avoid
> conflict at BKY. Bones ensured that Inbounds were not cleared to below
> FL080 so we should have maintained separation. I remember that EFP046
> reported "heavy" on arrival and that he requested the hold
> for burn off
> purposes, this remained (I believe) at FL080. It just goes to
> show that
> there's no let up when responsible for Tower and Ground. My
> hats off to the
> real-timers!
> In quiet times Bones and I were able to discuss the problems
> of aircraft
> "reaction", particularly when turning onto the glideslope where the
> controllers judgement is critical. Real life pilots when
> receiving a course
> or altitude change would immediately dial the new figure into
> the autopilot
> and respond to ATC as a sort of confirmation of what they
> have input, this
> speeds up the reaction of the aircraft to our instruction and
> is very much
> easier to manage, those who respond to the instruction
> immediately and then
> go back and make the changes may have travelled a mile or two
> before the
> aircraft changes course, this then requires a "fine tune" or if busy a
> greater angle to establish at a closer point to touchdown,
> even a decision
> to call for go-around or an orbit, which when busy would really screw
> things up!
> Just off to do the paperwork I may be some time!
> Thanks again for providing the experience
> Regards
> Kev
> Weblog from one of the MSFS Team
> <http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/> may be
> of interest - particularly the links.
> At 09:47 7/28/2005, you wrote:
> >A good evening in general.  I didn't suffer any of the voice problems
> >which others clearly did - I found myself acting as R/T
> go-between for
> >MikeB a couple of times.  Kev did brilliantly - I counted
> six inbound and
> >3 outbound at EGSS as I departed.  I didn't have the heart
> to mention my
> >airprox with EFP046 (2 miles at same altitude; blue warning
> on TCAS) under
> >the circumstances, particularly since he said nothing about
> my running out
> >of runway on landing at EGSS a little earlier. (Reverse thrust and
> >autobraking failed on my CRJ - and again at EGNS). Kev was
> kind enough to
> >send AA Roadside Rescue to find me (and provide a clean pair
> of trousers
> ....)
> >
> >Mike L
> >
> >Bones wrote:
> >>Grrr indeed - and you have my sympathy. Despite any announcement on
> >>FPI it was a very busy evening. Lost count of the total number of
> >>flights but I think we had 12 pilots and many flew two or more legs.
> >>My hat goes off to Kevin who plugged in at Stansted, did little for
> >>maybe an hour and then got a right gaggle of inbounds from all
> >>directions. Very nicely handled too. Oddly enough, reminiscent of a
> >>few weeks ago when Mike had total engine failure, I got another one
> >>tonight. I felt sorry for the pilot having flogged right across from
> >>Hamburg in a Cessna 411 as he never got anywhere near his
> destination
> >>at EGNS. He lost an engine over the North Sea and I had to take him
> >>into Coningsby. We hit slight voice problems during the session - it
> >>started to break up about halfway through the evening - but this
> >>cleared towards the end of the session. Can't really be
> server load as
> >>there was zilch traffic outside the UK and we've seen lots more
> >>aircraft online in the past. I'd also like to take my hat off to
> >>everyone who flew into Stansted with its lousy weather.
> 3300m vis and
> >>OVC400 wasn't nice at all! bones

Other related posts: