737-800 Rules of thumb

[RichT]

Anyone care to share their rules of thumb, magic numbers that they use for flying the 800?

Max FL is FL410 at take off gross weight 51T reducing by 300 feet for every 1T above 51T.

[bantios]

No magic numbers needed.

Learn how to use the FMC correctly and it does all the magic for you.

Its all about your computer skills, not your flying skills.

:)


Have a nice day.

[RichT]

If there is one thing I do understand it is computers:
GIGO Garbage In = Garbage Out. Now how can the FMC give you any rule of thumb settings for the thrust levers or predicting anything come to that? Other than giving a path or fuel solution that is at best adequate.

[Flughaven]

Take Off weight - 20 = VR at Flap 1 and V2 at Flap 5

Ie Take Off weight = 65t ......... Vr = 145 Flap 1

........ V2 = 145 Flap 5

Give or take one or two knots

[Old Smokey]

In pre-FMC aircraft, we needed good rules of thumb to "ball park it" before we were able to set up more accurate numbers.

We still need them in FMC aircraft for "reasonableness" checks of the FMC information.

The GIGO (Garbage In = Garbage Out) concept applies not only to user data inputs, but also to those programmed within the FMC, particularly evident after installation of a new Nav Data Base.

Sorry to go "Off Topic" RichT, but the thread was starting to go a bit off topic all by itself. I hope you gain many more of the responses sought in your original post.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[fire wall]

Bantios, your response belies the era in which the majority of the younger generation of pilots have the bulk of their experience....dare I say glass......and trust me there are inherent traps in that. Older and wiser (no disrespect intended) drivers have many rules of thumb that continue to keep them out of the poo. FMC's are fallable, trust me on this.....and when your pretty electric jet becomes a dark cabin on a stormy night after the BTB's failed to contain the short on the Right AC bus and all of a sudden you no longer have an FMC.....or much else for that matter.....what the hell are you going to do......quick mate.....time is one thing you do not have a lot of.

One example if I may, the SQ400 out of Auckland.....if they knew an approximate V2 using a rule of thumb for their BRW then it may prompt them to question the FMC produced Vspeeds (which came as a result of incorrect input of ZFW for TOW producing figures for a weight some 100T below actual BRW.....easy to do as the 74 has such a varied weight range.....you can litterally T/O one day at 240T and the next at 385T) Every time I walk onto the flight deck I dial an approx V2 in the MCP as a safe guard that tiredness/time zones and numerous other distractions do not result in the above ever being repeated on my flight deck.

Think outside the box......one day it may save your life and that of your passengers.

(Melbourne......DJ perhaps?)

[jetblues]

SGR Data B737-800NG @ 65T weight

2 Eng FL370 455 KTAS FF 2462 5.4 kgs/nm
1 Eng FL200 362 KTAS FF 2380 6.5 kgs/nm
1 Pack FL250 396 KTAS FF 2432 6.1 kgs/nm
Depress (2E) A100 327 KTAS FF 2670 8.2kgs/nm
Depress (1E) A100 313 KTAS FF 2356 7.5 kgs/nm
Gear Down FL250 335 KTAS FF 3298 9.8 kgs/nm

[bantios]

firewall,

Did I hear DJ?

DJ..... you are correct..

My whole point is, there area many rules of thumb for the 737. I trust my computers more than I trust myself (or anyone else for that matter). That is how us new age young pilots have been trained. IT'S ALL GLASS TO ME...

[downwind]

jetblues,

Do you have that SGR data for the 737-3/4/5 series???

I always reckon it is good to have a ball park of fuel flows etc.. so if the "magic glass sh*t's it self you have some rules of thumb, remember they do still have 727's F28's westwinds DC9's etc..... flying without all the magic glass , just another a/c with a fancy computer!

BTW I pose a question, a guy with a say 1000 hours on a 737-200 or similar type of old school conventional instruments, transition to the 737 NG's, do you think they will have better raw data jet flying skills than the guy who has only flown modern LCD EFIS planes with the same amount of jet hours as the -200 guy???:eek:

DW.

[Old Smokey]

downwind,

I've trained hundreds of pilots on 'steam driven instruments', who then went to 'glass'. For them it was a walk in the park.

Also, when the B747-300 was still rampant, I've trained hundreds of pilots on 'glass', who then went to 'steam driven instruments'. For them it was tough going.

Does that answer your question? (Methinks it was a self-answering question).

Regards,

Old Smokey

[john_tullamarine]

To put a contrary viewpoint .. it all depends on the style of training. Steam driven needs the pilot's brain to be involved and a modicum of stick and rudder skills development.

Going one way .... the glass toy still works the same - stick forward, houses get bigger, stick back, houses get smaller, stick further back, houses go round in circles - the airframe doesn't know what style of cockpit is up front - so the steam dinosaur's stick and rudder skills transfer over reasonably easily in manual flight .. may be a different story when it comes to getting on top of the automatics ... I am reminded of a wonderful elder statesman of the game who would be known to many of the Oz readership. His first jet transport at age somewhere in the mid-50s (he had flown MeatAxes in Korea .. but that was a long time ago) in a mongrel of an old sim (and recall that this Type was definitely not glass but did have a flight director) was giving him a few problems in the early sessions. Then he had to do the standby power thing ... came out of the box with a grin from ear to ear ... "flies just like a real aeroplane, mate .... !" .. thereafter the demon was defeated.

Going the other .. if the glass training emphasises button pressing and FMS piano playing to the exclusion of handflying on raw data .. the steamship will present major problems (reminds me .. did I tell you of my observations from the jumpseat in a Lao Aviation (actually Balkan Bulgarian, as I recall) 727-ski ? .. now that WAS steam and I was particulary impressed at a bird which barely noticed a 20 ft too high flare) .. if, however, the glass training has involved a reasonable amount of handflown, raw data fun, then there is no reason why thoroughly modern Millie should have any real problem. I can recall 200 hour trainees on glass who, at the end of the endorsement, could fly a handflown, raw data ILS in 0/0 to touchdown, quite nicely ... so it can be done.

.

[jetblues]

Downwind I don'nt have SGR data on the classics handy, but do have it for the B737-700NG if anyone is interested.

Damned right it helps, especially when/if the proverbial hits the fan.

Not getting involved in who makes a better pilot !

[RichT]

downwind. It's spooky but you described my career to a tee. I have embraced the glass cockpit and the advantages of the automatics but still hanker for the tricks of the trade from the 200. Many a time I have sat next to a guy that has carefully programed the FMC to be cleared for a short cut approach. Urm how many track miles have I got, what alt should I be.... Just use the DME x 3 etc. Thanks for the tips so far guys. I shall program them into my little black book.

[downwind]

jetblues,

How did you come of the SGR's from the flight manaul in the B737 QRH or from a bit of time flying the NG and then doing a bit of averaging? I noticed you used 65T as the SGR base weight of figures.:O

[jetblues]

Downwind, all of the above. There are of course several sources to use including the QRH, Vol 1 PD and FPPM.

The figures all vary with weight, wind component, ISA deviation, and configuration.

They are simply some rules of thumb that I and others may occasionally use.

How about this one ;

Climb 20 min, 1700kg, 120 nm
Descent 20 min, 300 kg, 120 nm

If I have one figure in mind for the SGR of the 700 and 800 I use ;

-700 4.7 kg/nm
-800 5.2 kg/nm

Wind correction to these two figures use;

40kt T/W x CRZ by 0.95 (80kts x 0.90)
40kt H/W x CRZ by 1.07 (80kts x 1.16)

I can apply this quick and easy check to our company flight plans and find the fuel figures I calculate are usually VERY close to the company produced flight plan burn figures. If not, why ???

[stator vane]

the side issue that popped up without my help-the steam guages issue....i am currently on the 737-800 and force myself and when they are willing, the FO's; to fly the thing as raw data as the equipment allows. F/D's, A/P. A/T off, turn the screens, (both sides) to approach mode-expanded ILS/VOR, etc.

honestly, i must confess that i find it hard work! after years of flying the standard T instruments, my eyes still haven't worked out a good way to fly that machine. there is no T there! in this case, the experience in the dinosaurs may actually be getting in the way.

now i am trying to "see" and use all the information on the PFD, but when there is a significant crosswind, like there has been at times this winter at STN, it does take a lot of work at least for myself. and the FO's all agree, but they actually do better than myself at times. maybe the less experience with the T makes it easier to adapt to what is available on the aircraft.

and the real world situations make it a bit risky to even try to fly just on the standby instruments in daily life.

so hands up, the basic raw data skills are very dusty indeed.

any others try that??

[timzsta]

When I dispatched at STN a couple of years ago I noticed that some NG operators had the PFD setup with the modern style display - ie like on the 777. Others (such as Air Berlin) usually had the EFIS screens setup with an ASI / Altimeter / VSI shown on the top LCD.

Is there a switch in the aircraft to enable you to do that or is the aircraft ordered one way or the other from the manufacturer.

[stator vane]

from what i have seen and read,
simulators have a switch to allow them to configure the panels to match different customers' layout. but the actual aircraft are customer options one set up or another.
the PFD set up is not at all conductive for raw data flying for someone with experience on the older style instruments. but if it happens to be the first bird you fly for a living, it might come easier.