[jhb_airlines] Re: FPI

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:37:16 +0100

UK pilot but not JHB. I won't say any more..


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Denis Ripley
Sent: 02 August 2005 16:34
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI

even one of our more experienced pilots is still at 420kts approaching

What's his name? <lol>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:49 PM
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI

> If it makes you feel better there was no specific target when I wrote
> that letter <vbg> In fact it was Kevin who voiced the speed issue as
> he had greater problems down at Stansted when trying to pull aircraft
> off the BKY VOR for positioning onto 05. The airspace for that
> manoeuvre is rather tight and faster aircraft just used up too much
> airspace.
> It was a post session chat with Kevin that prompted the email.
> Comparing notes we found that the same issues cropped up almost every
> week and I thought it time for a mini tutorial. Believe me when I say
> you are not alone here - even one of our more experienced pilots is
> still at 420kts approaching FL100..
> bones
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Brook
> Sent: 01 August 2005 21:03
> To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI
> 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)
> MikeB
> JHB193
>> -----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
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/2005

Other related posts: