A question from YZ ATC. When flying the STAR, it seems that no matter what you're told about length of final, between 6 and 4000 feet the descent rate drops to 500 fpm and sometimes even less. Assuming that you're slowing down, I ask why? Isn't it easier to go down, then slow down?
From our perspective, we have all been taught that you never ask for two things at the same time because it doesn't work for the aircraft, hence the phrase maintain 4000 then slow to 190. If you decide to slow down at an intermittent point, you are now being run over from behind. It will also lead to you turning base well above the glidepath because if you're getting a 10 mile final, the expectation is that you want to hurry down to get below the glideslope. When filling a 6 or 7 mile hole, there is very little leeway for the base turn. If you hang it up, you're going in high.
Any insight from your view gratefully appreciated.
Regards,
Mel
Flight profiles
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
The Velvet Fog
- Rank 2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: YYZ
-
stevewilson
- Rank 2
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:02 am
Knowing the length of the final turn helps us with our planning. We are watching the relationship to the slope and slowing the rate of descent makes for an earlier intercept without levelling off and cycling the power back up and then back off when the g/s is intercepted. The goal is a constant descent and ideally an imperceptible pitch change when the electronic g/s is captured. If you are already level then the autopilot makes a more aggressive nose down capture that you can really feel in row 20...
Hope that answers it.
Hope that answers it.
Hi VF,
My view; the FMS in VNAV for the 737NG is designed to slow down and go down at the same time. When turning at ERBUS and in VNAV it does slow to about 500 feet per minute, sometimes less when heavy. The FMS is looking at the STAR and the DTW of 200 knots. Many will switch out of VNAV becuase of this and it's not a game of chicken and to dial up speed but depending on circumstance that 200 knot DTW is an issue as slowing from 250 to 200 will take about 6 miles in level flight. That figure is in our manual.
I've also seen the bad habbit when the phrase, of 'then' isn't in the clearance but I know you need it. I do see some of my comrads dial in 200 knots while losing 2000 feet at the same time. That's frustrating but more rare then the other example.
My view; the FMS in VNAV for the 737NG is designed to slow down and go down at the same time. When turning at ERBUS and in VNAV it does slow to about 500 feet per minute, sometimes less when heavy. The FMS is looking at the STAR and the DTW of 200 knots. Many will switch out of VNAV becuase of this and it's not a game of chicken and to dial up speed but depending on circumstance that 200 knot DTW is an issue as slowing from 250 to 200 will take about 6 miles in level flight. That figure is in our manual.
I've also seen the bad habbit when the phrase, of 'then' isn't in the clearance but I know you need it. I do see some of my comrads dial in 200 knots while losing 2000 feet at the same time. That's frustrating but more rare then the other example.
I've seen the same thing numerous times, and even when you guys say 'then slow' I still have to remind guys not to slow til they reach the specified altitude.WJ700 wrote:I've also seen the bad habbit when the phrase, of 'then' isn't in the clearance but I know you need it. I do see some of my comrads dial in 200 knots while losing 2000 feet at the same time. That's frustrating but more rare then the other example.
This is definitely a good place to get the word out about it. If it's a huge deal, get your boss to call my boss and we'll get a memo...
-
The Velvet Fog
- Rank 2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: YYZ
One other thing to keep in mind is that unless you're on a visual, on parallel approaches we have to intercept the localizers with 1000 feet vertically. If you're on the low side(typically 06L/R, 24 R/L) we need you down below the glideslope and level before we can turn your base or else you'll conflict with traffic on the other side. This is where the VNAV's plan will fail, and you may end up on a much longer downwind, because we can't legally turn you base.
My apologies to the people in row 20, but passenger comfort can't be the key issue in the first or last 30 miles of a flight. Not if the airport is to be efficient, anyway. We're typically looking for decsent rates of 1500-2000 fpm unless the final is quite long(outside 15 miles). We try to get you down, then slow you down to fit you in in a stable a manner as possible. Perhaps the problem is that VNAV doesn't plan for other traffic.
Cheers,
Mel
My apologies to the people in row 20, but passenger comfort can't be the key issue in the first or last 30 miles of a flight. Not if the airport is to be efficient, anyway. We're typically looking for decsent rates of 1500-2000 fpm unless the final is quite long(outside 15 miles). We try to get you down, then slow you down to fit you in in a stable a manner as possible. Perhaps the problem is that VNAV doesn't plan for other traffic.
Cheers,
Mel
I find that YYZ is a harder airport to guess as well. WestJet flies everyday in to LAX,FLL, PHX, ect, ect and quite often its a slam dunk. We fly at 8000 feet until just about abeam the beacon and get slam dunked on a regular basis with total success. As pilots we're almost looking forward to the reason to do it for fun factor. We'll be diving at Flap 10 gear up, 190 knots, and intercepting above and inside the beacon. So its not to say the aircraft can't do it, but something gets lost at YYZ. Perhaps you guys are just too nice about. In a screw up down south, we know the penalty box will take you to the low fuel non normal checklist for being a bad guy so you'd better get it right the first time. I've heard in LGA when they are too busy sorting out a mess they don't even offer the offending aircraft a vector to the alternate since they just don't have time.
The phone call to flight ops is welcome. They do inform us with memo's and suggested techniques.
The phone call to flight ops is welcome. They do inform us with memo's and suggested techniques.
-
Rotten Apple #1
- Rank 8
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 am
Another aspect of VNAV profiles...with a "hard" altitude of 9000 ft at FLINE (MANS arrival), and the next constraint of AT OR ABOVE 3000 ft at HERKI/ITROX, the profile on most of our machines will be a simple straight line calculation.
i.e. If it plans roughly to be 4000 ft or so at HERKI/ITROX, it will have to descend 5000 ft in 30 miles (track miles btwn FLINE and HERKI/ITROX). A normal "3 in 1" profile (idle thrust) would be a descent of 5000 ft in 15 miles (considerably shorter), plus allowance for speed reduction from 250 to 200 knots.
The gist: if you let VNAV do it's thing, it would descend leisurely at roughly 700 fpm or so after passing FLINE (with power ON I might add), and then approaching HERKI/ITROX, a deceleration segment.
Some of the software editions, will calculate a level segment, and then an idle thrust descent, but not all.
There is a way to reprogram a new cruise altitude after FLINE of let's say 9000 ft, to force it to recalculate a new Top of Descent point, but most EFIS aircraft operators would advise against heads down programming below 10000 ft.
The better approach, IMHO, is to go tactical, ie. using direct MCP (Mode Control Panel) functions (Vertical Speed, Level Change/Open Descent for Bus drivers) and follow ATC instructions.
i.e. If it plans roughly to be 4000 ft or so at HERKI/ITROX, it will have to descend 5000 ft in 30 miles (track miles btwn FLINE and HERKI/ITROX). A normal "3 in 1" profile (idle thrust) would be a descent of 5000 ft in 15 miles (considerably shorter), plus allowance for speed reduction from 250 to 200 knots.
The gist: if you let VNAV do it's thing, it would descend leisurely at roughly 700 fpm or so after passing FLINE (with power ON I might add), and then approaching HERKI/ITROX, a deceleration segment.
Some of the software editions, will calculate a level segment, and then an idle thrust descent, but not all.
There is a way to reprogram a new cruise altitude after FLINE of let's say 9000 ft, to force it to recalculate a new Top of Descent point, but most EFIS aircraft operators would advise against heads down programming below 10000 ft.
The better approach, IMHO, is to go tactical, ie. using direct MCP (Mode Control Panel) functions (Vertical Speed, Level Change/Open Descent for Bus drivers) and follow ATC instructions.
-
The Velvet Fog
- Rank 2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: YYZ
WJ
How often is it IFR in those places, or are they asking you to the call the field. YYZ seems to be very hard to see, probably mostly due to the haze. Om more occasions then I can count, I've told crews to expect an 8 mile final on a visual, and still get the same 500 fpm rate that puts you over HERKI at 5500 and still looking for the field. I can't turn you in hoping, because I'd rather drag you downwind and land the first try then join at 8 final, stuck at 4000 for traffic and you still can't see us. You'll also find that most in YYZ won't let you do your own turn to final on a visual because consistently WJA run right up to the loc before turning. It's a very discomforting view on radar, and giving the turn alleviates the risk of running through the loc and sharing paint with the guy on the other side. I love the slam dunk; it just seems to be harder to get done.
As for the penalty box, I'd like to see it used for those who dawdle on and off the runway causing needless overshoots, but that's another post.
Cheers,
Mel
How often is it IFR in those places, or are they asking you to the call the field. YYZ seems to be very hard to see, probably mostly due to the haze. Om more occasions then I can count, I've told crews to expect an 8 mile final on a visual, and still get the same 500 fpm rate that puts you over HERKI at 5500 and still looking for the field. I can't turn you in hoping, because I'd rather drag you downwind and land the first try then join at 8 final, stuck at 4000 for traffic and you still can't see us. You'll also find that most in YYZ won't let you do your own turn to final on a visual because consistently WJA run right up to the loc before turning. It's a very discomforting view on radar, and giving the turn alleviates the risk of running through the loc and sharing paint with the guy on the other side. I love the slam dunk; it just seems to be harder to get done.
As for the penalty box, I'd like to see it used for those who dawdle on and off the runway causing needless overshoots, but that's another post.
Cheers,
Mel
[quote="The Velvet Fog"]WJ
How often is it IFR in those places, or are they asking you to the call the field. YYZ seems to be very hard to see, probably mostly due to the haze. Om more occasions then I can count, I've told crews to expect an 8 mile final on a visual, and still get the same 500 fpm rate that puts you over HERKI at 5500 and still looking for the field. I can't turn you in hoping, because I'd rather drag you downwind and land the first try then join at 8 final, stuck at 4000 for traffic and you still can't see us. You'll also find that most in YYZ won't let you do your own turn to final on a visual because consistently WJA run right up to the loc before turning. It's a very discomforting view on radar, and giving the turn alleviates the risk of running through the loc and sharing paint with the guy on the other side. I love the slam dunk; it just seems to be harder to get done.
As for the penalty box, I'd like to see it used for those who dawdle on and off the runway causing needless overshoots, but that's another post.
Yikes, don't shoot the messanger. I can safely say I've never had an issue with YYZ in any approach. As I said in another post, many are learning and some may still have bad habits. I can't speak for everyone.
As for the tight turn to final. That's a function of LNAV. LNAV may cause you discomfort but it's much more reliable than a loc capture and much safer to intercept at paralell runways in the event a LOC is mistuned. As for the IFR factor, yes, PHX was IFR 5 out of 12 trips I've done in the last month. It was still the same vectoring. Before you throw "YYZ has more traffic" me, I'm sure it does. However PHX does tell you to be 190 knots on the downwind in the Maire 1 arrival and 8000 feet. There isn't an option to be abeam the numbers at 220 knots as the decelleration to Herki does on the Mans.
How often is it IFR in those places, or are they asking you to the call the field. YYZ seems to be very hard to see, probably mostly due to the haze. Om more occasions then I can count, I've told crews to expect an 8 mile final on a visual, and still get the same 500 fpm rate that puts you over HERKI at 5500 and still looking for the field. I can't turn you in hoping, because I'd rather drag you downwind and land the first try then join at 8 final, stuck at 4000 for traffic and you still can't see us. You'll also find that most in YYZ won't let you do your own turn to final on a visual because consistently WJA run right up to the loc before turning. It's a very discomforting view on radar, and giving the turn alleviates the risk of running through the loc and sharing paint with the guy on the other side. I love the slam dunk; it just seems to be harder to get done.
As for the penalty box, I'd like to see it used for those who dawdle on and off the runway causing needless overshoots, but that's another post.
Yikes, don't shoot the messanger. I can safely say I've never had an issue with YYZ in any approach. As I said in another post, many are learning and some may still have bad habits. I can't speak for everyone.
As for the tight turn to final. That's a function of LNAV. LNAV may cause you discomfort but it's much more reliable than a loc capture and much safer to intercept at paralell runways in the event a LOC is mistuned. As for the IFR factor, yes, PHX was IFR 5 out of 12 trips I've done in the last month. It was still the same vectoring. Before you throw "YYZ has more traffic" me, I'm sure it does. However PHX does tell you to be 190 knots on the downwind in the Maire 1 arrival and 8000 feet. There isn't an option to be abeam the numbers at 220 knots as the decelleration to Herki does on the Mans.
-
The Velvet Fog
- Rank 2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: YYZ
No shooting involved.
1. I believe PHX is actually busier then we are by quite a bit. Do they land one depart the other? The depart in arrival holes system that we use makes the slam dunk a lot more difficult when it's busy.
2. I understand what you're saying about the LNAV, but when you're a mile north of the loc, grounding out at 270, and looking at an A330 on 24R, I'm going to lead your turn in. YZ's winds are usually fairly bizarre and it's too much paperwork if somone goes through.
3. Is it effiecient to be at 190 knots abeam the field at 8000 feet? No really, I'm serious. I would have thought that most aircraft would have at least some flap out. I tend to use minimum clean/210 turning downwind as often as possible, and prefer not to slow you down to 190 until base leg when you're getting a 15 mile final.
Regards,
Mel
1. I believe PHX is actually busier then we are by quite a bit. Do they land one depart the other? The depart in arrival holes system that we use makes the slam dunk a lot more difficult when it's busy.
2. I understand what you're saying about the LNAV, but when you're a mile north of the loc, grounding out at 270, and looking at an A330 on 24R, I'm going to lead your turn in. YZ's winds are usually fairly bizarre and it's too much paperwork if somone goes through.
3. Is it effiecient to be at 190 knots abeam the field at 8000 feet? No really, I'm serious. I would have thought that most aircraft would have at least some flap out. I tend to use minimum clean/210 turning downwind as often as possible, and prefer not to slow you down to 190 until base leg when you're getting a 15 mile final.
Regards,
Mel
I really don't want to compare YYZ to US airports since you have different examples. I even heard one US Controller saying he had avoided paperwork for 30 years and wasn't about to start one week from retirment. It's different rules down south. To answer your question. Many US airport do slow you to below 200 and thus require flap. They also start you down hill at the same time so you are at idle. However, I don't think they care about where flap might go out since they do end up putting so many aircraft close together. SEA for example has you lined up on the LOC at about 140 knots and stacked on top of each other for 15 miles. As for PHX, they land 26, with some departures, Depart most, but land some 25R and lots of landers on 25. North landers take the north runway and I know that we will be about 180 knots, gear down flap 10 or 15 while and the LNAV turn isn't available sicne the last vector is inside 4 miles and there will be one aircraft touching down as one is clearing the hisghspeed. If its IFR then it will be a 6 mile final. You'll have the same going on for 25L and R beside you.
Anyway, I find that YYZ has many variables as to where the aircraft speed can be, therfore leaving options to what decsent speed will be. I'm not trying to make excuses but keep in mind that there is a lot of training going on and many Line Indoc Captain's will let ATC bark at the trainee so they only make the same mistake once. For me I hustle down and get as low as possible, 'Tacticle' as Johnny D puts it. It doesn't make a dollar's worth of difference for the 737NG when the thrust is up or down or flap is in or out... it's very efficient. I was in YUL last summer getting vectored around TS at 6000 Feet for 40 minutes, we still beat the flight planned fuel. However, I do appreciate when ATC thinks about costs for airlines.
On another note, WestJet's 737's have lots of bells and whistles but are limited on below looking TCAS so quite often you have to rely on ATC to tell you the final and who you may be behind.
Interesting thread. I wish I could speak for others but I haven't had issues with YYZ ATC ever, and maybe because I've read Murray's posts for years
I've always thought it would be good if Airlines and NavCanada could share costs and have arrival controllers visit intial and recurrent groundschools. It would close a huge comminication gap since not everyone reads these forums.
Anyway, I find that YYZ has many variables as to where the aircraft speed can be, therfore leaving options to what decsent speed will be. I'm not trying to make excuses but keep in mind that there is a lot of training going on and many Line Indoc Captain's will let ATC bark at the trainee so they only make the same mistake once. For me I hustle down and get as low as possible, 'Tacticle' as Johnny D puts it. It doesn't make a dollar's worth of difference for the 737NG when the thrust is up or down or flap is in or out... it's very efficient. I was in YUL last summer getting vectored around TS at 6000 Feet for 40 minutes, we still beat the flight planned fuel. However, I do appreciate when ATC thinks about costs for airlines.
On another note, WestJet's 737's have lots of bells and whistles but are limited on below looking TCAS so quite often you have to rely on ATC to tell you the final and who you may be behind.
Interesting thread. I wish I could speak for others but I haven't had issues with YYZ ATC ever, and maybe because I've read Murray's posts for years
I've always thought it would be good if Airlines and NavCanada could share costs and have arrival controllers visit intial and recurrent groundschools. It would close a huge comminication gap since not everyone reads these forums.
-
invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
How about re-opening those cockpit doors to controllers again for FAM flights?
Controllers have a higher security clearence than air crews, and considering the power a controller has behind the mic, I really don't see the problem letting controllers on for FAM flights.
I flew jump last march through an arrangement, and I can tell you in the two legs I flew on, 2 hours on one, 1 hour on the next I learned a LOT about how you guys operate.
Not to mention how a 6'3 tall guy knees don't really fit well with the radio stack.... I think I had creases in my kneecaps for a week.
Controllers have a higher security clearence than air crews, and considering the power a controller has behind the mic, I really don't see the problem letting controllers on for FAM flights.
I flew jump last march through an arrangement, and I can tell you in the two legs I flew on, 2 hours on one, 1 hour on the next I learned a LOT about how you guys operate.
Not to mention how a 6'3 tall guy knees don't really fit well with the radio stack.... I think I had creases in my kneecaps for a week.
-
The Velvet Fog
- Rank 2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: YYZ
Well every morning we get a small sheet showing what the aircraft is dong for the day and what loads are involved. It also says if there is a jumpseat request. Twice in the past month I've seen "J/S request for NavCanada Contrlr Mr. XX XXXX"The Velvet Fog wrote:The debate about the cockpit is still underway. It will require intervention from the minister of transport. Probably happen in about 10 years.
Cheers
Mel
So I assume some ATC are finding a way.
-
invertedattitude
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 pm
'doing' as in 'how you doooooing'-
sportingrifle
- Rank 6
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am
Velvet Fog and WJ700...
I don't meen to hijack the thread but the slam dunk approach comments bring up an interesting issue. Recently, AC started looking at our narrow body Airbus flight data and we saw a significant number of flap overspeeds, most of them slight. Closer examination showed that they predominantly occurred during a missed approach following a discontinued slam dunk approach. In other words, guys were diving for the glideslope at a speed close to the flap limiting speeds, unable to capture it in time, and overspeeding the flaps as they added power to initiate a go around.
The vast majority of these occurances happened at 5 US airports where a certain very efficient 737 operator had a major presence. Discussions with the TRACON supervisors showed that the aircraft were not supposed to be vectored in this manner but the controllers were probably relying on slam dunks to move traffic. In other words, a certain airlines pilots had probably unknowingly trained the controllers to maximize efficiency for their own airlines operation. Unfortunately, the 737 seems better at descending than the 'Bus.
We have now revised our training and procedures for dealing with this type of approach, and the controllers in question have a better understanding of the different aircraft types abilities. Additionally it is worth noting that not all pilots have the same "comfort level" with an aircraft's performance capabilies, especially if they are newly transitioned on the type.
I don't meen to hijack the thread but the slam dunk approach comments bring up an interesting issue. Recently, AC started looking at our narrow body Airbus flight data and we saw a significant number of flap overspeeds, most of them slight. Closer examination showed that they predominantly occurred during a missed approach following a discontinued slam dunk approach. In other words, guys were diving for the glideslope at a speed close to the flap limiting speeds, unable to capture it in time, and overspeeding the flaps as they added power to initiate a go around.
The vast majority of these occurances happened at 5 US airports where a certain very efficient 737 operator had a major presence. Discussions with the TRACON supervisors showed that the aircraft were not supposed to be vectored in this manner but the controllers were probably relying on slam dunks to move traffic. In other words, a certain airlines pilots had probably unknowingly trained the controllers to maximize efficiency for their own airlines operation. Unfortunately, the 737 seems better at descending than the 'Bus.
We have now revised our training and procedures for dealing with this type of approach, and the controllers in question have a better understanding of the different aircraft types abilities. Additionally it is worth noting that not all pilots have the same "comfort level" with an aircraft's performance capabilies, especially if they are newly transitioned on the type.
Great post and don't worry about a highjack. Southwest also has very different procedures than WestJet and can even do flap 15 landings at certain airports. The FDM (FOQA for AC?) is monitored closely at WestJet and our mutual safety departments do talk frequently between WS and AC. There is a lot of training and information coming at WestJet Pilots all the time in the sense of slamdunks/high energy arrivals leading to low energy approaches. We also have FDM comments on our flightplans to show where we have higher rates or trends of unstable approaches with suggested configurations. Personally, I think Velvet Fog may be seeing the bi-product of something you suggest, experienced pilots on type in one WestJet flight, followed by a green pilot, fresh off line indoc who is not quite ready to slam dunk but not quite ready to know when to decline the offer.
As well, I've found that trying to "slam dunk" a '57 doesn't work either...the airplane just doesn't go down and slow down like I've heard the '37 can do...ran into this problem a few times in the Hawaiian Islands as some of the airports were used to how the guys were driving the 717's..we just can't bank and turn as well as those aircraft...needed to let the controllers know to give us a little more room to work..sportingrifle wrote:Velvet Fog and WJ700...
I don't meen to hijack the thread but the slam dunk approach comments bring up an interesting issue. Recently, AC started looking at our narrow body Airbus flight data and we saw a significant number of flap overspeeds, most of them slight. Closer examination showed that they predominantly occurred during a missed approach following a discontinued slam dunk approach. In other words, guys were diving for the glideslope at a speed close to the flap limiting speeds, unable to capture it in time, and overspeeding the flaps as they added power to initiate a go around.
The vast majority of these occurances happened at 5 US airports where a certain very efficient 737 operator had a major presence. Discussions with the TRACON supervisors showed that the aircraft were not supposed to be vectored in this manner but the controllers were probably relying on slam dunks to move traffic. In other words, a certain airlines pilots had probably unknowingly trained the controllers to maximize efficiency for their own airlines operation. Unfortunately, the 737 seems better at descending than the 'Bus.
We have now revised our training and procedures for dealing with this type of approach, and the controllers in question have a better understanding of the different aircraft types abilities. Additionally it is worth noting that not all pilots have the same "comfort level" with an aircraft's performance capabilies, especially if they are newly transitioned on the type.
-
The Velvet Fog
- Rank 2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: YYZ
Crew preference on visuals.
Further 7500.
At YYZ ( since I can only speak for it), do you prefer to be vectored onto final on a visual in the same manner that you would for an ILS, ( i.e. turn left 270, intercept, cleared visual 24L) or would you rather do it yourself.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to what the crews want. We can gain a great deal of efficiency using visuals, ( discontinue vertical which keeps everyone closer to the glideslope)so we appreciate the call with the field, but we also usually need to control somewhat what you do on that visual approach.
It seems to be a hard airport to see despite its size...maybe it's our "lovely" air quality that helps so much. Perhaps a poll is in order.
So, which do you prefer?
Regards,
Mel
At YYZ ( since I can only speak for it), do you prefer to be vectored onto final on a visual in the same manner that you would for an ILS, ( i.e. turn left 270, intercept, cleared visual 24L) or would you rather do it yourself.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to what the crews want. We can gain a great deal of efficiency using visuals, ( discontinue vertical which keeps everyone closer to the glideslope)so we appreciate the call with the field, but we also usually need to control somewhat what you do on that visual approach.
It seems to be a hard airport to see despite its size...maybe it's our "lovely" air quality that helps so much. Perhaps a poll is in order.
So, which do you prefer?
Regards,
Mel
Re: Crew preference on visuals.
I enjoy a tight visual approach but many don't, or are just not comfortable with their personal experience level. A lot of WestJet's Route Qualification's are published after speaking to various ATC units. They all say 'If not comfortable being vectored to the standard XX miles and XX feet, for XX runway in visual conditions, then advise final controller ASAP and you will be vectored out'.The Velvet Fog wrote:Further 7500.
At YYZ ( since I can only speak for it), do you prefer to be vectored onto final on a visual in the same manner that you would for an ILS, ( i.e. turn left 270, intercept, cleared visual 24L) or would you rather do it yourself.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to what the crews want. We can gain a great deal of efficiency using visuals, ( discontinue vertical which keeps everyone closer to the glideslope)so we appreciate the call with the field, but we also usually need to control somewhat what you do on that visual approach.
It seems to be a hard airport to see despite its size...maybe it's our "lovely" air quality that helps so much. Perhaps a poll is in order.
So, which do you prefer?
Regards,
Mel
For flying the visual myself, I think that many at WestJet will select LNAV on the final turn with paralell runways to back up the LOC capture. Problem is the LNAV turns to final can look a little alarming as you state, sounds like that's an issue.
A poll would work but what about Joe New at WestJet/AC/Harmony/SSV that doesn't want it for the first six months. Perhaps there should be a notice on the ATIS to advise the final controller on cantact if unable certain visual perameters and hope that pride and ego won't overcome.
-
The Velvet Fog
- Rank 2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: YYZ
I don't expect a visual inside of 8 miles final so that the glideslope is reasonably close. At YYZ, a lot of people have a hard time seeing us, so we generally don't expect you to do the visual. When you can, it helps us out a lot, but we can still put you on the loc within the same parameters as you'd get on an ILS.
Poll to follow.
Cheers,
Mel
Poll to follow.
Cheers,
Mel
Due my experiences in YYZ, I've stopped calling the airport visual since I've rarely received a visual approach in return from the guys. Add in a busy frequency, and I don't want to tie it up with an 'in sight' transmission that will fall on probable deaf ears. But hey, if you're saying it really does happen, I'll definitely try for it more often.
I have question for ya Mel.
Taking off of 24R, heading for Ottawa , Montreal...points East. What sort of procedure do you like to see on departure. I see some people climb at 200 knots (or flaps up speed) till a turn in the direction of the destination, so were not going fast in the wrong direction. I have also seen guys VNAV it to 250kts going the wrong way becasue they say thats what ATC is looking for.
I am wondering what, if anything, you guys/gals would prefer from us pilots. Thank you.
Taking off of 24R, heading for Ottawa , Montreal...points East. What sort of procedure do you like to see on departure. I see some people climb at 200 knots (or flaps up speed) till a turn in the direction of the destination, so were not going fast in the wrong direction. I have also seen guys VNAV it to 250kts going the wrong way becasue they say thats what ATC is looking for.
I am wondering what, if anything, you guys/gals would prefer from us pilots. Thank you.
