[jhb_airlines] Re: FPI

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:41:24 +0100



PS - Still trying to log into PMDG after 6 hours..

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 02 August 2005 18:26
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI

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

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
>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: