View Single Post
Old 10th Nov 2002, 02:12
  #7 (permalink)  
Waste Gate
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 119
200 hrs in a bugsmasher 5 yrs ago??

There is no correlation between unstable approaches and crew background, be it cadet, ex - GA, airline or military. Most of the less experienced pilots are more conservative anyway, and unstable approaches are not the sole doing of F/Os.

Any of the approaches attracting the safety depts. interest could have been flown by the Capt.

There was an interesting thread on PPRuNe around 12 mths ago about QF 767s supposedly being slow inside 30 miles . Sure you can do 340 knots or more to 20 miles in a 767. After 20 miles though you need full speed brake, flap at limit speeds and possibly gear early and/or out of sequence. Unless you happen to be at 3000 ft at 20 miles, and I can't think of too many places on the network that allow that. It just increases workload at a phase of flight where you need to be looking outside, and where it's generally turbulent, all for a time saving of 30 seconds!!

Most drivers self imposed a limit of 250 below 5000 anyway.


Sure it was nice to be able to sail through 20 miles doing, say, 300 knots and passing 4000 ft, but it makes little difference anyway. If ATC haven't sorted the sequence out by 20 miles then no turn of speed is going to benefit anyone.

I can't however see how restricting speed to 250 below 5000 will reduce the incidence of rushed approaches. I do agree that 210 at 12 miles is a good limit, but when you look in closer detail at the circumstances surrounding rushed approaches, the cause can usually be put down to:

(1) Un accounted for tailwind on base or final.

(2) Unexpected track shortening from ATC, often after a request for a high speed descent (happened to me recently at Sydney)

(3) Slow reaction to the above occurring - not going for the chicken stick or rubber speedbrake in a timely manner.


Last edited by Waste Gate; 10th Nov 2002 at 03:03.
Waste Gate is offline