Planes Are Finally Making Logical Descents Into American Runways

Lord protect us from ignorant (and lazy) reporters.

"Usually, planes approaching an airport drop altitude in steps, cranking up the engines to level out in between. That makes it easier for pilots to control descents and for air traffic controllers to keep track of everyone and manage spacing between planes. ** Crews check in with the ground at each interval, making sure they’re clear to drop a few thousand more feet. ** It’s a safe but inefficient way to get lots of planes on the ground."

Crews check in with the ground while still miles away from the airport. That'll be news to flight crews and ground controllers alike.

KSEA has been doing this for years

So how will windshear events get handled if the engines are seconds away from providing power?

The space shuttle approach.
" It can be done here at O'Hare " - Per Amy Hanson's (FAA) statement.
Too busy of an airport.

Sure this will work, because Metro areas never have holding patterns

How will this affect the frequency of throttle mismanagement errors, similar to the Asiana SFO crash? With the step down approach, the throttle setting changes multiple times during the procedure, making the crew more aware of its action. With optimized descent, the throttle remains at idle until low altitude and, perhaps low airspeed, a poor time for confusion about what the throttle is doing. I realize this depends a lot on details of cockpit system design and usage.

Having flown the new arrivals it is in the early stages for ATC in the west Texas sector and Houston Approach. What happens prior to the arrival is a circus - 2 heading changes - one 90 degrees off course followed by a 180 back through the original flight path before getting a clearance to a fix headed to IAH. Offering a 40KTAS speed reduction did help the controller to decrease the vector distance (time). We aren't saving fuel yet---

Also too, ice in the fuel system.

I suggest listening to www.liveatc.net/flisten.php?mount=kiah1_2&icao=kiah and hear how controllers and pilots like the new changes... There is going to be an adjustment to the procedures coming up in the middle to end of July. Lots of pilots and controllers alike can be heard saying "how in the hell do they expect us to do this" and "who the hell designed these procedures?"

Son of old FAA "KEEP 'EM HIGH" program. Deja vu all over again...

near idle. How about minimum N1 rpm for severe icing?

You have got to be sh--ing me!

OK.. where are all the oldtimers???Arrival and departure corridors were asked for before the upsidedown cake system was forced on us by the FAA.The illogivc of the current system seems to have been devised by the FAA as a means to keep everyone confused,and slow traffic, and catch unsuspecting pilots in the maze of junk now in effect.

As someone who flies into the Houston area multiple times a week, the new procedures were different, but very effective. Not only do they allow for less congestion at the major 3 airports, but also allow aircraft to climb higher faster from the smaller GA airports such as DWH, SGR, and CXO. Not only does this reduce fuel consumption, especially in turbine powered aircraft, but also allows for an easier departure procedure. While the transition itself was (and sometimes still is) different and difficult, I think it is for the better. I, for one, like the changes as they have helped our flight operations save money and time.

The reporter did a credible job of piecing the story together despite his obvious unfamiliarity with the subject. Some posters only purpose it seems in this forum is to find fault with layman reporters for lacking their experience level with the subject. My experience in the past with descending into LAX from the east always seemed to be a continuous letdown and in the "Deezel Eight" with no flight spoiler speed brakes it was a challenge to get it slowed down when heavy without having to use inboard thrust reverse especially when asked to "keep the speed up" until 5 miles out. Inboard reverse of turbo-fans in flight was a last resort because it got everyone's attention real fast with all the shaking going on (ala Jerry Lee Lewis' old rock tune). It was not uncommon to be asked by ATC: "Can you get it down from there?" as they could see we were going high as we were forced to arrest the descent, slow to gear and flap speed, hang everything out in fairly rapid succession and with throttles at idle, descending in a continuous decel until short final before finally bringing up the throttles by sheer necessity.

Accordingly, It was difficult to have any sympathy for the Asiana crew for screwing up and falling so far behind the airplane as to become passengers themselves and failing basic airmanship 101 while trying to push buttons, flip switches and twist knobs on the AFCS panel as if they were flying a video game. When the "bells and whistles" fall behind it's time to dispense with the bells and whistles and drive the machine by hand. The NTSB in my opinion got down and wallowed in the weeds in their final report and came up with their gem that the airplane's systems were a little too complicated. What a bunch of BS. Pilot's by necessity are among the most adaptable creatures to ever strap themselves into a flying machine. It comes with the territory.

Reducing crews from 3 to 2 up front in the heavies and trying to compensate with technology was always a mistake in my opinion. That other set of eyeballs sitting behind the throttles and scanning the gauges saved the day many a time during an approach or otherwise sometimes with only one word like "speed" or "altitude." Unfortunately too many CVR tapes also include the usual two exclamatory words just before the tape suddenly ends.

that's aviation BUFF....Damn typo.

Shouldn't the headline say "onto American Runways"?

wow amagine that , pilots that actualy have to fly !! now that's scary !

I'm not a pilot. I am an aviation enthusiast who has learned a lot from the aviators that post here as well as reading things on my own...
With that said, I do not like this at all.
This is another instance where the rules are being crafted to allow the flight crew to not "fly the plane". It would ( permit my ignorance for not using proper lingo)
all the crew to apply automatic settings during approach. It is my understanding that the most crucial and potentially hazardous portion of a flight is approach and landing.
I'm calling BS on the fuel issue. The stepped approach does not appear to involve the kind of throttle up that burns much more fuel.
Also, the stepped method kind of allows the flight crew to "pause their descent to 'see what's going on' then continue on.