Exceeding 250kts below 10000

[pilot370]

Can a controller tell you to delete the 250kt limit below 10000 feet? For example: go fast to beat in a thunder storm approaching the airport? And if you do should a NASA form be filled out anyway?
I heard this is in testing phase in the Houston area.

Thanks

 

[bigD]

Check out this thread

 

[pilot370]

Doh!!
Next time I'll use that fancy searchin thang dang nabbit!
Thanks

 

[Cliff]

The only reg-so to speak- a controller can make you deviate from is cloud clearance limits in class B airspace ie. less then 2 mile horz etc.... They can say go faster but the limit is 250 below 10k...

 

[learjetguy]

speed your descretion

Not sure if it is "legal" but I know of pilots(not me) that have asked the controller "can we keep the speed up below ten?" and the controllers usually respond "speed your descretion". The implication of course is that you intend to exceed the 250 limit.

Learguy

 

[avbug]

The implication is NOT that you intend to, nor may you, exceed the 250 knot limit. The controller does not have authority to waive that restriction. When advised speed your discretion, you are authorized speed at your discretion up to 250 knots. That is all that is implied; no more.

Why would one push the speed to "beat a thunderstorm." That sounds blatently stupid, to me. Either hold, or divert. Don't push thunderstorms, or try to squeak in around one. Simply put, that's idiotic.

 

[Eagleflip]

And climbing out at 100 fpm in a heavy tanker is not idiotic?


Sorry Bug...couldn't resist.

 

[pilotyip]

Houston?

Is not there a program at IAH where they are testing out hihger speeds in Class B airspace and the controller can ask for 300 KTS. Doesn't everyone go 255 or 260 some times?

 

[avbug]

Yes, that program is in place. I may be mistaken, but I believe that currently it's the only such test program in the continental US. (How long do they need to test it??).

Doesn't everyone go 255 or 260 some times

I would never knowingly violate a regulation .

And climbing out at 100 fpm in a heavy tanker is not idiotic?

It's okay, as long as you're getting paid for it .

 

[learjetguy]

Idiotic?

Av, maybe I should elaborate just a little. The situations I was refering to were that of air ambulance pilots trying to get critical patients back to the U.S. ASAP. These particular pilots would exceed 250 because they had a doctor on board saying "go go go!!". It was never about racing thunderstorms.

Learguy

 

[501261]

Re: Idiotic?

Av, maybe I should elaborate just a little. The situations I was refering to were that of air ambulance pilots trying to get critical patients back to the U.S. ASAP. These particular pilots would exceed 250 because they had a doctor on board saying "go go go!!". It was never about racing thunderstorms.

Learguy

In this case you should, and have every right to declare an emergency (91.3B) so that you "meet the emergency" by exceeding 91.117a.

According to the FAR's the only way you can knowinly violate an FAR is by declaring an emergency.

Being a Lifeguard or having a doctor scream at you by itself gives you no right to violate any of the FAR's (BTW- Drs. screaming at you mean that they screwed up and want to blame someone else, in this case the Dr. probably shouldn’t have transported the unstable patient).

Now having been in the situation you have described a number of times I can tell why the emergency is not declared.

First and foremost the medics are not supposed to put someone onboard unless they are stable enough to transport. The patient will almost always be better off in a 3rd world hospital, than at FL410.

Secondly, a lot of times the controller doesn't really care how fast you are going. He's clearing you direct, and wants you out of his airspace. So the only guy that can violate you will likely turn a blind eye to your speed readout.

So why declare an emergency when no one cares how fast you are flying? It’s called CYA! How do you know that there isn't a supervisor watching the controller? Or that the controller isn't taking a "proficiency" test that is being recorded. If you have a near miss or something that sets off an alarm bell you can bet your a$$ that the radar track with your apparent speed on it will be recorded. And that radar track will be sent down to the FSDO and the FSDO will send you a nice Certified Letter. Your only out is to have declared an emergency.

 

[learjetguy]

I stand corrected.

 

[Vector4fun]

I know I couldn't find it now, but I distinctly remember a written briefing item about ten years ago that stated in no uncertain terms that contollers have no legal authority to waive the 250 kt limit below 10k. I specifically remember, because *I used to do it once in a while!*

This of course does not apply at IAH where a legal waiver exists.


Now, I've never seen a "speed trap" set up for pilots before; (err, not by the FAA anyway, the one on the highway between the airport and bar district is another story), but if you come whistling into my airspace at 330 kts gs below 10k and then start carping about your sequence or a vector to follow, you *MIGHT* just attract some unwanted attention from the guys who keep the FSDO number in their organiser........

 

[SierraPilot]

Part 1

Safety Alarms Sound On FAA Speed Test

After thousands of flights, agency has no data on safety or benefits of Houston experiment

For nearly four years, the FAA has been quietly conducting a "test" in the skies above one of the busiest airports in the U.S. in which airliners are routinely allowed to exceed the normal 250-kt. speed limit in congested terminal areas.
Houston controllers can legally offer pilots the chance to break the agency's speed limits in a unique, but little-known FAA four-year-old ongoing test.

Known as the Houston Speed Exemption Test, or Houston 250, the experiment is designed to test whether accelerating arrivals and departures at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) can cut delays. Air traffic controllers there say the pilots of hundreds of aircraft taking off accept the voluntary clearance every day, and that "99.9%" of them like it.

But an independent panel of advisors to the FAA has been warning the agency for three years that its experiment is fraught with risks--not the least of which might be increased odds of mid-air collisions or substantially greater damage from bird strikes.

The Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee, a 23-member group representing military, airline, general aviation and air traffic control organizations, is frustrated at what members believe to be the FAA's glossing over of its past concerns that safety may be taking a back seat to the capacity enhancements. Atpac told the agency in its most recent statement that it is taking "serious exception" to the continuation of the experiment.

So far, the FAA's response to the complaints of its own watchdog group has been that the airline industry has asked the agency to keep the test going--and that safety concerns will be considered in the next phase of the test program.

THE FAA STILL CONSIDERS the program to be in the feasibility stage, which is why officials say they have yet to gather any cost-benefit data that could be used to justify the benefits of the test in light of the real or perceived dangers.

While the agency did recently analyze one of Atpac's primary worries--that higher speeds make it easier for airliners to mistakenly depart the test area and clash with slower-moving traffic--the FAA admits it has not implemented safety recommendations generated by an internal study.

Regardless, FAA officials said the agency remains committed to extending the practice to other airports if a planned risk assessment at Houston proves favorable.

Atpac said more airports would already be using the procedure had the group not protested. The FAA had planned to introduce the procedure in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Francisco, Denver, San Diego, Memphis and eight other airports, but delayed the plan after Atpac raised objections in April 1998.

Meanwhile, at Intercontinental, the nation's 13th busiest airport, controllers say the test is "used frequently" and is "doing what it was designed to do."

But that's one of Atpac's basic problems with Houston 250--how can a test be doing what it's supposed to if FAA has not defined test parameters, success criteria or a cutoff date?

From all appearances, speeding up arrivals and departures at an airport to make room for more arrivals--and therefore adding capacity to the facility--seems to make a lot of sense.

At least it did in 1995 when RTCA Inc., a federal advisory panel, suggested that the FAA investigate lifting or eliminating the agency's 250-kt. speed restriction within Class B airspace around major airports. As a general rule, the FAA restricts aircraft flying below 10,000 ft. MSL to 250 kt. or less--but an RTCA recommendation is considered technically astute.

Class B zones, formerly called Terminal Control Areas, originated in 1970 as a way to keep airliners and non-airliners from mixing near airports. The structuring was partly spurred by an NTSB investigation into a fatal 1969 mid-air collision between an Allegheny Airlines DC-9 and a single-engine Piper PA-28. The Board's probable cause of the Fairland, Ind., crash listed "deficiencies of the air traffic control system in a terminal area."

Today's Class B airspace, typically shaped like an upsidedown wedding cake, is a tightly controlled zone centered over major U.S. airports. It extends 10,000 ft. vertically and out as far as 30 naut. mi. from the airport, but is individually tailored to each airport. Inside Class B, aircraft are required to have altitude-reporting transponders and be in voice and radar contact with air traffic controllers.

Just past Class B boundaries, however, aircraft are not held to those requirements and radar returns on the planes could be sketchy at best.

The FAA implemented RTCA's speed exemption at the IAH Terminal Radar Approach Control on June 26, 1997, offering pilots the option to increase speed "at their discretion" above the 250-kt. limit.

Less than a month later, Atpac was briefed on the new program--and concerns began to emerge. "The committee expressed many questions regarding the test criteria, the objectives and the conditions governing the test participants," the FAA wrote in the meeting minutes.

At an April 1998 meeting, the level of concern grew when the Mitre Corp. briefed Atpac members on an FAA-funded study of the test. The study looked at air traffic operations at the airport during two month-long windows, one before and one after the test started.

The main effect Mitre noted was that some aircraft were now exiting the side of Class B airspace prematurely at speeds greater than 250 kt., spilling out into the speed-restricted region under 10,000 ft.

It took the FAA three years to analyze the Mitre data to find out why aircraft were having difficulty staying in the test area.

The Flight Procedure Standards Branch in June 2000 issued a report with five recommendations aimed at keeping airliners within the bounds of IAH-controlled airspace, based on tests with a Boeing 727-200 simulator flying Houston-like departures at speeds of 250-310 kt.

Using 14 FAA flight crews and one Continental Airlines crew flying Houston-like departures in the simulator, investigators found that crews exited Class B airspace too fast and too low in 22 out of 55 attempts. Successful crews, according to the study, used "significantly higher power settings, reconfigured their aircraft and accelerated to their climb speed in a more expeditious manner than pilots of the unsuccessful flights."

TO PREVENT THE POP-OUTS, investigators recommended five options, including: Telling pilots "in some appropriate manner" of the need to perform the departure climb in the "most expeditious and efficient" way before clearing them for high-speed climb profiles; expanding Class B airspace with climb corridors and instructing pilots to maintain maximum take-off thrust to 3,000 ft., then to reconfigure for climb with maximum power "appropriate for atmospheric conditions" until 10,000 ft. is reached.

Despite the findings of the FAA's own internal study, regulators say the Houston test has not been modified because it remains in the preliminary, or feasibility stage. Modifications, officials say, will be made only after the test enters phase two when a risk or safety assessment is completed.

Eric Harrell, the FAA's liaison with Atpac, says the agency iscompleting a test plan and identifying a "funding stream" for the safety assessment.

It's a Catch-22 that's frustrating to Atpac as millions of passengers unwittingly take part in a "test" that some say is now considered standard procedure, but has been implemented without the required waivers and safety analyses.

Atpac's primary concern is that see-and-avoid collision tactics might not work when an airliner flying too fast mistakenly enters the realm of local traffic outside of the Class B zone, regardless of whether the pilots see the conflict arising.

But high closure speeds could also be a problem when bird strikes occur. Atpac wants to know whether airliners' windshields and airframes were designed to handle bird or waterfowl strikes at speeds higher than 250 kt.

IN JANUARY 1998, an in-service Delta Air Lines 727 departing IAH in the test struck six snow geese at 7,000 ft., severely damaging the aircraft and engines, according to FAA records.

Though no connection was made between the aircraft's speed and the collision damage, some Atpac members suspected a link. FAA officials say the proper place to study the issue is in the upcoming safety assessment.

Atpac's primary concern continues to be the specter of a collision not with a bird, but with another plane. The committee has asked the FAA to either assure that airliners using the procedure stay within protected airspace or put speed limits back in place; in other words, end the test.

The agency, however, said airlines using the procedure are happy with the results--and that safety issues would be considered in the near future.

After meeting with representatives from airlines, general aviation organizations and pilot unions last October--and getting positive feedback on Houston 250--Harrell said the FAA agreed to keep the test going and to proceed with risk assessment, though no formal announcement was made.

And based on a "favorable result of the risk assessment," he added, "it would be our plan to use this [procedure] at other airports."

Asked whether the airlines attending the meeting presented any quantitative data proving the cost-effectiveness of the added speed, Harrell replied, "No."

A Continental representative said the test is safe and helps the airline "sell a schedule" by reducing delays, but that the airline has no quantitative data proving the link. Continental has a major hub at Intercontinental with 353 daily departures.

 

[SierraPilot]

Part 2

GIVEN THE HISTORY of the program, not much is expected to change when the group meets again in April and the recommendation from the previous meeting once again comes up for discussion: "Atpac recommends that procedures eliminating the 250-kt. restriction below 10,000 ft. be discontinued pending a successful risk analysis."

Harrell's reply to that suggestion will likely stand: "The agency is taking a position not to adopt that recommendation."

 

[SierraPilot]

FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control:

5-7-2.

1. A pilot operating at or above 10,000 feet MSL on an assigned speed adjustment greater than 250 knots is expected to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117(a) when cleared below 10,000 feet MSL, within domestic airspace, without notifying ATC. Pilots are expected to comply with the other provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.117 without notification.

2. Speed restrictions of 250 knots do not apply to aircraft operating beyond 12 NM from the coastline within the U.S. Flight Information Region, in offshore Class E airspace below 10,000 feet MSL. However, in airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport, or in a VFR corridor designated through such as a Class B airspace area, pilots are expected to comply with the 200 knot speed limit specified in 14 CFR Section 91.117(c). (See 14 CFR Sections 91.117(c) and 91.703.)

 

[siucavflight]

In the Chicago area i heard a controller authorize a flight for life to fly 320 at 7,000.

 

[PeteCO]

It happens all the time, and everyone pretty much turns a blind eye to it. Even when I ride commercially, my GPS rarely goes below 310, and yes I am aware that's GS and not TAS.

I hear it going on when I am in the Denver and Chicago Class B's all the time, or someone will be at 320 and the the controller asks them to slow down, which is followed by 3 more of the same warnings because the pilot keeps it around 315, rather than the 320

In other words, it's similar to the speed limit on the interstate - the lmit here is 75, but almost everyone does 82 or so.

 

[Singlecoil]

Well Pete, first of all GPS units are prohibited on commercial flights. Leave the thing off. Second of all, a GS of 310 isn't very surprising, since at 10000 feet 250 KTS IAS = 300 KTS TAS. Chuck in a little tailwind, and your readings aren't too surprising.

What you are hearing on channel 9 in the back of a United plane (or whatever channel that is) is airplanes that are above 10,000 feet and given speed restrictions. Yes, approach control extends above 10,000 feet in many terminal areas.

 

[PeteCO]

Uh, I am aware of the altitude of the planes in question, and when I say I am in the Class B I mean that I am flying in the Class B, and hear these radio calls, which I am quite sure I am not misinterpreting. I am relying more on my experience in the Denver Class B than by my GPS observations on commercial flights, and I am aware of the difference between TAS and IAS.

One thing though - I am curious as to why GPS's are verboten on a commercial flight, but various devices which produce RF are not, such as DVD players, laptops, and other electronic gizmos. I have never been asked to shut my GPS off, just for the record, and I have even had flight attendants ask me what that thing is. After I tell them, they never have an issue with it.

 

[Singlecoil]

Hmm. I spend just about all my time commuting on Alaska Airlines, and they specifically tell you that GPS units, cell phones, etc are prohibited at all times. It says so in their magazine as well. Maybe other carriers aren't so uptight about the things, I don't know.

At any rate, I still take exception with your characterization of rampant speeding below ten thousand. You are certainly allowed +- 10 knots, but I've never seen anyone willfully violate that in the U.S. The main reason being that if you speed, you are mucking up the flow of traffic. You'll be closing in on the guy ahead of you, or closing a hole in the airspace that ATC had planned for someone else. They will know immediately if you are closing in on the airplane ahead of you and they will immediately know why. Its equally bad to fly too slow in the terminal environment, ATC will then have to ask you what your deal is, then slow everybody behind you down. It literally takes only one airplane to do this, to cause enroute delays and call for release to be invoked.

 

[PeteCO]

Well, I thought they maybe were uptight about someone knowing exactly where a plane was, since I doubt there is any issue with interference. Seems like either security issues or senseless bureaucracy. Or am I being redundant?

I fly alot late at night, and it seems that this is when I hear these guys talk about 320 knots or so at 8 and 9 thousand. These are indicated speeds. Maybe it doesn't happen as often as I think, but it does happen, and there seems to be an unspoken rule that if the controller is ok with it, then no one cares.

I've never been asked to slow down in the Archer though......

 

[avbug]

Pete, I'm in and out of Denver a lot, and I've never once heard something like that. Nor in Chicago. You're probably listening to heading assignments, or confusing what you're hearing.

I'll be the first to admit that my speed may not be an exact 250 at ten grand...sometimes perhaps 260 and slowing...but it will be close.

No professional crew is going to be stupid enough to inadvertantly be carrying 70 or 100 knots over the limiting airspeed, and certainly not in a busy terminal area.

The speed restriction is nothing like failing to obey limits on the highway. 250 knots isn't just for traffic, it's also for birdsrike considerations. Many aircraft have that as a limitation as well...just for the same reason.

ATC doesn't have the authority to waive the 250 knot speed restriction, except as posted previously for the HOU area.

As for special medical authorizations to exceed 250, there's little point. I suspect the authorization that occured in the Chicago are was a heading, not knots. I've certainly never had the need to push the speed up above 250, even with a critical patient on board. In fact, a medical crew should have no interest in the patient; only in flying the airplane. A medical crew doesn't, or should not, do anything based on the condition of the patient. The crew should be kept out of the loop and should make safety of flight decisions based on the safety of flight...not on the patient.

Pushing that speed for a short time in terminal airspace and at low altitudes saves nothing, but increases risk exponentially. Further, ATC can't authorize it. If one does happen to receive such an "authorization," don't hang your hat on it when it comes to enforcement action, because ATC was never authorized to make that call. You're required to know this, and you'll be held accountable for the same. Something to think about.

 

[regionalcap]

By the way, some companies allow GPS units to be used by passengers as long as it is a receiver only.

 

[501261]

Pete I think your way off base here. Everybody does 250 or close to it below 10. Listen to the other people on the board here; we're not going to risk a violation by exceeding 250kts below 10,000.

Here's what I think is happening on your flights. You stated you do a lot of Chicago to Denver flights. Well coming into Denver you'll be on the Sayge (or Landr) arrival. There is a speed restriction of "Expect to cross" Sagye at 250. Well guess what, expect to cross is just that, they can give you no speed limit, 310, 280 or anything else. You will have to cross Sayge at FL190 though. Sayge is where Denver approach takes control from Denver Center, so this is where you might hear guys on the radio being told slow to 280 or so. But guess what no FAR has been broken here since all the traffic is still above 10,000MSL (remember, thats only 4000 AGl in the Denver area). Coming into Denver you don't generally get below 10 until they put you on that wide base, which is generally when you start slowing down and configuring the airplane.

Pete, remember 1, there is no speed limit within Class B (its 250 below 10). 2, at 10,000' an indicated airspeed of 250kts will give you a TAS of about 300kts. 3, in Denver you don't go below 10,000 until you're about a 10 mile final.

 

[501261]

Uh, I am aware of the altitude of the planes in question, and when I say I am in the Class B I mean that I am flying in the Class B, and hear these radio calls, which I am quite sure I am not misinterpreting. I am relying more on my experience in the Denver Class B than by my GPS observations on commercial flights, and I am aware of the difference between TAS and IAS.

Just to reemphasize, there is no speed limit within Class B! Here’s where I think you are being confused, you’re following the flight on your GPS and it shows you squarely inside the Class B! Well guess what unless they’re below 10,000MSL there’s no violation.

Another thing, if you’re getting your perceived altitude from the GPS unit, its way off! Remember the GPS unit will show True Altitude. Well, that can be as very much off the indicated altitude which incorporates altimeter setting and static error.

 

[JungleJetFO]

questions

First, I fly military out of San Diego and they allow us to fly greater than 250 KIAS below 10K almost every time we ask. We fly by the same rules pretty much as civilian when it comes to IFR. Is Socal violating rules when they do this?

Second, do you notice that ATC has to ask what our airspeed is when they are trying to manage flow? If that's the case, can I assume they can't tell how fast we are going? And thus, cannot violate you for speeding? Not that I plan to blow through anywhere at 350 KIAS but why does everyone act like they are going to get violated if they are still going 265 KIAS when they descend out of 10K?

 

[varicam]

Re: questions

First, I fly military out of San Diego and they allow us to fly greater than 250 KIAS below 10K almost every time we ask. We fly by the same rules pretty much as civilian when it comes to IFR. Is Socal violating rules when they do this?

Second, do you notice that ATC has to ask what our airspeed is when they are trying to manage flow? If that's the case, can I assume they can't tell how fast we are going? And thus, cannot violate you for speeding? Not that I plan to blow through anywhere at 350 KIAS but why does everyone act like they are going to get violated if they are still going 265 KIAS when they descend out of 10K?

There's a clause in the regulations that allows 250 to be exceeded if required for the safe operation of the aircraft in question. Since the controller isn't going to second-guess the pilot unless he/she is certain safety isn't involved, a request for higher speed will probably not raise an objection. (Unless you're in Houston, it won't be approved, as the controller doesn't have approval authority).

Controllers have a read out of ground speed. When they ask for IAS they're usually giving you a hint that they suspect you're not at the required or assigned speed. But, they might be trying to determine the IAS that produces the indicated groundspeed. 265 knots probably won't get you a violation. However, if you cause a screw up in sequencing, all bets are off. It's pretty easy to reconstruct a flight from radar data and come up with an accurate IAS.

 

[501261]

Re: questions

First, I fly military out of San Diego and they allow us to fly greater than 250 KIAS below 10K almost every time we ask. We fly by the same rules pretty much as civilian when it comes to IFR. Is Socal violating rules when they do this?

First, if your out over the water you can go whatever speed you want.

Secondly the DoD has an exception to FAR 91.117 that is used pretty frequently:

The Department of Defense's (DoD's) Flight Information Publication General Planning GP, Section E-Supplementary Information, Para 5-35, "Aircraft Speed Below 10,000 Feet Mean Sea Level" states:

"(Exemption to Federal Air Regulations 91.177 issued to DOD, May 18, 1978)-Operations below 10,000 feet Mean Sea Level at Indicated Air Speed in excess of 250 knots, in noncompliance with Federal Air Regulations 91.117 (a), are authorized for military aircraft, including Reserve and Air National Guard components, only under the following conditions:...

"g. If the airspeed required or recommended in the airplane flight manual to maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum speed described in Federal Air regulations 91.117, the airplane may be operated at that speed."

The F-16C/D flight manual, in Section VI, "Flight Characteristics," recommends "a minimum of 300 knots during normal cruise operation below 10,000 MSL." The Air Force Instruction 11-2f-16, F-16 Operations Procedures states in Chapter 5, "Air to Air Weapons Employment," Para 5.3.2, that the "minimum airspeed during low altitude offensive or defensive maneuvering is 350 KIAS."

 

[JungleJetFO]

Re: Re: questions

First, if your out over the water you can go whatever speed you want.

Secondly the DoD has an exception to FAR 91.117 that is used pretty frequently:

The Department of Defense's (DoD's) Flight Information Publication General Planning GP, Section E-Supplementary Information, Para 5-35, "Aircraft Speed Below 10,000 Feet Mean Sea Level" states:

"(Exemption to Federal Air Regulations 91.177 issued to DOD, May 18, 1978)-Operations below 10,000 feet Mean Sea Level at Indicated Air Speed in excess of 250 knots, in noncompliance with Federal Air Regulations 91.117 (a), are authorized for military aircraft, including Reserve and Air National Guard components, only under the following conditions:...

"g. If the airspeed required or recommended in the airplane flight manual to maintain safe maneuverability is greater than the maximum speed described in Federal Air regulations 91.117, the airplane may be operated at that speed."

Thanks for the responses. As far as over water, I believe that is outside of 12 miles but I'm flying back from over water into Class B where airspeed rules for below 10K apply. So it seems to be, Socal is inadvertently breaking the rules when allowing us to stay fast.
And for aircraft type, I fly in the S-3B and the only speed waiver we have is being allowed to come into the overhead break at greater than 250. Usually we accelerate to whatever airspeed we can achieve in the 5 miles from the initial point to the numbers of the runway.