Should he be infracted?

The Velvet Fog · Post by **The Velvet Fog** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:07 am

Here's the situation. YYZ , 627 am. The frequency is quite busy. The lead aircraft (with a 630 curfew time)is on an 8 mile final, cleared the approach and assigned a 170 to the FAF. The controller notices a large discrepancy in the ground speeds of the first two aircraft, queries number one who says he's slowed to 135. The controller tells him to speed back up, slows down number two and they, and the trailing 8 aircraft all land normally.

Should the pilot of the lead aircraft be infracted for slowing and not saying anything?

Standing by for the grenades.

Mel

Blakey · Post by **Blakey** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:17 am

flyindude · Post by **flyindude** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:37 am

It depends, was the "lead" aircraft inside the FAF when he/she slowed down?

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:41 am

On Transport's site the cost of some early landings is pretty pricey and I can see why he wouldn't want to break curfew, but maybe should have said something before he could possibly cause someone else to go around or lose sep.

The Velvet Fog · Post by **The Velvet Fog** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:56 am

He was the number 1 aircraft with no on on final ahead. Blakey, why not?

Cheers,

Mel

wingtip · Post by **wingtip** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:59 am

You are responsible for traffic separation both vertically and laterally. You issued a clearance that was acknowledged by the crew, but not adheared to. In my books, that is no different than busting an altitude.

I like to think your discretion can be exercised and your actions may be tempered by the severity of the event.

Making it stick may be a problem for Enforcement though.

You could just do what NY TRACON does and ream the crew a new one on the air!!

yeah yeah · Post by **yeah yeah** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:05 am

If a loss of separation occurs, I say throw the book at him. If no loss occurs, I'd ask for a phone call

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:39 am

The Velvet Fog wrote:Should the pilot of the lead aircraft be infracted for slowing and not saying anything?

OK, keep in mind- I know JACK SHIT about IFR, but IMHO if some dude is cleared for the approach, he can fly it at 10 kts or 100 kts- pilot's discretion. He just has to tell ATC any changes in airspeed as soon as PRACTICABLE- which means fly safely, just let ATC know when you're not too busy flying the plane. So no biggy.

-istp

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:04 am

The Velvet Fog wrote:Blakey, why not?

Cheers,

Mel

Why not? Well, my tongue-in-cheek answer would be, because his employer is paying the highest landing fees in the world to operate into a supposedly world-class airport that can't even operate around the clock, and although curfew is the responsibility of the PIC perhaps the metering of arrivals should recognize this?

(I do realize GTAA landing fees do not go to NavCanada, but hey we all have to work together.) So, if your question had been "could" he be violated, my answer would be , of course. He disobeyed an instruction. (As mentioned, good luck getting it to stick.) But since you asked "should" he be, I say no. Chew him out if you want, give him the phone number if you to give an more in-depth lecture...but good situational awareness recognizes that curfew delays have to be accomodated too. Why was he sequenced onto an approach that would land him at 0627 holding 170kts? Was it a STAR with vectors? Even with a closed STAR programmed into our FMS, and manually punching in 170kts at the FAF, there can still be a minute or two of variance due to groundspeed. On vectors, all bets are off. So he was probably sweating it between the rock and the hard place..."do I take the expense and delay of a go-around to avoid a curfew fine? Or do I slow down and risk a violation for disobeying a clearance?"

Not trying to absolve the pilot of responsibility, it was all his. But there is only so much precision in an estimate for landing, especially going into YYZ where the traffic volumes mean you're never quite sure what you're going to get. He should have informed you that he had a 6:30 curfew and was early - but he was probably assuming that YYZ terminal would know this and sequence him accordingly. And of course he should have informed you unable to maintain 170 but you said yourself it was busy, that may have been the very next call.

cheers,
CI

(heheh and what is that idiot doing admitting he's slowed to 135 kts?!

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:57 am

Somtimes early in the morning ACA146 from YYC gets a good push and you hear them holding at MANS for a bit to not land before 630 or 600 whatever time it is.

For 3 minutes and if he slowed to min once inside the marker then it would be close and unless you get ATC time check who's watch are you going by then to decide.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:56 pm

Curfews suck! If you buy a house near an airport, PHUQUE YOU!!! Ass kissing Liberals!

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:55 pm

MURRAY wrote:CI:

The initial post states that the current time is 06:27. The aircraft is 8 miles out assigned 170 to the FAF. Even given a no wind situation (groundspeed 170, slightly less than 3 miles a minute), there is not much chance of the aircraft touching prior to curfew, what with the usual speed reduction inside the FAF (You don't cross the fence at 170 do you?). Why slow, and why not advise if you feel you must?

Besides, nobody wants an on-frequency confrontation.

N'est-ce pas?

Your buddy,

MURRAY

Actually, our SOP isn't really to cross the FAF at 170kts either, but that's another topic. We all do it to make the system work, and that was really my main point - the timings should be a shared effort between aircrew and ATC.

So yes, let's assume it's a zero-wind situation, although being YYZ it's about 50/50 it'll be a runway with a honking tailwind cause it's just too darn hard to switch them. Assuming a ref in the neighbourhood of 120-130kts, it's going to take a good 2-4 miles inside the FAF to lose those 40-50 knots, in a Boeing anyway, can't speak to an Airbus. Assuming you stay on the descent profile, which is kind of the idea in a transport category a/c low, slow, and close to the ground, you'll be only a mile or two at the lower speed - unless you cheat. Split hairs if you want but it's gonna be close on the time. Seems prudent to me to figure this out on a longer final than at 1 mile. And unless the arrival controller told him explicitly how a long a final he could expect, there's no way to know your timing with that degree of precision until established final. Re-read my post, I never said he should have done it without advising.

That's one thing I love about Eurocontrol, they tell you on downwind exactly how many miles you have to fly to the runway. It's for noise abatement (not allowed more than 3 degree descent) but it also serves well for calculating an accurate ETA. I do appreciate the YYZ controllers who tell you what they're going to give you for a base.

Say, are you the controller we're always trying to guess the gender of by the voice?

beechy · Post by **beechy** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:08 pm

If you're told 170 to the FAF, then after that you can slow down. In fact you'd have to slow. But if he slowed before the fix then it's a problem.....As for the curfew, why would you be cleared to an approach if you were going to break it?? is this common?? Shouldn't ATC recognize that the airport is closed or is it still open but not to transports???

Blakey · Post by **Blakey** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:30 pm

The Velvet Fog wrote:He was the number 1 aircraft with no on on final ahead. Blakey, why not?

Cheers,

Mel

"Could" be, but shouldn't be. Save the infractions for severve violations where there is a clear culapability on the part of the operator. If an infraction was alledged by the controller in this case, how would you, as the adjudicating authority, respond to the pilot stating that the controller put him in this position and he was just trying to maintain safe control of the aircraft while also attempting to not violate the curfew. To whit, "when I left the transition fix, I had a plan to safely meet the curfew time, the controller buggered my plan with his late restriction and I was too busy trying to juggle all these variables to call"

I'm also pretty sure that clearance for an approach cancels any previous speed restriction but I can't seem to find the appropriate CAR.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:28 pm

Oh Murray you trickster you!

You were trying to to get me to say we're violating our SOP's by accepting a 170 to FAF restriction, weren't you?! naughty naughty.

Allow me to clarify...in the most general sense of Standard Operating Procedures, we do not generally come across the FAF at 170 knots. Perhaps you have noticed on the cool little Nintendo game in front of you sometimes how, when this restriction is not in place, a/c are usually fully configured and close to their final approach speed somewhat before, or at, the FAF. (Unless they are flying freight or medevac Lears, and then it's just a contest to see how long you can hold the highest speed until the last possible moment and still land lol.) This is not because we are terrified of flying 170 kts five miles back, it just allows the a/c to be nice and stable as it comes down the glidepath, instead of farting around with re-configuring, slowing down, running the landing checklist, and talking to tower...all on short final a few hundred feet above the ground. I'm sure you and I are alike in our pride at our multi-tasking skills, but why load things up at arguably the most critical phase of flight? Not the greatest risk management, n'est pas?

In the LEGAL sense of SOP's..yes, we can accept the restriction. Don't wet yourself in anticipation. heheh

So you don't think you could be the one we refer to as "Pat", then?!

regards,
CI

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:09 pm

Doc wrote:Curfews suck! If you buy a house near an airport, PHUQUE YOU!!! Ass kissing Liberals!

You said it Bro!!

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:22 pm

I thought that you were required to tell ATC if you deviated from your 'accepted' speed? I can't find anything written about it, and maybe that just means in cruise? Its Saturday and my brain is slowly being fried...

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:35 pm

Yes the pilot could be violated. He did not follow an ATC instruction which makes him able to be infracted. If you are told to hold 170 kts till the FAF you must hold 170 kts till the FAF. If you can't for whatever reason, SOP, curfew, or such you have to advise ATC of this, you can not just slow because you want to.
If they where unable to hold 170 for whatever reason they have to advise ATC that they can't. You can refuse an ATC instruction but you Can Not ignore and not follow one that has been given and that you did not refuse. If you do you can be violated.
If you don't like an ATC instruction just refuse to take it, you are allowed to refuse instructions, but you must advise them of your refusal.

C-FABH · Post by **C-FABH** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:43 pm

complexintentions wrote:So yes, let's assume it's a zero-wind situation, although being YYZ it's about 50/50 it'll be a runway with a honking tailwind cause it's just too darn hard to switch them.

Try telling that to the GTAA. They make sure impossible is nothing!

The Velvet Fog · Post by **The Velvet Fog** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:53 am

To answer the questions.

1. NO attempt was made to infract, and yes, the pilot was chastized lightly on the frequency.
2. It was the 24's, with light wind.
3. After speeding back up, the aircraft touched down at 632.

The reason I brought it up is that slowing down without saying something is a problem around here, especially with the stupid curfew( See future posts about GTAA's wheel of ridiculous curfew times). At 600, because of lack of traffic, we don't know the upper winds. This same scenario in IFR wx on the 05's with the usual tailwind creates a much uglier situation. Say 156 is leading(the 767), and 794 (the A320)gets tucked in 6 miles behind. 156 slows without saying anything, and drops out of the tailwind. Very quickly, 794 is now 4 miles behind with a 50 knot overtake and stuck in the wake. You know more what the potential is there than I, but I'm guessing a 30 degree uncommanded roll at 2500 feet in the clag after flying all night is no one's idea of fun.

We do what we can to help with curfew times (hopefully finding out what they are BEFORE giving a base turn) and will occassionally ask you to maintain a speed and telling you that "You will touch down at 600 no matter what your clock says" because spacing is more important to us than curfew times. Your view is a little different, unless you're the guy 3.5 miles behind the heavy.

Please tell us if you want to slow so we can make the required adjustments.

Cheers,

Mel

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:37 pm

Remember a controller getting pretty pissed at us one time. WHile we can carry high speed until short final, and often prefer to, he did not make it perfectly clear that he wanted the high speed continued (We were above initial flap extension speed and were not visual with the airport at the time).
When he realized we had slowed, he threatened to pull us out and made it clear we had inconvenience him. Funny, really, NavCanada seems unable to position planes within 25 miles of each other (for WHATEVER reason!!!!)
in the normal run of things on approches into certain airports.
I would agree this is a joint responsibility, but in this quoted case, we did not understand that the speed was to be maintained. Most controllers ask first if you can do it.

I would agree that it is a mutual responsibility, but if there was a nasty incident as a result of a plane slowing, the second-guessing investigation dialogue would be deafening.

Mike Falk · Post by **Mike Falk** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:17 am

Excellent topic here guys.

My my opinion, there are so many variables I would say that the only thing that this should warrent is a phone call, discuss it and maybe say "hey if it happens again than we may have to violate you".

We don't know if curfew was on his mind, for all we know his watch was set to 6:40.
Maybe a momentary glitch as it was early morning.

Nice to see this kept clean

Should he be infracted?

Should he be infracted?

Re: Should he be infracted?