From the U.S. AIM:
EXPEDITE- Used by ATC when prompt compliance is required to avoid the development of an imminent situation. Expedite climb/descent normally indicates to a pilot that the approximate best rate of climb/descent should be used without requiring an exceptional change in aircraft handling characteristics.
That's pretty much how it's used over here I think. I've used the term "Best rate" as well. I think, from talking to controllers in the U.S. at least, that enroute controllers make more use of defined restrictions/requests than terminal controllers. i.e. "Can you be level at FL330 in 20 miles?" I agree that using the term "expedite" without a Plan B or another form of separation immediately available is ill advised, but more often it's used to avoid a lengthy vector or altitude restriction.
Also in the U.S. Controller's handbook, 7110.65, is a table of climb and descent rates based on:
average en route climb/descent profiles at median weight between maximum gross takeoff and landing weights.
Now, several of the reported figures seem like pure fantasy to me, but it does give a
limited idea of normal expected performance. For example:
BOEING COMPANY (USA)
Model
Type Designator
Description
Performance Information
Number & Type Engines/Weight Class
Climb Rate (fpm)
Descent Rate (fpm)
SRS Cat.
707-100, VC-137707-100, VC-137
B701
4J/H
3,500
3,500
III
727-200
B722
3J/L
4,500
4,500
III
727 Stage 3 (-100 or -200)
B72Q
3J/L
4,500
4,500
III
737-200 (Surveiller, CT-43, VC-96)
B732
2J/L
3,000
3,000
III
B737 Stage 3
B73Q
2J/L
3,000
3,000
III
737-300
B733
2J/L
5,500
3,500
III
737-400
B734
2J/L
6,500
3,500
III
737-500
B735
2J/L
5,500
3,500
III
737-600
B736
2J/L
4,000
4,000
III
737-700
B737
2J/L
4,000
4,000
III
737-800
B738
2J/L
4,000
4,000
III
747-100
B741
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
747-200
B742
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
747-300
B743
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
747-400
B744
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
747SR
B74R
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
747SP/SUD
B74S
4J/H
3,000
3,000
III
757-200
B752
2J/L
3,500
2,500
III
757-300
B753
2J/L
3,500
2,500
III
767-200
B762
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
767-300
B763
2J/H
3,500
3,500
III
777-200
B772
2J/H
2,500
2,500
III
777-300
B773
2J/H
2,500
2,500
III
Now, before anybody laughs out loud, remember, this is an FAA publication.......
I get questioned by pilots about climbdescent rates, and the best answer I've heard came from an old friend.
"Climb or descend like it was YOUR idea, not ours..."
It happens fairly often in the last few years that Air Carriers and some Corporate are NOT descending at a rate that will allow a vector onto the final approach course in proper sequence. In other words, some folks are not getting down and slowed early enough for us to fit their aircraft into a gap on one of the finals, (though a few hard heads never quit trying). Consequently, these aircraft are going to the back of the line, or flying some pretty un-stabilized approaches. I think it would be to most pilot's benefit, (at least at the airports where I've worked) to hustle right on down to the assigned altitude and so be prepaired to slow and turn in should a gap develop. Instead, we're getting arrivals that seem to be planning a downwind, base, and 20 mile final from the start. (Believe it or not, tis not always so!)
I find that nothings civilian climbs better than a domestic 757, nor descends and slows as well as an old 727, though a few freight pilots flying Lears and Falcons certainly try to claim title from time to time.
And while we're discussing performance, a 757 doing 118 kts on final is a poor fit in front of a 737-800 or -900!
