Vector4fun
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2003
- Posts
- 796
Groucho said:
1. Speed and descent reductions. Some aircraft the
B737 and A321 and B757 in praticular, cannot slow down and come down at the same time. It just aint possible. Don't ask me why but it's just the way it is. The best one I ever heard was a 757 guy say to ATC "If you shot this thing down with a SAM the wreckage wouldn't make 30 out at 10 and 250"
THAT's funny. I recall when I first worked a DC-8-70, dang thing was like a sailplane with a tailwind. We were all used to the standard DC-8s which WOULD come down, especially with only boxes in the back! I don't notice so much trouble with the B737 series, of course, I know the -200s will always come down better. I have a problem with the 757s. They come down soooo slowly, and then, when they get 5-7 mile final, ours will slow to 125-130 kts, so I got Caravans and C-401s gaining on 'em. Meanwhile, the guy in the B737-900 tells me his minimum speed is 165!What really gets me is a particular cargo company, who shall remain nameless, always arrives at the boundry at 14,000 and warp 5. Soon as I can, I descend 'em to 5000', but it takes 25+ miles for them to descend to 10K and slow to 250. By which time, they're already past the runway on downwind, then another 20+ miles before I can turn base at 50 or below. What *I* don't get, is why they've never figured out to slow to 250 at 14K, so they'd be ready to come right down when I get them. It would often save them 15 miles of vectoring. The Center wouldn't mind most eves. There's seldom anybody behind on the South arrival.
I know what you're saying, I try to accomodate the different types. But imagine trying to teach a new radar controller the preferred ILS sequence is the B739 at 170 kts, the C-208 at 150 kts, the C-401 at 140 kts, and the B757 is last at 125 kts. Some just never quite get it. It's too weird.
2. Runway and arrival changes in the era of computerized air craft are a pain in the A%&. It was easy in the DC-9 just aim at a different piece of pavement. The A320 series gets all upset over this kind of stuff and if you change the runway in the computer all the previous restricions on the arrival drop out and require reprogramming.
I actually agree with you here. I'm trying to get folks to refrain from switching runways on jet arrivals. I've seen a guy switched 3 times in 15 miles. I try not to do it. Some still do, because most pilots don't complain, and some (pilots and controllers) will do anything to get to the runway 30 seconds faster. My question to you is, how different, if any, are the A-319 or A-300? I don't work many 320's.
3. A periodic mention of the sequence for the next 5 or ten aircraft would allow everyone to save fuel and still meet operational requirements.
When I've been jumpseating at DFW, I've often heard ground do just that. Doesn't come up here often. You'd normally be only #3 or 4 in line at most.
4. Clearing the runway for traffic behind. I don't see the need to burn up my companies brakes to maintain a flow rate that is too optimistic to begin with. I don't spend more time on the runway than necessary but getting the first available turnoff needs to be balanced against the cost of new brakes. The carbon brakes on the Airbus are expensive.
Understand that running 4 miles in trail at ORD will get a controller de-certified, or disciplined. Honest, it's happened. I like 4 in trail, when I can afford to. It's "comfortable" for all concerned. But it's also why I won't go to ORD.
These are just my rants and the rants of others I work with. "Please don't get made and leave in a huff. Stay for a minute and if your still mad you can leave in a minute and a huff."
Not at all!
I like being educated as much as anybody! And it's been fun. 
