Throttle use on approach
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tor,
It still applies on the approach. Speedbrake is less effective, so you use the gear and more flap. But again speed against drag works well.
From your posts you appear to be just starting out on jet aircraft. They are a little different to your average Cessna so be prepared to learn (you appear to be quite set in your opinion).
It still applies on the approach. Speedbrake is less effective, so you use the gear and more flap. But again speed against drag works well.
From your posts you appear to be just starting out on jet aircraft. They are a little different to your average Cessna so be prepared to learn (you appear to be quite set in your opinion).
Guest
Posts: n/a
I really don't understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that it's a good idea to increase speed if you are, say, one dot high on the glideslope?
If that's what you're saying I am quite set in my opinion as that goes the opposite way of everything I was thaught (such as stabilized approach concept).
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 02 May 2001).]
If that's what you're saying I am quite set in my opinion as that goes the opposite way of everything I was thaught (such as stabilized approach concept).
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 02 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tor
If you are say one dot high on the glide slope you would correct by gently easing the nose attitude down a little and correcting the associated increase in speed by reducing thrust.Keeping the speed correct by thrust lever movement.
It's harder to think about than to do.
If you are say one dot high on the glide slope you would correct by gently easing the nose attitude down a little and correcting the associated increase in speed by reducing thrust.Keeping the speed correct by thrust lever movement.
It's harder to think about than to do.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would do it the opposite way. Decrease thrust to get a higher RoD and then let the nose drop to keep the speed. Why would you let the speed increase before taking action, Flanker?
I wouldn't let the speed increase to create more drag as Flap 5 suggests either.
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 02 May 2001).]
I wouldn't let the speed increase to create more drag as Flap 5 suggests either.
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 02 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
May I suggest that the idea of pitch attitude controlling speed and power controlling R of D in light a/c is due to the fact that it is an easier concept for a 'student' to grasp, as they will not need to make any secondary adjustments for a properly trimmed a/c. However it is a fairly simplistic method of flying, and once the student becomes competent a coordinated combination of the two methods allow for smooth and accurate flying.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tor
Thats the point.If all you do is reduce thrust while keeping the same attitude, the ROD will not increase- the speed will decrease.
To answer your other question the speed does not increase, because you coordinate the movements together, rather than let the speed build then correct it.
Works for me!
Thats the point.If all you do is reduce thrust while keeping the same attitude, the ROD will not increase- the speed will decrease.
To answer your other question the speed does not increase, because you coordinate the movements together, rather than let the speed build then correct it.
Works for me!
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Flanker
If all you do is reduce thrust while keeping the same attitude, the ROD will not increase- the speed will decrease.</font>
If all you do is reduce thrust while keeping the same attitude, the ROD will not increase- the speed will decrease.</font>
Not if the aircraft is trimmed. You should almost be able to fly hands off if trimmed correctly.
-----
Edited:
Re-read your post. How do you fly an ILS in level flight
?[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 02 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Indeed Tor how do you fly an ILS in level flight? Because if you are already one dot high and you level off to slow down, what happens?
Therefore stuff the nose down, get the thrust off and add some drag, or you will be going around. Simple really.
Therefore stuff the nose down, get the thrust off and add some drag, or you will be going around. Simple really.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flap 5, why would you slow down or level off? (I think it was Flanker that wanted to level off).
I said, reduce thrust and let the nose drop to maintain the trimmed speed, not level off and reduce speed.
But to answer your question if you level off and slow down you will stall eventually, a fast way to get down indeed, but probably not opportune
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 02 May 2001).]
I said, reduce thrust and let the nose drop to maintain the trimmed speed, not level off and reduce speed.
But to answer your question if you level off and slow down you will stall eventually, a fast way to get down indeed, but probably not opportune
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 02 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi ,
since there is a bit confusion here, I pull out my good-old book "Fly the wing" - by Jim Webb:
...Airflow around a wing (in a jet aircraft) varies only when the forward speed of the airplane varies. A jet wing is just a board - a lift surface; it goes where you point it, and its speed varies according to the power or thrust applied to it.
The difference in lift characteristics between prop and jet aircraft with and without power requires a diffrent technique in handling approaches. In a prop aircraft you may safely use the POWER for RATE OF DESCENT, but in a jet, you really fly the wing.
For example, if you are flying a prop airplane and getting a little low, you simply ease on a little power. Immediately, AS THE ENGINES AND PROPS INCREASE POWER, THE ADDITIONAL AIRFLOW AROUND THE WINGS GENERATES MORE LIFT. WITH MORE LIFT, THE AIRCRAFT WILL REDUCE ITS RATE OF DESCENT AND STRETCH OUT THE APPROACH TO REACH THE RUNWAY AND THE TOUCHDOWN POINT. Since this power application is usually slight, and increase in lift is also a change in angle of attack, which also produces more drag, the actual speed of the aircraft will only vary a knot or two in forward speed, and very little if any elevator control is necessary.
But this isn't the way in a jet because of its lack of propeller slipstream. When a jet appears to be low, the nose should be raised with elevator control to create a higher angle of attack and increase lift to establish the new desired approach path. At the same time throttles should be advanced to provide the additional thrust needed to counteract the addad drag resulting from the increased angle of attack and to maintain the desired approach speed.
In other words, without props to generate additional airflow, the only way to quickly generate additional lift to change the glide path is to INCREASE THE ANGLE OF ATTACK OF THE WING....
... Hope that helps !
Tor, if you start your line training in a jet and fly an approach controlling the AC in a way you described before, the Training captain will be very busy during the briefing after the flight
As soon as you will have a training or 'hands on' you will understand this concept, and after a while it wil become second nature.
since there is a bit confusion here, I pull out my good-old book "Fly the wing" - by Jim Webb:
...Airflow around a wing (in a jet aircraft) varies only when the forward speed of the airplane varies. A jet wing is just a board - a lift surface; it goes where you point it, and its speed varies according to the power or thrust applied to it.
The difference in lift characteristics between prop and jet aircraft with and without power requires a diffrent technique in handling approaches. In a prop aircraft you may safely use the POWER for RATE OF DESCENT, but in a jet, you really fly the wing.
For example, if you are flying a prop airplane and getting a little low, you simply ease on a little power. Immediately, AS THE ENGINES AND PROPS INCREASE POWER, THE ADDITIONAL AIRFLOW AROUND THE WINGS GENERATES MORE LIFT. WITH MORE LIFT, THE AIRCRAFT WILL REDUCE ITS RATE OF DESCENT AND STRETCH OUT THE APPROACH TO REACH THE RUNWAY AND THE TOUCHDOWN POINT. Since this power application is usually slight, and increase in lift is also a change in angle of attack, which also produces more drag, the actual speed of the aircraft will only vary a knot or two in forward speed, and very little if any elevator control is necessary.
But this isn't the way in a jet because of its lack of propeller slipstream. When a jet appears to be low, the nose should be raised with elevator control to create a higher angle of attack and increase lift to establish the new desired approach path. At the same time throttles should be advanced to provide the additional thrust needed to counteract the addad drag resulting from the increased angle of attack and to maintain the desired approach speed.
In other words, without props to generate additional airflow, the only way to quickly generate additional lift to change the glide path is to INCREASE THE ANGLE OF ATTACK OF THE WING....
... Hope that helps !
Tor, if you start your line training in a jet and fly an approach controlling the AC in a way you described before, the Training captain will be very busy during the briefing after the flight
As soon as you will have a training or 'hands on' you will understand this concept, and after a while it wil become second nature.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is really getting to be quibbling.
I've never heard of Jim Webb. But that's Mr Webb's opinions - good for him. I'll bet I could find another book that says the opposite.
The version I've heard has nothing to do with slipstream or angle of attack.
But as I said this has gradually more becommen a battle of words. Most would probably agree that it's a combination of diligent use of both throttle and yoke.
What seperates us here is what action should you do first - correct pitch or thrust? And I'd say thrust (since altitude is also energy, and you want to get rid of it if your high).
By the way you can fly a plane without the elevator if trimmed for the correct speed, but can you fly it with stuck throttles? ;-)
I've never heard of Jim Webb. But that's Mr Webb's opinions - good for him. I'll bet I could find another book that says the opposite.
The version I've heard has nothing to do with slipstream or angle of attack.
But as I said this has gradually more becommen a battle of words. Most would probably agree that it's a combination of diligent use of both throttle and yoke.
What seperates us here is what action should you do first - correct pitch or thrust? And I'd say thrust (since altitude is also energy, and you want to get rid of it if your high).
By the way you can fly a plane without the elevator if trimmed for the correct speed, but can you fly it with stuck throttles? ;-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are two methods to conduct an approach, pretty much everyone agrees with that at least.
I was originally taught the Power for ROD and pitch for airspeed method, which is simple to learn and works well in a/c upto Seneca size but not for anything bigger as momentum and inertia start to interfere.
I was then taught the 2nd method of controlling speed with power and maintaining glideslope with the pitch attitude, which not only works for light twins upwards, this method also works for light singles!
When first introduced to this new method by a couple of experienced CFI's and CP's I resisted learning the new technique, as I still flying C172/182's PA 28 etc at the time.
I am now glad that I know that 2nd technique as I use it daily, can't use the power/ROD method in an airliner.
However, remember it is horses for courses, as you might only want to be flying bugsmashers and the power/ROD method is fine. But always have an open mind for advice for all types of pilots, your instructor might not know everything. I certainly don't!
I was originally taught the Power for ROD and pitch for airspeed method, which is simple to learn and works well in a/c upto Seneca size but not for anything bigger as momentum and inertia start to interfere.
I was then taught the 2nd method of controlling speed with power and maintaining glideslope with the pitch attitude, which not only works for light twins upwards, this method also works for light singles!
When first introduced to this new method by a couple of experienced CFI's and CP's I resisted learning the new technique, as I still flying C172/182's PA 28 etc at the time.
I am now glad that I know that 2nd technique as I use it daily, can't use the power/ROD method in an airliner.
However, remember it is horses for courses, as you might only want to be flying bugsmashers and the power/ROD method is fine. But always have an open mind for advice for all types of pilots, your instructor might not know everything. I certainly don't!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tor
Go on then.Find a book that backs your 'technique' as applied to jet transports.
Is there anyone else who actually operates this class of aircraft who would agree with Tor?
By the way you can keep a constant attitude in the descent as well as in level flight!
I would have much more patience with you if you actually had some time on the class of aircraft we're talking about.I get the impression you would be a source of deep joy to a training department.
'Fly the Wing' is on my shelf too, the author,Jim Webb was an Eastern pilot with over 35000 hrs.But hey what does he know compared to you?
Go on then.Find a book that backs your 'technique' as applied to jet transports.
Is there anyone else who actually operates this class of aircraft who would agree with Tor?
By the way you can keep a constant attitude in the descent as well as in level flight!
I would have much more patience with you if you actually had some time on the class of aircraft we're talking about.I get the impression you would be a source of deep joy to a training department.
'Fly the Wing' is on my shelf too, the author,Jim Webb was an Eastern pilot with over 35000 hrs.But hey what does he know compared to you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guys, take it easy.
Flanker I re-read your post a third time. I am sorry I mis-read attitude as altitude. Why would you keep the same attitude? You would also have to re-trim or excert a back pressure on the yoke - again why? That's is not what I'm suggesting and you know that!!
I like kennedy's reply "But always have an open mind for advice for all types of pilots, your instructor might not know everything. I certainly don't!".
You, Flanker and Flap 5, seems not to be very open minded. You are very set that only you are correct and nobody else. I havn't said you're wrong, I just said that this methode works very well for me, and subsequently defended my standpoint.
As said I have no jet-experience besides from 20 hrs in a DC-10 sim. However, if you must ask it went very well - thank you
I really think that you guys are very low in you arguments when all you can come up with is personal attacks. I might be tempted to say go back to you FS98 or whatever... But I won't
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 03 May 2001).]
Flanker I re-read your post a third time. I am sorry I mis-read attitude as altitude. Why would you keep the same attitude? You would also have to re-trim or excert a back pressure on the yoke - again why? That's is not what I'm suggesting and you know that!!
I like kennedy's reply "But always have an open mind for advice for all types of pilots, your instructor might not know everything. I certainly don't!".
You, Flanker and Flap 5, seems not to be very open minded. You are very set that only you are correct and nobody else. I havn't said you're wrong, I just said that this methode works very well for me, and subsequently defended my standpoint.
As said I have no jet-experience besides from 20 hrs in a DC-10 sim. However, if you must ask it went very well - thank you
I really think that you guys are very low in you arguments when all you can come up with is personal attacks. I might be tempted to say go back to you FS98 or whatever... But I won't
[This message has been edited by Tor (edited 03 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tor
Jeez, sensitive or what!
People here are trying to teach you something,not argue with you!
The point is that if Jim Webb was your instructor on your first jet job,I get the strong impression you would be arguing with him too.
This would be good experience while looking for your second jet job shortly afterwards.
Learn the easy way.
Jeez, sensitive or what!
People here are trying to teach you something,not argue with you!
The point is that if Jim Webb was your instructor on your first jet job,I get the strong impression you would be arguing with him too.
This would be good experience while looking for your second jet job shortly afterwards.
Learn the easy way.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Guys, keep it low....
The explanation out of Jim Webbs is very basic aerodymacis and shouldn't be very difficult to understand. I don't want to have an emotional discussion here, it is just my personal advice to you: take your time and think about the effect of slipstream, inertia, angle of attack.
I think it is just natural, that when you have very little of experience, then whatever you hear from an instructor, it is written in gold. But instructors are humans and like every human beings they do mistakes, and in my opinion your instructor told you something wrong. You will see it, when you will have some more experience.
But please, change your attitude a bit and be a bit more open minded to the pilots, with have a bit more experience than you, otherwise you really will have some problems later on. I didn't write all this sentences from Jim Webb just because I was bored, I just wanted to help you a bit, for your benefit. And like it was corectly said bevore, Jim Webb had 35000 hrs of experience....
When you fly a jet in IMC in an ILS approach, you really need to fly very precise, especially when coming close to the minimums. If I would raise the nose to correct the airspeed, you would be immediately below/above glideslope.
I don't have any experience on a DC-10, but maybe this partucular aircraft is not the best exapmple, because of the position of ENG Nr.2, which is located well above the height of he CG, which gives you maybe a momentum around the lateral axis.
When you did your sim on the DC-10 sim, you had no previous jet experience, and for sure you were really overwhelmed and in an MCC course different things are required than for example later during a type-rating checkride, or a line-check. Then you have to fly by the numbers and very precise. Your previous methods won't work, I guarantee you that.
But in the meantime just be a bit more open minded to facts, which have been proven right for years and millions of (Jet) Flight-hours.
The explanation out of Jim Webbs is very basic aerodymacis and shouldn't be very difficult to understand. I don't want to have an emotional discussion here, it is just my personal advice to you: take your time and think about the effect of slipstream, inertia, angle of attack.
I think it is just natural, that when you have very little of experience, then whatever you hear from an instructor, it is written in gold. But instructors are humans and like every human beings they do mistakes, and in my opinion your instructor told you something wrong. You will see it, when you will have some more experience.
But please, change your attitude a bit and be a bit more open minded to the pilots, with have a bit more experience than you, otherwise you really will have some problems later on. I didn't write all this sentences from Jim Webb just because I was bored, I just wanted to help you a bit, for your benefit. And like it was corectly said bevore, Jim Webb had 35000 hrs of experience....
When you fly a jet in IMC in an ILS approach, you really need to fly very precise, especially when coming close to the minimums. If I would raise the nose to correct the airspeed, you would be immediately below/above glideslope.
I don't have any experience on a DC-10, but maybe this partucular aircraft is not the best exapmple, because of the position of ENG Nr.2, which is located well above the height of he CG, which gives you maybe a momentum around the lateral axis.
When you did your sim on the DC-10 sim, you had no previous jet experience, and for sure you were really overwhelmed and in an MCC course different things are required than for example later during a type-rating checkride, or a line-check. Then you have to fly by the numbers and very precise. Your previous methods won't work, I guarantee you that.
But in the meantime just be a bit more open minded to facts, which have been proven right for years and millions of (Jet) Flight-hours.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was taught the throttle for airspeed, pitch (attitude) for altitude/ROD methode in my initial training on powered aircraft. Perhaps because it was a training which had the goal to make you good in flying jets. It was quite a change for me because i started flying on gliders. But it worked very well and it's the methode i fly my 737 nowadays.
And in the 737 you can control ROD with the throttle (pitch-up/down moment on throttle-movement), but it's far too slow for a good approach or even level off.
Just my 0.02 EUR, Denti
And in the 737 you can control ROD with the throttle (pitch-up/down moment on throttle-movement), but it's far too slow for a good approach or even level off.
Just my 0.02 EUR, Denti