A slack technique. Using flaps as speed-brakes in the 737.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference FCTM 737 NG (Oct 31, 2003), page 5.11 Approach.
Quote: “VNAV is the preferred descent mode when the FMS flight plan is programmed for the intended arrival.”
With this in mind, the planed descent profile is a constant rate descent with no level off before GS capture.
If we plan to fly a level segment to extend flaps then we would have to fly in V/S or LVL CHG to get to our level off altitude before the planed VNAV profile.
In some scenarios we end up doing this, but not for flap extension, but to comply with ATC requests.
Looks like Mr Boeing has removed a lot of information from the original FCTM.
Quote: “VNAV is the preferred descent mode when the FMS flight plan is programmed for the intended arrival.”
With this in mind, the planed descent profile is a constant rate descent with no level off before GS capture.
If we plan to fly a level segment to extend flaps then we would have to fly in V/S or LVL CHG to get to our level off altitude before the planed VNAV profile.
In some scenarios we end up doing this, but not for flap extension, but to comply with ATC requests.
Looks like Mr Boeing has removed a lot of information from the original FCTM.
Last edited by Prop's ????; 24th May 2004 at 02:58.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for all the replies - I have run out of touch paper to light the fuse. Interesting about "old" and new FCTM information. The reference (1976) to the desirability to extending initial flaps in level flight has obviously disappeared from later versions of the FCTM. For what reason, I do not know. Does this make the original advice invalid? I do not think so.
Until a couple of years back the 737 FCTM displayed a diagram of the typical circuit configuration and showed a recommended circuit width of between one to one and a half miles. For years I found this easy and comfortable to fly.
Suddenly a revised FCTM appears changing the recommended width to two miles. And the reason? "Changed parallel track to 2NM to standardise across all Boeing models". That is almost double the distance previously used. Up goes the fuel consumption.
Does that mean Boeing was wrong for all those years in between?
Until a couple of years back the 737 FCTM displayed a diagram of the typical circuit configuration and showed a recommended circuit width of between one to one and a half miles. For years I found this easy and comfortable to fly.
Suddenly a revised FCTM appears changing the recommended width to two miles. And the reason? "Changed parallel track to 2NM to standardise across all Boeing models". That is almost double the distance previously used. Up goes the fuel consumption.
Does that mean Boeing was wrong for all those years in between?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mostly hotels
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hudson
my friend a lot has changed from 1970s and even 1980s.they at that time in one of their fctm/ptm have mentioned that windshear is no big deal, and even the term MICROBURST does not exist in that book.they have the definition as severe downdraft but no name.this is just to tell you that the book has changed and you will be better off getting a new edition .
my friend a lot has changed from 1970s and even 1980s.they at that time in one of their fctm/ptm have mentioned that windshear is no big deal, and even the term MICROBURST does not exist in that book.they have the definition as severe downdraft but no name.this is just to tell you that the book has changed and you will be better off getting a new edition .
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Props ????,
That approach statement is at page 4.11 in the FCTM version (300-900) that I was referring to. Can you confirm for me that the diagram for Missed approach for circling (p 4-36 in mine) still exists and that it still shows joining the missed approach track after the Missed Approach Point?
If so, it is an example of where the OEM's advice may be counter to domestic rules (Australian AIP) and thus requires sensible consideration rather than rote application.
Stay Alive,
That approach statement is at page 4.11 in the FCTM version (300-900) that I was referring to. Can you confirm for me that the diagram for Missed approach for circling (p 4-36 in mine) still exists and that it still shows joining the missed approach track after the Missed Approach Point?
If so, it is an example of where the OEM's advice may be counter to domestic rules (Australian AIP) and thus requires sensible consideration rather than rote application.
Stay Alive,
