737 gear down at high speed -Good technique, or not?

[Hudson]

Swopping stories of flying the other day and the subject came up of pilots who make a habit of dropping the landing gear in the 737 at 250 knots in order to salvage a stuffed up profile. Speaking from the perspective of a passenger I must say the sudden noise of the gear actuation at high speed can be quite alarming.

If track shortening is offered by ATC when the aircraft is already close to the airport and the new profile is immediately very high, is it really necessary to frighten the horses by throwing out the gear at high speed, instead of using intelligent energy control and asking ATC for a couple of miles in which to get the flaps out first before the gear as normal?

[phoenix son]

Seems to work for The World's Favourite Irish-Based Low Cost Carrier...:E

[7gcbc]

Ceart go Lor Phoenix, (absolutely right)

They have even ploughed a few fields for a few lucky farmers now and then with their 737's, I wonder did they get a financial EEC rebate on that, as agriculture is probably not their core business :D

[Capt Fathom]

I spend a bit of time in the back of 737's (and other airliners for that matter), but have not noticed this quite alarming event. Must be just a story, as you suggest. :rolleyes:

[Hudson]

Captain Fathom. Your profile reveals ATPL so obviously a gear extension noise level at high speed from your perspective as pax would not be unduly worrying.

From the viewpoint of a non-aviation passenger I can assure you it can make you look up in surprise.
Like harsh braking when taxying, and jerking of brakes when the aircraft stops, the extension of landing gear at unnecessarily high speed is not to be encouraged.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Hudson, I would suggest that if you are offered track shortening or high speed descents; it is usually to facilitate sequencing with following traffic. In most, not all occasions, to ask for extra track miles versus making a little extra noise for the punters would not be so helpful to our ATCO bretheren. Cheers

bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzbzbzbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbzzzzz

[Dexter]

250 is not hi speed an it takes morre then a couple of miles extra if you dicide to use flaps insted
its called latral thinking hudson but sum people have to follow a set rootine an carnt be capabel of doing sum things out of sequinse
are you one of them hubson?

[itchybum]

Nothing wrong with using Gear Down, in my opinion. 737 nose gear extends rearward so it isn't having to work any harder.

I was always taught (possibly wrongly in this enlightened age of CRM...) that the speedbrake is for pussies.

Maybe passengers being reminded they are in an airliner, not a library or a cafe, isn't a bad thing. A lot of people treat the experience with contempt or indifference rather than as something which can potentially kill them if something goes wrong (eg attention to safety briefs, standing in turbulence, etc).

A passenger hearing the LG extend and suddenly remembering he's in an aircraft doesn't bother me.

[b747heavy]

I cannot speak for the 737, however the same question may be asked of other types. I have no problems in extending the gear at a higher than normal speed if it means that it will put me back on a profile that allows me to get to ground, keeping with both STAR and ATC requirements.

Speaking from my own personal experience, once you have visited an airport a few times, you should have some gist of what they will do with you, given time of day and conjestion etc, and have a couple of cards up your sleeve for just this sort of occasion.

I would think that if this was a constantly recurring issue, then maybe some advice (without having to use the training word) may be passed to bring everything back into check?

I believe that everyone in thier own mind has their own technique and some ride closer to the edge than others. I have screwed up a couple of descents and had to carry out a missed approach because of one of them. Not my most shining day, however it taugh me a lesson on what I should be doing.

Everyone has something to learn...

Cheers,

b747heavy ;)

[56P]

210 kts with Flap 5 AND the speedbrake will produce the same profile as 300 kts clean.

[NAMPS]

I don't fly anything that big but I have to agree with itchybum.

I wonder, Hudson, have you ever flown in a 146??? The noise associated with Gear Down at any speed would make any non-aviation passenger think twice about the airworthiness of the a/c :E

[Kanga767]

What about the poor nose gear doors itchybum?

[Dexter]

"the use of speedbreaks and flaps together is not recomnded" - boing manual
try flap 10 speed 200

[Sonny Hammond]

Putting the gear down early to salvage an approach may be bad form, it is noisy.
Having said that the situation the aircraft is in may not necessarily be the crew's fault. ie ATC change of clearance, incresing tailwind etc.

What is bad form is sitting on your hands hoping some miracle will fix your problem.

[Capt Fathom]

the extension of landing gear at unnecessarily high speed is not to be encouraged.
Next time I travel, I will ask the Flight Attendant to pass on your message! :ok: Hopefully, I won't be removed from the aircraft.

[jetblues]

Level Change 210 kts, thrust levers closed and flaps 10. She goes down like a rocket (best you can expect for an NG anyway).

Works for me.

[Oz Ocker]

Ain't you temptin fate. jetblues? Flap 10 limit is 215 knots.
Yer allowin yaself only 5 knots margin?
Not a good idea, matey!



Be seein' youse round.

[jetblues]

I stand corrected as posted in a hurry, I use 200 kts - that's it.

Yes 200 kts is close to the limit as well, but we are not talking common SOP's here, we are talking track shortening etc etc.

[Captain Can't]

jetblues is on the right track... F10, 200kts, just push her down and it drops outta the sky... gr down as well? that'll fix most probs...
My airlines FCTM says gear and flap aren't to be used as a speedbrake. Whilst it's good practice to take everything right on schedule, this isn't always feasible - so if neccessary, gr dn at 250 works a treat with a bit of speedbrake, lvl chg 200 take flaps to 10 as you can/dare :}
wouldn't happen too often these days and all though with 250/5000 making descents a little more idiot proof :rolleyes:

[Dexter]

i'll take the credit for that sugestion thank you captain cant
c page 1

[Captain Can't]

fine... take whatever you want :rolleyes: :8

[BankAngle50]

Speedbrake is next to useless at lower speed <250KTS. It can be used with up to FLAP10. I would think the punters would find the vibration created using brake more alarming than the 2 seconds of gear noise.

Ask ATC for extra TRK miles?:ugh: Go back to Bankstown!

Using flap and higher speed will work, but your not doing to flap tracks and/or engineers any favours. Use of gear up to 270KTS limit to extend is the best way. The NG is hard to slow due to the critical wing, so if you hot why not stay clean and use the gear and thus not wear out the flap runners?

[Crack]

I agree with Itchy, don't hurt em one bit to be reminded they are on a tube of METAL, with the potential to twist and melt, nah we won't go there?.

Personly I hate sitting in the back of one of those FROGY thingies, and listening to all the Hyd Pumps, banging and whiring ,and banging again, and that is even before one is off old mother earth.

Any way the Manual for the old crate I fly states 270kts max.

250kts, wots the deal?. :E

[HotDog]

You guys were obviously not around in the days of the Convair 880. You could extend the main gear only for speed brake at 374 knots and get on profile on RW13 at Kai Tak doing 300knots over Stonecutters! The only other aircraft I know of that had the capability to extend main gear only for speed brake, was the early B747-100.

[BankAngle50]

CRACK
yeah i agree with you "its all bollocks!" As with most of the ****e that goes on in Oz.

The NG also has the 270kts extend limit. The reference to 250 was that in the NG the speed brake is pretty useless unless you are above this speed. Remember the NG has the super Crit wing not like the -400/300 and much hard to slow. The Elevator Tab Cycle Limit Oscillation restriction has been lifted on all the NGs in Oz as they all have the reenforced tab.

At the end of the day, when paxing i havnt seen the pax jump out of their seats because the gear comes down. Sound like hog**** to me.

[bekolblockage]

HotDog

Please come back to Hongkers and bring your 880 with you mate. We've got a bunch of big girls blouses here now who won't even hold 160 to 4 for us. Straight in at CLK is just sooooooooo boring now.

[Capt Snooze]

HotDog


The Gulfstream 1 (the original with the Darts). The speedbrake was the main gear. Three ten knots I think it was (been a long time). Over the Vne figure anyway.

A gentleman's aeroplane that one! (as well as a rocket in its day)



Snooze

[GT-R]

Yep you guys are a bunch of idiots. Use it if you need it, whoop di doo.

[Sal-e]

I agree GTR. A lot of woooses out there, even worse, woooses finding time to write about this silly issue. C'mon guys, it's a no-brainer. Know your limits and the aircraft's and use the gear if you need to or want to adjust your profile. Why limit yourselves the option?
As far as I'm aware, most passengers (even I, sometimes) are quite excited by the sound of the gear as it's the sign of imminent landing and "FINALLY", arrival to their destination. No more repetitive "are we there yet?" mantras, the sound of the gear almost marking the final reporting point a minute from landing.

[Capt Claret]

NAMPS

Are you sure it's the gear making the noise on the 146? I've never noticed that it is particularly noisy, not like the flap howl ...

[BlueEagle]

If it is necessary then a short PA to explain the noise/vibration etc. won't go amiss.

[Capt Fathom]

Can't wait for the next windup topic! :E

[Sal-e]

Blue Eagle,

I think whenever a pilot says "don't worry" on the PA, that's when passengers worry. I think best to say nothing. Most novice passengers would just ask someone next to them what the noise is and usually get a confident answer.

[BankAngle50]

If its necessary do you really think we have time to make a PA?

If the gear is used at a higher speed it takes about 1 second to slow to
About the normal extend speed, so it all sound like Bollox to me.

[BlueEagle]

Yes Bank Angle I do! Unexplained noises and vibrations are not "bollox" to a passenger you hope to see again.

In thirty six years of flying I experienced quite a lot of unusual situations and a reassuring PA is far better than silence from the flight deck, ask the cabin crew, ask the passengers. The emphasis has to be on a well delivered PA and from recent experience, flying domestically, not enough effort is made to do the PA job properly, on a flight from SYD to MEL all we got was a muffled mumble that contained far too many 'errrs'.

[Eastwest Loco]

NAMPS

I think the noise you hear on a 146 on approach is actually a harmonic created as the flaps are deployed. As the gap changes shape the note deepens and the reverse is the case on climbout. Eastwest had a policy of explaining this to the passengers during the briefing. I guess it did save changing seat covers.

I do not recall any landing gear associated noise in the 300 or 200 series apart from the normal thuds and groans.

Best regards

EWL

[itchybum]

I don't think a PA is necessary. If the punters hear nothing from up the front they confidently presume all is well. Especially when the seasoned travellers around them all studiously ignore the thumps, crashes, bangs, grindings, etc (in the airbus).

A passenger we "hope to see again" has little choice of alternatives these days and the airlines don't care much anyway, it seems... IE The customer care snail-mail contact, frequent flyer hassles getting your preferred free flight, surly staff, 30min cut-off, no exceptions, etc. So why should the pilot be left carrying the can and worrying about follow-up business by the pax? Or are we the only pros left in the industry? I digress....

It's a fumbled mumbled Mar'n Fr'son PA from the front office that makes people think "they're hiding something if they were concerned enough to speak up and explain something..."

[NAMPS]

Thanks Capt Claret and EWL.

That could well be the case. I must say whenever I fly in 'em, I usually have my head in a newpaper.

Cheers

:ok:

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

If all you good burner drivin folk would kindly dangle the rubber at a somewhat higher speed, the SLF would so quickly become familiarised with all the "bumping, grinding, whirring, banging and extra wind noise", that you'd only have to worry about making PAs when you put em down in the traditionally aimed for cool, calm and collected manner we been trying for, for years now!!!! :} :} :}

Itchy hit the nail...................If they all of a sudden have to come out of their coma for landing, then you've given em one hell of a smooth and pleasant flight! :cool:

[MOR]

[grumpy mode on]

1) Making a PA whilst on approach - particularly when busy doing something a little non-standard...? No. Not clever.

2) Is anyone seriously listening to a passenger lecture us on how we should fly an approach profile? I sure hope not.

3) An aircraft is an unusual environment for a passenger, whilst for us pilots it is our home away from home. Pax shouldn't be surprised to hear the odd noise. If they are, they can ask the cabin crew, who in my experience are pretty smart, and know the noises pretty well.

4) It doesn't hurt, every now and again, for pax to be reminded that they are travelling in a complex mechanical device, in an environment where exposure to the outside temperature and pressure could result in near-instant death. All those people on ten quid tickets take their transport for granted these days, not realising that their continued existence is down to expert manufacturers, and ultimately, their crew. It isn't easy, or simple, or straightforward. Maybe we have made a rod for our own backs by making it all look so routine...

[grumpy mode off]

[elektra]

Or you could just plan ahead to avoid the situation, remembering that the 737 FCTM, unless its different than all the other Boeing FCTMs, recommends not to extend beyond 200 for passenger comfort.....and if you get stuck, just say "unable" and maybe thereby remind ATC that modern jets are not computer games and need a little notice to slow down and get down.

[VR-HFX]

Never flown the 73 but have a fair bit of time on the Classic and the 744 and some on the 777.

In my humble opinion if you are above profile and a bit quick..ATC or whatever reason, throwing the gear out early is a lot less disconcerting to the paying punters than using the boards.

As to PA's explaining all this ...forget it...generally the sound of the gear extending relaxes the pax not irritates them.

[BlueEagle]

Not at 250 knots it doesn't!!!

The noise on a 737 is horrendous!

[schlong hauler]

The speedbrake is next to useless on the 737 variants and unlike clasic Jumbo pilots who have recommended max speeds for passenger comfort, we do not. Making a P.A. prior to using the s/b went out years ago in QF. If that were the case we would be making one every second sector or 25 times per month!

[BlueEagle]

No, I suggest a PA prior to dumping the gear at 250knots, nothing to do with speed brakes.:rolleyes:

[sixtiesrelic]

The controllers would just LOVE you if you ooze along getting back to 200K and flap 10 with the following blokes rapidly shortening the gap.
I agree; the pax need to have a little fear now and again to knock their complacency around and realize they aren't quite as superiorly experienced as they think they are.
I aimed not to use the gear, but if I needed it I used it.

[Omark44]

"I agree; the pax need to have a little fear now and again to knock their complacency around and realize they aren't quite as superiorly experienced as they think they are."

I find it hard to believe that such a cavalier, cowboy attitude as the above is really widespread in Australian professional aviation.

[VR-HFX]

Blue Eagle

I assume you mean the good old standby..."we are about to ruin your day by lowering the undercarriage; this could hurt, so for your safety and comfort may I suggest you hold your drinks in one hand and your nuts in the other".

[hellboy]

I guess there's nothing wrong with the technique as long as you are aware what you are doing, the guys on 747 do that all the time if needed and 737 if you make a decelerate approach and something goes not according as you planned the landing gear might be your only choice especially when you're on series 300/500.

[Sykes]

Better not believe it then, Omark...

:p

[Sonny Hammond]

Omark,

A bit of background info may make it easier to understand the comments.
Maybe a year ago a qf 737 crew got in strife after doing a go around (I think cause was the runway at Brisbane was still occupied) and a self serving politician made a huge song and dance about it through the media. For a while everytime a rivet popped it was front page stuff.
I think the general consensus was to leave the pilot stuff to us and no, we aren't going to have our every decision subject to media and pilotical scrutiny.
A lot of airline people obviously feel that the pax in australia have gotten very comfortable with air travel and have forgotten about the potential risks associated with travelling through a (way)sub zero enviroment at 1000 km/hr in a metal tube.

[Omark44]

Thanks Sonny, that would explain a lot. I was brought up in the era where it was considered better to talk to them before panic set in!

;)

[Crack]

Gee Itchy, I would have thought you had more going for you mate?

And blue "pussy", it is still all BOLLACKS, try putting out the boards at 250 plus Kt's? want some noise and some real vibration???, since when do we have to explain to the Pax for complying with either the companies SOP, and the A/C flt Manual.

Ahh, Ahhemmm, Ladies and Gentleman, Boys and Girls, Ahhemm, we are Ahhemm ,a little bit high on the Approach, due to ATC requirements today, and we are going to comply with the flight manual, and ahhemm, ahh, lower the gear to slow us down, Ahhemm, arrrrr, we are presently doing, Arrr 250 kts, and this will make some noise, please dont be concerned by our compliance with the A/C's Flt Manual, Ahhhr on the other hand we are in a tube of Aliminium with a lot of inertia, and our wings and belly still have some jet fuel, we promise to do our best to slow up before landing, and we will try to give you a safe ahhr ahhemm landing, but in your interests and the interests of safety, just be advised that these things come apart pretty spectacturley,the fuel will spread fire and heat like you have never imagined, and the Ali will ahhrr ,burn and will melt , and the deceleration forces will be enough to rench your arms from Ahhhem arr, your sockets, you should follow the directions of your crew ( if they survive).

Ahhrr, Ahhhemmm, Aggggrrrr, don't mean to scare you good folks, but in the interests of safety you should be aware of what can happen,Ahhhhemmm, Aggggrrrr, we will do our best to see that this dosen't happen, and on behalf of XXXXXX Airlines we would like to thank you for flying with us, and Ahhhhrrrrr, we would like to see you again in the future.

Stop stroking your selves,:ok: :mad:

[BlueEagle]

No Crack keeping the punters happy and informed is not called 'bollacks' or anything like it, it's called professionalism, airmanship, stuff like that and is/was SOP in most respected carriers, maybe your not familiar with it?
;)

Sonny Hammonds remarks do make a lot of sense though.

[Macrohard]

ATC has cut you in short .... you have the speedbrake up, retractable landing lights extended and gear down. Short of throwing out an anchor this beast will not go down any faster or slow down any quicker. All the while you are constantly doing your 3 times tables (maybe even adding a bit or subtracting also), doing the landing checklist, most probably have a frequency change and you want to make a PA ?!?!? Do you walk to work with a broom up your @rse so you can sweep the sidewalk at the same time? Didn't think so. Guess when I become more comfortable I'll have more time to do the housekeeping and make a PA!

[king oath]

4 Pages of posts after Hudson posts his bar room story swapping waffle to kick the subject off.

You people out there need to get a life. The original post didn't warrant a reply from anyone who knows how to fly a 737.

You do what you have to do if it is within the "envelope" of the aircraft involved and the situation requires it. Its called commonsense. Sometimes refered to as Airmanship.

Not seen much amongst certain QF employees I can think of. Hence the fact that this trivia can take up so much bar time when they could be concentrating on serious matters like drinking.

[MOR]

So why did you post on this thread then... :rolleyes:

As for Blue Eagle saying that keeping the punters happy is airmanship... complete bollocks. And it certainly isn't professionalism to be making PAs during the later stages of the approach. You have a cabin crew for that, failing to utilise them properly shows a complete disregard for CRM. They should be prepped and ready to explain any of those noises to the few pax nervous enough to be bothered by them. That is THEIR job.

And please quote the SOP in any of your manuals that says that you should be talking to the pax when you are engaged in the busiest phase of the flight.

It isn't airmanship, it isn't professionalism, and it isn't an SOP. What it is, is an inability to organise your crew properly so that you can keep you mind on YOUR job, which is far more important.

Leave the PR to your airline/customer interface department.

Anyone who is giving PAs during an approach needs a stern talking to.

[MkVIII]

Three simple little words: AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE

Need I say more?

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Blue Eagle.

PA's are fine so long as they are made at an appropriate time and for an appropriate reason.

Early extension of gear and/or use of speedbrake does not cut it in my book (unless depressurised of course!).
In the case of a go-around, after the go-around manoeuvre is completed, when at a safe altitude and configured appropriately and stable then yes, by all means I believe a PA is mandatory.

In the case of being in close and tight, early use of gear and/or speedbrake simply does not mandate the use of a PA to pax.
If I saw a pilot making a PA at a critical stage of the flight for no appropriate reason then I would mark them down severly on a check.
Depending on the outcome and how things progress they may deserve to be failed if situational awareness is compromised.

Situational awareness at such a critical juncture is paramount.
Having one pilot making a PA just to justify their actions that preclude abnormal ops is reckless in my book.

I fully agree with VR-HFX, itchybum and Macrohard on this one.
Silence is golden as far as pax are concerned.
Unless an abnormal manoeuvre is performed then the pax are fine.Besides Blue Eagle, 250 kts with gear down isnt as bad as you think.
A bit noisy, yes.
I'd rather be flying the aircraft at a critical point than blabbering unnecessarily to the punters who in all honesty probably couldnt hear you if the noise was as bad as you say Blue Eagle!!!!

If you dont like what you're given by ATC then request additional track miles.Simple.

As long as the aircraft is stable by 500 ft then its all sweet.
And where do most incidents occur Blue Eagle?

I'm all for professionalism but only when the time is right.

[BlueEagle]

Well I would certainly agree that a PA when close in and busy is a bad thing.

When this thread started I visualised being some way out and recognising the high and fast situation before the final stages of the approach, not close in and dirty due to someone screwing up the approach, be it ATC or pilot.

Probably been better if I had added the caveat to my original post about a PA, "as long as it is safe to do so":O

I don't agree with much of what MOR has to say about CRM and crew management but we all remember what we have been taught and as a result may quite possibly have differing views.

[MOR]

Probably because Oz doesn't take CRM very seriously, whereas JAA does - you can fail a check for bad CRM there.

[BlueEagle]

Only living here MOR, only ever flown in and out on other licences, including UK! (and you could also fail a check for bad CRM on any of them). I simply don't agree with what you say, pretty much all of it, not just the CRM bit.
As already said, we tend to stick with what we are taught and clearly that is not consistent throughout aviation.

In danger of getting into the 'treadmill syndrome' on this thread now, not to mention off topic. I've made my point and qualified it, after appropriate criticism ;) so 'nuff said from me.

[druglord]

gear down at 1350' RA is the best technique, keeps the cockpit relatively quiet from those annoying annuciators.

[Old Smokey]

Was this entire thread perpetrated by a William Shakespeare reincarnate ? - Much ado about nothing.

In the course of writing our own company's Operations Manuals, I/We read countless other airline's manuals, none of them prescribe early gear extension as a means of slowing down / getting down in NORMAL operations. That's good, I hate doing it, so does my airline, and so do my passengers.

There are occasional situations where ATC, terrain, MSA push us into a corner when drag is needed, and quickly, to prevent a destabilised approach. Seoul RWY 33 and San Francisco readily come to mind. I estimate that on approximately 1 in 300 flights I've found it necessary to extend the gear earlier and at a higher speed than normal to contain the aircraft within a stabilised approach profile - So What?

If you've got it, you need it, it's safe, and it works, THEN DO IT!

Much ado about nothing..........

Old Smokey

[Capn Bloggs]

Druggy,

quiet from those annoying annuciators

The annunciators in my bus don't make much noise, but the horns/hooters/bells and whistles that come on with them do!;)

[Captain Can't]

the QAR ticking over makes very little noise either ;)

[Sooty]

Yer all a bunch of amateurs!!!

It's all about passenger comfort. Don't scare the crap out of them by extending the gear at high speed.

Just go speedbrake, flaps40 disconnect the autopilot and rock the wings around. If that dont work boot in full rudder and side slip her down. Don't get over concerned about your high approach speed, remember you always have more runway than you'll ever need:ok:

[MkVIII]

Yeah, that's fine, but then it get's too noisey up the front end! "Sink Rate, Too low, terrain, Traffic Traffic, Sink Rate, OVERSPEED, SINK RATE, Traffic traffic, Stall stall, sink rate. 50,40,30, 20,10...."

Now add in the wails from the F/O, the constant bitching from ATC, and the screams of 100 SOB's behind you permeating the cockpit door, and I think it would be a bit noisier than gear rumble at high speed! :p :O :D ;) :)

Sounds like Air China SOP's to me though. :yuk:

[Friendly Pelican]

I've Wanted to reply to this for a while. With a glass of Aussie CabSav in hand, here goes....

The prime issue here is one of nomenclature: by that I mean Standard Operating Procedures, as opposed to something like, say, Standard Operating Practice. I'd also offer that while SOPocedures are written as 'thou shalt', rather than 'thou shalt consider/discus/crm workshop/etc etc, we're not going to get far...

As far as I can see, sound airmanship would dictate extension of surfaces (including the LG), at a speed approaching the minimum appropriate - green dot etc. Sound airmanship, however, would also dictate the use of all controls in a situation which was, or potentially might become, unstable. Both jet manufacturers seem to have this in mind when they certify controls (including the LG) for use at speeds/altitudes well away from where they might normally be expected during a normal approach-to-land.

Previous posters have also tried to adjudicate between the punters who, when the LG was extended at a higher than usual speed, 'felt the aircraft vibrate; and I thought we were all going to die', and those who, having experienced a smooth but fast approach, 'felt the aircraft stand on its tail; and I thought we were all going to die'.

(The hard man in me says: Leave the aviation to me, and I'll leave the insert profession or personal circumstance here to you...)

Trying to write these considerations into a 'thou shalt' set of SOProcedures achieves little, apart from offering the Checkie the opportunity to lean across and ask, with that infuriating smile, 'is it standard to extend the LG at 250kt?' (To which I can only try and think out loud: 'No, but accepting an unstable approach, and accepting a decreased safety margin; or going around and spending another 10 minutes or so on a second approach, with the associated financial penalties to the company; are similarly not standard - so what in your infinite wisdom was the least of those three evils?').

So, my opinion for what it's worth, and especially since I can, and do, phuq it up more often than the worthies on this forum would care to admit:

Good Practice: with F15 at 150kt
Sound Practice: anytime within the limits.

Any phuqing questions....

Rant over!

:ok:

edited for spelling, grammar, syntax, typesetting, the usual!

[amos2]

No questions from me!...

jolly good rant that! :p

[MkVIII]

Ain't that the phuquing truth! (remember that QANTAS is the only word without a U after a Q - picking it up before the spelling and grammar police that have nothing better to say say so!)

[Hudson]

Who was it who said "Read my lips?" A quick glance at my original post reveals a couple of pertinent paragraphs. They are
"Pilot's who make a habit of dropping gear at 250 knots" The operative words are "Making a habit of".

Secondly the words "stuffed up profile" Lastly "intelligent energy control"

Of course the gear can be thrown at 250 knots or even 270 knots. Is it desirable? Do you personally make a habit of it?

How about a recent event into Melbourne 16 from Tasmania where the captain took over from the first officer who was handling pilot. ATC offer track shortening from high over Essendon to Rockdale. F/O says to captain no thanks no can do due 300 knots plus. Please ask for a couple of further track miles.

Captain says taking over son, this is how its done and shoves the nose down to 320 and carves off height like you've never seen. F/O says I ain't too happy about this. Captain then calls for gear at max gear speed and turns widish base. ATC sees this on radar and says you can extend downwind if you wish. Capt says no problem, we'll make it and rips the speed brake out.

At max flap 1 speed capt calls for flap 1 and it is now painfully obvious that he is not going to make it and then deliberately crosses the centre line at 90 degrees. Approach asks him if can confirm he will be landing or going around and transfers him to tower who tells him that if he has to go-around to climb straight ahead to 3 grand.

F/O decidely uneasy because its going to be a close one. Captain rips back to centre line with bank angle warning sounding and asks for flap 40 quick but flaps hang at 30 due speed. At this point in the comedy the power is at idle of course.

Passing 500 ft the flaps move to 40 and the captain just manages to sqeeze 55% N1 in time to meet the 500 ft stabilisation requirement which is company SOP.

Taxying in, the captain beams with pride and says it was close but we were stabilised by 500 ft weren't we?

Could you call that "intelligent energy control?" And yes - the captain does in fact "make a habit" of dropping the gear at higher speeds than recommended. Sure that is just one individual and of course I am sure other pilots would never fly like that now would they?

[MkVIII]

El Capitan described is an accident waiting to happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even reading that I was cringing!!!

[john_tullamarine]

Can't speak for the NG as I have only flown earlier models.

However, I would consider ..

(a) plan for normal profile and configuration changes and watch it like a hawk on the way down.

(b) if (a) doesn't work, use other things if you need to within the limitations. Surely this should be the exception rather than the rule ? .. acknowledging that some runways have their particular problems ...

(c) be aware that there is a cumulative damage consequence which follows operation at the higher end of the speed range and this will become painfully obvious to the engineering folk after a while ... which leads to arguments behind closed doors and, often, flight standards restrictions being imposed which don't help the initial problem. A bit of active thinking by the crew can avoid a lot of this methinks.

(d) in a competitive marketplace, keeping customers happy is important and crew actions do have an effect. A lot depends on the passenger mix ... what would be fine for a morning/evening business flight with the normal punters might warrant more consideration, or even a quick PA, on a holiday flight with one-off folk in the back ?

Hudson's last tale beggars belief in current airline practice. Sure, it can be done and many of us have either seen or done similar things in the past but it is patently stupid no matter how it is rationalised and is just asking for trouble sooner or later ... one thinks that this chap's FO's ought to be taking such things further within the particular airline's protocols.

Indeed, as FOQA and similar programs make inroads into airline management practice, such stupidity will be constrained after the event and, one expects, those who don't toe a reasonable line will have to face some sort of in-house consequences.


There probably is no easy and ready solution to the specific, and related, problems. Crews can but do their best to keep within company parameters while trying to keep the punters happy but, as one or more previous posters has observed, the main sin is sitting on one's hands and just hoping that some sort of divine intervention is going to fix a rapidly deteriorating problem ...

[BankAngle50]

Blue Eagle you suggest making a PA at this critical time during an approach. It seems to be the consensus of most of us here that fly larger jet aircraft (ie it all happens a tad faster) that you are totally wrong.

Yeah really conducive to safety to have the other pilot babbling on the PA (scaring the pax) whilst the PF needs him to run the ck list. I don’t pax a lot, but when I do, I think the pax like the sound of the gear as its normal when we are about to land. I have never seen anyone in a panic “Oh dear god, the pilot extended the gear at 240 KTS to achieve a stable approach!”

Blue Eagle Go back to Bankstown and fire up the 172. I cannot belive your statements are anything but a windup. :yuk:

I think we all agree that if you need the gear, well thats better than a go-around. Woomera please end it now!

[BlueEagle]

Maybe you didn't read the entire thread? I posted this a while ago,

"Well I would certainly agree that a PA when close in and busy is a bad thing.

When this thread started I visualised being some way out and recognising the high and fast situation before the final stages of the approach, not close in and dirty due to someone screwing up the approach, be it ATC or pilot.

Probably been better if I had added the caveat to my original post about a PA, "as long as it is safe to do so"

Tends to make your remarks rather pointless don't you think?
It wasn't so very long ago that talking to passengers was considered normal so you are probably a bit new to it all?
;)