VB Smooth Landing Kings

[Time Bomb Ted]

After spending the last 4 years flying QF everywhere, (approx 180 flights per year) I've just flown VB to Launy and back for Xmas for a change. Boy you guys sure know how to land. All were as smooth as a baby's behind with the last on into BN attracting applause by the pax.

Are you on some sort of smooth landing bonus or something? QF pilot's tend to throw the thing at the ground and don't miss, where VB grease it on.

I don't bring it up lightly, but as a Grade 1 Instructor, I'm impressed.

Well Done.

TBT

[Mr.Buzzy]

I have to say that its been a long time since I've seen a bad QF landing whilst waiting to line up. :ok:

bbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz

[swh]

Time Bomb Ted,

I think you will find since QF1 at BKK they have strict parameters in which to land, i think between 1000-2000 ft markers, outside that and its a recorded event.

And Dj use their head and say why do we need to land by the 2000 ft marker if you have a 3.5 km long runway and the conditions are right.

:ok:

[Ibex]

Somehow I think you may be thrashing for a large wind up of the music box.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Awwww Jeeeez.... here we go!

bbbzbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzz

[dirtylittlefokker]

Ibex, may I be the first to wind up your motorola.

The landing is how we are judged.

The last 10 inches are all that count to Mr and Mrs Bevan. (and Time Bomb Ted (Mrs probably enjoys the last 10 inches most)) It is relatively easy if you have a light 737 and 3000 m plus of runway.

Try landing a heavy regional jet on a runway which is 1500 m long, ungrooved, wet, 30 m wide, with a crosswind. Or a 747 on any runway.

No prizes for smooth landings there, mate!!

It really does not matter if you fly the slf (or TBT), from A to B upside down, on one engine through cyclone Tracey. They still judge you on the last 10 inches. I wish it was six:{

[funbags]

dlf ,

The 747 is one of the easiest aircraft to land in the world. Try the 767 - I hear its fun.

[Captain Can't]

Try landing a heavy regional jet on a runway which is 1500 m long, ungrooved, wet, 30 m wide, with a crosswind
73s fit on those little runways too! usually a tad longer, but great fun!
the short/narrow one's work you a little harder and a as result of more concentration, a better landing! i find anyway. But a heavier 800...

[hotnhigh]

;) Mmmmm TBT, probably explains the 'internal' investigation at VB surrounding the reasons for the unusual number of tyre problems. (Get it here first on prune!)

[balance]

I can vaguely remember a study done many years ago into tyre life with Pilot vs Autoland.

As I recall, autoland extended tyre life because landings were firmer and more positive, as opposed to pilots, who attepmt to grease it on. That "greasing" it on caused greater wear on the dunlops.

Mr Boeing certainly doesn't like to buggerise around. Put the damn thing on - firmer the better.

Me? I'm luck if I can hit the runway two times in three!

[Mr.Buzzy]

Put the damn thing on - firmer the better.

Thats right...

Woe betide aviation in Australia.

bbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzz

[tinpis]

Try a Beech -18


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Time Bomb Ted]

swh ,
Thanks for that. I had no idea. I seem to recall an investigation into the use of Reverse Thrust verses heavier brake application and the brakes won. Something to do with the make up of the pads or something.

This is no wind up IBEX , it is just that I fly alot now and the worst is the 767 for landings and the best is the 744. From a passenger perspective. 737's seem so hot and cold, and I'm not talking night verses day either. That is a whole different kettle of fish.

TBT

[SMOC]

No no no :E surely the A330 can give the 767 a run for it's money.

SMOC

[The Messiah]

Time Bomb Ted

FYI the 744 is smooth (usually) due to the fact it has the extra wheel bogey in the body centre with rear trail which can really cushion the touchdown, whereas the 767 by design has rearward trailing (so it fits in the wheelbay) wing gear which is not so forgiving.

Flying around in Oz on long wide runways in good weather particularly in 737's, it should be very rare indeed for a heavy landing.

Into Bombay at night however, with heavy rain, 10kt tail, autobrakes 4 in a 777-300 at MLW, the heaviness of the touchdown is the last consideration as all your landing performance data is based on touching down at 1000' so every foot you float is distance you have not allowed for.

Keep it on the black stuff not on the green! (tongue firmly in cheek)

[Karunch]

No doubt Vb's Darwin overun was a smooth touchdown too. What's really important here guys?

[HotDog]

FYI the 744 is smooth (usually) due to the fact it has the extra wheel bogey in the body centre with rear trail which can really cushion the touchdown, whereas the 767 by design has rearward trailing (so it fits in the wheelbay) wing gear which is not so forgiving.

The Messiah, me just being The Reverend, am certainly outranked by your holyness.:ok: But I do happen to have several thousand hours on the 747. FYI, all 747 models have two body gears with eight wheels between them as against the DC-10 and 777, both of which have a single body gear on the fuselage centre line. The smooth landings on the 747 is more due to the ground effect of the huge wings rather than the body gears. Cheers, HD.

[Spotlight]

Its a funny old discussion, For the self-discerning a smooth touchdown outside paremeters just doesn't count other than, oh well at least is was smooth.

Given good weather and unhurried approaches yeah anyone can develop a technique that works for them. Does anyone remember Col Griffith's stalling the Electra on?

Understood obviously, is the need to hit the mark on speed on centreline in adverse conditions and thats what its all about.

BTW if anyone would like to develop the thread as to their thoughts on VREF + x and reducing (what height, when etc).

[woftam]

Ah, the old "good weather in Oz" chestnut again.
Granted there are regular low viz probs in Europe/Asia/USA but nothing a Cat3C autoland won't fix.
The WX in Oz can get more than a little nasty from time to time and the B737 goes into some pretty short (and 30 metre wide) runways at MLW as well.
It's all relative!
The windshear/turbulence/crosswind/downwind/nasties I've struck in Oz more than match most of the Wx I have experienced in the overseas arena.
And that was in a B744.
Also many of these approaches are NPA's not ILS's.
:ok:

[The Messiah]

Hot Dog

Never seen a 777 with bodygear. While the earlier DC-10's did not have it either.

[Dehavillanddriver]

I don't believe that the DJ 737 pilots are any better or worse than the QF 737 pilots.

I suspect that the QF pilots suffer from flying both the classic and the NG - when I flew both the classic and the NG, there seemed to be real, though small, differences in where each type hit the tar - the NG doesn't land as nicely as the classic in my experience though.

It may well have been in my head, though the voices that I hear tell me that the differences are real!

That all being said I didn't see anywhere in TBT's post that said anything about Virgin pilots landing long, or short, or outside the touchdown zone. It seems that a lot of people assume that if a touchdown is smooth then they have landed long - all except their own greasers of course!

TBT - as a Virgin pilot - though not one that has been to Launy for a couple of weeks - thanks for the kind words!

Have a happy new year!

[HotDog]

Oops, you are absolutely right Messiah. The 777 indeed has no centre gear just the six wheel bogie wing gears. What I meant to say was the A340. Also you are correct in saying the DC10-10 did not have a centre gear but the -30 and MD11 has it. Still doesn't change the fact that the 747 has two body gears which are either side of centre, just inboard and aft of the wing gears.

[Spotlight]

Who invited the plastic jacket brigade.

[Ralph the Bong]

The B747 is an easy aircraft to land because it was designed that way. In fact it is easier to land than a C172. When Boeing first proposed the construction of this type, they determined that pilots would average 2.6 landings per month; a figure that is probably less than what an average private pilot would do. Thus, the requirement to be vice-less when the machine is landed was found.

I personally found that the best way to land the B747 was by formula: when on slope, commence power reduction and flare when the end of the first center-line after the piano keys disappears under the glaresheild(ensure correct seat height adjustment!!). Touchdown being signalled soley by the aft movement of the speedbrake was a reward in itself.

The huge inertia of the 74 is a factor along with wing area and landing gear configuration which makes the type easy to land. Further, the gear is VERY robust in its engineering and it is designed to be landed in a x-wind without kicking off the crab angle. This, however is somthing that I could never bring myself to do and I always kicked it straigh prior to touchdown. Landing one wing low is not recommended as the pod will scape t about 4 degrees.

The B767 is a Pr!ck of a thing to land. The bogies hanging low at the front cause the wheels to 'stub the toes' when landing. Although I fly with some guys who can pull off a greaser on the 76. I cannot. My touchdowns are ok, but are all the same. At least I always touchdown in the same spot.

I would hasten to say that it would be a worry for a company's pilots to develop an attitude that it is ok to float down a RWY past the touch down zone in pursuit of a smooth landing. Accident history is replete with the misfortunes of those who hold this view and it is a practice that is to be discouraged in any instance. At many carriers, landinfg long is a fail item on a check ride.

[Pinky the pilot]

Not ever having the pleasure (nor ever will have) of being in command of any of the aforementioned heavies is a matter of regret for myself.
But I always will be thankful to the unknown crew of a QF aircraft on which I was a passenger from YBTL to YPAD via YSSY (I think) back during the Easter Holidays of 1992.
I had just been discharged from Townsville Base Hospital six weeks after making a complete mess of myself in an a/c accident in PNG doing amongst other things, breaking my back.
Anyway, all landings were such greasers that I was extremely thankful to the cabin staff when finally disembarking at Adelaide. No-one who has not suffered such a spinal injury can imagine what the pain endured can be like. I nearly screamed in pain a few times on the taxi ride to the airport but the landings were so smooth I can still remember the relief I felt once we were down.
Whoever the flight crew were on that day, Thank you!:ok:

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[missy]

VB, Fast on final, slow to depart = PIA and loss of airport capacity

[Dehavillanddriver]

Missy,

Virgin do the same speed as QF up to 10000 ft on departure so how do you figure it equals a loss of airport capacity?

Above 10000' it should not make any difference to the departure rates.

[missy]

Virgin do the same speed as QF up to 10000 ft on departure so how do you figure it equals a loss of airport capacity?

Firstly, VB and QF DO NOT fly the same speeds to 10,000ft.

Secondly, VB use more runway than QF fpr the same sectors. You can claim more passengers, more freight, heavier passengers, whatever, but the derated departures mean that the aircraft uses more runway to get airborne which means that the attainment of an ATC separation standard takes more time which then in turn leads to a loss of airport capacity.

[sinala1]

Firstly, VB and QF DO NOT fly the same speeds to 10,000ft.

Does anyone else have visuals of Missy sitting at the end of the runway with scanner in one hand and radar gun in the other???

"Well well well that DJ a/c was flying at 0.00009462 of a knot slower than the preceding QF aircraft.... naughty naughty not freeing up runway quick enough"

:hmm:

[Dehavillanddriver]

Well Missy,

Hate to burst your bubble, BUT both QF and DJ fly at 250 kts below 10000', the only difference that I can see would be DJ do noise abatement takeoff's everywhere - ie V2 to V2+20 up to 3000' agl then clean up.

As for the minor differences between the amount of runway used by Virgin vs QANTAS you must be joking if you think that this reduces airport capacity.

If you seriously think that these differences limit airport capacity I want what you are on because it is good ****!

Are you the turkey that does SMC in Sydney are you - that would explain the strange ideas

[missy]

DJ do noise abatement takeoff's everywhere - ie V2 to V2+20 up to 3000' agl then clean up.

Thanks for validating my assertion that QF and DJ DO NOT fly the SAME speeds.

I see it every day, DJ use more runway which can mean one departure in a gap rather than 2. More often than not DJ is simply made #2.

[Kaptin M]

I see it every day, DJ use more runway Bollocks! :eek:
Two 737's operating between two ports, over a similar trip distance are going to use take-off distances that would be indiscernably different from an observer's point of view............unless one a/c is doing a full power FL10/FL15 short fielder, and the other a max derate FL0/FL1 take-off.

Out of YSSY, where you purportedly work, missy, ALL take-offs must be noise abatement, so speeds below 10,000 will be almost IDENTICAL.

Methinks you're more than a tad biased towards the Red Rat!

[Dehavillanddriver]

So what you are saying that the period between the QF 1000' clean up and the DJ 3000' clean up - when the aircraft is climbing at 2500-4000 ft per minute - is restricting capacity at Australia's airports - that must be an important 30-45 seconds!

And you are also saying that by using de-rated take-off's the Virgin aircraft use more runway and also restrict airport capacity.

Yep - you are that tosser on Sydney SMC!

If you seriously think that these differences are restricting airport capacity you need to get out more - if you really believe this and you are a controller it explains the sometimes crappy service we get from Sydney ATC.

[The Messiah]

So does this mean that Q do not do derated take-offs in their 737's? Just curious.

[Keg]

OK, since we've digressed onto climb speeds, what is the DJ deal?

At QF we do V2+15-20 until 1000' above airfield and then accelerate to min clean until 3000' AGL. After that it's 250 below 10'000 unless ATC clears us higher whichi in most circumstances on the 767 means about 320 knots/.81 (depending on predicted shear and other known or forseen factors). If clelared high speed and appropriate, what is the general DJ rule of thumb?

As for this KM:


ALL take-offs must be noise abatement

Yes and no. Yes in that the procedure I discussed above is an ICAO B departure (or whatever the new term is) and so technically is still a noise abatement departure. On the other hand, ICAO A is more commonly seen as THE noise abatement departure due to minimising the noise completely. I don't know about other airlines procedures but we're only required to use ICAO A on RWY 34 departures!

[woftam]

TM,yes QF certainly DO do assumed temp take-offs whenever possible.
So apart from the different clean up height I don't quite see what Missy is on about regarding the amount of runway used vs VB?

:rolleyes:

[Dehavillanddriver]

Virgin have, since the beginning, done noise abatement takeoff's where the aircraft is climbed at V2 to V2+20 (typically V2 +15) until 3000' agl then cleaned up - all engines operating before the pedants arc up!

Once clean we climb at 250 KIAS unless speed restrictions are cancelled.

Above 10 and in the case of speed cancellation, the climb speed is predicated on ECON. We have different cost indices for each city pair - and each engine/airframe/winglet and lease term combination.

Typically these cost indices are quite low, with subsequent effect of having climb indicated speeds anywhere from 280 to 320 depending on the airframe, weight, winds etc.

Indicated Mach numbers are in the order of M.78-.79 depending upon cruising level and of course the cost index.

Decent is at a standard ECON into 300 KIAS/250 below 10000'.

There are many schools of thought about whether or not this is a good way of doing things - but regardless of our individual thoughts, those that make the rules say this is how they want it done.

No doubt when the inevitable regime change happens (everybody eventually retires - no rumours here!) things will be looked at again, however until then this is how we do it....

Bear in mind that there are NO published profiles anymore - in years gone by AIP had a table of speeds for each type and company, but that has been removed long ago, so there are no regulatory requirements that dictate speeds to be flown, or indeed if we need to tell anyone what speed we are flying (and don't get me started on that dopey notam).

[missy]

Dehavillanddriver, let me know when your next in SYdney and I'll show you places on the aerodrome that you have only seen on a map or you have seen when you've been sent round!

[Dehavillanddriver]

Well Done Missy,

You have just confirmed to the world that Sydney Tower has at least 1 totally unprofessional controller.

With quotes like these...

More often than not DJ is simply made #2.

and

I'll show you places on the aerodrome that you have only seen on a map or you have seen when you've been sent round

Are you the controller that moaned about the flight numbers 245 and 542? Made a huge song and dance about it.

If you did a serious analysis of the takeoff distances - and consequentially the time spent on the runway - you would find that if there is any difference at all, it will be in the order of 3-5 seconds, which if that is the margins you are operating to you don't seem to have to worry about separation assurance.

Did you realise that a fair number of the -700's have 20k engines, where as the 800's have 24 and 26k engines (which we derate to 22 and 24k respectively).

[Uncommon Sense]

Interesting comment on the non-use of profile speeds as per AIP.
ATC use (and technically have to know) the speeds from the same sheet (published in ATC's own manuals).

An example:

AIRCRAFT TYPE# CLIAS #CRUISE#PROFILE to 30 NM#MIN to 30 NM#MIN 30-15NM#MIN 15 NM -FNL#MX

A320 #290 - 320# M.78 #300 #230 #210 #170 #M.80 # 340
A4 (Skyhawk) 300 M.72 M.72 300 250 180 M.78 / 450
A748 145 180 220 160 140 110 220
B707 (RAAF) 320 M.81 300 250 210 170 M.85 / 350
B712 310 M.80 310 250 230 210 M.80 / 320
B722 290 - 320 M.80 300 230 210 170 M.85 / 350
B733/4 (Virgin) 290 - 320 M.76 300 230 220 170 M.80 / 320
B737/8 (Virgin) 280 - 330 M.80 300 220 200 170 M.82 / 340
B733/4 (Qantas) 300 M.75 300 230 230 150 M.78 / 320
B738 (Qantas) 300 M.78 300 230 230 150 M.78 / 300
B742/3 (Qantas) 300 - 340 M.85 300 250 230 170 M.86 / 340
B744 (Qantas) 320 - 350 M.86 300 250 230 170 M.87 / 350
B762 (Qantas) 300 M.80 320 230 230 150 M.86 / 340
B763 (Qantas) 300 M.80 300 230 230 150 M.86 / 340

So, it would be nice to know if we are using duff data.

As far as who goes number 2 from an arrival point of view, it makes no difference.

If the plane in front slows earlier than anticipated (for a huge possible number of reasons - most I just couldn't care about) then the one following has to be slowed or moved etc. That our job.

I see little consistency among aircraft types or operators so it is pretty academic. One operator on one aircraft can have a difference over 40NM to touchdown of 2 minutes. THAT is significant. So we just make it work. (and THAT is why you may get slowed earlier than you want - fight it out in the crewroom!)

[Dehavillanddriver]

Uncommon these speeds are not published in AIP.

I assume that these are taken from MATS - which section? these look like the TAAATS profile speeds.

[Uncommon Sense]

Yes, MATS (Chap 3) Speed Control (Annex ?)

Nothing to with TAAATS profile speeds. They use a separate data file as part of MAESTRO as far as I am aware.

These speeds can also be applied in non-TAAATS environments.

Were these speeds not once included in the AIP? (or somewhere else?)

[one ball]

Thanks guys, I was having trouble getting to sleep and am now bored well and truly to tears....... Yawn.............

[Keg]

Uncommon, climb speed for the 763 is out a bit. We'll use econ if we're on time and it looks like it'll stay that way. ECON can generate speeds between 280 and 355 depending on the weight of the aircraft and the cost index. Most CI is 40 and so that should be 280-300ish.

If we're running late then it'll go between 300-330 on climb depending on the boss, the day, the weather, fatigue levels, etc, etc, etc. Most guys will 'hard wire' the speed at this stage rather than leave it to the CI to sort out.

Glad to be of service one ball! :}

[Centaurus]

Spotlight. You asked about Vref additives and their reduction? I presume you refer to the addition to Vref of half the steady headwind component for approach.

While Boeing state that this additive should be bled off approaching touch-down, they don't define the term "approaching touch down". This in turn results in different interpretations as to the true intent of the term. It is anyone's guess. Check captain's opinions take precedence when an interpretation is required.

In fact, very few pilots will deliberately bleed off the additive and invariably will cross the fence with the HW component additive still applied. Gust factor is another subject - here I am talking half the steady HW component.

With long runways and excellent automatic braking capability, the tendency is for crews to adopt the "near enough is good enough" mentality. In turn, this can result in touch down speeds significantly faster than need be - albeit perfectly safe under the conditions. The bean counters should be alerted to the general rule that 7 knots faster touch down speed results in 10% extra wear and tear on the tyres. LCC take note!

The pursuit of excellence perhaps is limited to just a few keen types, and touch down speeds 10-15 knots above Boeing recommended figures caused by reluctance to follow FCTM guidlines is par for the course and by default become SOP.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Nothing hard about landing the 767 smoothly....always nice when you get that gentle 'drag' down low from the autobrakes to signify that you have actually landed.

[HSWL]

For those of you that like to accept and use high speed (above 250 knots) below 10,000, just keep in mind that a bird strike at those speeds is potentially deadly. Almost certainly if injuries from a bird strike should occur, where the pilot has deliberately used a high speed option below 10,000, you had better get a good lawyer fast.

[Gnadenburg]

HSWL

My understanding was a transport category airliner is certified to hit a 3kg bird at design cruising speed and at sea level. FAR reference anyone?

Are you suggesting the 250kt below 10000' is a bird strike limitation?

So much in aviation is potentialy "deadly". I suppose we all need good lawyers.

[itchybum]

250 KIAS below 10 000ft is a limitation on some aircraft for the purposes of birdstrike protection, when the window heat is U/S.

Certification covers higher speeds with window heat systems functional (except in the case of steggles frozen chickens).

Unlike HSWL, I'm not a lawyer but I'd imagine if anyone is going to be a good target for court action, it'd be the airline since they're responsible for the Ops Manual which allows higher speeds below 10 000ft. The drivers are within their rights... (aren't they???)

Nothing wrong with going fast below 10, unless you're a wuss. Maybe the VB lads out of GA are nervous of high speeds??

320 KIAS to 1500 ft and idle onto base, ready to configure. Piece of piss.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Maybe the VB lads out of GA are nervous of high speeds??

So I guess our friends out of high school are used to high speeds on skateboards?

bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz

[Menen]

Don't knock 300 knots plus below 10,000. It may result in a disastrous event if you are unlucky enough to cop a bird in the face, but at least you save 48 seconds on the schedule and that's what counts to low cost carriers.

[flyingins]

JQ aircraft, just like its parent's, are limited to 250 KIAS below 5000' and 210 KIAS below 3000'.

This is regardless of ATC cancellation of speed control.

[Time Bomb Ted]

How did we get here from smooth landings?

Missy, Please tell me you were kidding with the #2 sequencing of VB aircraft?

TBT

[hotnhigh]

Somehow the poms have worked out the limitation of 312kts below 8000ft for birdstrike protection.

[dirtylittlefokker]

Just for the hell of it!

Discovery Channel ran a program last week debunking the frozen chicken thing.

Same weight, same area, same speed = same force.

Frozen or not, the chook came second.:8

[Roger Standby]

HSWL,

If you don't want MAX below 10k to hold your slot, let us know early and we'll give it to someone else.

Cheers,

R-S.

[itchybum]

JQ aircraft, just like its parent's, are limited to 250 KIAS below 5000' and 210 KIAS below 3000'. JQ sooks..... they are "losing their dogfighting skills".

Sounds more like they're worried about unstable approaches. Rather than teach them to fly properly, they restrict them with speeds.

[spleener]

The bit on the original thread - Time Bomb Ted: nice try at a wind-up, but keep rating those touchdowns wherever they may be! I'm sure it is important to someone.
The thread tangential - HSWL: another wind-up merchant methinks. 250k below 10000 [unless higher speed required for manoeuvre safety margin] is more [but not limited to!] a stabilised /ATC sequencing thing. Birdstrike risk management has been exercised - including the frozen chook method. Subsequently some windscreens were limited, some to 313kts below 8200ft [dunno where these numbers come from]. perhaps this is where somebody chose 312kts??

The real fact is that 300+ below 10000 is not really all that fast. The problem is the groundspeed/brainspeed/terra firma equation. As has been said in a previous life; Speed, Altitude, Ideas - pick two!
The max targets set by airlines [as recommended by the ICAO working group] are appropriate for safety/experience/oversight margins to help in stabilised approaches.

Itchybum; you're on the right crack, but your ass is on fire - cool it before you become a smoking hole;)

[itchybum]

But it's really not that hard... IS IT?!?!?!

Put up your hand if you've already had the training wheels taken off and can use experience and minor brain-power to land the aircraft, even if doing, and I know it is hard to believe, more than 250 < 10000!!! ;)

:ok:

[Gnadenburg]

The Pom's also figured out that if you hit terra firma at 330kts your brain has no time to register pain.

In my humble expereince, 250 below 10000 is an ATC thing as mentioned or a restriction by an airline concerend about CFIT.

Why did high speed descents become so dangerous all of a sudden?

Spleener

A very low, lowest common denominator.

[HSWL]

The original 250 below 10 was brought in by the FAA after a 727 clobbered a 172 and both aircraft were destroyed. In the States, it is a law that no one goes above 250 below 10 for that reason. ATC nor pilot can request a waiver to that law.

The impact energy of a bird strike increases with the square of the TAS - not the IAS. I understand from CASA sources that the dangers associated with bird impact damage during high speed below 10,000 ft will be the subject of an article in the forthcoming issue of Flight Safety Australia. Watch this space.

Read the report on the loss of an RAAF F-111 near Evans Head some years ago when a bird was hit at 560 knots at low level killing the crew when the windscreen stove in. Or the bird strike on the stabiliser of a Viscount in Canada at 280 IAS which resulted in the structural failure of the stabiliser and loss of the Viscount.

Sure, materials might be strengthend in Boeings and Airbus since those days, but 320 knots to 1500 ft as some scribe boasted earlier is poor airmanship - a term incidently that has gone out of vogue in recent years.

[404 Titan]

HSWL
In the States, it is a law that no one goes above 250 below 10 for that reason. ATC nor pilot can request a waiver to that law.
Not true. If you require high speed due operational reasons you can most definitely get it. For most heavies 250kts below 10000” isn’t practical or possible on departure, as you can’t clean up.

[blueloo]

was always led to believe by a US FAA instructor ex military (of course may be BS) that the reason the 250<10 in the states (when originally applied however many years ago) was to aid in the detection of high speed, low level cruise missiles. As he also said, this is now largely irrelevant as most jets easily exceed these speeds.

[amos2]

just as well that we have HWSL to set us straight in respect to operating at 320 kts below ten and other airmanship matters!

Him being a super hot PPL and all!!!! :O

His post is the best laugh I've had in years on Prune! :ok:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Discussions on speed bring all sorts of theories out of the wood work.

First, a little bit of history. 250 below 10,000, 210 below 3000 started as ATC speed limits in USA, but nothing to do with hitting a C-172, although a jet hitting a Constellation off KJFK got everyone’s attention at the time. Amazingly, only one fatality, the Captain of the Connie, and that happened on the ground, look it up, it was an amazing piece of airmanship.

It was all about making life easy for ATC, with early primitive radar, long before Mode C transponders etc., and big pistons ruled the airways, and the handful of airlines that had these new fangled jet thingies (like Qantas and Pan Am) had to fit in, majority ruled.

When the cost of fuel was no consideration, high speed descents were good fun. At one stage, the QF STANDARD descent was 0.88/360 to 3000’ ( B747), earlier, 0.86/360 in the B707. If conditions were suitable, nobody batted an eyelid if you maintained 360 to 1500’. In fact, the “decision height” for a diversion of a jet was often FL 250, so once your were committed to land, the faster you got on the ground the better, before the next Cb rolled in. Made for some interesting approaches when you had nowhere else to go.

Unfortunately, various “oil price shocks” over the years are what is really behind present descent profiles, descending from the final FL at approximately ( approximately is there for the pickers of nits) minimum drag, with the aim of only increasing power on final to stabilize the approach ( 500’VMC, 1000’IMC) will be minimum fuel burn.

Given the laws of aerodynamics, and the real world of ATC “help”, as it turns out 300/250/210 generally isn’t too far off the best profile for quite a range of aircraft, and aren’t too far from the middle of most turbulence penetration envelopes, either.

Thus, what started out in the late’50’s to keep B707/DC-8 out of the way of L049/749/1049/DC-4/6/6B/7A,B,C/ C 240/340/ Martin 202/303 etc has endured, for more reasons than one, but the history is a whole lot simpler than the last four pages would suggest.

As for birdstrikes, the various BCARS used to throw up 7000 and below as the bird strike area for certification ( I have no idea where the 8000’s or so quoted came from), while SFAR 422B ( now Part 25) used 10,000’. Presumably the pommie pigeon couldn’t soar to the heights of the FAA Bald Eagle.

By the way, weren’t any cruise missiles in late’50’s/early 60’s, just dumb bombs --- but given the yield, they didn’t need to be smart.

Tootle pip!!

[HotDog]

amos2, you being an ATPL-1st class (WOW!) surely have all the answers to these questions. Enlighten us, oh wise one.:yuk:

[amos2]

You don't think you might be out of your depth here rev? :p

[Uncommon Sense]

Why do these otherwise reasonable threads always end up in personal slanging and sledging? It doesn't seem to happen on the non DG forums.

Show some strength - bite your acid tongues and stick with the subject matter.

[HSWL]

Amos old chum. Surely with all your Pprune posts you don't really believe all that is advertised in the writer's profile. You might be surprised if you knew the facts...

[HotDog]

amos2, no mate I dont think I'm out of my depth at all. The last line in my log book states:
Total flying hours: 18,653.47
Total simulator hours ( mainly check and training) 2,804:30

[Gnadenburg]

HSWL

The F111 hit 3 pelicans ( 15 kg ) at 465kts and a 2000 feet. Ejection was initiated and the crew were sadly killed. Not a good case point for airliner op's.


Interesting that only a few years ago, CASA endorsed flying training required an airline trainee to demonstrate a "high speed descent" during line training. This involved entering a five to six thousand foot gate at 20DME at 350kts in a 727, 340kts in a A320 and 320kts in a 737.


I have experience with airlines abroad that do and do not endorse such practices. Those that don't, were concerned about the ability of their crews to manage anything greater than 250kts below 10000 and as an added precaution against CFIT.


I currently fly an aircraft with an VMO of 350kts. No mention is made of birdstrike vulnerabilty, except in the case of windshield heating failure where the 250 below 10000 comes into play. An aircraft is certified to hit a 1.5kg bird anywhere on the aircraft and anywhere within the speed envelope.


Your formula is incomplete, energy is half the birds weight by velocity squared with variables such as bone density, bird speed, bird flight direction and angle of splat!


At 350 kts in a 727 say ( common practice of old ) will hitting a pelican be a catasrophic event?


If it is, perhaps the regulatory authorities and manafacturers have been negligent for a long time.

[Uncommon Sense]

To throw a completely lateral spin on the frozen chicken theory:

Why when the windscreen heat is U/S, is the aircraft speed cautiously reduced, when it is said that whether the chicken is thawed or frozen (i.e. chicken heat U/S) doesn't matter?

[redsnail]

Without the window heat the window is more brittle, therefore it's unable to withstand the same amount of impact force as a heated window. :D

[Uncommon Sense]

Gday Redo - as I thought.

So does it tf. follow that if the chicken is more brittle (i.e. frozen solid) it is going to provide more impact? (despite the energy equation).

(If I get hit by a hailstone that weighs the same as equivalent water I know which one I withstand easier!)

I think we are getting in to areas of solidity - phases of matter and dissociation. Sorry.

[HSWL]

Gnadenburg. Thanks for the excellent reply - I was writing from recollection which is probably not the same as facts as you have shown. Although I am not short of big jet hours and some fighter jet as well, I was surprised to read in your post that CASA demanded demonstration of high speed below 10 descents. As a former member of that esteemed organisation I can say with some truth that they employed some eccentrics in flying ops and insisting on high speed demos - no doubt with a full load of passengers -seems the work of an eccentric to me.

[Dexter]

qestion for redo, why is it?

[itchybum]

Airmanship: The ability to operate the aircraft safely and efficiently both in the air and on the ground...

(I think that was the definition they made us sweat on way back...)

Well there's nothing wrong in anyone operating the aircraft exactly as the manuafacturer intended, profile-wise, or in any other respect.

Airmanship was mentioned earlier but operating the aircraft efficiently as well as safely is also a major airmanship consideration, as in the definition quoted above. I have no problem doing this and am able to sleep at night, regarding the safety of my passengers, believe it or not HSWL!!

I observe limitations, as appropriate, including the MEL-dictated speed limit of 250Kt below 10 000ft which is for bird-strike protection when window heat is U/S, as I said before.

The structure of the window material is more flexible when warmer just as many plastics and metals are.

[Gnadenburg]

HWSL

You are very much out of the loop reference speed below 10000. I am not surprised though, as a Dick Smith initiative was to remove CASA flying inspectors from the operational seats of airliners.

Until recently, it was SOP for domestic airlines to maintain 300kts below 10000. You were expected to hit and altitude distance gate of 5000 and 20DME. If you did not, flow would be disrupted.

About 10% of the time you would be asked to "make high speed descent". You would hit the gate at anything between 320 & 350KTS. Decelartion would commence from the gate to a stock standard Aussie ILS platform altitude of 3000', followed by a decelerating approach to a stabilisation of about 1000' ( VMC may have been as low as 500' ).

ATC would in some areas ask a high speed descent to 15DME. Many would not deliver in this circumstance.

I have even heard ATC ask an aircraft to : "maintain best subsonic speed to the field, for sequencing". Thankfully a fast jet!

Congestion, STAR arrivals and QF's arrival on domestic sectors begain a noted wane in high speed descents.

If they are not around today, what was the final nail in the coffin?

As earlier mentioned, 250 below 10000' was not common practice in Australia.

[Kaptin M]

As earlier mentioned, 250 below 10000' was not common practice in Australia. Until post 1989, when it found that the majority of blow ins, and new recruits to the airlines were incapable of flying faster than 250 below 10.

As Gardenbug stated, it was standard practice until then (1989) to close the throttles at TOD, hit 5,000' at 20nm to run, and commence a speed bleed, to be (landing) configured at 1,000' - 1,500'.
THE most fuel efficient AND time efficient descent yet devised - but one that required more monitoring and a closer involvement by the pilots, than the "dumbed down" 250 below 10 "light aircraft mindset".

In a similar vein, I have found Aussie ATC'ers to be a lot more flexible in their ability and willingness, to re-sequence arriving (and occasionally departing) aircraft.
Keep up the good work chaps and chapesses :ok:

[Wizofoz]

Don't bite...don't bite...just leave the Kap to his delutions...don't dignify it with a reply...

[Ultralights]

how did we go from smooth landing to airspeed limitations to birdstrikes?

in 16 yrs of flying GA, i have rarely seen birds above 3000 Ft AGL. except pelicans ! some up to 5000 AGL, (usually around hunter valley) and 1 pidgeon over goulburn at 4000.

I remember a trip (approx 6 months ago) to Hervey Bay in a Arrow with the local CFI, during the flare he started yelling hold it off hold it off, i just yelled quiet! and sure enough, the only sign we had touchdown was the squeel of the tyres! not even a very small thump! i was impressed! the CFI didnt say anything after that!:cool: funnily enough, never had a completly smooth landing i a jabiru, probably because the gear legs are angled forward at a good 15 deg! and similar to 767 syndrome, get that stubbed toe type feel on touchdown.

the heaviest TD i have felt was as PAX in 737 into Maroochydoor on a windy day!

[Kaptin M]

in 16 yrs of flying GA, i have rarely seen birds above 3000 Ft AGL. except pelicans ! some up to 5000 AGL, (usually around hunter valley) and 1 pidgeon over goulburn at 4000.
Date: 02 April 2001
Aircraft: B-767-300
Airport: Charles de Gaule
Phase of Flight: Climb (14,000’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Nose, radome, wing, fuselage, tail
Wildlife Species: Northern shoveler
Comments from Report: A flock of shovelers was struck causing dents and 11 punctures to the aircraft. One bird entered the cockpit causing depressurization. The pilot had to use an oxygen mask. The aircraft returned safety to the airport. Cost of repairs estimated at over $1 million.

I've read of bird strikes (geese) above 20,000'.

[amos2]

So, what have we got here with HSWL and the Rev.?

A couple of ATPL pilots who masquerade as amateur PPL pilots, for reasons best known to themselves!

Indeed, the Rev also masquerades as a Flight Engineer!

With the Revs hours as stated, at 18k or so, and the H alluding to high speed jet transport time also, I obviously should apologise to both for questioning their credentials!

And so I do!...but, could I just ask (if you both don't mind)...

just how many hours do both of you have in the LHS(that stands for left hand seat, in case you don't know what that means) of a high speed jet transport aircraft?

:p :p

And ,I gotta tellya, Isn't ultralights a real super hero after his post??

;)

[bonvol]

Ahh those were the days Kap.

Down the DME steps and 300 knots into the circuit at Coolangatta for a RH circuit and in. Maybe 330 if no one was lookin.

[HotDog]

just how many hours do both of you have in the LHS(that stands for left hand seat, in case you don't know what that means) of a high speed jet transport aircraft?

Well amos, since you ask; all my hours were spent in the F/E's seat on various high speed jet transport aircraft but I'm awfully glad none of it was behind the LHS with you in it!:yuk:

[Blip]

Gnadenburg.

I think you'll find that the essence of that formula (KE=1/2 mv^2) is:

The energy increases/decreases in direct proportion to the weight. With twice the weight at the same speed, you have twice the energy.

The energy increases/decreases in proportion to the speed squared. With twice the speed at the same weight, you have four times the energy.

The 1/2 is not significant for this discussion really. :)

[Gnadenburg]

Blip

Sure you can drop the 1/2 from MV squared, as our discussion the relationship between a constant mass and TAS being the variable.

Pragmatically, weight of the bird, it's type ( bone density ) and vector relationships of the collision- bird speed, bird direction and angle of splat ( where on the body the bird is struck ) comes into play.

To put the above in a mathematical relationship involves a Langranian material model- my applied maths/mechanics
knowledge grinds to a halt.

So, the real answer as to whether a birdstrike is a potentially catastrophic event at greater than 250kts below 10000, lies with the aircraft manafacturer.

[Hempy]

he heaviest TD i have felt was as PAX in 737 into Maroochydoor on a windy day!

Similar experience at Hobart in a 737, had me asking the hostie if we had been shot down.

Granted there are regular low viz probs in Europe/Asia/USA but nothing a Cat3C autoland won't fix.

Reminds me of a pea-soup morning in Sydney a while ago.
Qantas: go round
Ansett: go round
Qantas: go round
Unnamed Asian Carrier: on the numbers
Ansett: go round

"were you visual at the minima sir?"
*pause* "ah Charey Charey" :eek:

[HSWL]

Gnadenburg. You said:
Interesting that only a few years ago, CASA endorsed flying training required an airline trainee to demonstrate a "high speed descent" during line training. This involved entering a five to six thousand foot gate at 20DME at 350kts in a 727, 340kts in a A320 and 320kts in a 737.


Being a little curious about your statement I talked to a former CASA Area Manager about this. He was amazed and quite unaware of any formal CASA directive in this regard. This manager was the Examiner of Airmen 767/747, so I suppose he should know. He said if it did happen, it was certainly without the knowledge of CASA Head Office who would never have approved such a practice and more probably the work of a rogue RPT examiner who had personal views on the subject. It was never a "policy"

Deliberate high speed below 10 into low altitudes as described in these posts is nothing more than a macho thing and can be likened to P platers burning you off at the traffic lights. Immature pilots get some satisfaction out of it - whatever turns you on, I guess.

[Wizofoz]

HSWL,

That's a little harsh.

The fact is, up until a few years ago ther WAS no speed limit below 10 000' in AUS, and as has been pointed out here it was often requested by ATC, even after the limit was imposed.

As it was common practice and often expedient for traffic purposes, wouldn't training to do it and demonstrating that skill when being checked have not been a good idea?

BTW, in Europe, where the limit has been around for a lot longer, it is still not uncommon to be asked to maintain high speed below FL100 in Class D or higher, and VERY common (almost universal) to be given "Free speed", meaning your discretion.

I take it you therefore think the majority of pilots flying in Europe are "P platers burning off at the lights"??

[Gnadenburg]

HWSL

I do not think you understand.

Domestic jet aircraft in Australia, up until the advent of STAR arrivals - and even then it was common to waiver speed restrictions below 10000 - operated in a speed band of 290 to 310kts below 10000. A320 aircraft were operated in a 320kt to 280kt speed band due VNAV limitations. All CASA endorsed and expected for ATC flow control.

International carriers would slow to 250 below 10000.

It is only recently that this SOP has changed.

The ignorance of a CASA Area Manager is shameful. But as expertise in CASA was always limited, I understand airlines in Australia were mostly self-regulated.

[Kaptin M]

Deliberate high speed below 10 into low altitudes as described in these posts is nothing more than a macho thing and can be likened to P platers burning you off at the traffic lights. According to your statement, HSWL, the less macho pilots will start slowing down at even higher levels on descent.
It's got NOTHING to do with "machoism", and EVERYTHING to do with the professional pilot operating the aircraft efficiently for his employer.

Perhaps (because) you are not a professional pilot, you are unable to understand their psyche.
Professional pilots achieve a great deal of work satisfaction in being able to achieve savings for their employer - savings in terms of fuel NOT used (ie. fuel burns below plan), running as close as possible to published schedule, overall reduced operating costs, all within a framework of SAFE operations, and passenger comfort.
250 kts below 10 INCREASES fuel burn and overall operational costs due to longer flight times (aircraft usage).

[Uncommon Sense]

From an ATC (operational)point of view:

MX on descent is requested every day to make the sequence work. As long as the aircraft gets it prior to TD and is not carrying an MEL to prevent it, it is rarely refused.

Freighters at night will often maintain above 300KIAS until 1500FT of their own accord.

The 250BLWA100 was only introduced at some airports 2 years ago. It now seems to be standard.

During the NAS E Airspace debacle it was not permitted (MIL excepted) on descent (in E) in to major aerodromes because of the step design. This has been rectified with the 25/11 rollback - sorry, ENHANCEMENT, and it is probably saving a lot more money than it pretended to previously.

250BLWA100 is standard on SIDS and some SID designs need it for segregation with STARS. Where there is not going to be a tactical conflict, where there is a tactical requirment for a low level maintain , or where a Heavy fuelled up for a long haul departs, it is normally cancelled on first contact, and welcomed by the crew.

Exceptions of course are during CB activity where VTurb is the consideration - most controllers won't offer it in such weather.

So, it does not appear to be an exception to the rule, more likely the normal operating environment.

At least until some directive appears from some anonymous face telling ATC that it can not be offered for some unknown or ridiculous reason.

There seem to be a lot of those directives. :rolleyes:

http://****sutonka.port5.com/watchtn.jpg4tw (http://fourthtermwatch.********.com)

[itchybum]

I think we're all saying the same things again and again here.

I'm quite sure I operate the aircraft efficiently and safely and have no feelings of "machismo" that i have noted so far, during descent. If I did, I would be loathe to mention them as pushing A/P buttons at the front of a pile of heavy metal doing only 320Kt in a straight line is not what gets a girl moist, at least I don't think so.

Now if I was doing Vne in an FA-18 (whatever that might be), well then "machismo" would almost certainly come into play and my ego would be enlarged accordingly with subsequent beatings of the meat here.

No, it isn't "machismo", I simply can't shake that urge to fly efficiently and safely within the normal aircraft operating envelope. It isn't hard to do but accept that HSWL might not be up to it.

[Hudson]

I think HSWL is winding you all up and by the tone of the replies must be walking away chuckling to himself - isn't that so HSWL?

250 knot below 10 grand in descent will not necessarily cost you more fuel than 320 knots. Somewhere there is a Boeing blurb that stated a much lower speed than 250 will give you least burn.

Either way, there is little specific "skill" difference between 250 and 320 knots - just that 320 keeps you sitting on the edge of your seat a bit more in case a sudden track shortening is offered. Mind you that wayward low flying pelican would hurt more if clobbered at 320 rather than 250.

Incidently heard that a Virgin aircraft took a bloody big bird into the engine a couple of days back. Engine change, too. Good job it wasn't at high speed below 10...

[itchybum]

Yeah but more time in the air costs in hours.

Yeah he could be winding up but just founds 'un'-learned in the process. Someone show him how to do a real wind-up...

Anyone? Winstun??

[Icarus2001]

Yeah but more time in the air costs in hours.

Say 60nm at 250 knots; that is 14.4 minutes

Then 60nm at 320 knots; that is 11.25 minutes.

A difference of 3.15 minutes or 0.0525 of an hour.

[Uncommon Sense]

Icarus,

Hmm, I think you are being a litlle too literal in your calculations. Touchdown speed and configuration will not be at 320 or even 250 knots.

A high speed descent seems to gain only about 1 to maybe 1.5 minutes from 40NM to touchdown.

One minute is valuable in a landing sequence from ATC point of view which is why it is regularly requested.

(Now what was that about smooth landings?? ;) )

[morning mungrel]

Hey, split the difference then. 2 minutes. Add that up per a/c per sector per day and see what you get. Friggen lot when it comes to together. Fuel use isn't the only variable.

[Howard Hughes]

These points regarding time saved are all valid.

Often I conduct a high speed climb to save perhaps 1 min, this very often saves 7 to 10 mins of holding at the destination due to arriving earlier, rather than later, in a sequence of say 20 aircraft during the morning/evening gaggle.

Morning mungrel, 1 minute saved on each flight in general will equate to the salary of 1 crew member over an entire year. May be the salary I save will be mine.

Uncommon sense, I so totally agree.
Far to often I see pilot's with absolutely no regard for what is going on around them. With the aid of TCAS, the mark 1 eyeball and a good listening watch, we should all be aware of our position in the sequence. I very often speed up or slow down, depending on what the preceding aircraft and/or aircraft following me is doing, to make the sequence work for me and the others around me. (sadly it is more often slow down due the previous aircraft unable to cope with anything more than Vref +10)

From where I sit, if pilots were more diligent in this regard, everybody's job would be made a lot easier.

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Icarus2001]

Touchdown speed and configuration will not be at 320 or even 250 knots.

No really? What is your specialist subject? The bleeding obvious!

It was an i l l u s t r a t i o n to show relative time used during descent (not decent), the 60nm is arbitrary, the slow down to landing configuration is a c o n s t a n t and therefore cancels out regardless of descent (not decent) speed.

[HotDog]

I think this thread needs a new title. Certainly has nought to do with smooth landings anymore.:confused:

[Uncommon Sense]

Icarus,

I did try so much not to be personal.

Thank you for the clarification, and spelling confirmation.

I see now your comment was just an 'illustration' to point out that higher speeds over constant distances take less time.

It would seem stating the bleeding obvious is not my monopoly.

[Icarus2001]

Quantum of the difference my son, quantum. I expected most:rolleyes: on this forum to understand the concept.

[Uncommon Sense]

That must make you 'my father'.

Forgive me father for I have grinned.


How about we all move on.

[matca]

Uncommon (and others)

Let's not move on quite yet, it's obvious Icarius is one who doesn't tell ATC that he (or she) has slowed down to 250 knots on climb (for whatever reason) when there's some one barrelling up his khyber, or on descent........when there's someone barreling down his kyber. He's more interested in dazzling you with his brilliance than maintaining some situational awareness.

The point is? A minute means all the difference: between me keeping my licence and some one getting a vector to keep out of his way: between keeping everyone going at planned speed or better or slowing some one else down (which then compounds and slows the other 20 or 30 aircraft in a sequence down behind him).

I'm a 'speed the first guy up' rather than 'slow the second guy down' type of fella. I bet you're a 'ladies and gentlemen, due to ATC delays w've had to slow down' rather than 'ladies and gentlemen, due to mine and every other airlines insistence on being at the destination ALL AT THE SAME TIME????? we've had to slow down'

The point is? A minute makes all the difference, half a minute makes all the difference.

The point is? Saved money on fuel, crew wages, happy customers (mine and yours) should mean more 'filthy lucre' for you and me!!

Here's to situational awareness!