Originally Posted by IGh
First, an easy question, for “AirRabbit”, about something you mentioned in slot #62, thrust – energy management proposal for “stabilized approach”:
“… a bit more specificity for a “stabilized approach.” … the engines spooled and stable.” [???]
There it is again! “stable” thrust???
AirRabbit, Where are you getting this? The airline pilot has always been free to move TURBOJET’s Thrust Levers while on final.
Hello
IGh. Thanks for the “soft ball,” I think. Since you didn’t question the use of the term “spooled,” I’m presuming that this particular term doesn’t engender the same degree of animus as the term “stable” does; however, at the risk of providing an overly simplistic answer, the term “stable” (as in “stable thrust”) does not mean to “lock the throttles and don’t touch them again.” It is a term that is often used with respect to throttle usage as one where the movement of the throttles may be continuous or constant but the overall effect is one that results in minor changes in pitch, trim, or airspeed – usually involving movement of the throttles
significantly less than a full “knob-width.” Lack of stability in thrust would be evident in a rather large variation in pitch, trim, or airspeed – with airspeed likely being the most noticeable – exceeding values of 4 or 5 knots – strictly as a result of throttle manipulation. I probably need not say the words, but to preclude any misunderstandings, the term “stable thrust” is meant to be the opposite of “unstable thrust,” where power management runs the gamut from “flight idle” to “takeoff thrust,” in wide-ranging and precipitous throttle … (shall I say)
adjustments??
Originally Posted by IGh
I’m curious about where you get this notion about “stabilized thrust”??? Is there something from FSF? Maybe from FAA Flight Standards? Or, maybe this is another “alternative” from FAA’s SW Region?
Well, your reference to the US FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-71, is a good reference, and, while the term “stabilized thrust” is not used, certainly the terms “stabilized approach” and “stabilized condition” are used throughout. If you have the problem you seem to have with “stabilized thrust,” I would be curious to know if you have the same problem with either “stabilized approach” or “stabilized condition.”
You may desire to review the document you referenced, AC 120-71, Appendix 2, in which a “stabilized approach” is described a bit more … and, among other things, are the following 2 statements contained in a description of a "Stabilized Approach:"
“The airplane speed is within the acceptable range specified in the approved operating manual used by the pilot.”
...and
“Power setting is appropriate for the landing configuration selected, and is within the permissible power range for approach specified in the approved operating manual used by the pilot.”
It would be from these 2 sources that the radical concept of “stabilized thrust” derives … and please note the reference to “speed range” and “permissible power range” – clearly denoting the ability to actually
move the throttles. It’s something very similar to the admonition to maintain a “constant angle, constant rate of descent;” which, of course, under any interpretation, we would all recognize as being similarly not possible – if taken to the dictionary definition, as written.
Originally Posted by IGh
Contributed by “AirRabbit”, in slot #62, dated 22nd November; regarding
-- any US airline and it’s regulator
-- FAA’s 8400.10 and
-- FAA’s “standards” for airline pilots:
“… the material … referenced are “orders” and “advisory circulars,” … in aviation within the US … are not requirements that anyone must follow….”
Hmmm, not a requirement?
The FAA’s “standard” for AIRLINE pilots employed by US operators, re’ “stabilized approach” is published in 8400.10.
As you’ve asserted (as did FAA's AFS-2 Flt Stds), FAA’s SW Region seems free to disregard the engines spooled-up “standard” included in FAA Order 8400.10, meant for checking US air carriers. An alternative “standard” was created by an operator, and accepted by FAA’s SW Region. The operator did something more, operator cited FAA’s 8400.10 as the source for that “alternative” standard, a deception inflicted upon their own instructors and Check Airmen.
Originally Posted by IGh
?? AirRabit? That FAA standard, only in 8400.10, is not a requirement?
First, I think you may have confused me with someone else. I don’t believe that I’ve ever asserted that anyone is free to disregard any issue that is pertinent to aviation safety. If your intent here is to criticize the SW Region office of the FAA – I’ll offer to hold your coat and hat while you do so. But if your intent is to berate my understanding of Federal Aviation Regulations vs. Advisory Circulars, Bulletins, FAA Orders, and the like, I’m afraid I’ll have to take exception. The only regulations the FAA is charged with enforcing (indeed, the
only ones they MAY enforce) are those published as regulations – and they can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Forgive me if I sound like a colonist, but rules are rules, and advice and preferences are not - ACs are not rules; 8400.10 is not a rule. The SW Region wound up getting a lot of light and heat because of the way some there elected to do business. I am, and have been, of the opinion that the duty and responsibility of any regulatory authority is to set the minimum standards that have to be met – where, if such standards were only met in a minimal way, that level would provide for safe operation of the airplane. If the regulator can show why something is necessary to accomplish – fine – they should do so. If they cannot show why something is necessary, they have no business trying to convince, cajole, threaten, induce, persuade, or encourage anyone to do whatever it is. Now, having said that, I also believe that it is the duty and responsibility of everyone in the aviation industry to try to do the best they can for all concerned. Normally, the most efficient way to operate an airplane is also the most advantageous for maintenance, scheduling, profit, and … safety. No one should have to be encouraged, persuaded, induced threatened, cajoled, or convinced to operate an airplane safely.
However, as I often say on these threads – anyone here is free to disagree with my opinions – and some do – regularly, in fact. However, the fact remains that what is true is not dependent on any particular person’s agreement with that truth. The other fact is that when a pilot is in the cockpit, the way he or she actually flies the aircraft is a matter of personal pride and professionalism (modified, of course, by whatever the bloke in the other seat might have to say).
I would hate to find this industry in a state where the only thing anyone does is just (and only just) what he or she is required to do. I’m not a particular fan of having the kinds of skills tests to which I’m likely to be subjected contained in an internal document published only to those who may administer that skill test and determine my future. I think the new approach that some in the FAA have described sounds at least
interesting … and I, for one, am anxious to see what it is they are proposing. Over the years, I’ve met several FAA employees – and generally, they pull their britches on the way we all do … and I would think that a couple of “enterprising” dolts who managed to approve some funny (“funny” as in “strange”) goings-on in the SW Region, does not make the rank-and-file FAA employee very proud of his or her colleagues.