Descent speed
 

Hi all,
sitting out by the fence with my scanner last week, I have noticed that QF seem to be flying slower descents above 10,000ft than they used to. Does anybody know why?

bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

FMC equipped aircraft have a function known as "cost index". It is a function of fuel costs vs other hour variable costs and allows the FMC to calculate the most economical speeds for climb, cruise and descent. As fuel cost's rise, so the economy of operation is biased more towards fuel conservation (and thus slower speeds).

I dare say Qantas has re-calculated its' cost indicies and this has resulted in slower speeds.

I know in my operation we are operating with a signifigantly lower cost index (i.e. higher fuel costs) than a year ago, and this has resulted in climb and descent speeds around 10-15kts slower, and operating Mach numbers .01-.03 less.

Gotta love those A-Rabs!!

But Wiz, does it pay off? Now you are number two even when you are in front; which may mean more time in the air; thus more fuel burnt.

Spot on Wizofoz.

New QF Descent procedure have just come into effect.

Yawn, freeking yawn. Another new broom trying to re-invent the wheel. :rolleyes:
Where have these geniuses been hiding until now? :rolleyes:

Bye!

:ok:

Woomera

Kornholeo,

An observation one may make with such well versed and articulated prose.

One may draw a conclusion as to how one could manage to be in a position of being banned on a regular basis with ones "Beavis and Butt-head" reincarnations and impolite mantra.

As I said, just an observation, not a personal attack.

:rolleyes:

When you consider the small amount of fuel used on a descent to try to save an egg cupfull by reducing speed is futile. You'll save 3/5ths of 5/8ths of f*ck all.

The real savings are in the cruise and climb. But some aces try to reinvent the laws of physics every day. Yawn.

What happened to standard descent profiles to appease ATC ?

Thought this was standard to assist ATC with planning and sequencing ?

Standard descent profiles in the red jets.

Just found it fascinating a few days back to see QF speed along all the way from Perth, pass us, only to slow to "276 econ. profile sir" on the way down. I doubt whether fuel saving is the reason.
Im not having a dig, just feel as though Im missing a little more than usual.

bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz

The QF FOQA (flight operations quality assurance) program on the 737 fleet identified a huge amount of unstable approaches and have introduced 210kts @ 5000'!! There Cost Index has nothing to do with it. If it did, then they would be cruising around at 41000' with us. On the descent page in the FMC, we modify the descent speed from eg M078/300kt then 250kt/10000'. Typically, if we get max cruise cancel STAR speed restrictions we modify the above speed to M080/320kts and delete the ATC 250kt restriction below 10000'. QF just use there econ descent which is a right royal pain in the arse to everyone in the airspace. :( What a bunch of w@nkers!!!

iTS ACTUALLY 250KTS by 5000, and 210kts by 3000.


The descent speeds now based on Cost index and econ are a management implementation, not the pilots. Dont blame them.

Level change, it is a bit harsh calling them wankers!

The QF pilots, in exactly the same way we are, are governed by those that makes the rules in their organisation.

They, unless they wish to be non standard, are forced to operate in accordance with their SOP's, like 'em or not.

I reckon if you ask them as individuals they would have an opinion about the speed control issue - and it wouldn't be favourable!

The management of each company has to react to the situations that they find themselves in - if an aeroplane crashed and people were killed because of an unstable approach, the lawyers would crucify the pilot management for NOT imposing restrictions such as they have done.

The 210 kts is fine, if you hit 3,000' around 10 - 15 track miles to run. Is there any freedom given to pilots to adjust the 210 if you are forced or need to get down to 3,000', earlier than usual?

As for 250 by 5, that's almost laughable - but highly fuel and aircraft INefficient.
The "norm" used to be 5,000' - 300kts - 20 miles to run.

Another "dumbing down" and cost INCREASING initiative.
They're bl@@dy jets you're flying - not Cessna 150's!

So remember, if you get your STAR cancelled, or slowed, or vectored all over the sky when you are only 40 MTR, you already know the answer why - so don't bother asking the question!

BTW, that highly refined piece of engineering called MAESTRO which the airlines got told will solve their woes, will NOT take in to account aircraft flying different profiles - see previous answer above.

As usual the golden rule applies:" ATC don't delay aircraft - other aircraft delay aircraft".

Solution? Build some more runways - good luck getting it past the NIMBY's. (I hear even Tyabb is getting noise comlaints now!)

Level Change 340kt,

Would you mind pulling your head in, line pilots don't set policy just follow it unless it's dangerous.

I don't agree with how we are being instructed to fly and do not feel we have any voice but rather are being dictated to by office pilots who are luck to fly once a month. It's embarrassing enough having to fly like a lemon without your insults.
With luck this 'trial' will not last long, in reality though I fear it may be here to stay.

And the CP wonders why we are not engaged......:ugh: :\ :yuk:

Don't be too concerned about the sky falling coz Qantas goes a bit slow, just makes them look more like the internationals. Now VOZ closes on QFA on descent & QFA closes on VOZ on climb. Easy-peasy!

Maestro copes, just change all QFA estimates minus one minute, and what they lose on the swings they will pick up on the roundabouts.

US... I beg to differ.

I was coming back from Perth to SYD not too long ago and we over-ran the VB 737 out of ADL prior to Wagga. Didn't make any difference to ATC. They gave VB direct to Rivet even though he was 10 miles behind at this point, and us a 90 degree right turn for "speed management". Then we we got closer we were told to speed up and cut inside the star.

Still makes me shake my head.

We're still doing 250 below 10 Kornholeo. Just like everyone else. The slower descent speeds apply above 10 000ft.

Yes there is. It's 210 kts below 3000ft. So you can fly 250 kts at 3000ft if you wish. Handy when PRM approaches are being conducted.

Standard descent profiles are agreed to between Airservices and the "customer" - in this case Qantas. The speeds aren't necessarily ECON, but 275 kts +/- 10 kts. Qantas tells Airservices the speeds which will be flown, and the data is incorporated into Maestro. So it has little effect on other operators.

And Level Change 340kt you're my hero. Until a few days I used to descend at M0.80/300 kts too. Really difficult isn't it:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ?? The decision had no input from line drivers. We just follow company instructions. Get over yourself . . :mad:

Cutest of Borg,

Don't know the answer because I don't know SY. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where this would happen however - e.g. is the reason you flew past VB because it had already been slowed en-route to cross the feeder fix in to SY?

Honestly, if you call up (soon after landing so someone might remember - we work in data-dump mode continuously) just ask how you came to be after - I am not saying complain, but there may well be a reason you are not aware of that may well put your mind at rest.

There are no favourites played.

If an on-time arrival is already assured then cost index 0 (ie. cost of maint./cost of fuel) and an econ descent make financial sense.

These days fuel is making up about 25% of total operating costs. Passengers won't pay the airlines extra money when they arrive early. Over a full year this is a lot of money.

Contrary to an earlier post the QF descent speed restrictions are 250KIAS BELOW 5000' HAA and 210KIAS BELOW 3000' HAA. There is no latitude given. These are SOP's and must be adhered to.

Borgy (or is it Cutey),

There is no way you would have been slowed to follow the virgin in that situation.

Had a qf on climb out of CB for ML pass a virg the other day, had to slow the qf down, very indignantly asked if he was to follow the virg that he'd just overtaken. Yes he did, the virg was out of SY and had been on frequency for a while and was at min speed.

He really shouldn't be making those comments unless he knew the full picture. (I doubt he was monitoring the high sector frequency when he was on climb through the low sector frequencies airspace).

As Un-Common says, make a call and find out, the days of an ATC showing any favour were over years ago. Everything is recorded including the ATC's 'manipulation' of maestro.

From what I've seen so far the 76s are losing an extra 2 mins on descent doing 258kts econ speed. Depending on the number of aircraft in the sequence, being at a feeder point 2 minutes later can push you back by 5 or 6 aircraft, delaying you by a further 10 minutes.

Cut and paste Kornoleo's 'non-pilot puke' description here.

You've got to wonder when in an effort to save gas and money these measures end up costing you twice or three times as much. To be making those sorts of speed decisions you need a radar and maestro feed in front of you. I shakes me head as well mate.

Possible solution:

'Centre, qf453, speed on descent 258kts unless it changes our spot in the sequence'

ATC can then squizz maestro and let you know.

Cheers,
:ok:

Hey waste gate, your descent speeds were introduced because of too many unstable approaches!! as identified by your FOQA program. It's not about efficiency, its about accommodating for the lowest common denominator - the QANTAS PILOT!! Qantas couldn't give a stuff about fuel. Like I said, if you wanted a more efficient operation you would be cruising at 41000'. Don't blame management on this one - this is QF crap at its best!!! Speed up or piss off!!!:D

cruzin' at 410
 

well, i'm sure most guys would be up there if there is no wgt probs or adverse headwinds, in the -800 I frequently find myself at 400, not so often at 410... and kornholio,
hmmm if you are tryin to 'talk tough' cmon, at least push it to .78/320 (classic) :rolleyes: pussy.

lvl chg, you are right - in a sense... it's come around from some 'fellas (and gals to i'm sure ;) i'm all for equality) pushing it in a little further than they should've... which resulted in our 'blanket' limits, and the pushing of 500' stable stuff... but it does seem strange to me that we now have these 3 gates, one would be enough I reckon, 500 stable. However, management being management and voila, 250 blw 5 and 210 blw 3. You can be 250 at 3,(my understanding) however the chances of the QAR recording a hard alert and high as it would take only a slight bump to get it ticking away, so most guys wouldn't be too keen... Like it or not, it's here to stay. :{
out.

Kap,

Yes the days of 300 at 20 to run (Or, if ATC wanted you there fast, 320 in the 737 or 340 in the 767) were great fun, men were men, sheep were nervous etc. etc.

HOWEVER the advent of QARs has re-focussed flight saftey on the critical phases of flight. One thing that was found (and has been mentioned earlier) is that early analysis of this data found a totally unacceptable number of high energy approaches nearer to the runway. Without getting into a slanging match I'd even admit that I've been in the flight deck, in one seat or another during approaches that these days would have had the LBB (Little Black Box) producing red text when downloaded.

Faced with the idea that if they are unstable at the companys minimun height it WILL be detected, pilots are under much more onus to go-around. YES they always should have, but faced with a long runway and experience telling them it will be OK, no doubt a lot of approaches used to be salvaged that these days would be thrown away.

Therefore, apart from the obvious primary objective of minimising unstable approaches and improving flight saftey, slowing down a bit also reduces go-arounds. One go-around would, I dare say, use all the fuel/money/inconvienience saved by several hundred higher speed approaches.

You might be interested that easyJet, my current outfit, has a very conservative approach and is highly regarded for its' flight ops. We have a cast iron rule that it's 250 below 10 000' EVEN IF we get a "No Speed restriction" from ATC. Clean speed by 5000' and flaps five by 3000'. If not stable by 500', GO AROUND or get a pleasant phone call from a nice chap in our flight ops!!!

Honestly, it just sounds like OZ has caught up with the rest of the world WRT approach speeds, and the days of "Drilling it in" have gone the way of the flight engineer.

As for Kornholios' little rant, I wonder if he'd fell the same way if HE was paying for the fuel!!!

The other point about this that no one has touched on is that the procedure was introduced without any advice to ATC that the change was to be made. (At least on this side of the ditch)
A trifle arrogant perhaps??
We first heard about it from the kangaroos mouth one morning recently when the driver airframe of a flight that appeared to have stopped in relation to the others mentioned that QF had a new descent speed profile where they descended at cruise mach no till transition to IAS, and then 250 kts.
Not very friendly to following traffic that's able to fly anything from 280kts up to 350kts for a 74.
Oh well, I guess QF just has to expect to see the sun or moon going round the aeroplane occasionally if they aren't able to foot it with the rest, and how that saves fuel or costs beggars me.

May find that the situation is powered at least twofold from the ops guys:
1. ICAO led initiative to reduce accidents from "unstable" approaches.
2. Flight data from safety analysis [and the oversight enabled big bro'...] derived from approaches thus monitored.
This is understandable given the reduction in experience levels, longer haul/ duty time "requirements". The "rest of the world" has taken it on board, QF likewise, get used to it boys and girls. And yeah I like to go fast too!
The bean counters with cost index? - have to agree with the previous posts!!

Aha, now we're close to identifying WHY there was an increasing number of unstable approaches, and the reason for the slower speeds.
For close to a decade now, we've watched airlines seeing "how low they can go" by putting very low time pilots into the rhs, and then how quickly they could promote them to the left.
Personally, I have been waiting for what I thought had to be an inevitable increase in accidents, because of the increasingly low experience levels on the flight decks. The ducks are still lining up, I believe.

And this reduction in experience was done at a time of a pilot surplus - simply as a cost-cutting measure.
(As an aside, I was told recently of a company that is "offering" a 737 rating, followed by 500 hours lhs time, with a Turkish company, for USD50K :mad: .......imagine the flight, "Hi, I'm Captain Shiney - this is my first flight as a Captain."
"Oh my name's Glossy - I paid 30 K for a 73 rating, and an F/O's job. First day out for me, too!"
"Hullo Captain. Hullo First Officer, my name's Betty Boobs. It's my first time as a Flight Attendant - I paid this company $10,000 for 6 months on the job experience, and so did the other girls. This is going to be an exciting flight for me!").

So the "low cost" pilots might have seemed a good idea at the time, but the LONG TERM INCREASED costs are now implemented as part and parcel of the system.

The system of employing nil/low experience level drivers, might work okay on busses and trains - although the train crash in Osaka last week, caused by an inexperienced driver being put under pressure to perform by the company, that cost around 170 lives (and the positions of several upper level managers' jobs), is causing a re-think - however aircraft pilots have several other factors to contend with, that NEVER figure on earthbound transport.

Unfortunately, there has been too much interference by people who have NO actual, practical aviation experience, and their interference is ADDING to the operational costs.

All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure Mark Twain

Hey Level Change,we'd love to fly at FL410 but we can't because we are full of passengers. :D

,

Kap,

Whilst the fact that there are many inexprienced pilots is a very good incentive for conservative SOPs, there is no suggestion that there are more unstable approaches than before, simply that these days they are more readily detected as QARs are now common.


As to low time F/Os and less experienced Captains, they have been a fact of life in much of the world for a long time.

Where you are in Japan, haven't airline pilots typically come through a College/Cadet type scheme and pitched up for their first day of line ops with a few hundred hours? That is cetainly the case in Europe and anywhere else that doesn't have a large GA sector.

I do, however, certainly agree with you re "Pay-to-fly" type schemes, the products of which then go onto "last resort" type airlines with high pressue ops and dodgey corporate cultures (I wouldn't want to HARP on about this, but an airline FRom Ireland springs to mind!!).

I am also resolved that it will take twisted metal and dead people to get this message across...

All you ego fluffers need to grow up.

Descent at ECON? If the manufacturer says so, they'd probably know.
If it saves a valuable finite resource, i'll happily do it.
If it saves money, bonus. (literally, but not for me unfortunately)

250k/5000 and 210K/3000?. They also ask me to turn up on time, pass Sims, get a medical, wear my uniform straight and be nice to the guy next to me. Oh and get the machine from A to B in the manner they require.
Last pay slip I looked at reminded me I am paid pretty well to do as I am asked (or told).

If you need to desend at .80 to prove yourself, you probably shouldn't be flying people around in a jet yet.
Finally, .80/320 is actually slow for a jumbo, so keep yourself in perspective.

How is it any harder than this?

Kaptin M your last post sums up beautifully what Gnadenburg and others have tried to illustrate on these forums to the "low cost pilots" for some time now.
Well done your sceanario illustrates with such clarity the deplorable and backward state of aviation when individuals "buy a job", a pre- requisite for employment in Australian aviation these days.

Sonny,

Very well said. I'm in my fifth airline and as such have worked out EXACTLEY the right way to fly a Jet Transport.... HOWEVER THEY B$%^&Y WELL TELL ME TOO!!!

Unfortunately Iakklat, it's not confined to only Oz. But if the authorities condone it, and airline managements push it, do you really believe that low time pilots are NOT going to believe that it's okay to grab the opportunity if it presents? That may well be the case, Wiz, and it really isn't hard to do is it, as the sop's are set to cater for the lowest common denominator.
But sometimes...just sometimes...I get a twinge of "professionalism", that GIVES the company something MORE than they pay for (lower fuel burn, less aircraft operating time).
....when I'm in a generous mood!

It can SO easy to go the other way though, isn't it.

One of the 18,000+ hour pilots who is leaving here this month made the comment to me several months ago (in a European accent), "You know M, these people are so stupid the way they try to FC:mad:UK us. I can make a 1 hour sector into 50 minutes, or 1 hour 20 mins. They are so stupid to try to FC:mad:UK us for a few dollars."

Geez Kap,

There we were having a perfectly reasnoble discussion about operational matters, but true to form you had to launch into personal attacks and snooty put downs.

So, your definition of professionalism is to ignore SOPs and do what you like 'cause you know better. You'd make a great Training Captain. "That's what the book says, now here's how I WANT you to do it!!""

I well remember having to seek a briefing before any sim or line check to find out what the particular Check Captains' definition of "The ONLY way to do it" was. This was finally put to rest by the introduction of the PATs system at Ansett, which very accuratley and objectivley spelt out what the procedures were, and how they were to be adhered to. Anything else came under the heading of "Technique" which could certainly be discussed, but wasn't a matter of "This is how it SHALL be done.". The Airlines I've flown with in Europe have had similar, clearly defined SOPs and a pervasive culture of "As long as you are trying to follow the rules, we will always back you".

So, let me ask you- Does your current employer have a QAR scheme?
- If so, when was the last time someone rang you said "By not flying the SOP profile, you saved us 50KG of fuel, thanks!!"

You can rest assured the first time you or your crew scew up while doing your own thing, your Ass will be in a sling.

Where have I stated that I "ignore" sop's, Wiz?
As a matter of fact, I'm a stickler for them, because they are the ONLY thing that WILL save your @ss when everything else goes pear-shaped. Sucker you! If you'd stuck to the sop's then NO-ONE - regardless of his petty likes or dislikes - can crucify you.

sigh!! :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

:O

Wiz, i'm confused :confused: which part of easy's TRSS or cadet scheme isn't a "Pay-to-fly" type scheme' ? Granted easy may not be as harsh towards its crews as FR, (they still don't give anything away though) but by your definition do you include ej in your last resort type airlines list? If it does happen (and hopefully not to any company) there may be just as much chance of the aircraft having orange writing on it as a golden harp. It comes down to the crews to fly the aircraft in a professional manner inside the limits of the SOP's, regardless of how restrictive they may perceive them to be. It can be confusing though when asked to conserve fuel as much as possible by carrying the min safely required and then being asked to fly a less than fuel conservative approach wrt speeds and throwing the gear out at 2000' agl regardless of the 40 knots on the nose on finals. I can understand where Kap is coming from particularly when you can easily save a couple of hundred kgs in the final stages of an approach, now though companies don't want their crews to use the old grey matter just do what the book says, who are we to argue:zzz: