[jhb_airlines] Re: FPI

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:26:05 +0100

Or I'd have to kill you.....
I tried to say that through an RAF face mask but it didn't come out too well.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:

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 FL100..

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

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..


-----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


-----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
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:


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.


-----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

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



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


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: