B757 Power Settings

[Fellow Aviator]

Dear Colleagues,

Regarding an up comming sim check with a southern european B757 operator, I need help with B757 power settings. I would like to know how much EPR and ANU/AND is needed for typical situations such as T/O, climb, CRZ, normal descent, approach etc. Also, help with abnormal things such as steep turns will help very much. I have never flow jets, please feel free to give any tips or pointers that might come to mind.

Sincere thanks.

[Fresca]

I am assuming we are talking abut RB211-E4.
By using assumed temp for T/O the EPR varies with weight, temp, flap setting and so forth.
During approach the rule of thumb for standard ILS works well for me:
Flap 30 - EPR 1.20
Flap 25 - EPR 1.18
Steep turns 45° bank, clean, speed 250: Add about 0.05 EPR and keep the pitch at 5°.

[zerograv]

Fellow Aviator

Depending on equipment installed (avionics) on the ADI (attitude director indicator) there is on the left the "speed tape" which provides indication of airspeed and in it, when you are for instance, accelerating, there will be an yellow arrow which is the "speed trend" which tells the speed at which you'll be in 10 seconds (it emanates from the speed you are at and indicates speed is changing). So, once you have the speed you want and you see that "speed trend" arrow indicating you are accelerating or decelerating you correct the throttle output by decreasing or increasing it as appropriate.
Very useful tool for maintaining airspeed, the speed trend.

You say that you never flew jets before. The people assessing you should help you. They will probably just want to assess you basic skills and not your knowledge of the aircraft. "First things first" Fly the aircraft and if you don't understand something that is occuring, don't be afraid to ask why is such thing happening.

Hope this was of help.

Best of luck,
Zerograv

[Fellow Aviator]

Thanks guys good tips! Zerograv: You are right, they probably don't expect to know the A/C inside out but a little preparation doesn't hurt :)

Fresca: For the normal ILS, how would you configure for it? Like: flaps 20 and gear down before G/S (and power settings) etc... Any rule of thumb for level flight at MDA in LDG conf, if that were to happen? How about go around procedures.

Cheers

[XPMorten]

http://www.757.org.uk/sops/index.html

M

[haughtney1]

The most important instrument to incorporate into your scan on the 757 (I've been flying it for about 3 years) is the IVSI,
So set your pitch attitude on the ILS...at between 1 and 2 degrees (depending on weight)
Set the thrust for flap vref30 + 5 which will be between 1.18EPR and 1.20EPR
and make SMALL adjustments, the key is not to over control, the sim will be a little twitchy..just keep the control inputs small.
As for a non-precision approach to MDA, I would suggest you plan for a constant descent angle..rather than a platform level off.
Good luck:ok:

[Fellow Aviator]

Cheers guys!! This is exactly what I was after for. Thanks!! :ok:

[Fellow Aviator]

One follow-up question:

How much EPR is needed for 250kt KIAS level flight in clean configuration for exapmle at FL100 and FL200? I'm trying to figure out how much would power settings vary at different altitudes. Is a there considerable difference?

Thanks

[AirRabbit]

I’m going to wander a bit off the reservation here for a quick moment (at least I hope it’s quick). It has to do with flying an airplane and programming an airplane.

I am well aware that there are a lot of features on a lot of modern airplanes that allows, and often demands, that a pilot understand what he (or she) wants the airplane to do and then be proficient in translating that desire into programming the various systems. He (or she) is then to watch carefully as the airplane does as programmed.

That is all “well and good,” but it doesn’t do a lot for the continued education and proficiency of that pilot in “flying” the airplane. Granted, to be completely proficient in SOME airplanes, what I just described is not an alternative – it IS a requirement. No argument. But, on those aircraft, when the computer functions decide to take longer to “think” or it somehow “misinterprets” the “translation,” the pilot is going to HAVE to FLY the airplane – in direct law if necessary. And, this is true on all airplanes without all that “magic” installed.

This brings me back to Fellow Aviator’s original request for assistance:
Regarding an up comming sim check with a southern european B757 operator, I need help with B757 power settings. I would like to know how much EPR and ANU/AND is needed for typical situations such as T/O, climb, CRZ, normal descent, approach etc. Also, help with abnormal things such as steep turns will help very much. I have never flow jets, please feel free to give any tips or pointers that might come to mind.
Please, understand that I’m NOT picking on Fellow Aviator! He just brings to mind something that, to me, has always felt like “sandpaper.” His plea for assistance sounds to me like an “interview” session – designed to see if an applicant knows how to fly; and, if I am correct, it is probably NOT a session to see if an applicant knows how to “program” a specific type of airplane. When I had students transitioning into the airplane on which I was teaching and they asked similar questions (which I interpreted as necessary “crutches”) – I usually responded with a bit of advice that they probably considered a bit “cold-shouldered.” I’d say something whitty and bright, like, “If you’re on final approach and find that you’re a bit slow, I’d suggest you push forward a bit on these,” and tap the throttles; or “If you’re a bit nose low, you have this very handy tool to make an adjustment,” while tapping the control column. And then I’d throw in an oft-used phrase, “remember, anything that will take you to it, will take you through it.”

I fully understand the uncertainty about being examined regarding whether or not you can “fly” – and not wanting to screw up a pretty good chance. But, at least for me and the guys I work with, observing someone take a few extra minutes to figure out those kinds of things for themselves gives me a pretty good idea that the pilot I’m observing has (or does not have) a good, basic understanding of the way an airplane “flys,” and what kinds of control applications can be made to have that airplane “fly” the way that pilot desires. If I see someone spending time adjusting specific EPR, EGT, or N2 settings and/or moving the attitude to some specific point each time something changes I’m going to assume that he (or she) doesn’t know as much about what is necessary to make the airplane do what is required at that moment as compared to “trusting” what someone else has said “works for them” in similar circumstances. If I wanted to hire that “other” pilot, that’s who I’d hire. But, in that I’m looking at the pilot in the simulator (or airplane), THAT’s who I want to see “fly.” I’m not interested to see if THAT person can accurately interpret what was said by someone else. Of course, I think this begs the question, “should a pilot really ‘trust’ what another pilot uses as a control application strategy for any given circumstance?”

It is my opinion that pilots, in general, are very adaptive in their ability to adjust to differing circumstances – but, they are also quite different from individual to individual. I don’t believe that any pilot really knows what input stimuli they use or that they really know in what order they use the myriad of input stimuli available. Of course, because they are adaptive, pilots usually CAN use specifically prescribed stimuli – and many, given enough practice, can adequately use that prescribed stimuli, even if it is NOT what would he (or she) would use, given an individual selection opportunity, to make the airplane respond the way he (or she) desires.

It is my opinion that a pilot uses his (or her) own choices of “streaming input stimuli” to make conscious or sub- conscious decisions about control application strategies in order to have the airplane “do” what is desired. I use the term “streaming,” because, as we were taught from the beginning, flying is a constant adjustment of pitch, bank, power, and trim – based on what is seen from second to second. In my experience, I find it relatively rare that a pilot, who regularly uses his (or her) decisions about control application strategies, changes what he (or she) is used to using as input stimuli, shift to another’s suggestion, and do very well at it.

I say ALL of this simply to point out that trusting someone else’s thoughts and interpretations of input stimuli may not be what you want to demonstrate to someone making a hiring decision. And, at some point, each of us is going to have to develop our own set of application strategies, based on what we, as individuals, see, recognize, and interpret, and from this know, based on experience, what control application response to make in order to achieve the desired results.

OK. I’m off my soapbox (for now). I’ll let you judge whether or not that was a “quick” moment of deviation.

[Fellow Aviator]

Rabbit:
I notice from your profile that you have a vast amount of experience from a long and diversified career; military, instructing, airline etc. I value your opinion, however I don't agree with all you said.

The purpouse of an sim check is mainly to assess one ability to cooperate in a multi crew environment and the ability to cope with new situations. Also basic flying and procedural skills are evaluated. You are very correct on the fact that relying only on ramdom advise from an internet board is not the way to learn how to fly.

My view to a job interview is that you absolutely must prepare. All the other candidates will do it, except those who do not understund the importance of this. Please notice that I have flying experince, I only havn't flow a jet. Like we know, there are fundamental differences in flying TPs and jets. I am not on keen learing these differences in the sim. Learing these differences in the sim will only take capacity away from the asingment, and would put me in a worse position to those who are prepared.

In my opinion it is safe to say that the assessor will spot those who are not up to the task, desipe they might have been given some information beforehand. Random tips only will not help ont to get through, but they might give some advantage especially if the canditates are on par with eachother.

Preparation is something I need to do, unless I'm willing to give competitive advantage to the prepared candidates...

[misd-agin]

AirRabbit,

I disagree to some extent. Different a/c designs take completely different power settings. Some use FF as primary power on approach, some use N1, and others use EPR. I think a reasonable starting point makes sense for new pilots. After that I tell them "this gets you close, after that you're still a pilot".

757/767 are actually fairly easy. 250 KTS clean, or on speed in landing configuration, you can double your a/c gross wt. and get a power setting that's close to what you need using Fuel Fuel. (additional headwinds need a bit more power, but hey, we're all pilots so figure it out!)

IE, 250,000 lbs = 5,000/engine 200,000 lbs = 4,000/engine.

So typical 757 approach fuel flow is 3,500-4,000/engine.

Another 'gauge' is top of descent fuel flow should be very close to your approach fuel flow setting. (cruise KIAS roughly 250 KTS which is the same power setting as approach power...)

757 N1 on final is typically around 57% and sometimes a bit higher.

EPR? Never look at it so I have no idea.

T.O. pitch about 17 degrees. Climbout down low around 10-12. Approach attitude around 2.5 nose up, but with the great visibility of the 757 it appears to be nose low from the cockpit.

I'm a big fan of turning off the autothrottles. The pitch/feel changes so greatly with power changes the 'hunting' of the autothrottles push the nose up and down while hand flying. Many a newbie has given themselves a handful of aircraft due to auto throttle induced PIO's.

[AirRabbit]

Hi Gentlemen:
I notice from your profile that you have a vast amount of experience from a long and diversified career; military, instructing, airline etc. I value your opinion, however I don't agree with all you said.
I disagree to some extent. Different a/c designs take completely different power settings. Some use FF as primary power on approach, some use N1, and others use EPR. I think a reasonable starting point makes sense for new pilots. After that I tell them "this gets you close, after that you're still a pilot".
First, thank you both for the kind words of support. Second, I expected that there would be some “I-don’t-completely-agree-with-you” comments … as I typically have a habit of speaking my mind … and IF I truly advocate the differences between pilots (at least as much as the similarities that exist), and I believe I do, I also have to expect (and acknowledge) those differences, and, therefore, the disagreements you have … and that’s fine. There certainly is more than just ONE way to “fly;” and, technique plays a huge part in aviation … and it also does in the application of either of the examples I want to describe, below.

I guess I come from what has become known as “the old school” of piloting. That generally says the reason for pilot controls being in the cockpit in the first place is to allow the pilot to control the airplane. OK, maybe that’s a bit harsh. However, those controls are there to allow the pilot to continuously control the airplane. Perhaps I should explain the difference between how I use the words “continuous” and “continual.” The word “continuous” implies an uninterrupted flow of something; whereas the word “continual” implies a flow of something that is often interrupted and re-initiated in a cyclic manner. While it’s probably not the best analogy going, I think of “flying” in one or the other of these ways. Either the pilot continuously controls the airplane (pitch, bank, power, and trim) without interruption; or, the pilot sets specific values of these parameters, observes the results, and makes adjustments in those values.

In the first example, in my opinion, the pilot is continuously controlling the airplane. The pilot makes an input and evaluates the responding airplane as the input is made. Necessary adjustments to the input are made while the airplane is responding, and is continuously (uninterruptedly) adjusted in response to continuous (uninterrupted) evaluation of the success of the currently applied adjustment. Yeah, I know, that may sound like double-talk, but, give it a chance – I think you’ll see what I’m saying.

However, in the second example, again, in my opinion, the pilot observes the situation, makes a decision about where to position the controls, does so, and waits for the airplane to respond. At that point, the pilot observes the situation, makes a decision about where to position the controls, does so, and waits for the airplane to respond. This cycle is continually repeated; start, stop, start, stop, etc.

To me, this second way is a very “mechanical” way of flying an airplane. Can it be done? Sure! George does it all the time. But, its really hard to separate “continually” and “continuously” simply by observing George’s inputs; and that’s because George does it so many times a second. However, George doesn’t learn and he doesn’t anticipate. Whereas, I believe YOU can, and should, do BOTH.

If I was looking to hire a pilot and, as part of that hiring process I was asked to watch a pilot fly a simulator session, I’m afraid I’d be more likely to be more interested in the pilot who took control of the airplane and made it do what he (or she) wanted it to do; rather than the pilot who established some parameter (pitch, bank, power, and/or trim) and waited to see what the airplane was going to do with that input.

As I’ve heard here many times before, the phrase “horses for courses” may apply – then, again, it may not. And, since in my history, the bosses I’ve had seemed to have liked (and, I guess, still do) what I’ve done, and am doing, and why, I am probably going to keep doing what I’ve been doing. But, of course, I wish all the best for both of you and continue to plead … please be careful!

[Rangas]

Here is something I received during my initial training for the 757.
POWER SETTING 757:
250 kts Clean : +80 clean : +40 flaps 5 : +20 gear/flaps 20 : 3° glideslope : WT
2 eng : 1.17 / 3NU : 1.14 / 5 NU : 1.18 / 8 NU : 1.24 / 4 NU : 1.17 / 2 NU : 83.0 (90.0 Add 0.02 EPR)
1 eng : 1.34 / 3 NU : 1.28 / 6 NU : 1.31 / 8 NU : 1.48 / 4 NU : 1.20 / 4 NU : 83.0 (90.0 Add 0.04 EPR)
Hope it helps.

[DooblerChina]

Rangas has given some really accurate pitch/power settings and they are great if the sim flies accurately and the weight is based on 83T.

However, this isn't always the case.... When I fly the sim, I tend to set 1.2EPR/2-3deg and refine from there. You won't be a million miles out, as you can see from the post above. The biggest exception being Gear down, flap 20 - obviously a fair bit more power is needed and a higher nose attitude.

In response to a previous question. From a platform of 2 - 3000' be level at flap 5, go gr down flap 20 on glideslope alive, watch the ballon on flap 20. The drap should bring your speed back to + 40 and then call for flap 30 on glideslop capture. In theory almost no change of thrust will be needed.

I do advocate making minor changes in thrust, however - If large changes of speed are needed, don't be afraid to be agressive with the thrust levers. Jets are slippery little buggers and if for some reason you are 15kn fast then pull the levers right back. But be careful of the pitch/power couple and remember to put the levers back to that trusty 1.2 when within 5kn as the engines might need a second to spool up.

I don't know your background but remember some basics - if you are on the glideslope and all is looking well, don't try and fight it down. The 75 is probably better at flying an ILS than you are! Don't forget shes been doing it a lot longer. So if alls looking rosy, make small corrections, fly your attitudes and dont forget to flare!!

On a separate note, Air Rabbit, you make some really valuable points, I do agree with your theory that we need to input an action, wait for the reault and then act on it, the best pilots do that. I really wouldn't learn pitch/power tables because the likelyhood is that the instructor knows all about them and sets the aircraft heavy!!! What I have suggested is an aiming point which I have used on ferry flights up to tankering sectors. (I was way out on the ferry;)) Also I think getting a few hints and tips is invaluable. If I was a sim examiner (and I'm not) I would be really impressed if the guy had bothered to go and learn some basic techniques which will help him in he sim. If I was looking for a new employee... I would certainly look for the people who have put time and effort into the detail. This would surely imply that he would be a great asset to the company for the future. The pilot who doesn't prepare for sim checks is an idiot. I cannot believe for one second that you don't prepare for the 6 monthly grind, and I fail to distinguish the difference here.

[Fellow Aviator]

Thanks to all contributors, most helpful :ok:

[AirRabbit]

Hey DooblerChina:

On a separate note, Air Rabbit, you make some really valuable points, I do agree with your theory that we need to input an action, wait for the reault and then act on it, the best pilots do that. I really wouldn't learn pitch/power tables because the likelyhood is that the instructor knows all about them and sets the aircraft heavy!!! What I have suggested is an aiming point which I have used on ferry flights up to tankering sectors. Also I think getting a few hints and tips is invaluable. If I was a sim examiner (and I'm not) I would be really impressed if the guy had bothered to go and learn some basic techniques which will help him in he sim. If I was looking for a new employee... I would certainly look for the people who have put time and effort into the detail. This would surely imply that he would be a great asset to the company for the future. The pilot who doesn't prepare for sim checks is an idiot. I cannot believe for one second that you don't prepare for the 6 monthly grind, and I fail to distinguish the difference here.
A couple of comments: First, I think you may have misunderstood my point in citing the two examples I did. I indicated that the second example was a very “mechanical” way of flying the airplane. I think that is a mistake; primarily because it is simply beyond human capability to do and do correctly. I was not advocating a “mechanical” way of flying the airplane. Successful pilots do not “input an action, wait for the result and then act on it.” They process the environment, decide what is necessary, and make appropriate control applications. The critical difference, is that successful pilots will continue to process the environment as the control applications are made and determine if the airplane is responding as anticipated and is moving in the correct manner to achieve the desired results. More often than not, these successful pilots will have to make adjustments (probably a whole series of adjustments) throughout the maneuver to achieve (and then maintain) the desired condition of the airplane. Should they, for some reason, decide to wait to see what the airplane does after their initial input, they are going to be late in making necessary adjustments. And, importantly, if the pilot is flying mechanically, he (or she) is going to have to know what mechanical position to which the airplane controls will have to be positioned to get the airplane to move to the condition originally desired – since, now, the airplane would be in some other condition than it was at the start. In order to do this throughout the normal operating envelope of any airplane, this will absolutely necessitate a huge data base of understanding pitch, bank, power, and trim settings for various weights, configurations, and energy states (airspeeds) and a computer-like recognition of what combination of these factors are most likely to achieve the desired condition from the current condition. As I said, “beyond human capability;” certainly, at least, beyond THIS human’s capability!

Secondly, I am certainly NOT advocating going into any situation unprepared; certainly not any situation where your ability is going to be assessed. Reviewing procedures (when to lower the flaps and gear, when to call for checklists, what is the sequence of events for an RTO, etc.); recalling specific numbers (like limiting weights, temperatures, speeds, etc.); refreshing recollections of locations of certain things (like the MEL or CDL, temperature conversion charts, etc) are always helpful in preparing for a simulator or line check. But, the distinguishing difference that I believe you said you didn’t see, is, from my perspective, that trying to “fudge” a bit by trying to remember specific pitch, bank, power, or trim settings for certain circumstances can be more cumbersome (and if you’re not at all familiar with the specifics you’re trying to remember, it is likely to be a lot worse than cumbersome!) than just doing what you normally do in those same circumstances.

So, without any animosity what-so-ever, I believe that if you are the type of person that absolutely “needs” to have a whole series of numbers, as provided by Rangas for power settings … be my guest. As long as you do your job completely and safely, within all the boundaries of required processes and procedures, and within all appropriate rules and regulations … I’m certainly not going to fault your choices. However, I would think that you might be able to be more “aware” of your surroundings were you to choose a more “conventional” way of operating the airplane – and, at least in some cases, that might be an aid in moving up in your organization.

[extreme P]

Columns don't quite match up but flap/gear/ias corresponds to up/up/250. Copy the epr/n1/ff/pitch portion and put it to the right of ias for the whole thing.
Conditions Used to record above data from America West Simulator PHX
No Wind
Alt 2992
3000 Feet ASL
Vref 20 85 tons 139
Vref 30 85 tons 128
Condition 85 Tons Flap Gear IAS
Two Engines
Level Flight UP UP 250
Level Flight UP UP R + 80
Level Flight 1 UP R + 60
Level Flight 5 UP R + 40
Level Flight 15 UP R + 20
Level Flight 20 Down R + 20
Level Flight 30 Down R + 10
1200 FPM Down 30 Down R + 10
700 FPM Down 30 Down R + 10
Level flight 45 Bank Up UP 250
Single Engine
Level Flight Up Up 250
Level Flight Up Up 230
Level Flight Up Up R + 80
Level Flight 1 Up R + 60
Level Flight 5 Up R + 40
Level Flight 15 Up R + 20
Level Flight 20 Down R + 20
700 FPM Down 20 Down R + 10
EPR N 1 Fuel Flow Pitch
1.17 61.5 1.9 3
1.16 57.5 1.9 5.5
1.15 56.6 1.8 7
1.17 58 1.9 7
1.19 60.5 2 8
1.25 66.7 2.2 5
1.31 72.7 2.6 3
1.09 47.5 1.2 -1.5
1.19 60.5 2.1 0
1.24 69 2.2 4.5
1.36 79 3.3 3
1.34 76.6 3 4.5
1.34 76.1 3 5
1.31 73.3 2.8 7
1.34 75.8 3 7
1.37 78.2 3.1 8
1.5 85.9 4.1 5
1.26 68 2.3 2.5

[Silvershadow]

Don't forget the 757 "balloons" like mad when the flap runs from 5 to 20.

[AirRabbit]

Columns don't quite match up but flap/gear/ias corresponds to up/up/250. Copy the epr/n1/ff/pitch portion and put it to the right of ias for the whole thing.
Conditions Used to record above data from America West Simulator PHX
No Wind
Alt 2992
3000 Feet ASL
Vref 20 85 tons 139
Vref 30 85 tons 128
Condition 85 Tons Flap Gear IAS
Two Engines
Level Flight UP UP 250
Level Flight UP UP R + 80
Level Flight 1 UP R + 60
Level Flight 5 UP R + 40
Level Flight 15 UP R + 20
Level Flight 20 Down R + 20
Level Flight 30 Down R + 10
1200 FPM Down 30 Down R + 10
700 FPM Down 30 Down R + 10
Level flight 45 Bank Up UP 250
Single Engine
Level Flight Up Up 250
Level Flight Up Up 230
Level Flight Up Up R + 80
Level Flight 1 Up R + 60
Level Flight 5 Up R + 40
Level Flight 15 Up R + 20
Level Flight 20 Down R + 20
700 FPM Down 20 Down R + 10
EPR N 1 Fuel Flow Pitch
1.17 61.5 1.9 3
1.16 57.5 1.9 5.5
1.15 56.6 1.8 7
1.17 58 1.9 7
1.19 60.5 2 8
1.25 66.7 2.2 5
1.31 72.7 2.6 3
1.09 47.5 1.2 -1.5
1.19 60.5 2.1 0
1.24 69 2.2 4.5
1.36 79 3.3 3
1.34 76.6 3 4.5
1.34 76.1 3 5
1.31 73.3 2.8 7
1.34 75.8 3 7
1.37 78.2 3.1 8
1.5 85.9 4.1 5
1.26 68 2.3 2.5

Ouch! Where have you gone, NBS?

[Fellow Aviator]

AirRabbit:
Sir, with all due respect, you should start a new thread for debate of your subject. Your opinion has been voiced, but this thread is about B757 power settings.

[Threethirteen]

Oh God, TMI.

Believe "Flying the Big Jets" suggested correctly that knowing the power setting for the next phase of flight was a required point of Airmanship.

On any 75 with an ASI, set the power and then check the numerical "Barrels" on the ASI. Are they turning? Increasing? Decreasing? Then you know what to do. When they stay put, you have it nailed. Everything else is just Nice to Know.

[DooblerChina]

I know a bit of thread creep..... however

In reply to previous posts by Air Rabbit, we obviously have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft. But Im not sure this will affect my future in my company. You are obviously a very intelligent person a probably held in very high regard in your organisation, I suspect you didn't mean to take a cheap shot but that is definately how it was received.

Regarding my way of flying the aircraft......

If you read my post, all I was suggesting was to have a target figure "somewhere to hang your hat" as we say in the UK. You must do the same, I find it terribly difficult to believe that you fly solely by feel. I guess your a sim instructor. How do you teach initial courses? Do you tell them reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight or just let them get on with it? When I did my initial course we were given pitch/power setting to learn. In my airline (and throughout others in the UK) this is the way we are taught. When coming down finals on 1 engine with a bomb threat, on oxygen, pilot incapacitation etc, knowing reference EPR's is invaluable. Granted they are only reference! I might need more or less power depending on thousands of variables but the point is I have a something to aim at!!!

In fact I work for a large UK charter, 50 or so aircraft. I fly the 75, 762 and 763. I have took off at weights ranging from 65T up to 183T and of course landed at vastly differing weights. It is a recognised technique to land by numbers!! In fact for guys like myself who jump between 3 the types almost daily, it is encouraged by the training department (rightly or wrongly) to land by numbers using the rad alt to prompt for the correct flare height. I suspect you think that this is mechanical (and I agree) but what it achieves is accurate and above all safe landings

Successful pilots do not “input an action, wait for the result and then act on it.” They process the environment, decide what is necessary, and make appropriate control applications. The critical difference, is that successful pilots will continue to process the environment as the control applications are made and determine if the airplane is responding as anticipated and is moving in the correct manner to achieve the desired results. More often than not, these successful pilots will have to make adjustments (probably a whole series of adjustments) throughout the maneuver to achieve (and then maintain) the desired condition of the airplane.

I agree totally, I think you just put it more elequently than I.

In conclusion (and back to the tread) I can't see any problem in knowing some settings for the sim, it shows that the candidate has bothered to go out and prepare. I also still use reference EPR's on the line (and even more so in the sim) they are a great way of relieving workload when you probably need it for something else. The fact is that in the UK hand flying techniques are taken for granted at command assesments, I fly with some skippers who are obviously less capable in the polling around the sky department than others but they excell on the management/people side. Unfortunately that is just simply more important in the modern jet. Heh, but thats another thread......

[AirRabbit]

Hey DooblerChina:
In reply to previous posts by Air Rabbit, we obviously have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft. But Im not sure this will affect my future in my company. You are obviously a very intelligent person a probably held in very high regard in your organisation, I suspect you didn't mean to take a cheap shot but that is definately how it was received.
Your suspicions are confirmed; I certainly did NOT intend that you (or anyone else here) take my comments as criticisms of their individual choices – and I certainly don’t take “cheap shots” knowingly – at least not without significant provocation. I will admit, that once provoked, I have been known to get a bit “testy.” However, with regard to this particular thread, if you perceived anything I said in that way, please accept my sincere apologies!
…we obviously have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft. But Im not sure this will affect my future in my company.
I find it terribly difficult to believe that you fly solely by feel. I guess your a sim instructor. How do you teach initial courses? Do you tell them reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight or just let them get on with it? When I did my initial course we were given pitch/power setting to learn.
I also understand that you and I, as you said, “have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft.” My comment about “moving up in your organization,” was not intended to be a “slap” or “dig” at you or your professionalism.

In my defense, should I need any, all I can say is that I have been in this profession for a good many years, and, yes, I have done my fair share (some would say considerably more than my fair share) of instructing and evaluating. The instruction has included both the simulator and the airplane, where the airplane portions have ranged from the complete course of instruction (initial flight to proficiency/type rating check) through simply finishing what was begun in the simulator – a couple of bounces and a simulated engine-out, full stop landing. And, for what it’s worth, through my years of doing this I have found that some individuals who have taken my urging to adopt a somewhat different philosophy about some things has garnered for themselves a more solid opportunity to advance their individual careers. Were their opportunities solely due to my urgings? Very likely they were NOT. However, according to some who were kind enough to stay in touch, in at least some cases, those who chose to implement my recommendations believed they were … additive to their career path. Was that true in every circumstance? Probably not; nor would I expect that to be true.

Perhaps you would find it interesting (perhaps not), that I firmly believe a pilot will learn more and learn better if he (or she) is allowed to understand how his (or her) airplane performs and handles throughout the flight envelope as part of their learning and demonstrating proficiency at stuff like engine-out takeoffs, missed approaches, precision and non-precision instrument approaches, rejected takeoffs, and the like. This means familiarity with control applications in all three axes – varying from minor to major control surface deflections and deflection rates, aircraft response from low power settings to high power settings and vice versa, all while the airplane is at high energy, low altitude; high energy, high altitude; low energy, low altitude; and low energy high altitude circumstances. Of course, various airplane configurations play a part in this understanding. This point leads me to the answer to your specific question about whether I have provided my students with what you referred to as “reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight – or just let them get on with it.” My answer probably won’t come as much of a shock. To use your words, I just let them “get on with it.” I believe that if you have an established power setting, pitch attitude, and airspeed during a climb to, say, 8000 feet – and you are given a level-off instruction at, say, 6000 feet, with instructions to maintain 250 KIAS, it doesn’t take a terribly high level of skill to do that without having a predetermined pitch and power setting to “hang your hat on.” I expect that if this is the student’s very first exposure to the simulator, or to the aircraft, he (or she) might have to make a series of “adjustments” in pitch, power, and trim to achieve the assigned parameters. Further, it might take a couple of attempts to be able to settle the aircraft to within acceptable tolerances of the assigned parameters – without having to resort to setting predetermined pitch, power, and trim points and making adjustments from those points. Instead, I’ve found that once an understanding is reached about how the airplane performs and handles in the above-cited circumstances, further discussions about pitch, bank, power, or trim applications and modifications are usually not necessary.

Additionally, while it may be true that I am entirely unique (although I hardly think so), I judge how effectively the student is assimilating the necessary material by how much “instructing” I have to do throughout the course of any training session. Again, on a personal level, I find that I have to “instruct” less if the student is making continuous control applications in response to input stimuli. Whereas, if the student is making continual adjustments (as opposed to continuous adjustments), I find it necessary to increase the amount of “instructing” that is required. I also find that by letting the continual-control-adjustment students take the necessary time to realize their mistakes and correct them on their own (a very useful training tool, by the way), we usually don’t progress through the syllabus at nearly the pace we should.

I am a HUGE believer in letting the individual pilot select the input stimuli and the order that stimuli is used or recognized. And with that is the belief that he (or she) is most comfortable in using and responding to their individual choices in order to make whatever judgment is necessary about control application strategies. The only caveat I add is that if the results, in the form of the operation of the airplane, are, as I said in my earlier post, “completely and safely, within all the boundaries of required processes and procedures, and within all appropriate rules and regulations, I’m certainly not going to fault your choices.” If this means that you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose to use a whole series of numbers in the form of pitch, bank, power, and/or trim settings … as I said, “be my guest!” My point is that if you learn the way I’ve described, you will have determined your personal preference. However, if someone learns the way you suggest, they will have learned YOUR personal preference – which is perhaps NOT theirs! What is more, it just may not be your personal preference either.

No hard feelings … I’m just expressing my thoughts. Naturally, you (and everyone / anyone else here) are free to disregard as much or as little as you desire.