Maintain 170knots to the outer marker

[rocketfs 2]

Sometimes ATC does funny things. I was jumpsitting to EDDF on A310. Tower gave us instruction to keep at least 180 kts till 4 DME and we barely did and then we were instructed to execute side step and continue visually on a parallel RWY. It drove nuts our captain and he was about to refuse, but check pilot said to comply with ATC instruction. Landed OK and saw that A340 landed right after us on parallel RW. Tower apologized and said he had no choice. Traffic.

It's a bit over the top, but sidestepping gave at least a tiny bit of track miles and drag because of the turns.I'd love to have that on IVAO :)Maybe ATC was corrupted -for some nice beers- by the check-pilot? :-)Bert Van BulckP.S. no choice? Tower controller forgot about go-around?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

P.S. no choice? Tower controller forgot about go-around?

Why send someone around if you can avoid it? A sidestep isn't that bad of a procedure, especially with EDDF's runways being so close together. I'm glad the check pilot told him to listen to the controller. They're there to get us where we need to go safely and efficiently. Very rarely do they do something to intentionally inconvenience anyone, but some pilots treat them like they do.

[Buzz313th 0]

Aircraft lower in altitude have right of way. If someone's cooking in and the guy ahead of them is still on the runway, it's not a runway incursion unless the tower controller or pilot allow it to be. The tower controller would tell the pilot to go around, or the pilot may initiate one on his own. I agree, though, that watching your speed and trying to fit in the flow helps everyone out, not mentioning you're not helping anyone out by pushing it.

Well right, but the Go Around would be the result of a possible runway incursion. Atc's response to this Issue would first, be to slow the aircraft down on approach and then he would lean over to the Grnd controller sitting next to him and tell him to get United 586 off the active with no delays. One of the last things ATC wants is a Missed, then they gotta wake up and resequence everyone to get him back in line...;)JB

[Buzz313th 0]

Why send someone around if you can avoid it? A sidestep isn't that bad of a procedure, especially with EDDF's runways being so close together. I'm glad the check pilot told him to listen to the controller. They're there to get us where we need to go safely and efficiently. Very rarely do they do something to intentionally inconvenience anyone, but some pilots treat them like they do.

The paralel will probably have departing or other landing flights if their busy. If not, the crew sometimes asks for a closer runway if the exit would bring them closer to the gate and save taxi time. On the LUV note, they really run their business well. Often you will find their selection of Terminal/Gate lease locations at airports very close to the often used departure or arival end of the runway, so all of their flights will have less taxi time. A few minutes saved per flight on a daily basis, means extra legs they can add into the schedule which in terms equates to more money. Also, being a non network carrier they base their operations away from most major congested airports, which means less atc/traffic delays.Sorry if I sound like a SWA ######, but I have to admit that I am. :)JB

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Well right, but the Go Around would be the result of a possible runway incursion. Atc's response to this Issue would first, be to slow the aircraft down on approach and then he would lean over to the Grnd controller sitting next to him and tell him to get United 586 off the active with no delays. One of the last things ATC wants is a Missed, then they gotta wake up and resequence everyone to get him back in line...

Like I said earlier, I understand your point. I was just refining how you put it, as the use of 'runway incursion' wasn't quite correct.The tower controller wouldn't likely need to lean over to ground if the aircraft is still on the runway, or not close to immediately exiting. Tower controls the runway and wouldn't switch the guy until he started making his way off, and that would likely be in the form of "Exit right, no delay, contact ground on point niner" in this case. Sure, some tower controllers tell the pilot to switch to ground before clearing the runway, but the general rule of thumb is that you keep the pilot on your frequency until there's nothing else you could possibly need to say to the guy.

The paralel will probably have departing or other landing flights if their busy. If not, the crew sometimes asks for a closer runway if the exit would bring them closer to the gate and save taxi time.

Right, but unless that aircraft is holding in position, a stationary aircraft (waiting to depart) is a heck of a lot easier to sequence than a moving one. Sure the crew might request a better runway, but when it's busy, it's busy, and it's better to get on the ground than burn a lot more fuel on the go around. You waste more time and fuel in the air than you would on a longer taxi.

[Buzz313th 0]

The tower controller wouldn't likely need to lean over to ground if the aircraft is still on the runway, or not close to immediately exiting. Tower controls the runway and wouldn't switch the guy until he started making his way off, and that would likely be in the form of "Exit right, no delay, contact ground on point niner" in this case. Sure, some tower controllers tell the pilot to switch to ground before clearing the runway, but the general rule of thumb is that you keep the pilot on your frequency until there's nothing else you could possibly need to say to the guy.

Your quoting a very poor attempt on my part at some very subtle humor regarding ATC's casual attitude on handoffs... :)JB

[jarhead565 30]

Well right, but the Go Around would be the result of a possible runway incursion. Atc's response to this Issue would first, be to slow the aircraft down on approach and then he would lean over to the Grnd controller sitting next to him and tell him to get United 586 off the active with no delays. One of the last things ATC wants is a Missed, then they gotta wake up and resequence everyone to get him back in line...;)JB

I both agree and disagree. It's only a runway incursion if it happens. If separation isn't compromised, then there is nothing wrong.As far as slowing once they are on towers frequency, there is little the tower controller can do to slow or speed up aircraft when on final. This should have and would have been taken care of by the approach controller as they are responsible for a/c until the a/c crosses the runway threshold. One last thing, from an approach controller standpoint, missed approaches are not always bad. Yes, resequencing a/c that go missed can be a pain sometimes, but at airports that utilize automatic releases for departing a/c, and a/c going missed cancels these automatic releases. This may not seem like a big deal, but when you are getting hammered by arriving a/c, being able to control the departures sure does help.Just my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Your quoting a very poor attempt on my part at some very subtle humor regarding ATC's casual attitude on handoffs... :)

Haha...that's not the first time I've taken someone too seriously today...sorry!

[Buzz313th 0]

Wow, writing composition was never my best subject, as a matter of fact, my most hated subject. ;) I also didn't like too much the overly anal English Composition teachers neither. I should pay more attention to my writing style or I might get torn apart here.. LOL

It's only a runway incursion if it happens. If separation isn't compromised, then there is nothing wrong.

If I change my statement to... "Well right, but the Go Around would be the result of avoiding a possible runway incursion." I think that makes more sense, doesn't it?

As far as slowing once they are on towers frequency, there is little the tower controller can do to slow or speed up aircraft when on final.

Well if Buck Rogers in his NG is too fast on the final segment, then can't Tower ask him to slow down for spacing? Unless I'm losing my mind, I always thought that the handoff to tower was around the OM/FAF?

This should have and would have been taken care of by the approach controller as they are responsible for a/c until the a/c crosses the runway threshold.

You sure? I thought Towers airspace was much larger than just the field?

One last thing, from an approach controller standpoint, missed approaches are not always bad.

No there not, but it sure throws a wrench into things and puts a few people behind schedule...JB

Haha...that's not the first time I've taken someone too seriously today...sorry!

No sweat...And no sorry needed, your just very passionate and thourough about Flight Simming.. Thats cool...:)JB Edited January 6, 2012 by Buzz313th

[ccarter06 3]

The OM is often used as cross-reference for an ILS approach and has absolutely nothing to do with the Final Approach Fix.The FAF is always much further from threshold than the Outer Marker.Bert Van BulckP.S.: ICAO defines that for each ILS approach there should be an independant cross-reference. Often that is an Outer Marker. A DME station/equipment is the alternative.

A LOM is a Locator at the Outer Marker. They are beginning to be decommisioned in the states, but you will still find ILS approaches (and LOC, BC, etc in some cases) with an NDB located at the FAF. Marker Beacons are also starting to be decommisioned. These are all methods, along with others, for determining the FAF in an approach. The slang "at the marker," "over the marker," etc typically refer to a 5nm final. It can refer to other things as well.

Right on! I have never seen it in my 10 years ATC experience that any of us issued 250 kts at any point on final. This won't help neither controller no pilot(s). Overachieving not always helpful. I have asked controllers in Atlanta today about 250 kts over marker, they were unable to recall it.

I believe I said they'd stopped using it as much. The last time I heard "250 to the marker" into ATL was over a year ago. No doubt that if you have friends in ATL A80, you probably know that they have a LOT of new people. It was prodominitely given to CRJ-200's, and in the 200 it is VERY easy to do if you are staying ahead of the aircraft. It's also fun. :-) But yes, it has been given by ATC. Anyone can say "no way, never" all they want. We did it. It has happened. Move on. As for the 737 NGX, and the best speed you can do to a 5nm final.... I'll play with it later. I just finished up a "Around the World" tour, so I'm ready to stop simming for a little while.

[Buzz313th 0]

Outer Marker = Beep Beep Beep, _ _ _ Usually indicates FAF on an ILS or just past it.Middle marker = Beep Be Beep Be Beep _ . _ . _ . Usually indicates position on the ILS where you would be at DH or 200 ft on a typical ILSInner Marker = Be Be Be Be Be Be . . . . . . . Indicates threshold position on a typical ILS CAT II Or IIINot sure why they are getting rid of the marker beacons, they are a great way to identify a fix. I can only guess it's a cost for maintenance thing, the fact that almost every ILS now has DME and with current Nav systems, you don't need to rely on ground based Nav equip as much.JB

Edited January 6, 2012 by Buzz313th

[jarhead565 30]

Wow, writing composition was never my best subject, as a matter of fact, my most hated subject. ;) I also didn't like too much the overly anal English Composition teachers neither. I should pay more attention to my writing style or I might get torn apart here.. LOLIf I change my statement to... "Well right, but the Go Around would be the result of avoiding a possible runway incursion." I think that makes more sense, doesn't it?Well if Buck Rogers in his NG is too fast on the final segment, then can't Tower ask him to slow down for spacing? Unless I'm losing my mind, I always thought that the handoff to tower was around the OM/FAF?You sure? I thought Towers airspace was much larger than just the field?No there not, but it sure throws a wrench into things and puts a few people behind schedule...JBNo sweat...And no sorry needed, your just very passionate and thourough about Flight Simming.. Thats cool...:)JB

I'll try to reply to all without making to much of a mess.If you word it like that, then yes, it does make perfect sense. Tower can only tell an aircraft to maintain maximum forward speed, or slowest practical speed. I can't think of the correct phraseology right now. When approach hands off an a/c to tower, approach is still responsible for separation if they are doing an ILS approach until the a/c crosses the runway threshold. I'm assuming this is because most towers do not have certified radar displays in the cab. The handoff point is usually agreed upon by the tower and it's approach control. In most cases, it is when they are established and before the OM.The towers airspace is more than just the field, granted it comes in different shapes and sizes depending on what airport you are at. True about the missed approaches. But hey, they happen!Hope this helps! If I left anything out, it is because I didn't know the answer. I don't want to feed you guys any BS!

[PIC007 82]

As far as slowing once they are on towers frequency, there is little the tower controller can do to slow or speed up aircraft when on final. This should have and would have been taken care of by the approach controller as they are responsible for a/c until the a/c crosses the runway threshold. Not sure where this came from....once you are switched to the tower freq, they are the responsible controller, and that is usually well before the FAF

[ccarter06 3]

As far as slowing once they are on towers frequency, there is little the tower controller can do to slow or speed up aircraft when on final. This should have and would have been taken care of by the approach controller as they are responsible for a/c until the a/c crosses the runway threshold. Not sure where this came from....once you are switched to the tower freq, they are the responsible controller, and that is usually well before the FAF

My ONLY controlling experience is working Clearance, Ground, and Tower on VATSIM for KATL. There is a letter of agreement between approach and tower. In that LOA tower is basically restricted from changing an arriving aircraft's speed. The actual restriction is that tower can't change the speed until after the FAF, but at that point the plane is already (and needs to be) slowing to final approach speed.

[PIC007 82]

My ONLY controlling experience is working Clearance, Ground, and Tower on VATSIM for KATL. There is a letter of agreement between approach and tower. In that LOA tower is basically restricted from changing an arriving aircraft's speed. The actual restriction is that tower can't change the speed until after the FAF, but at that point the plane is already (and needs to be) slowing to final approach speed.

Thats probably a strickly Vatsim arrangement, I know in 40 years of flying I have been asked numerous times to increase/decrease speed for spacing and traffic by a tower controller, and normally I am swtiched to the tower well before the FAF.