Slow 767's
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bulletproof
That sounds to me pretty rational and a lot like the way the manufacturer would answer the question??
These things were designed, built to operate in a much busier/higher pressure ATC environment than here (except Sydney maybe).
Hide bound, one size fits all, with local old wives tales, we know better and personal prejudice in SOPS in a protected environment, is what brings it all undone.
That sounds to me pretty rational and a lot like the way the manufacturer would answer the question??
These things were designed, built to operate in a much busier/higher pressure ATC environment than here (except Sydney maybe).
Hide bound, one size fits all, with local old wives tales, we know better and personal prejudice in SOPS in a protected environment, is what brings it all undone.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Maroochy, Sydney, Singapore, etc, etc
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the 767 was designed for an environment where every aircraft plodded along at 240 below 10. As for me 250 knots, 5000' and 20Nm seems much more acceptable than 340 knots. Maybe I should have a bigger EGO???
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulletproof..... I reckon you could fly it that way, but I don't care too much for the noise comming from the gear at those speeds (a lot noisier than the speed brakes), even if it is only for a short period of time.
Gaunty..... yes the 767 was built in the USA which has much busier airspace/airports, however I believe the 250Kts restriction below 10,000ft in the USA can only be lifted by ATC when it is an operational requirement. e.g. heavy weight clean speed on climb out.
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: Sopwith Pup ]
Gaunty..... yes the 767 was built in the USA which has much busier airspace/airports, however I believe the 250Kts restriction below 10,000ft in the USA can only be lifted by ATC when it is an operational requirement. e.g. heavy weight clean speed on climb out.
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: Sopwith Pup ]
Primitive Aviator
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many ways to skin a cat and the B767 has the flexibility to conform with an ATC or pilot requested high speed descent of 340kt to 20 miles to run. Assuming all factors such as turbulence, possible wake encounters etc are taken into account it really isn't a problem. Some models have low flight idle on descent and others not. If Engine TAI is on then high flight idle is operative and needs to be considered.
As far as possible we all like to run to schedule and cooperate with ATC. By doing so we do not get in any one else's way and they don't get in your way. Ego reasons for going fast as possible to "beat the opposition" or come first should be avoided. And of course wind effects will affect the slow down sequence.
Having arrived at the 20 mile point at 340 kts at whatever height the steps permit there is excess energy to be dissipated by whatever means available and it is nicer to the passengers and the structure if it is done smoothly without extending Gear and Flaps close to limit speeds.
THe manufacturer fitted Speed Brakes at great expense. They are most effective at high speed and there is no limit. It is not a sin to use them. Extending Gear at 240kts does make considerable noise,as bulletproof has noted, and also causes unnecessary passenger apprehension. Nothing wrong with using the Gear earlier if need be but not at such a high speed.
Think this tends to be the old "race" mentality surfacing again, and no, I don't try to increase pay by intentionally going slow. Just operate to the required company procedures.
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: pterodactyl ]
As far as possible we all like to run to schedule and cooperate with ATC. By doing so we do not get in any one else's way and they don't get in your way. Ego reasons for going fast as possible to "beat the opposition" or come first should be avoided. And of course wind effects will affect the slow down sequence.
Having arrived at the 20 mile point at 340 kts at whatever height the steps permit there is excess energy to be dissipated by whatever means available and it is nicer to the passengers and the structure if it is done smoothly without extending Gear and Flaps close to limit speeds.
THe manufacturer fitted Speed Brakes at great expense. They are most effective at high speed and there is no limit. It is not a sin to use them. Extending Gear at 240kts does make considerable noise,as bulletproof has noted, and also causes unnecessary passenger apprehension. Nothing wrong with using the Gear earlier if need be but not at such a high speed.
Think this tends to be the old "race" mentality surfacing again, and no, I don't try to increase pay by intentionally going slow. Just operate to the required company procedures.
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: pterodactyl ]
Nunc est bibendum
Bulletproof, the JCW arrival into BNE is only part of the story. Whilst you may be able to high speed it down to 4000', you run into the 15 DME step at 4000' and THAT requires you to have the speed back to about 250 at that point- which means starting to reduce from about 330 knots at 20 mile at 4000'.
I have to admit though that I'm with Pterra. I won't use the geat at 240 knots. You may think it's a long haul thing, I just think that it is too bloody noisy!! You are indeed correct about the big picture but doesn't that also include making things as pleasant as possible for the punters whilst fitting in with ATC? Or doesn't that count when you want to take a swipe at QF drivers?
Two things I have noticed about QF ops though over the last few years of being on the 767. Given a 'no speed restriction' descent and most guys (six or seven out of 10) will put in a 250/5000' 'self' restriction and be back at 250' @ 5000' (and by default, about 20 mile to go). I plug a speed of about 200 knots at the G/S intercept or the final fix and just let the speed deal with itself from there- control steps, weather, pilot alertness and traffic all taken into consideration of course. This has started to change a little and more guys are prepared to hold onto the speed for longer now- not because they are trying to be heros but I think they are getting more comfortable with it.
Interestingly, I was in the back seat watching one of our F/Os operating into SYD the other day. No speed control and vectored ditect to base 34L from about 60 miles on a RIVET arrival.
I got the shock of my life when this bloke started reducing to 250 knots about 6000' and then was back at about 230 knots with 25 to go. A bit of tailwind across base but nothing significant (15-20 knots). As is happening a lot into Sydney at the moment with less traffic we were cleared to join final south of the coast and instead of flying parrallel to the coast along the National Park, we kept going out perpendicular to the localise before turning on further out.
He was a lot senior to me (which isn't that hard!!
) but I was genuinely surprised to see just how conservative he went.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for erring on the side of caution and I know that these guys had been on duty for a while with an early start but I just didn't think it was that efficient. I thought it was just the isolated bloke that went that slow because I had only seen a few of our captains go that conservative but maybe it is a bit more widespread.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion lads. Must away!
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Keg ]
I have to admit though that I'm with Pterra. I won't use the geat at 240 knots. You may think it's a long haul thing, I just think that it is too bloody noisy!! You are indeed correct about the big picture but doesn't that also include making things as pleasant as possible for the punters whilst fitting in with ATC? Or doesn't that count when you want to take a swipe at QF drivers?
Two things I have noticed about QF ops though over the last few years of being on the 767. Given a 'no speed restriction' descent and most guys (six or seven out of 10) will put in a 250/5000' 'self' restriction and be back at 250' @ 5000' (and by default, about 20 mile to go). I plug a speed of about 200 knots at the G/S intercept or the final fix and just let the speed deal with itself from there- control steps, weather, pilot alertness and traffic all taken into consideration of course. This has started to change a little and more guys are prepared to hold onto the speed for longer now- not because they are trying to be heros but I think they are getting more comfortable with it.
Interestingly, I was in the back seat watching one of our F/Os operating into SYD the other day. No speed control and vectored ditect to base 34L from about 60 miles on a RIVET arrival.
I got the shock of my life when this bloke started reducing to 250 knots about 6000' and then was back at about 230 knots with 25 to go. A bit of tailwind across base but nothing significant (15-20 knots). As is happening a lot into Sydney at the moment with less traffic we were cleared to join final south of the coast and instead of flying parrallel to the coast along the National Park, we kept going out perpendicular to the localise before turning on further out.
He was a lot senior to me (which isn't that hard!!
) but I was genuinely surprised to see just how conservative he went.Don't get me wrong, I'm all for erring on the side of caution and I know that these guys had been on duty for a while with an early start but I just didn't think it was that efficient. I thought it was just the isolated bloke that went that slow because I had only seen a few of our captains go that conservative but maybe it is a bit more widespread.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion lads. Must away!
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Keg ]
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The problem with a 340 knot descent is that it doesn't allow any margin of SAFETY if turbulence is encountered - and SAFETY, my friends, is our job!
On the other hand, I believe that the number of pilots able to carry out a high speed descent down to, and below 10,000', is considerably less than it was say 10 or 12 years ago. The 250 below 10 has created a "dumbing down" in pilots' flying abilities - thanks to the good ol' US of A. Dragging the @rse in from 30 miles adds minutes per sector to the operators costs, and is painful for pilots who are used to flying 300-320 kts to 5,000' and 20nm.
Similarly the "gear down" at glide slope alive is a further "dumbing down" of our abilities, and reduces the opportunities for pilots to lessen the operating costs, and INCREASE the profit!!
Gotta say (that) the sector I was on with Keg (CHC-BNE) some weeks back, was nicely flown by him, with a tight left base onto R/W 01 in BNE. Without taking anything away from him, Keg must have had someone show him during his training (or subsequently), that this EFFICIENT sort of flying is possible.
Unfortunately practicioners of the art are becoming scarcer, and so we are ALL being brought down to the LOWEST common denominator. Again, thanks USA!!
Not!
Edited thanks to woftam - a combination of age and a previous night's encounter with a "Wild Turkey"!
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Kaptin M ]
On the other hand, I believe that the number of pilots able to carry out a high speed descent down to, and below 10,000', is considerably less than it was say 10 or 12 years ago. The 250 below 10 has created a "dumbing down" in pilots' flying abilities - thanks to the good ol' US of A. Dragging the @rse in from 30 miles adds minutes per sector to the operators costs, and is painful for pilots who are used to flying 300-320 kts to 5,000' and 20nm.
Similarly the "gear down" at glide slope alive is a further "dumbing down" of our abilities, and reduces the opportunities for pilots to lessen the operating costs, and INCREASE the profit!!
Gotta say (that) the sector I was on with Keg (CHC-BNE) some weeks back, was nicely flown by him, with a tight left base onto R/W 01 in BNE. Without taking anything away from him, Keg must have had someone show him during his training (or subsequently), that this EFFICIENT sort of flying is possible.
Unfortunately practicioners of the art are becoming scarcer, and so we are ALL being brought down to the LOWEST common denominator. Again, thanks USA!!
Not!
Edited thanks to woftam - a combination of age and a previous night's encounter with a "Wild Turkey"!
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Kaptin M ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
With regard to B767 speeds/profiles in ther terminal area - as I often remind folk, - it is just an aeroplane!! - the example of 340kts/20nm is perfectly achievable, without boards, if planned and executed apropriately.
With regard to the ANZ example quoted, all I can say is that most ANZ B767 Capts have lots of B737-200 experience - good old lok out the windows/hands on stuff - and these are transferrable skills - notwithstanding that YES, the B767 is considerably more "slipery" than the B737, either 200 or 300/400 series. However, while on Tasman sectors/domestic sectors by day high speed decscnts /close in turns are feasible and safe, as well as fun and good for flying skills/confidence in the aircraft, night arrivals, arrivals after 11 plus hour flights, lead ,most in my observation to err on the side of caution and "take their time".
I don't think it is productive/valid to poke borax at any particular operator - one must allow for circumstances/judgement calls/personal comfort zones for a crew on the day.
With regard to the ANZ example quoted, all I can say is that most ANZ B767 Capts have lots of B737-200 experience - good old lok out the windows/hands on stuff - and these are transferrable skills - notwithstanding that YES, the B767 is considerably more "slipery" than the B737, either 200 or 300/400 series. However, while on Tasman sectors/domestic sectors by day high speed decscnts /close in turns are feasible and safe, as well as fun and good for flying skills/confidence in the aircraft, night arrivals, arrivals after 11 plus hour flights, lead ,most in my observation to err on the side of caution and "take their time".
I don't think it is productive/valid to poke borax at any particular operator - one must allow for circumstances/judgement calls/personal comfort zones for a crew on the day.
Nunc est bibendum
Thanks for the good rap (again) Kaptin. From memory that one was a high speed one too.
Always fun the visual approach onto 19 at BNE and although it isn't a discussion item or anything like that, it is four years of watching how other guys do it and practising (and stuffing it up occaisionally) myself to get me to where I'm comfortable flying the aircraft now.
Lots of questions about what can/can't be done from those that REALLY can do it as opposed to listening to those that can't/don't.
Unfortunately, whilst you do pick it up on line and invariably from someone showing you or discussing it as you do it, it isn't part of the training syllabus per se and certainly not to the extent that it can ACTUALLY be done!!
Thanks again for the rap!
Always fun the visual approach onto 19 at BNE and although it isn't a discussion item or anything like that, it is four years of watching how other guys do it and practising (and stuffing it up occaisionally) myself to get me to where I'm comfortable flying the aircraft now.
Lots of questions about what can/can't be done from those that REALLY can do it as opposed to listening to those that can't/don't.
Unfortunately, whilst you do pick it up on line and invariably from someone showing you or discussing it as you do it, it isn't part of the training syllabus per se and certainly not to the extent that it can ACTUALLY be done!!
Thanks again for the rap!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulletproof I'm intrigued. You say that you don't need speedbrake when doing 340kts at 20nm to run and then explain how you do it. The bit that intrigues me is that you extend the landing gear out of sequence at 240kts. I agree with you that it can be done and there is nothing unsafe about it. However you are using the landing gear as a defacto speedbrake. So why is using the landing gear out of sequence a better technique than using the speedbrake? Why not use the speedbrake as it was intended?
If you have overcooked the high speed approach and have full speedbrake deployed and are still fast, THEN you take gear and flap at their limit speeds. Conversely the measure of the ideal minimum energy descent is when the engines go to idle at TOD and stay there until 1000' on finals when approach thrust is set (with speedbrake never being used and the aircraft configured on profile). I think you are kidding yourself if you say that it is a well managed approach because speedbrake was not used whilst at the same time having to lower the undercarriage out of sequence at near limit speeds.
If you have overcooked the high speed approach and have full speedbrake deployed and are still fast, THEN you take gear and flap at their limit speeds. Conversely the measure of the ideal minimum energy descent is when the engines go to idle at TOD and stay there until 1000' on finals when approach thrust is set (with speedbrake never being used and the aircraft configured on profile). I think you are kidding yourself if you say that it is a well managed approach because speedbrake was not used whilst at the same time having to lower the undercarriage out of sequence at near limit speeds.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread just reminded me of something funny I heard on Brisbane Departures the other day:
"Virgin 233, make visual approach runway 19, you are number two to the world's slowest 767. Radar shows him doing 120 knots on short finals."
What is Vs0 on the 767 and how close was he to it?
"Virgin 233, make visual approach runway 19, you are number two to the world's slowest 767. Radar shows him doing 120 knots on short finals."
What is Vs0 on the 767 and how close was he to it?
Nunc est bibendum
Went into Melbourne a while back with a screaming northerly and a very light 200.
Vref was about 120knots and with a 30 knot wind on the ground had a Reference Ground Speed of just 90 knots!!
Vref was about 120knots and with a 30 knot wind on the ground had a Reference Ground Speed of just 90 knots!!
Nunc est bibendum
Fair go Autobrakes, I haven't said much controversial on Qrewroom for a LONG time!!
The joys of seniorority these days. Lots of time off in exotic ports like Melbourne and Perth to type on PPRUNE!!
The joys of seniorority these days. Lots of time off in exotic ports like Melbourne and Perth to type on PPRUNE!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2daddies.
While it hurts me to defend a 767 driver, the reported 120kts on short final is normal. The approach has to be stable below 500ft, and the Vref of a 767, coupled with allowing for wind, would make 120kts perfectly normal.
I suggest the controller is like many of his colleages. No practical knowledge of how an aircraft handles, and no idea of the Physics involved. I wonder if Airservices check if these blokes have passed physics at school before they recruit them.
The controller was just advertising his ignorance to the world.
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: edster ]
While it hurts me to defend a 767 driver, the reported 120kts on short final is normal. The approach has to be stable below 500ft, and the Vref of a 767, coupled with allowing for wind, would make 120kts perfectly normal.
I suggest the controller is like many of his colleages. No practical knowledge of how an aircraft handles, and no idea of the Physics involved. I wonder if Airservices check if these blokes have passed physics at school before they recruit them.
The controller was just advertising his ignorance to the world.
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: edster ]
I'm sure he was being a smart ass rather than ignorant. A pass in high school physics however would have given him the knowledge of the approach speed of an airliner i'm sure though! ATCers don't need a pass in physics to get in either.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picture becomes clearer;the cans and the can nots.The cants hiding behind a myriad of excuses.A high speed descent,domestic interpretation by ATC & domestic pilots,was/is 340kts 20 trackmiles,subject airmanship.Borne a generation before 727/DC9?Lost a generation after QF767.
Edster,you take yourself too seriously.
Edster,you take yourself too seriously.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picture becomes clearer;the professional RPT pilots and the cowboys. The cowboys hiding behind personal abuse rather than debating the pros and cons. A high speed descent,domestic interpretation by ATC & domestic pilots, may have been 340kts 20 trackmiles, subject airmanship. Borne a generation before airspace congestion. Lost a generation after TAATS and Maestro.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mcgoo,
you are hiding behind sarcasm and insecurity,I am just frustrated like ATC and other pilots stuck behind slow QF767s.
There is still a need,due congestion,for high speed descents to aid the flow.Big picture stuff.
Finally Mcgoo,subject airmanship,turbulence and personal limitations can you fly a highspeed descent:that is the domestic 340/20?It is a deft but safe manoeuvre that domestic pilots have been required to demonstrate on their initial check to the line for generations.
you are hiding behind sarcasm and insecurity,I am just frustrated like ATC and other pilots stuck behind slow QF767s.
There is still a need,due congestion,for high speed descents to aid the flow.Big picture stuff.
Finally Mcgoo,subject airmanship,turbulence and personal limitations can you fly a highspeed descent:that is the domestic 340/20?It is a deft but safe manoeuvre that domestic pilots have been required to demonstrate on their initial check to the line for generations.
Nunc est bibendum
Bulldog, just intrigued on where this 340.20 rule so commonly accepted by ATC and the 'generation before' is laid down?
Remember that QF 767 drivers are 99% ex long haul and may not have heard of your unwritten rules of the generation before.
IF ATC want it as long as they can, they tell us and we comply. Some of us are happy doing 300 knots to 12 mile (all things considered), others aren't.
Why do I get the picture that QF can't win? Take cadets on, how could they! Think they are God's gift to aviation but then why do they fly so slow if they are so sh!t hot?
This discussion has changed a little. It originally was about could you get in clean from 340/20/5000'. Now it is about can you do it at all.
Of course you can do it, just not clean! IF ATC want 330/340 to 20 then all they have to do is ask. Most QF drivers I know will comply with that or tell ATC to get knicked if they are not comfortale with it!
Remember that QF 767 drivers are 99% ex long haul and may not have heard of your unwritten rules of the generation before.
IF ATC want it as long as they can, they tell us and we comply. Some of us are happy doing 300 knots to 12 mile (all things considered), others aren't.
Why do I get the picture that QF can't win? Take cadets on, how could they! Think they are God's gift to aviation but then why do they fly so slow if they are so sh!t hot?
This discussion has changed a little. It originally was about could you get in clean from 340/20/5000'. Now it is about can you do it at all.
Of course you can do it, just not clean! IF ATC want 330/340 to 20 then all they have to do is ask. Most QF drivers I know will comply with that or tell ATC to get knicked if they are not comfortale with it!