Slow 767's
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulldog, did you not notice the 
at the end of my post? It was meant to be humourous way of pointing out that there is always two sides to every story, and that rather than resorting to the Paul Keating method of debating (ie abuse the crap out of your opponent) we should debate the issues (ie play the ball, not he man).
As Keg has pointed out where exactly in the AIP does it say that 'A request by ATC for a high speed descent is a request to maintain 340kts to 20nm'?
at the end of my post? It was meant to be humourous way of pointing out that there is always two sides to every story, and that rather than resorting to the Paul Keating method of debating (ie abuse the crap out of your opponent) we should debate the issues (ie play the ball, not he man).As Keg has pointed out where exactly in the AIP does it say that 'A request by ATC for a high speed descent is a request to maintain 340kts to 20nm'?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg & Friends(I don`t care if cadets),
my post was always intended to discover why QF 767s were, by comparison to other domestic jets,so obviously slow inside 30nm.I cited an example,an AirNZ 767 to avoid an apparent bias to AN,of a very well flown high speed descent.Since corroborated by an AirNZ pilot who indicated that their pilots tend to have much domestic 737 experirnce prior to 767 command,understandable.
Re-reading the thread,consensus amongst QF pilots and others is that QF767 pilots slow inside 30(except Keg 300kts to 12).Various reasons, though to regurgitate again brings personal sensitivities,egos etc to the fore.
For situational awareness,trailing a QF767 instructed to undertake a high speed descent,where do most commence speed reduction?Alt` or distance to run.Very useful stuff for those following trying to manage their descents efficiently.
my post was always intended to discover why QF 767s were, by comparison to other domestic jets,so obviously slow inside 30nm.I cited an example,an AirNZ 767 to avoid an apparent bias to AN,of a very well flown high speed descent.Since corroborated by an AirNZ pilot who indicated that their pilots tend to have much domestic 737 experirnce prior to 767 command,understandable.
Re-reading the thread,consensus amongst QF pilots and others is that QF767 pilots slow inside 30(except Keg 300kts to 12).Various reasons, though to regurgitate again brings personal sensitivities,egos etc to the fore.
For situational awareness,trailing a QF767 instructed to undertake a high speed descent,where do most commence speed reduction?Alt` or distance to run.Very useful stuff for those following trying to manage their descents efficiently.
Nunc est bibendum
OK Bulldog, for your situational awareness, I've come across three broad groups in QF on the 767.
Those that fly a high speed at about 320kts and then back off to 250/5000'. As you have correctly stated, this means slowing down at about 25 miles or 'inside 30'. They will be back at +40 at or before the G/S.
The second group are those that tend to fly it at 330ish and stick in a speed restriction of between 220-250 at 4000' and then back it off again to be at +40 at the normal G/S intercept or ten miles to touchdown at +40 at 3000'.
The third group are those that plan the highspeed descent at 330ish knots to run into the G/S at +80 and use the boards to bring it in from there. Admittedly, when I'm doing that, I'm trying to avoid using the boards until I get to +80 so it doesn't make too much noise and upset the punters and so am slowing down from about 15 mile.
Those are the ones commonly used for 'high speed above and below 10,000 approved'.
If it is 'for sequencing', most of the guys will move forward to the next group. IE, your 250/5000 people move forward to the next group who are the ones doing 320 until they slow down to about +40 at teh G/S. The guys who normally do that move up to hitting the G/S at about +80 and the third bunch move up and hit the G/S about 250.
Different airports and runway configs will affect that a little as it is easier to do 300 knots to 12 mile in BNE on 19 when you can get down to 1500' and slide in from there then it is doing it in to MEL on 27 or SY on 07 where you can't and have to rely on the boards to get you in.
As to what percentages of troopies make up each group? I may be a LONG way out with my figures but if pushed to make a call then I'd say somwhere around 30%, 50-60% and then the remainder in the order I related the methodology.
Whilst I've said before that 'tone' is difficult to tell via the written word, I think there could be a perception from your words (as pointed out by 6DB) that you are talking from a 'holier than thou' position. Not saying you are, just how it seems to come across. You do however have the benefit of the doubt in my book (not that you probably care what I think anyway!! )
Since this thread has started, I've taken to asking the blokes I come across which version of a high speed they tend to fly and have come across the variations methods mentioned above. Unfortunately, one 767 will be like Speedy Gonzales using the third of the options, the next will be back at 220 knots with 20 to run.
Hope that helps.
Those that fly a high speed at about 320kts and then back off to 250/5000'. As you have correctly stated, this means slowing down at about 25 miles or 'inside 30'. They will be back at +40 at or before the G/S.
The second group are those that tend to fly it at 330ish and stick in a speed restriction of between 220-250 at 4000' and then back it off again to be at +40 at the normal G/S intercept or ten miles to touchdown at +40 at 3000'.
The third group are those that plan the highspeed descent at 330ish knots to run into the G/S at +80 and use the boards to bring it in from there. Admittedly, when I'm doing that, I'm trying to avoid using the boards until I get to +80 so it doesn't make too much noise and upset the punters and so am slowing down from about 15 mile.
Those are the ones commonly used for 'high speed above and below 10,000 approved'.
If it is 'for sequencing', most of the guys will move forward to the next group. IE, your 250/5000 people move forward to the next group who are the ones doing 320 until they slow down to about +40 at teh G/S. The guys who normally do that move up to hitting the G/S at about +80 and the third bunch move up and hit the G/S about 250.
Different airports and runway configs will affect that a little as it is easier to do 300 knots to 12 mile in BNE on 19 when you can get down to 1500' and slide in from there then it is doing it in to MEL on 27 or SY on 07 where you can't and have to rely on the boards to get you in.
As to what percentages of troopies make up each group? I may be a LONG way out with my figures but if pushed to make a call then I'd say somwhere around 30%, 50-60% and then the remainder in the order I related the methodology.
Whilst I've said before that 'tone' is difficult to tell via the written word, I think there could be a perception from your words (as pointed out by 6DB) that you are talking from a 'holier than thou' position. Not saying you are, just how it seems to come across. You do however have the benefit of the doubt in my book (not that you probably care what I think anyway!!
)Since this thread has started, I've taken to asking the blokes I come across which version of a high speed they tend to fly and have come across the variations methods mentioned above. Unfortunately, one 767 will be like Speedy Gonzales using the third of the options, the next will be back at 220 knots with 20 to run.
Hope that helps.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Three pages of absolute nonsense!
Don't you guys have any standardisation within your Flight departments?
Within your Check and Training personel?
Obviously not!
Some professionalism and standardisation is required from all of you!
This whole thread comes across as a complete joke!
Don't you guys have any standardisation within your Flight departments?
Within your Check and Training personel?
Obviously not!
Some professionalism and standardisation is required from all of you!
This whole thread comes across as a complete joke!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Obadiah I would hate for you to have the last word with a post like that. What you say has some grains of thruth though. Bulldog has derailed the spirit and intent of the post with his pen!s measuring mentality. That aside, I had hoped to find out the meaning of the word "deft". Unfortunately it seems to mean not using the speedbrake as it was intended, but instead throwing out the anchor at 240kts. Well ok, you can do it, but it is hardly deft.
Keg, 300 till 12 is no better. The pax would be hanging in their straps with their eyeballs out on stalks on that one.
I originally wanted to know how 340/20 could be done efficiently without the speedbrake. No one has posted a reply to say how they would do it. Only Bulldogs insane dribbling.
What you say about standardisation is absolutely correct. Which is why the parameter to be stable by 1000'was set. If everyone achieves the same result(1000'and stable), why shouldnt they have the flexibility to operate the a/c as they think best; provided it is safe. And as Bulldog pointed out, high speed descents are perfectly safe, provided you have good situational awareness.
So far no one has come up with the solution.
Keg, 300 till 12 is no better. The pax would be hanging in their straps with their eyeballs out on stalks on that one.
I originally wanted to know how 340/20 could be done efficiently without the speedbrake. No one has posted a reply to say how they would do it. Only Bulldogs insane dribbling.
What you say about standardisation is absolutely correct. Which is why the parameter to be stable by 1000'was set. If everyone achieves the same result(1000'and stable), why shouldnt they have the flexibility to operate the a/c as they think best; provided it is safe. And as Bulldog pointed out, high speed descents are perfectly safe, provided you have good situational awareness.
So far no one has come up with the solution.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6DB,
I don`t need accolades from aliases on a forum.I find it amusing though,some of the backslapping when an affinity of sentiments.Most pilots I know fly jet airliners efficiently inside 30 miles,why would I think I was sierra hotel at such a common practice?
Keg,
appreciate the honesty and the differing groups intrigueing.Unfortunately the disparity makes SA guesswork.
220kts with 20nm to run is frankly,unbelievable in a modern jet airliner.
I don`t see myself as "holier than thou",but most would be a little more capable than your bottom third.Maybe the perennial frustrations of following slow QF 767s is really just the bottom of the bucket you described here.
Brutus,
I understand your sensitivity as you could probably understand others` frustrations.
QF 767s can,as previously admitted,be ridiculously slow.High speed descents seem to be where the inefficiencies are most aptly demonstrated.I witnessed an AirNZ 767 very efficiently arrive into ML and wondered why QF so different.He probably did pull the gear out of sequence,nothing seemed rushed or noisy or untoward.I was impressed and used the example to draw a comparison.NZER mentioned the high levels of 737 domestic experience prior to 767 command a factor.Reasonably so.
Brutus,no d%ck in the wind stuff but always wanted to know why QF767s so slow.If it is you back at 220kts with 20nm to go I suggest you look deft or deftness up in the Oxford Dictionary.
I don`t need accolades from aliases on a forum.I find it amusing though,some of the backslapping when an affinity of sentiments.Most pilots I know fly jet airliners efficiently inside 30 miles,why would I think I was sierra hotel at such a common practice?
Keg,
appreciate the honesty and the differing groups intrigueing.Unfortunately the disparity makes SA guesswork.
220kts with 20nm to run is frankly,unbelievable in a modern jet airliner.
I don`t see myself as "holier than thou",but most would be a little more capable than your bottom third.Maybe the perennial frustrations of following slow QF 767s is really just the bottom of the bucket you described here.
Brutus,
I understand your sensitivity as you could probably understand others` frustrations.
QF 767s can,as previously admitted,be ridiculously slow.High speed descents seem to be where the inefficiencies are most aptly demonstrated.I witnessed an AirNZ 767 very efficiently arrive into ML and wondered why QF so different.He probably did pull the gear out of sequence,nothing seemed rushed or noisy or untoward.I was impressed and used the example to draw a comparison.NZER mentioned the high levels of 737 domestic experience prior to 767 command a factor.Reasonably so.
Brutus,no d%ck in the wind stuff but always wanted to know why QF767s so slow.If it is you back at 220kts with 20nm to go I suggest you look deft or deftness up in the Oxford Dictionary.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm intrigued to find that I got a mention in the first post of this thread, or at least my poor controlling skills did.
Since I have no memory of ever posting an opinion on this topic, and since 767's don't come into my little piece of the world why would I, can I assume I am the victim of mistaken identity?
Or am I just a randomly selected representative of one of those academically inferior ATC specimens Edster sneered at so condescendingly?
Some good honest and informative posts on this thread, but it appears the "My dick is bigger than yours" attitude will never be entirely eliminated from aviation.
Carry on, gentlemen!
Since I have no memory of ever posting an opinion on this topic, and since 767's don't come into my little piece of the world why would I, can I assume I am the victim of mistaken identity?
Or am I just a randomly selected representative of one of those academically inferior ATC specimens Edster sneered at so condescendingly?
Some good honest and informative posts on this thread, but it appears the "My dick is bigger than yours" attitude will never be entirely eliminated from aviation.
Carry on, gentlemen!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binoculars,
sincerely apologise to have you embroiled in this.The thread started elsewhere and mistook you for a 767 driver justifying inefficient speed management.I have reverence for your profession,note the tone and professional courtesy of most of my colleagues,and the garbage of some previous posts laughable.Fancy refering to such an elementary educational level as year 12 Physics as being critical to the undertaking of your vocation!Edster,I bet you did a bridging course too.
It would be "catastrophic" to think the QF gear doors left all over the Northern Territory had anything to do with this post.
When Darwin ATC says "best subsonic speed to the field thanks",prudent to be left to the F-18s.
sincerely apologise to have you embroiled in this.The thread started elsewhere and mistook you for a 767 driver justifying inefficient speed management.I have reverence for your profession,note the tone and professional courtesy of most of my colleagues,and the garbage of some previous posts laughable.Fancy refering to such an elementary educational level as year 12 Physics as being critical to the undertaking of your vocation!Edster,I bet you did a bridging course too.
It would be "catastrophic" to think the QF gear doors left all over the Northern Territory had anything to do with this post.
When Darwin ATC says "best subsonic speed to the field thanks",prudent to be left to the F-18s.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries, bulldog. Misunderstanding cleared up and forgotten. The Sensitive One will now withdraw from this thread where he has no right to be anyway.
