Requesting a hold from ATC for descents

[Mxsmanic]

If it becomes impossible to respect your descent schedule, is it
permissible to ask ATC to give you a hold temporarily so that you can
descend in the hold pattern until you're back to your planned descent?
If so, is this a fairly common procedure, or very unusual? I'm
thinking with respect to large commercial jets in particular (or
potentially any jet, since they usually seem to be fast and slippery).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mxsmanic ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:53 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
> Subject: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>
> If it becomes impossible to respect your descent schedule, is it
> permissible to ask ATC to give you a hold temporarily so that you can
> descend in the hold pattern until you're back to your planned descent?
> If so, is this a fairly common procedure, or very unusual? I'm
> thinking with respect to large commercial jets in particular (or
> potentially any jet, since they usually seem to be fast and slippery).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

They also employ spoilers and can typically come down very quickly. Give
a more precise example of "becomes impossible to respect your descent
schedule" please.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If it becomes impossible to respect your descent schedule, is it
> permissible to ask ATC to give you a hold temporarily so that you can
> descend in the hold pattern until you're back to your planned descent?
> If so, is this a fairly common procedure, or very unusual? I'm
> thinking with respect to large commercial jets in particular (or
> potentially any jet, since they usually seem to be fast and slippery).
>

Never happens. Like the other gentleman says, the spoilers (actually
speed brakes when used in flight) are the "ace in the hole."

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If it becomes impossible to respect your descent schedule, is it
> permissible to ask ATC to give you a hold temporarily so that you can
> descend in the hold pattern until you're back to your planned descent?
> If so, is this a fairly common procedure, or very unusual? I'm
> thinking with respect to large commercial jets in particular (or
> potentially any jet, since they usually seem to be fast and slippery).

Probably more of an issue for Mooney and Lasair pilots than for jets
that can descend at 3,000 FPM.

-Robert

[Scott Skylane]

Sam Spade wrote:


> Never happens. Like the other gentleman says, the spoilers (actually
> speed brakes when used in flight) are the "ace in the hole."

Sam,

Never say never;) I have asked for, and received a turn in the hold to
lose altitude, after arriving at the final fix about 10,000 feet high.
This was due to descent restrictions from center because of other
approaches in progress. The flight spoilers on a 727 are *very*
effective, but they can't perform miracles!

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Sam Spade]

Scott Skylane wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>> Never happens. Like the other gentleman says, the spoilers (actually
>> speed brakes when used in flight) are the "ace in the hole."
>
>
> Sam,
>
> Never say never;) I have asked for, and received a turn in the hold to
> lose altitude, after arriving at the final fix about 10,000 feet high.
> This was due to descent restrictions from center because of other
> approaches in progress. The flight spoilers on a 727 are *very*
> effective, but they can't perform miracles!
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

Your mileage may vary. ;-)

I've got almost 8,000 hours in the 727 and never, ever did an approach
hold or procedure turn. Delay vectors, yes.

[Newps]

Scott Skylane wrote:


>
> Never say never;) I have asked for, and received a turn in the hold to
> lose altitude, after arriving at the final fix about 10,000 feet high.
> This was due to descent restrictions from center because of other
> approaches in progress. The flight spoilers on a 727 are *very*
> effective, but they can't perform miracles!

You also must also factor in pilot incompetence. I can't begin to tell
you how many times these jet pilots, almost always from the majors like
NWA and UAL as well as from the regionals like Skywest, report on the
freq 35 miles out at FL230 or higher. This is not centers fault as the
descent clearance was given about 200 miles out. Center usually gives a
PD descent and these guys continually foul it up. So to illuminate your
mistake I will drive you right at the airport and make you beg for mercy.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Never happens. Like the other gentleman says, the spoilers (actually
> speed brakes when used in flight) are the "ace in the hole."

I've tried spoilers, but they aren't always sufficient to please the
FMC. Now I go through every leg of the route checking for
unreasonable-looking descents (or, theoretically, climbs, although the
FMC seems to calculate those more reliably).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 2:15 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
> Subject: Re: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>
....
> Your mileage may vary. ;-)
>
> I've got almost 8,000 hours in the 727 and never, ever did an approach
> hold or procedure turn. Delay vectors, yes.

And then there was the time several years ago an American 727 into TUL
was hot, high, and straight-in -- but he wasn't going to sequence behind
my lowly Cherokee 6. He ended up going around after blowing across the
boundary well above Vref and ended up landing #2 behind the Bonanza that
followed me in. I wonder what that little excursion cost?

Of course I still love to hear the tower tell a pilot "left or right
turn at the end if able".

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newps ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 2:24 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
> Subject: Re: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>
....
>
> You also must also factor in pilot incompetence. I can't begin to
tell
> you how many times these jet pilots, almost always from the majors
like
> NWA and UAL as well as from the regionals like Skywest, report on the
> freq 35 miles out at FL230 or higher. This is not centers fault as
the
> descent clearance was given about 200 miles out. Center usually gives
a
> PD descent and these guys continually foul it up. So to illuminate
your
> mistake I will drive you right at the airport and make you beg for
mercy.

I seem to remember a "keep-em-high" program years ago that kept everyone
as high as possible for as long as possible to preserve fuel and reduce
noice. Could that policy still be in effect for some carriers?

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> They also employ spoilers and can typically come down very quickly. Give
> a more precise example of "becomes impossible to respect your descent
> schedule" please.

I've tried spoilers and they don't always help enough.

I'm talking about the FMS disconnecting with a message like "ALT
UNACHIEVABLE" or something like that, when the deviation from the
expected descent profile gets too large.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> I seem to remember a "keep-em-high" program years ago that kept everyone
> as high as possible for as long as possible to preserve fuel and reduce
> noice. Could that policy still be in effect for some carriers?

I was thinking the same thing. They may have company policies that
require them to stay as high as possible for as long as possible to
save fuel (noise abatement probably isn't as much of an issue, but it
might still be a factor).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:

>
> I seem to remember a "keep-em-high" program years ago that kept everyone
> as high as possible for as long as possible to preserve fuel and reduce
> noice. Could that policy still be in effect for some carriers?
>

The Keep 'em High program was an ATC program to keep aircraft at about
10K until 20 miles from the aiport. That program is no longer in
effect. All airlines have their own policies about this. As well all
modern aircraft can be told when to be at what altitude when and the
computer will handle it.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The Keep 'em High program was an ATC program to keep aircraft at about
> 10K until 20 miles from the aiport.

What was its purpose?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Never happens. Like the other gentleman says, the spoilers (actually
>>speed brakes when used in flight) are the "ace in the hole."
>
>
> I've tried spoilers, but they aren't always sufficient to please the
> FMC. Now I go through every leg of the route checking for
> unreasonable-looking descents (or, theoretically, climbs, although the
> FMC seems to calculate those more reliably).
>

In the 727 we didn't have any FMC to keep happy. We actually had to
figure it all out by ourselves.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>The Keep 'em High program was an ATC program to keep aircraft at about
>>10K until 20 miles from the aiport.
>
>
> What was its purpose?
>
It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise then the
Stage III birds today.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Scott Skylane wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Never say never;) I have asked for, and received a turn in the hold
>> to lose altitude, after arriving at the final fix about 10,000 feet
>> high. This was due to descent restrictions from center because of
>> other approaches in progress. The flight spoilers on a 727 are *very*
>> effective, but they can't perform miracles!
>
>
> You also must also factor in pilot incompetence. I can't begin to tell
> you how many times these jet pilots, almost always from the majors like
> NWA and UAL as well as from the regionals like Skywest, report on the
> freq 35 miles out at FL230 or higher. This is not centers fault as the
> descent clearance was given about 200 miles out. Center usually gives a
> PD descent and these guys continually foul it up. So to illuminate your
> mistake I will drive you right at the airport and make you beg for mercy.


But, for every "incompetent" pilot from NWA and UAL how many do it so
smoothly you actually think they might know what they are doing?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:37 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
> Subject: Re: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>
....
> It was eons ago...

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>>
> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise then the
> Stage III birds today.




The primary purpose was fuel efficiency.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:


>
>
>
> But, for every "incompetent" pilot from NWA and UAL how many do it so
> smoothly you actually think they might know what they are doing?

10% of the crews have this problem.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> In the 727 we didn't have any FMC to keep happy. We actually had to
> figure it all out by ourselves.

What little experimentation I've done seems to indicate that the FMC
is very often correct when it says a particular descent cannot be
achieved. Of course, it assumes certain constraints that you can
ignore if you fly by hand (unless, I suppose, you're stuck with an
Airbus).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The primary purpose was fuel efficiency.

Why was it abandoned? Fuel efficiency is as important as ever.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>>
>> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
>> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise then the
>> Stage III birds today.
>
>
>
>
>
> The primary purpose was fuel efficiency.

That isn't my recollection, at least not the first iteration that
probably happened before you went to work in aviation. ;-)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Sam Spade wrote:
>
> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise

Like 727's?

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Like 727's?

When did 727s start to disappear? I remember seeing them a lot, when
I was little, but I don't remember exactly when they started to fade
away. I got blown by the jet blast once, as a 727 taxied away from
the gate. I was watching aircraft from the top of the nearby parking
garage (this was in the days when it wasn't a felony to watch aircraft
take off and land), but I still got a good blast of hot air from
200-300 feet away or so, which surprised me.

I used to love the smell of kerosene in the morning. It smelled like
.... aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:29 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
> Subject: Re: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>
> Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sam Spade wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport.
It
> >> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise then the
> >> Stage III birds today.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The primary purpose was fuel efficiency.
>
> That isn't my recollection, at least not the first iteration that
> probably happened before you went to work in aviation. ;-)

My recollection neither. I believe it was for noise abatement and to
help sort out the big iron from the little aluminum.

[Sam Spade]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
>> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise
>
>
> Like 727's?

The 707s (especially the non-fan models) the same type of DC-8, and the
Convair 880 were the really bad noise makers. 727s and early DC-9s were
not quite so loud on low-level flight.

What the original program did was try to keep arrivals high enough so
level offs did not have to occur below 6,000 feet, agl. It was the
spool up of the engines at say 3,000 to 4,000 feet on "downwind" that
spread noise all over town.

The above 10,000 program for fuel came along later.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>
>>Like 727's?
>
>
> When did 727s start to disappear? I remember seeing them a lot, when
> I was little, but I don't remember exactly when they started to fade
> away. I got blown by the jet blast once, as a 727 taxied away from
> the gate. I was watching aircraft from the top of the nearby parking
> garage (this was in the days when it wasn't a felony to watch aircraft
> take off and land), but I still got a good blast of hot air from
> 200-300 feet away or so, which surprised me.
>
> I used to love the smell of kerosene in the morning. It smelled like
> ... aviation.
>

They continued in substantial service with the majors until perhaps 7 or
8 years ago. There are still some flying; at least the later 200
series, which meet Stage 3 if I recall correctly.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:

>>
>>That isn't my recollection, at least not the first iteration that
>>probably happened before you went to work in aviation. ;-)
>
>
> My recollection neither. I believe it was for noise abatement and to
> help sort out the big iron from the little aluminum.
>

Yes, I recall it also being to keep jets from flying level in "Indian
Country." That came about because of the TWA DC-9/Baron midair, (1967)
which happened when the DC-9 was flying a short leg at 8,000.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Yes, I recall it also being to keep jets from flying level in "Indian
> Country."

What is "Indian Country"?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Yes, I recall it also being to keep jets from flying level in "Indian
>>Country."
>
>
> What is "Indian Country"?
>
Where Apaches, Aztecs, Commanches, and Cherokees roam.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
>>> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise
>>
>>
>> Like 727's?
>
> The 707s (especially the non-fan models) the same type of DC-8, and the
> Convair 880 were the really bad noise makers. 727s and early DC-9s were
> not quite so loud on low-level flight.

This might be my age and lack of experience showing. <G>

I always think of 727's as being very loud. Whenever I'm sitting in my
plane at larger fields, I can always tell I'm hearing a 2-7 on takeoff
roll before I even see it. It's got a very recognizable "thunder"
that's missing from most other airliners. To me, the 2-7's sound is as
distinctive as the C5's whine.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> I always think of 727's as being very loud.

They are. Even the APU (or whatever they call it) is extremely noisy.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Allan9]

IIRC fuel conservation, to avoid leveling off prior to the dump zone and to
minimize exposure to lower performance aircraft.
Al

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
>>> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise then the
>>> Stage III birds today.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The primary purpose was fuel efficiency.
>
> That isn't my recollection, at least not the first iteration that probably
> happened before you went to work in aviation. ;-)

[Allan9]

Once again IIRC the majority of NMACs occurred within 25 miles of the
destination airport and at 10,000 and below.
Al


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y wrote:
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
>>> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise
>>
>>
>> Like 727's?
>
> The 707s (especially the non-fan models) the same type of DC-8, and the
> Convair 880 were the really bad noise makers. 727s and early DC-9s were
> not quite so loud on low-level flight.
>
> What the original program did was try to keep arrivals high enough so
> level offs did not have to occur below 6,000 feet, agl. It was the spool
> up of the engines at say 3,000 to 4,000 feet on "downwind" that spread
> noise all over town.
>
> The above 10,000 program for fuel came along later.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That isn't my recollection, at least not the first iteration that
>>> probably happened before you went to work in aviation. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> My recollection neither. I believe it was for noise abatement and to
>> help sort out the big iron from the little aluminum.
>>
>
> Yes, I recall it also being to keep jets from flying level in "Indian
> Country." That came about because of the TWA DC-9/Baron midair, (1967)
> which happened when the DC-9 was flying a short leg at 8,000.

That was also a reason. The FAA does not get involved in creating
procedures for noise abatement. That is local. Noise abatement
procedures are forced onto ATC by the local authorities and generally
apply to departures only. Very few places have any noise procedures for
arrivals.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

The FAA does not get involved in creating
> procedures for noise abatement. That is local. Noise abatement
> procedures are forced onto ATC by the local authorities and generally
> apply to departures only. Very few places have any noise procedures for
> arrivals.

New IAPs have to have an environmental review. When required, and
feasible, segments are adjusted to minimize noise impact. Same for
SIDs. The FAA does this every day in OKC.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>
>>I always think of 727's as being very loud.
>
>
> They are. Even the APU (or whatever they call it) is extremely noisy.
>

Well, the 727 APU cannot be used in flight.

I don't know where your expertise on 727s comes from, but I know where
mine comes from and the 727 was relatively quiet compared to most other
airline airplanes at its time of entering service.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:09 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
> Subject: Re: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>
....
>
> I don't know where your expertise on 727s comes from, but I know where
> mine comes from and the 727 was relatively quiet compared to most
other
> airline airplanes at its time of entering service.

Agreed Sam, but MS is apparently quite a bit younger than either of us
so has no good basis for comparison.

Similar to his view regarding the flight simulator program being
comparable to actual flight, he has no real basis for comparison so he
uses his experience as a baseline.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:

>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sam Spade ]
>>Posted At: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:09 AM
>>Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>>Conversation: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>>Subject: Re: Requesting a hold from ATC for descents
>>
>
> ...
>
>>I don't know where your expertise on 727s comes from, but I know where
>>mine comes from and the 727 was relatively quiet compared to most
>
> other
>
>>airline airplanes at its time of entering service.
>
>
> Agreed Sam, but MS is apparently quite a bit younger than either of us
> so has no good basis for comparison.
>
> Similar to his view regarding the flight simulator program being
> comparable to actual flight, he has no real basis for comparison so he
> uses his experience as a baseline.
>
>
Point well taken and understandable with respect to the 727. But for
anyone to assert they know how airplanes fly based on being an MSFS
jockey, well that crosses over the line.

[Everett M. Greene[_2_]]

Sam Spade > writes:
> B A R R Y wrote:
> > Sam Spade wrote:
> >>
> >> It was eons ago. Primarly to keep the noise in near the airport. It
> >> was when the majority of airline jets made much more noise
> >
> > Like 727's?
>
> The 707s (especially the non-fan models) the same type of DC-8, and the
> Convair 880 were the really bad noise makers. 727s and early DC-9s were
> not quite so loud on low-level flight.
>
> What the original program did was try to keep arrivals high enough so
> level offs did not have to occur below 6,000 feet, agl. It was the
> spool up of the engines at say 3,000 to 4,000 feet on "downwind" that
> spread noise all over town.
>
> The above 10,000 program for fuel came along later.

Those living near NAFs are finding that things have retrogressed.
USN apparently failed to include a noise level requirement in the
specs for the newest F/A-18s. They are loooooud. They're easily
tracked out to five to ten miles by ear alone.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Well, the 727 APU cannot be used in flight.

I heard it on the ground. It was very noisy.

> I don't know where your expertise on 727s comes from, but I know where
> mine comes from and the 727 was relatively quiet compared to most other
> airline airplanes at its time of entering service.

Sure, but that was a noisy time compared to the present.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.