737 F15 vs F30 and F40
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 F15 vs F30 and F40
My operator finally authorized our B737 CL & NG for F15 landings as a normal flap setting.
Of course I've done F15 landings in the sim for OEI and malfunctions, but I've never done it in the plane.
We're training by memo, so I may ask some company-types. But right now I'm asking you, the pilots of Tech Log, for any notes on a F15 landing.
Of course I've done F15 landings in the sim for OEI and malfunctions, but I've never done it in the plane.
We're training by memo, so I may ask some company-types. But right now I'm asking you, the pilots of Tech Log, for any notes on a F15 landing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason I can surmise for doing F15 landings is fuel economy and perhaps noise, but the latter is debatable. I thought there were already operators certified for F25 normal landings. F15 must be considered a non-normal as you need to select flap inhibit on the EGPWS.
You say your "operator finally authorised..........." I wonder what the discussion was between Boeing, FAA inspector & operator. I would have expected great scepticism from the former 2 under economic pressure from the latter. This will be until the first overrun or set of burst tyres.
Is there a minimum runway length that is stipulated for this? And I assume no braking issues or tailwind. I can imagine some interesting flight deck debates from a disagreeing pilot. CRM could be tested.
You say your "operator finally authorised..........." I wonder what the discussion was between Boeing, FAA inspector & operator. I would have expected great scepticism from the former 2 under economic pressure from the latter. This will be until the first overrun or set of burst tyres.
Is there a minimum runway length that is stipulated for this? And I assume no braking issues or tailwind. I can imagine some interesting flight deck debates from a disagreeing pilot. CRM could be tested.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason I can surmise for doing F15 landings is fuel economy and perhaps noise, but the latter is debatable. I thought there were already operators certified for F25 normal landings. F15 must be considered a non-normal as you need to select flap inhibit on the EGPWS.
You say your "operator finally authorised..........." I wonder what the discussion was between Boeing, FAA inspector & operator. I would have expected great scepticism from the former 2 under economic pressure from the latter. This will be until the first overrun or set of burst tyres.
Is there a minimum runway length that is stipulated for this? And I assume no braking issues or tailwind. I can imagine some interesting flight deck debates from a disagreeing pilot. CRM could be tested.
You say your "operator finally authorised..........." I wonder what the discussion was between Boeing, FAA inspector & operator. I would have expected great scepticism from the former 2 under economic pressure from the latter. This will be until the first overrun or set of burst tyres.
Is there a minimum runway length that is stipulated for this? And I assume no braking issues or tailwind. I can imagine some interesting flight deck debates from a disagreeing pilot. CRM could be tested.
One of the uses is for Hot&High go-around limits.
I'm preeetty sure wind and breaking issues affect all landings, but we can always run the numbers to see if it needs to be F15, F30, or F40.
I bet there are some CAs who will want to try this as soon as they can and others who will never want to even hear it suggested (the "F1 takeoff? Is that even legal?? Not on my watch!!!" crowd).
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did base training in the Jurassic we did eng failures. F15 returns to terra firma too...
Advice from the trainer was to put your seat up a click... When I subsequently did a few on the Classic (as a result of NNC's) this did hold true on that too. Ground effect/tail clearance is different as APU notes - All manageable though!
Never flew the NG though...
Advice from the trainer was to put your seat up a click... When I subsequently did a few on the Classic (as a result of NNC's) this did hold true on that too. Ground effect/tail clearance is different as APU notes - All manageable though!
Never flew the NG though...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my argument is; whats so different about landing long and landing fast. You're using up excess runway that you don't have to. You are giving up your safety net. The first time you roll down to the far end of the runway onto wet rubber and scare the sh!te out of yourself, you'll think twice about landing faster than you really need to. Using less than full or much less than full may be an approved procedure from Boeing, but is an alternate procedure. You'll also increase your ROT, may increase your taxi time in
Thats my two rupees worth
Thats my two rupees worth
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Mediterranean
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Willit
I agree with what you say but one aspect is the climb gradients on landing. In my outfit we're often limited by this when going rural and have to give up valuable payload or extra fuel. With the carbon brakes and full reversers, the brake energy seldom causes any problems if the runway is long.
I agree with what you say but one aspect is the climb gradients on landing. In my outfit we're often limited by this when going rural and have to give up valuable payload or extra fuel. With the carbon brakes and full reversers, the brake energy seldom causes any problems if the runway is long.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you're runway analysis should factor the single engine go around performance. I doubt that would be applicable a lot with the new generation engines. Classics may be more critical.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, normal ops being a pretty damn good headwind!
on a side note, sort of, I see quite a few operators using F30 as SOP, mostly for fuel savings, but at least you dont fall asleep on final, and handling is a bit better.
on a side note, sort of, I see quite a few operators using F30 as SOP, mostly for fuel savings, but at least you dont fall asleep on final, and handling is a bit better.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps 15 for single engine approach?
That, too. But we can do it for normal ops, too
I trust you don't mean shutting down and engine to justify a F15 landing as normal ops? ��
That, too. But we can do it for normal ops, too
I trust you don't mean shutting down and engine to justify a F15 landing as normal ops? ��
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....procedure is directed at having lower minima which still allows adequate missed approach performance from a higher energy state on the somewhat circuitous (RF intensive) missed profile in high terrain with both engines operative....has nothing to do with OEI.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linzhi, PRC....runway length 9000', elevation 9000'....is an example where F15 landing is mandated for normal ops in the 738 (NG, big CFMs)....
....procedure is directed at having lower minima which still allows adequate missed approach performance from a higher energy state on the somewhat circuitous (RF intensive) missed profile in high terrain with both engines operative....has nothing to do with OEI.
IIRC this option was covered in some obscure section of the FCOM that I accidentally read once. Allowable weights in the airport analysis for the procedure take into account all the performance considerations incl stopping of course.
Do you guys use F15 for your garden variety 16 L,C,R type ops or is it only approved for special airports in the boonies?
....procedure is directed at having lower minima which still allows adequate missed approach performance from a higher energy state on the somewhat circuitous (RF intensive) missed profile in high terrain with both engines operative....has nothing to do with OEI.
IIRC this option was covered in some obscure section of the FCOM that I accidentally read once. Allowable weights in the airport analysis for the procedure take into account all the performance considerations incl stopping of course.
Do you guys use F15 for your garden variety 16 L,C,R type ops or is it only approved for special airports in the boonies?
I pulled up some numbers a few days ago - for giggles - and the numbers were obviously longer for F15, until you got to higher breaking. The difference was only 100 feet at MAX brakes between F15 and F30.
I'm not going to do it in Sitka, but I might at DFW.
Last edited by ImbracableCrunk; 11th Sep 2016 at 05:51. Reason: seplling
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, F15 with autobrakes MAX enables the 737 to pretty much return to land single engine on any runway it can takeoff from.
But to consider F15 autobrakes MAX for normal landings requires a larger leap of the imagination than this black duck is capable of. Good luck with it!
But to consider F15 autobrakes MAX for normal landings requires a larger leap of the imagination than this black duck is capable of. Good luck with it!
