No, it won't. I mean if the automatics can't make an RTA because even by flying at green dot etc. it's not achievable, then descend or whatever is required.

But in several years of flying the 'Bus, this whole idea of not going near green dot because it's dangerous, is just plain wrong :ugh:. Sure, in turbulence, give yourself a bit more margin. But smooth air, really? :hmm:

It's just like those who want to throw a few extra knots onto the VAPP when the autothrust is doing a brilliant job of maintaining VLS+5. You already have a margin, it's called that +5kts that Airbus allows for the autothrust. Even more questionable when the landing distance check they performed just before descent shows a margin of stuff all, and they want to throw some more speed on and now make it an unknown landing distance.

Sounds typically Australian, to re-invent the wheel rather than just letting the aircraft do what the manufacturers designed it to do, with plenty of fat already built into it.

Doesn't anyone read original posts anymore?

This is an interesting thread, only in Australia do we make flying difficult! Having flown in a few countries I just shake my head at the 'best practice' we Aussies have to have:-) I often had to use that thing in our skulls to work out a crossing time without any FMS with my back up plan........UNABLE!:-)
The 'Bus' I used to fly was too easy, killed a lot of basic flying skills & brain capability:-(
Off topic slightly but when I first joined the bus brigade years ago I recall going into Syd 34L on a Viz day, got to about 13miles & turned all the automatics off to have a hand drive, you should have seen the Capt sit bolt upright instantly like he had been in an electric chair & the look on his face said it all!:-)...that was the best day I could recall:-)
We are all pilots, we are meant to be adaptable:-)

Why would he be surprised? I mean, if it's unusual to use that level of automation, or lack thereof, a minor briefing point may have been in order.
Very impressive though :hmm:

Generally having your mate suddenly decide to show you how it's done would get your attention. :=

Match the altitude!
 

A bit left-field, but if you're on an Airbus with the capability, load a time marker with the desired time and start descent when the FMS tells you to.
On the Flt Plan page of the FMS, keep an eye on the altitude at the time marker and the altitude at the required position. Adjust the speed as required to match the altitudes and, voila, you'll be there within a second or two. Assuming you're on descent, if you're higher at the time marker you'll be late at the position and vice versa. (It also assumes you have some brain space left at the end of a long sector!)

I'm sure not all aircraft have this capability, but if yours does, try it.

My point was, it doesn't matter how far away you are, me and all my F@kker mates haven't even departed yet. When we pop up at the same distance to Perth as you, something's got to give. There's no point in sequencing further out because any closer-in departures will mess the whole string up.

You were having a crack at our "unique" Feeder Fix time system and how your "FMS" was 3-4 minutes out all the time and why didn't ATC just give us speeds to fly. I don't agree. The pilots can do it (some better than others), why just sit there looking out the window?

They also clog up the carpark! :}

Nev, could you explain why you'd end up 5000ft high because of the A/C in front [going too slow?]? :confused:

F100 is 2 minutes in front of us on feeder time, but blocking our descent clearance. We can't do anything as any change in speed will mess our feeder time. So we are left high and dry waiting for the F100 to start descending and accelerate away.

It appears that the F100 flies slow in the cruise but then accelerates the descent to meet their time. Obviously if they are late on their time the more an issue it is for the following aircraft. I have had it a few times now, so it wasn't just a one off event where someone got their time wrong.

Is that a serious question bloggs? I would have thought if the aircraft behind was being slowed down it would screw their descent profile not too mention the aircraft in front is probably now flying slower than ATC planned and therefore reduced seperation/following aircraft not able to descend, it's not rocket surgery

We used to manage ok in the Britishly Awesome 146. No winds in the box, no time markers, no VNAV, no seconds or decimal minutes on the FMS, no help. It was simple enough provided you understood that the FMS time did not round up at all, if your fix time was 1205 and the box said 1205 then you'd be overhead sometime between 1205:00 and 1205:59, i.e., you were going to be late. If the box said 1204 then you would be there between 1204:00 and 1204:59, half a chance you'd be there within the 30 seconds early buffer. A quick bit of maths to work out an average ground speed and then adjust indicated to achieve it. Unfortunately our only answer to "what's your planned indicated on descent?" from ATC was "haven't got a clue, just suck it and see!" I would err towards being early rather than late because it was easy for the bird to lose more time if asked but very difficult to make up any time.

OK, fair enough. I have had the same with QF 737s. Dunno why they can't cruise at somewhere near their descent speed. Perhaps they're using RTA... ;) You could just demand a descent from ATC. That'll scare the f@kkers.

:D :ok:

Who gives a f#ck if your within 30 sec (or not). I will be there when I will be there and ATC can sort it out. It's their job as the second best ATC in the world to do so.

haughtney1 - I couldn't agree more...

Wow, this is really being over complicated. Get an RTA, put the time marker in, slow to a speed that you are comfortable with (I personally will go to Green dot +10kts), enter that as a descent speed and if you can't make the RTA then 'JQXXX, unable to comply with RTA, request vectors/hold'. I am not going to spend my time trying to work out complicated equations to try and finesse an RTA that a good amount of the time is just unrealistic or puts the aircraft close to an undesirable state. Why bust your balls stressing to make an RTA, throw it back to ATC, if they want to give me an 8-10 minute delay and 100 nm to try and achieve it then they can take some responsibility for it.

You missed the point! Why do some always twist things around in here to make them feel good?
For the benefit of others who aren't judgemental. My briefing did include a possible hand flown App. When I disengaged the A/P I also disengaged the A/T.
My point was that it showed this particular Capt most likely wasn't confident to hand fly himself hence his "oh sh1t" reaction!

Just like the 7x7 FCOM says... :ok: Probably the Fokker one too!

Problem is we don't know they are there until we start descent. Then we get vectored off and have to speed up our descent with thrust on to make our time. I have also seen this scenario totally confuse ATC as they have the aircraft 2 minutes apart at the fix but virtually on top of each other. Constant IAS all the way from everybody would probably fix the problem but the Fokkers don't seem to do that for whatever reason.

If there are crews that are providing false times in an attempt to minimise their delay, and other crews that have no intention of meeting a time and leaving it to ATC to sort out, is there any wonder then of the speed up slow down scenario??

Some of you seem to be going out of your way to contributing to the problem you are so vehemently complaining about!