1500 ft/min 1000 ft to level off

[Contract Dog]

Hey all

Do any of you have specific reference to the requirement to use 1500 ft per min in the last 1000 ft? AIP reference number? FAA/ICAO? Most of the info I have is a recommendation only. I need something a bit more solid than that. ICAO DOC 7030 mentions it, but that's not UAE specific. The Jepp ATC pages also mention it on PG 286, 3.3. Anything more for UAE/Europe/USA?

Thanks in advance!

Dog

[Avid Aviator]

Nope, not a requirement.
Some AIPs require it if traffic conflict possible, but don't know of many that mandate it as SOP.
Think they used to call it airmanship, but we just follow the book these days, it seems.

[Musket118]

A suggestion from EUROCONTROL!

"Aircraft Operators: Where feasible, operational procedures should be implemented requiring a vertical rate <1500 fpm in the last 1000 ft from a cleared altitude."

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/acas-bulletin-2-disclaimer.pdf

[lospilotos]

Check out the FIR notams for Bangkok.

[wanabee777]

While maybe not required, in practice, it did seem to reduce the number of unnecessary TA/RA's I used to get.

[Mr Good Cat]

Mandated in UK airspace - see LIDO CRARs

[FlightDetent]

Discouraged by ICAO unless there is traffic. See Doc 8168. If you research the historical versions, you'll see that the paragraph saying "do not mandate it for each and every level-off" has grown to 2 pages long explanation.

The latest Eurocontrol ACAS bulletins since about No. 13 started to deliberaltely misinterpret ICAO on this, Eurocontrol not to be trusted. KPI hunts and professionalism often do not mix.

[kotakota]

Surely it's not ' using 1500' descent 1000 to level off ' , it's using LESS than 1500' to level off ?

[King on a Wing]

NOT MANDATED by ANY agency in the world.
Recommended by quite a few though. A TA/RA issue obviously.
I would surely consider using it with a light T7 and changing levels say in Trans Atlantic airspace etc.
Other than that I see it to be frugal and very very distracting if used in terminal airspace with EVERY level(or two) change. Not practical either.
Just my opinion.

[fatbus]

Bored sitting in a hotel !
Agree with King
LIDO says should.
ICAO say should and the
Ozzies say should

[Dualinput]

FCOM has operational recommendation as well...

[springbok449]

Is it a technique or is it more for my benefit than yours...?!

[The Turtle]

just an observation (maybe a rant...whatever)

but when I see a guy climb 2000' using VNAV after 2,3,5 hours of those GE's just purring along whilst we're somewhere remote, All I visualize in my chick-pea mind is that valve, duct junction, elbow bend in some far corner of the engine nacelle deciding Yup...this is when I'm gonna blow.

Why impose that roar in the crc, cabin, etc when a little VS climb keeps everything so tidy.....

Am I the only one?

[wanabee777]

Turtle,

You're not the only one who uses V/S instead of VNAV for small altitude changes.

For some reason, VNAV, unlike FL CHG, doesn't have the logic to keep the auto throttles from immediately going the CLB power when there is 2000 ft or less of a level change.

I never understood why.

[jimmyg]

It never ceases to amaze me why on earth so many folks rely on open climb/Descent (Airbus) FLC/Vnav ( Boeing ) and are actually trained to do so for minor vertical profiling.

Most specifically in Airbus chasing a exact speed all over the sky, watching V/S go from 600' to 2600' per min and back again, engines spooling up and down.

Fly the wing pitch and power... simple.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Agh jimmy-

In airbus open descent gives you idle.

Open climb gives you climb thrust.

If you use v/s per climb you will get thrust variations to maintain the roc. Where as open climb sets climb thrust and leaves it there. Just like open descent sets idle thrust and leaves it there.

[jimmyg]

Yes quite are correct; I stand corrected open descent will maintain idle and make at time wild V/S adjustments to maintain such, open climb the same. You can set selected speed for what you want, idle or climb. For a climb using selected speed, or managed to not necessarily going into a thrust climb set or conversely idle in decent using V/S.

Example: area controller London giving small altitude changes climg or descend by 1 or 2 thousand foot increments, open climb/descent is shear misery. Even in a long climb or decent I find it poor airmanship; as you go though wind density and temperatures change to sit there and accept large variations in V/S.

[QCM]

Do we need authorities written recommendations to avoid using common sense? :ugh::ugh:
ICAO I Care About Others
Don't be robot pilots!!!

[fatbus]

I think at EK yes! I'm sure there are some inexperienced TRI's quoting this are mandatory .

[donpizmeov]

In TCAP we trust :}

[despegue]

Surprised to see that any EK pilot would even consider to fly Vnav of FLTchange during a small change in level/ alt.

Basic Airmanship gentlemen?!
For small altitude changes, less than say 3000', use VS and avoid large thrust changes, large cabin attitude changes, risk of TCAS events, more room to correct Atc reclearances,...
This is taught DAY 1 of line- training ab-initios!

[Kennytheking]

jimmyg,

I think good/poor airmanship means different things to different people. It would appear that if someone else has different ideas to you, you would consider them a poor pilot.

It never ceases to amaze me when people fiddle endlessly with v/s, whilst the plane is quite capable of handling it's designed modes. I, personally, would never climb in v/s mode, despite what the fctm says. Would you really want your brand new turbo prop driver playing around in v/s mode at 40 000ft:eek:

Also, for small altitude changes(1000ft) and in the hold, the Airbus will descend automatically at 1000ft/min. Click and push......it's that simple.

Furthemore, in v/s, you are losing control of the speed(you will agree that we almost always have a speed restriction in the descent). Why increase your workload by having to mess around with rod and/or speedbrake to keep it under control.

I use the system the way it was designed. Program the box to do what you want and let the plane take care of it. Intervene when things don't go your way. In this proces, rod of 600 - 3000 ft/min is not one of my big concerns.

Each to their own, I guess.

[jimmyg]

Points taken..... there is a time and place for different modes for different situations. My technique is not for everyone. I prefer to say when, where, how fast and how much at times, rather than let the A/C automation dictate flight parameters to me.

I must disagree with letting your aircraft wander thru the sky with large V/S variations. Most certainly at higher altitudes where a trade off of acceptable airspeed loss is permissible.

[Kennytheking]

jimmy, sure. I too used to want to control all the flight parameters, so I understand where you are coming from.

It took me a long time to develop faith in the automatics. Now i know what to trust and what to be wary of.

In terms of the varying rod, i take your point and we differ, which is ok.

[wanabee777]

Before heading to the bunk during crew rest breaks, I would often take a stroll through the cabin making a couple of loops from the forward galley to the aft galley and back. This to help with the blood circulation to my lower legs.

Anytime a climb was initiated while I happened to be aft of the engines, I got an appreciation of the startle affect it had on the dozing passengers.

Once achieved, it was not so much the noise of the engines at CLB power would bother passengers, but the abruptness of the change from the established cruise power setting to CLB power by selecting VNAV that would startle them.

IMO, Honeywell could have programmed the VNAV logic to be gentler with the auto-throttles, especially during small altitude changes.

[harry the cod]

Kennytheking

Perhaps the answer to this thread is to have a good systems knowledge of your particular aircraft and of the various modes and their respective limitations. Fiddling with V/S at FL400 is perfectly fine, as long as it's not set at 3000fpm climb. Likewise, not a great idea setting the same decent rate at 10,000ft whilst trying to maintain 230kts. Agreed?

Whilst the Airbus will happily do a given rate in the hold, other aircraft have different logic. In any situation, the pilot should always be prepared to select the most appropriate level of automation for that task. Ideally, this will be the highest, but it's not always possible or suitable. So, my question to you would be, if you're light and climbing rapidly in a busy TMA, would you still leave the VNAV mode engaged?

Perhaps when the 'turboprop' guys you refer to see that experienced guys like yourself can confidently interchange the various levels of automation to suit the situation, maybe they too will gain the knowledge and confidence to operate our aircraft safely and efficiently in the manner they were designed.

Harry

[QCM]

Anyway the highest level of automation is the one that keeps you in the loop,the most efficient one for the actual situation regarding your knowledge,even hand flying if better than AFDS...whatever fits you and you master well is the highest and safest level of automation. clic clic clac clac...
Just my point.

[StudentInDebt]

Surprised to see that any EK pilot would even consider to fly Vnav of FLTchange during a small change in level/ alt.

Basic Airmanship gentlemen?!
For small altitude changes, less than say 3000', use VS and avoid large thrust changes, large cabin attitude changes, risk of TCAS events, more room to correct Atc reclearances,...
This is taught DAY 1 of line- training ab-initios!

I remember being told that an undocumented feature of the 757 and 767 FLCH logic would limit the RoC/D if it could reach the selected altitude/FL within 2 minutes. Made for lovely cruise climbs/descents compared to chucking it in the box and letting VNAV throw all the power on and avoided the risk that a numpty would forget the relationship between the VS pitch mode and speed at high altitude. Does the 777 not have this feature?

[777-200LR]

I agree with harry on the light weight issue. Try using VNAV to climb from 4000' to 6000' going to DOH on a -200LR. I did it when we first got them, so the perfect time and place to use V/S!

[wanabee777]

I'm sure I remember being told that the 757 and 767 FLCH logic would limit the RoC/D to 1000fpm if it could reach the selected altitude/FL within 2 minutes. Made for lovely cruise climbs/descents compared to chucking it in the box and letting VNAV throw all the power on and avoided the risk that a numpty would forget the relationship between the VS pitch mode and speed at high altitude. Does the 777 not have this feature?

I don't recall the specifics, but I'm pretty sure FLCH logic is the same on the 777. Or, at least, reasonably close.

[SOPS]

There was upon a time a thing called Airmanship. But the manangment culture of EK removed it. So that us why you get ASRs about something that almost happened.

[Fuzuma]

I agree with Harry,

I sat in shock and awe whilst a brand new captain (Not in EK), attempted a "zoom" climb, on the climb out to avoid some CB's ahead of us, using a VS of 2000fpm, and proudly announced winding the speed back to 250kts, "now let's see what this baby can do!", the look on his face was priceless as confusion set in when the thrust levers abruptly came back :ugh:

[Kennytheking]

SOPS, that's a bit harsh. Sure, there are some dodgy asr's but that is a cultural thing. It doesn't mean that the guys have no airmanship. Even though we don't all agree on the specifics, I think most guys try and do a good job. I don't really care what modes you guys decend or climb in. I just have my preferences and it seems to get the job done.

[JAARule]

No it's not harsh. Some of the comments on here are stunning. Climbing in a heavy jet aircraft at high altitude in V/S instead of Managed... and yet you see it on the line frequently enough. Who's training them? When the engines are at limit thrust and IAS begins to creep back while the guy winds in a higher RoC it's time to select it for him.

It's not only this V/S thing; there seems to be a lot of airmanship/common sense fundamentals missing in this airline which is amazing considering the background (previously) required to get in. Maybe if the instructors talk about these concepts they are accused of teaching "technique."

wing pitchDid you mean Angle of Attack? If so, getting the terminology correct might be a good start. Or are you trying to say a constant body angle is the way to do it??? Open Descent for a 1000ft descent into London is hardly going to be enough time for the aircraft to "wander thru the sky with large (or "wild") V/S variations." Sorry but it sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

People who don't know how their cabin altitude management works... :rolleyes: Also scary that some pilots fly for hours thinking their engines might blow at any moment. Must be a nervous time on those ULRs.

[harry the cod]

SOPS

I have to agree with Kennytheking. You worked here for many years, did you succumb to the 'EK management culture'? I think not. You, along with the majority of Captains operated the aircraft within SOPS but not afraid to use airmanship, apply good judgement and be resilient when needed. JAARule too, I'm sure.

It is a cultural issue as Kenny's stated, which is, I agree with you on this, the reason why we see some pitiful ASR's. There were some classics this week too. Those that submit these reports are probably the same individuals incapable of being flexible and using sound airmanship when required. The minute I feel that 'fear' is affecting my decisions as a Captain, I will leave this place in a heartbeat, Guaranteed!

Having said that, EK still has some way to go before it can claim to be a true 'JUST' culture. And apologies for misspelling earlier.......descent...decent...must be the vino!

Back to the thread?

Harry

[donpizmeov]

Some of the more opinionated are not Ek.

PS. Can't remember bitching about turbo prop fellas.

[glofish]

Some of the things said on this thread are beyond belief

No. It really happens here every week! And the protagonists even boast themselves of it via ASR!

[BYMONEK]

dcbus

From what I've read, I don't think anyone has posted anything demeaning or derogatory about P2s or turboprop pilots. Maybe you're being a bit sensitive or reading too much into it.

In a few years from now, unless the crusty old Captains guide and mentor some of the less experienced joining us, the events we're discussing will become more prevalent and serious. We've all been there and hopefully have the brains and maturity to learn from our own past experiences in the right seat, both the good and the bad! Guide and suggest rather than direct is the ideal, although there may be occasions where the latter is required.

If that's the case, hopefully you too will have the maturity to accept it in the faith in which it was given! The day you stop learning in this profession is the day you stop flying. :ok:

[Big Buddha]

I can't believe that this thread has run to a second page!

[harry the cod]

I've just opened my second bottle.....let's try for 3! :O Whoa......there you go!

Harry