737 gear down at high speed -Good technique, or not?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Labuan
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Sounds like Air China SOP's to me though.
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!
Sounds like Air China SOP's to me though.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arr, fer cryin' out loud!
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!
edited for spelling, grammar, syntax, typesetting, the usual!
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!
edited for spelling, grammar, syntax, typesetting, the usual!
Last edited by Friendly Pelican; 27th Mar 2005 at 05:17.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Labuan
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
"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?
Moderator
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 ...
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 ...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz -Sometimes
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I think we all agree that if you need the gear, well thats better than a go-around. Woomera please end it now!
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.
I think we all agree that if you need the gear, well thats better than a go-around. Woomera please end it now!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BankAngle50
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?
"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?
