View Full Version : Qantas Speed Restrictions

8th Nov 2002, 22:45
Apologies to Mel ATC last night who told me to descend at best speed for as long as possible.

Due to the actions of a few guys who seem to have their heads buried in the sand for the last couple of year and insist on pushing and exceeding the limits for stable approaches, QF have instigated speed restrictions on it's pilots that are going to make it very difficult to accomodate ATC who are trying to establish an orderly and efficient sequence.

250 by 5k and 210 by 12 miles. Thats it.

I regarded this as micro-management until I heard one or two of the stories. I guess managements hands are tied...sigh goodbye 320 to 20 miles... the lowest common denominators rule..:mad:

9th Nov 2002, 05:31
Unstable approaches at QF?......Didn't know the A330 was on line yet.:D

Capt Fathom
9th Nov 2002, 06:05
QF have instigated speed restrictions on it's pilots
I have been told that these speeds are supposed to be the standard speeds anyway...just nobody has worried about sticking to them!

9th Nov 2002, 20:05
Any truth to the rumour that there has been a bit of blood letting in the pilot management of the 737 in QF?

This, by the way, isn't meant to be a knocking session for QF- just a genuine enquiry - not interested in names..

9th Nov 2002, 20:44
The Ansett high speed descent consisted of a 340kts to twenty miles on the Airbus. It was 350kts on a 727 and, I assume, 320kts on 737 too.

A foreign pilot messed his high speed descent up, went over the threshold with flap still running and landed a good distance down the strip.

Because of this, AN management in its wisdom decided a second stage of flap must be out by 3000AGL. A few years later it was discovered Ansett Airbuses had the most worn flap tracks in the world.

Expensive repairs and a tale of two airline managments.

What has happend to speed management in the last few years? A skill that was expected of domestic pilots but it would seem many can't deliver.

Was 89 the beginning of the end? I understand there was a strict culture.

STARS and airline management?

Or QF Long haul pilots and 767s? Just kidding.

I understand VB has a gear out by 2000ft requirement to counter poor speed management. QF has the 250 below 5000.

A tale of two managements again, which the most prudent SOP?

9th Nov 2002, 22:24
Hey, what do you really expect when you have guys in the right seat who's only experience is 200 hours in a bug-smasher five years ago (five years as a Second Officer watching someone else do it does not count as experience in my book...) :p

Waste Gate
10th Nov 2002, 02:12
There is no correlation between unstable approaches and crew background, be it cadet, ex - GA, airline or military. Most of the less experienced pilots are more conservative anyway, and unstable approaches are not the sole doing of F/Os.

Any of the approaches attracting the safety depts. interest could have been flown by the Capt.

There was an interesting thread on PPrune around 12 mths ago about QF 767s supposedly being slow inside 30 miles . Sure you can do 340 knots or more to 20 miles in a 767. After 20 miles though you need full speed brake, flap at limit speeds and possibly gear early and/or out of sequence. Unless you happen to be at 3000 ft at 20 miles, and I can't think of too many places on the network that allow that. It just increases workload at a phase of flight where you need to be looking outside, and where it's generally turbulent, all for a time saving of 30 seconds!!

Most drivers self imposed a limit of 250 below 5000 anyway.


Sure it was nice to be able to sail through 20 miles doing, say, 300 knots and passing 4000 ft, but it makes little difference anyway. If ATC haven't sorted the sequence out by 20 miles then no turn of speed is going to benefit anyone.

I can't however see how restricting speed to 250 below 5000 will reduce the incidence of rushed approaches. I do agree that 210 at 12 miles is a good limit, but when you look in closer detail at the circumstances surrounding rushed approaches, the cause can usually be put down to:

(1) Un accounted for tailwind on base or final.

(2) Unexpected track shortening from ATC, often after a request for a high speed descent (happened to me recently at Sydney)

(3) Slow reaction to the above occurring - not going for the chicken stick or rubber speedbrake in a timely manner. :eek: :eek:


10th Nov 2002, 04:00

Rubber Chicken
10th Nov 2002, 09:49
Vb has a gear out requrement by 2000 ft??? Never heard of it. Why not read the VB SOP's before making such stupid statements.