Calling all A330 Pilots.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

As an ATC in a busy Middle Eastern area I was wondering if any of you A330 pilots can answer a question. Why do A330's descend usually 50 NM before most other jets, get lower earlier and as a result go slower earlier. The problem as ATC's is if we make you anything other than number last we're forcing the 767's , 747's and even the other airbus's to descend early so as to stay behind you.

The time I made the A330 stay up and wouldn't give him the early descent to try and keep him No.1 he slowed to 230Kt IAS at FL270 and lost almost 100Kt's G/S and screwed up the whole sequence. So A330 pilots, what can you suggest to keep you guys from being number last all the time???

[Payscale]

The A330 will follow a profile from cruise to aproach altitude, depending on what descent speed one has entered in the FMS (generic term). In my company 0.80/300 KIAS. Then 250 KIAS below 10000 like everyone else.

If you one day see an A330 on the ramp, notice the very long wings. They are very clean and willing to fly ;-)...

When will ATC stop expecting aircraft to be able to descend and reduce speed at the same time. Cant be done on the A330.

Hope it helped.....

[raintime]

The descent profile on the 330 is quite different to the 320 which I both fly. This is due mainly to the huge wing and is exacerbated as we now use engine anti-ice for the descent which increases engine idle rpm. The 320, as with most jets, needs 3 X height but the 330 requires roughly 4 X height. Which means descent at approx 160nms. Thankfully it has got speedbrakes that work as ATC and the descent profile often don't coincide!
Oh, and we all would rather be no. 1 !:)

[NigelOnDraft]

<<the A330 has no ROD at all >>
i.e. a far better aerodynamic design!

NoD

[Tan]

Yeah, but the 340 is real heavy because its going a long way...so what's your point...

[Feather #3]

Tan

The A340 is underpowered by design and airline specification.

I regularly fly a B744 as #2 for takeoff & going a lot further than the preceding A340. We pass it and outclimb it.

G'day ;)

[52049er]

....by using 20% more fuel. Good ol' US design ;) GDR

[gjp]

The A340 gets to altitude earlier than most 4 engined aircraft - is far more efficient - makes more money - and is the most modern and pleasant aircraft to fly than any other 4 eng aircraft around - airbus have got a real winner here - oh and by the way - it makes money big time - is real safe and majic to fly - (I've flown both Boeing and airbus and boeing need a huge wake up call)

[HOODED]

I assume that when we're talking about the underpowered A340's here we are not refering to the -500 and -600 with their trents are we? Rather than Boeing/Airbus how about CFM/RR?

[gjp]

Fokker was probably doing an hours flight - a340 probably on a 12 hr flight !! a lot more payload as well - but you obviously did not think about that

[foxmoth]

Back to the subject!
A330 default in the computer gives a low speed in the descent and with its very efficient wing wants anearly descent, if you input a faster (.8/300kts) descent it is less fuel efficient but will fit in better with the other types. If you leave the guys up who have NOT put in the faster speeds, they should still be able to make it down using 'open' descent (and maybe some speedbrake) and leaving the aircraft flying the faster speed. Going into LGW it is not usually a problem due to the FL130 by goodwood and FL270 at Gibso ( if comming of the ocean).

[Max Angle]

(I've flown both Boeing and airbus and boeing need a huge wake up call) Look at the order books, I would say that they are getting it!.

[RamAirTurbine]

It wouldnt have anything to do with Scarebus's being cheap ?
They are after all the hyundi of the sky.


Personally a plane which is laminated together, and then gets moisture in the laminated areas doesn't sound to flash (i prefer rivets) ... but all aircraft have their own faults don't they.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I didn't want to start the Yank Vs Frog argument up, but I do have to say as a controller the Boeing aircraft do get up quicker as a rule which helps us out. A340's (especially when flown by Cathay) climb like dogs, due to them doing a cruise climb.

I think Airbus's were designed by beancounters, while Boeing aircraft were designed flying enthusiasts. Anyway that wasn't my topic.

The thing is that even though the IAS may stay high on the A330, cos they descend so early you end up with the A330 10,000 ft lower than the guy 10NM behind in trail thus much slower in ground speed which is what counts for us when running a sequence. So invariably the 767/747 has to be pulled back to 250kts to stay behind the A330 doing 300ktIAS. Thats the problem we're left with. And with Emirates buying A330's by the bucket load its getting to be a pain.

[Feather #3]

Sorry, Hooded.

Yes, the CFM powered versions. Not the -500/600.

G'day :D

[foxmoth]

AirNoServicesAustralia - the point about using the higher speed is that the 330 should not the need to descend quite as early! If you leave the aircraft to its default setting it will descend at M.78/270kts and need the early descent that is such a pain, put say M.82/320kts in as the speeds and it will cope much better, though at a slight fuel penalty.

[MarkD]

I know this is a 330 thread but...

how *are* the 345 and 346 RR power buses doing climb wise compared to the 342 and 343?

[millerscourt]

On the A340 I used to fly{now 747} our default descent speed was .82/320 to 10000ft then 250 same as everyone else.Descent in Managed speed,cos of the efficient wing always means descending well before any other aircraft I have ever flown.

If descent comes late due to ATC or whatever .Open descent with speedbrake does the trick to get back on profile.
I guess different company policy and ideas seem to indicate that .8/300 is often the preferred speed which means descending even earlier still. I suggest the ATC who asked about this if it is a problem with other traffic then keep the guy up longer but remember dont expect us to slow down and descend!!

[SANDBLASTER]

I HAVE FLOWN BOTH BOING AND AIRBUS TYPES, BOTTOM LINE IS THEY BOTH MAKE VERY GOOD AEROPLANES. I DON'T CARE WHICH I FLY. WITH REGARD TO DESCENTS INTO DXB, THESE DAYS A LOT OF A/C ARRIVING FROM EUROPE ARRIVING AT PEAK TIME ROUTE VIA IRAN. AS YOU HAVE TO BE ANYTHING BETWEEN FL230 TO FL270 20NM BEFORE ORSAR, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT ALLEVIATED THE DESCENT SPEED PROBLEMS. WITH THOSE RESTRICTIONS EVEN AN A330 IS A BIT LOW ON PROFILE LANDING ON 12 IN DXB LET ALONE 30!!

[2A]

- and is the most modern and pleasant aircraft to fly than any other 4 eng aircraft around -

Dont agree at all. I fly to the Far East regularly and I can assure you that there is NO comparison between a 744 and a 340 in terms of comfort/pleasantness. On long haul I and all of my colleagues will always go for the 744. I am mere SLF but I know what I like!

[Rabbit]

AirNoServicesAustralia

Heh I have been flying both Boeing and Airbus into Dubai for the last 15 years and frequently since EK got their 330's. You complain about them slowing to 250kts at 10,000ft so far out. As mentioned above it is the result of a very efficient airframe, probably the most efficient available today. Therefore there is a simple solution, change the requirement to slowdown at 10,000ft to slowing down at a specific distance from the airport. That will keep everyone on a common footing and the flatter profile of the more efficient 330 (the 340) and other future aircraft will be catered for.

As a current operator of the 343, I am not sure that the 345 & 346 will have any great improvement in performance. I might be wrong but it is my understanding the the new versions are built for efficiency and at 100 tons heavier MTOW and having to fullfil the same performance requirements as other quads then the extra power is required to achieve the higher MTOW.

I also aggree with the previous comment about it being time for Boeing to wake up and have a serious look at their product. With 7000plus hours on various Boeings and another 8000plus on Airbus 320/340 I believe Boeing need to modernise ASAP. Don't get me wrong, BOTH manufacturers make fine aircraft, its just that with the exception of the 777, all of the Boeings are starting to be rather dated. And there is a comon saying "you can't make strawberry jam from pigsh*t"

Have a nice day

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I'm sorry but we are getting on a daily basis Emirates A330's maintaining FL270 30NM prior to ORSAR requesting further descent and either making us call Tehran to get a release or holding them up. So for Rwy 12 even FL270 at Orsar isn't low enough. Which has the effect of these guys being out of the jetstream and 100 Kts slower than the high TUGOS flyers.

[SLT]

Not being funny (I fly A330 by the way), but isn't it interesting that no other ATC agency has reported problems with this? UAE isn't the only area with level restrictions. Many times coming into all kinds of places, we have been level pegging with 767's etc, and there is no difference in the way ATC handles us.
As has been stated, the A330 will not go down and slow down without a lot of speedbrake, and if you don't modify the descent speed, it will carry out a very slow, but very efficient descent. You can't have it both ways! Maybe a bit more flexibility from both sides is the key here?

Also, about 767's climbing faster than 330's - not much in it really, but please remember that the 330 will be going to a higher level and will in all probability be cruising faster than the 767. I'm not getting into the A vs. B debate - that's just how it is.

[Warlock2000]

OK, so here is the REAL deal.

The A330, when left to it's own devices will start a slow shallow descent from a long way out as this is evidently the most economic way to operate the machine. However, as long as the pilots are informed of ATC requirements/restrictions prior to the descent point and have time to plan for a faster descent from closer in the aeroplane will happily comply. Increasing speed once the descent has commenced means either pushing the nose down and increasing the ROD, which ultimatly gets you low on profile or increasing power (and burning fuel) to maintain the current ROD whilst accelerating.

Then, throw in 10-15 knots on the tail until 1000' onto 12L and things get REALLY interesting!

:eek: :eek:

[BahrainLad]

........and this is why coming into BAH from the west in a 330 is such fun.

Held high prior to Dharhan, pop the speedbrakes and ride it on down!

Great stuff.

[Payscale]

Emirates is about 50/50 on Airbus and Boeing. And yes we do operate alot in your area. Planes are not designed for my or your pleasure.
You want a vehicle that is safe and economic to operate. No more. No less.
I have flown B767 and A330. Whatever is best, on a personal level, is a matter of taste.
All this Boeing vs Airbus business is quite irrelevant. DXB controllers don't have trouble fitting us in with eachother. Why cant you?

[In trim]

..........and you guys can keep on arguing about climb and descent performance all day long, but you're wasting your time..........remember at the end of the day it's the accountants who make the decisions, and the 340 simply makes money!

[ehwatezedoing]

Speaking about an efficient airframe, here a quote from AT Capt. Robert Pichet:

"Airbus did a fantastic aerodynamic design with the A-330"

I guess he is the one who will never complain about it.



:p

[steamchicken]

Ain't that the truth...but if some of the PPRuNe Airbus bashers had been in ATC for that one, they'd have asked him to get down quicker and then hold 160 to 4! Off the point, though, I hadn't noticed until this morning how beautiful they actually are - a case of "what looks right is right" given the efficiency.

[AhhhVC813]

340-600 climb performance is a tad better than the gentlemanly C2 powered -300. For example, at 370t at ISA +10 it will take about 31mins to climb to FL330, (Cathay has a MTOW of 375t and Virgin 368t). -300 under the same conditions @ 257t (C2) is about 37mins (C4 powered -300 @ 270t about 34 mins. Power to weight ratio on a 370t -600 is about 3.7:1 and on a 270t C4 powered -300 about 4.3:1, and a 257t C2 -300 about 4.5:1, approximately!

[Warlock2000]

For my descent calculations I use...

3 x Height - No 2 Engine oil pressure + Engine 1 N3 / square root of the L1's bra.

Works a treat!
:D :D

[rr892igw]

Being a late comer into the aviation industry,Airbus came out with something better but slightly different from old Boeing.
With 2nd stage of approach flaps(equivalent to boeing's flap 5 or 10),a A330 can fly at 140kts!This can hold up a B737 on app.The solution of this topic is we should learn to respect and accept new mechine in our industry.I've flown the A330 and B777,trust me,Airbus is SHE and Boeing is a HE.

[Night Shift]

I regularly see A330s descending into my sector from a cruise of FL400 down to FL270, with varying wind conditions. Most of the time they leave the descent late and I've seen a ROD in excess of 7000fpm passing FL300, or so my radar indicates. Therefore it is possible to get the aircraft to perform very well if required, plus a decent rate of climb is available if desired by ATC. This is obviously due to the A330 being a twin, as opposed to the Controllers nightmare climbing A340, which one day will cause an unwary Controller a lot of grief, as they level off or climb at 200fpm to accelerate, without notifying ATC.
PLEASE A340 drivers do the decent thing and tell ATC of a ROC less then 500fpm, like the rules state.
The best BUS for us is the minibus A319, great ROC plus high forward speed in the climb.

Regards

Night Shift

The nights are long, and the days are hard. The Gravy train has stopped.

[MarkD]

AhhhVC813

thanks for that

Night Shift

If the 319 is quick, I wonder what the 318 will be like :D :D

[javelin]

Our Grown Ups think they know better than Airbus so we drift around with cost index 30 but then plan selected .81 over the ocean. Downside gives a descent speed of .78/275 which is no use to man nor beast. as we also fly with the spy in the cab, I tend to leave the CI and amend the descent to .81/310. Dropping the cabin rate to 250'/min uses less fuel in descent but starts you down in a cruise descent well out. Now if you are going into SFB or coming off the ocean Eastbound this can help - 290 abeam LIFFY/DUB, LGW restrictions etc are easily met, on a profile of sorts with minimal fuel wasteage. Here comes the problem though - as previous posters have said, it has a big wing, it can get a scurry on but only until you reach .84/320 and then the wing soars like an Eagle as opposed to the 320 which soars like an Anvil ! All in all a challenge at times. What I still can't understand is why on the 320 we are 30 miles behind Britannia at TOD and 4 miles behind them on final :D