B757 Power Settings
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh God, TMI.
Believe "Flying the Big Jets" suggested correctly that knowing the power setting for the next phase of flight was a required point of Airmanship.
On any 75 with an ASI, set the power and then check the numerical "Barrels" on the ASI. Are they turning? Increasing? Decreasing? Then you know what to do. When they stay put, you have it nailed. Everything else is just Nice to Know.
Believe "Flying the Big Jets" suggested correctly that knowing the power setting for the next phase of flight was a required point of Airmanship.
On any 75 with an ASI, set the power and then check the numerical "Barrels" on the ASI. Are they turning? Increasing? Decreasing? Then you know what to do. When they stay put, you have it nailed. Everything else is just Nice to Know.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the real world
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a bit of thread creep..... however
In reply to previous posts by Air Rabbit, we obviously have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft. But Im not sure this will affect my future in my company. You are obviously a very intelligent person a probably held in very high regard in your organisation, I suspect you didn't mean to take a cheap shot but that is definately how it was received.
Regarding my way of flying the aircraft......
If you read my post, all I was suggesting was to have a target figure "somewhere to hang your hat" as we say in the UK. You must do the same, I find it terribly difficult to believe that you fly solely by feel. I guess your a sim instructor. How do you teach initial courses? Do you tell them reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight or just let them get on with it? When I did my initial course we were given pitch/power setting to learn. In my airline (and throughout others in the UK) this is the way we are taught. When coming down finals on 1 engine with a bomb threat, on oxygen, pilot incapacitation etc, knowing reference EPR's is invaluable. Granted they are only reference! I might need more or less power depending on thousands of variables but the point is I have a something to aim at!!!
In fact I work for a large UK charter, 50 or so aircraft. I fly the 75, 762 and 763. I have took off at weights ranging from 65T up to 183T and of course landed at vastly differing weights. It is a recognised technique to land by numbers!! In fact for guys like myself who jump between 3 the types almost daily, it is encouraged by the training department (rightly or wrongly) to land by numbers using the rad alt to prompt for the correct flare height. I suspect you think that this is mechanical (and I agree) but what it achieves is accurate and above all safe landings
I agree totally, I think you just put it more elequently than I.
In conclusion (and back to the tread) I can't see any problem in knowing some settings for the sim, it shows that the candidate has bothered to go out and prepare. I also still use reference EPR's on the line (and even more so in the sim) they are a great way of relieving workload when you probably need it for something else. The fact is that in the UK hand flying techniques are taken for granted at command assesments, I fly with some skippers who are obviously less capable in the polling around the sky department than others but they excell on the management/people side. Unfortunately that is just simply more important in the modern jet. Heh, but thats another thread......
In reply to previous posts by Air Rabbit, we obviously have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft. But Im not sure this will affect my future in my company. You are obviously a very intelligent person a probably held in very high regard in your organisation, I suspect you didn't mean to take a cheap shot but that is definately how it was received.
Regarding my way of flying the aircraft......
If you read my post, all I was suggesting was to have a target figure "somewhere to hang your hat" as we say in the UK. You must do the same, I find it terribly difficult to believe that you fly solely by feel. I guess your a sim instructor. How do you teach initial courses? Do you tell them reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight or just let them get on with it? When I did my initial course we were given pitch/power setting to learn. In my airline (and throughout others in the UK) this is the way we are taught. When coming down finals on 1 engine with a bomb threat, on oxygen, pilot incapacitation etc, knowing reference EPR's is invaluable. Granted they are only reference! I might need more or less power depending on thousands of variables but the point is I have a something to aim at!!!
In fact I work for a large UK charter, 50 or so aircraft. I fly the 75, 762 and 763. I have took off at weights ranging from 65T up to 183T and of course landed at vastly differing weights. It is a recognised technique to land by numbers!! In fact for guys like myself who jump between 3 the types almost daily, it is encouraged by the training department (rightly or wrongly) to land by numbers using the rad alt to prompt for the correct flare height. I suspect you think that this is mechanical (and I agree) but what it achieves is accurate and above all safe landings
Successful pilots do not “input an action, wait for the result and then act on it.” They process the environment, decide what is necessary, and make appropriate control applications. The critical difference, is that successful pilots will continue to process the environment as the control applications are made and determine if the airplane is responding as anticipated and is moving in the correct manner to achieve the desired results. More often than not, these successful pilots will have to make adjustments (probably a whole series of adjustments) throughout the maneuver to achieve (and then maintain) the desired condition of the airplane.
In conclusion (and back to the tread) I can't see any problem in knowing some settings for the sim, it shows that the candidate has bothered to go out and prepare. I also still use reference EPR's on the line (and even more so in the sim) they are a great way of relieving workload when you probably need it for something else. The fact is that in the UK hand flying techniques are taken for granted at command assesments, I fly with some skippers who are obviously less capable in the polling around the sky department than others but they excell on the management/people side. Unfortunately that is just simply more important in the modern jet. Heh, but thats another thread......
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey DooblerChina:
Your suspicions are confirmed; I certainly did NOT intend that you (or anyone else here) take my comments as criticisms of their individual choices – and I certainly don’t take “cheap shots” knowingly – at least not without significant provocation. I will admit, that once provoked, I have been known to get a bit “testy.” However, with regard to this particular thread, if you perceived anything I said in that way, please accept my sincere apologies!
I also understand that you and I, as you said, “have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft.” My comment about “moving up in your organization,” was not intended to be a “slap” or “dig” at you or your professionalism.
In my defense, should I need any, all I can say is that I have been in this profession for a good many years, and, yes, I have done my fair share (some would say considerably more than my fair share) of instructing and evaluating. The instruction has included both the simulator and the airplane, where the airplane portions have ranged from the complete course of instruction (initial flight to proficiency/type rating check) through simply finishing what was begun in the simulator – a couple of bounces and a simulated engine-out, full stop landing. And, for what it’s worth, through my years of doing this I have found that some individuals who have taken my urging to adopt a somewhat different philosophy about some things has garnered for themselves a more solid opportunity to advance their individual careers. Were their opportunities solely due to my urgings? Very likely they were NOT. However, according to some who were kind enough to stay in touch, in at least some cases, those who chose to implement my recommendations believed they were … additive to their career path. Was that true in every circumstance? Probably not; nor would I expect that to be true.
Perhaps you would find it interesting (perhaps not), that I firmly believe a pilot will learn more and learn better if he (or she) is allowed to understand how his (or her) airplane performs and handles throughout the flight envelope as part of their learning and demonstrating proficiency at stuff like engine-out takeoffs, missed approaches, precision and non-precision instrument approaches, rejected takeoffs, and the like. This means familiarity with control applications in all three axes – varying from minor to major control surface deflections and deflection rates, aircraft response from low power settings to high power settings and vice versa, all while the airplane is at high energy, low altitude; high energy, high altitude; low energy, low altitude; and low energy high altitude circumstances. Of course, various airplane configurations play a part in this understanding. This point leads me to the answer to your specific question about whether I have provided my students with what you referred to as “reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight – or just let them get on with it.” My answer probably won’t come as much of a shock. To use your words, I just let them “get on with it.” I believe that if you have an established power setting, pitch attitude, and airspeed during a climb to, say, 8000 feet – and you are given a level-off instruction at, say, 6000 feet, with instructions to maintain 250 KIAS, it doesn’t take a terribly high level of skill to do that without having a predetermined pitch and power setting to “hang your hat on.” I expect that if this is the student’s very first exposure to the simulator, or to the aircraft, he (or she) might have to make a series of “adjustments” in pitch, power, and trim to achieve the assigned parameters. Further, it might take a couple of attempts to be able to settle the aircraft to within acceptable tolerances of the assigned parameters – without having to resort to setting predetermined pitch, power, and trim points and making adjustments from those points. Instead, I’ve found that once an understanding is reached about how the airplane performs and handles in the above-cited circumstances, further discussions about pitch, bank, power, or trim applications and modifications are usually not necessary.
Additionally, while it may be true that I am entirely unique (although I hardly think so), I judge how effectively the student is assimilating the necessary material by how much “instructing” I have to do throughout the course of any training session. Again, on a personal level, I find that I have to “instruct” less if the student is making continuous control applications in response to input stimuli. Whereas, if the student is making continual adjustments (as opposed to continuous adjustments), I find it necessary to increase the amount of “instructing” that is required. I also find that by letting the continual-control-adjustment students take the necessary time to realize their mistakes and correct them on their own (a very useful training tool, by the way), we usually don’t progress through the syllabus at nearly the pace we should.
I am a HUGE believer in letting the individual pilot select the input stimuli and the order that stimuli is used or recognized. And with that is the belief that he (or she) is most comfortable in using and responding to their individual choices in order to make whatever judgment is necessary about control application strategies. The only caveat I add is that if the results, in the form of the operation of the airplane, are, as I said in my earlier post, “completely and safely, within all the boundaries of required processes and procedures, and within all appropriate rules and regulations, I’m certainly not going to fault your choices.” If this means that you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose to use a whole series of numbers in the form of pitch, bank, power, and/or trim settings … as I said, “be my guest!” My point is that if you learn the way I’ve described, you will have determined your personal preference. However, if someone learns the way you suggest, they will have learned YOUR personal preference – which is perhaps NOT theirs! What is more, it just may not be your personal preference either.
No hard feelings … I’m just expressing my thoughts. Naturally, you (and everyone / anyone else here) are free to disregard as much or as little as you desire.
Originally Posted by DooblerChina
In reply to previous posts by Air Rabbit, we obviously have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft. But Im not sure this will affect my future in my company. You are obviously a very intelligent person a probably held in very high regard in your organisation, I suspect you didn't mean to take a cheap shot but that is definately how it was received.
Originally Posted by DooblerChina
…we obviously have some differences in how we approach flying the aircraft. But Im not sure this will affect my future in my company.
I find it terribly difficult to believe that you fly solely by feel. I guess your a sim instructor. How do you teach initial courses? Do you tell them reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight or just let them get on with it? When I did my initial course we were given pitch/power setting to learn.
I find it terribly difficult to believe that you fly solely by feel. I guess your a sim instructor. How do you teach initial courses? Do you tell them reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight or just let them get on with it? When I did my initial course we were given pitch/power setting to learn.
In my defense, should I need any, all I can say is that I have been in this profession for a good many years, and, yes, I have done my fair share (some would say considerably more than my fair share) of instructing and evaluating. The instruction has included both the simulator and the airplane, where the airplane portions have ranged from the complete course of instruction (initial flight to proficiency/type rating check) through simply finishing what was begun in the simulator – a couple of bounces and a simulated engine-out, full stop landing. And, for what it’s worth, through my years of doing this I have found that some individuals who have taken my urging to adopt a somewhat different philosophy about some things has garnered for themselves a more solid opportunity to advance their individual careers. Were their opportunities solely due to my urgings? Very likely they were NOT. However, according to some who were kind enough to stay in touch, in at least some cases, those who chose to implement my recommendations believed they were … additive to their career path. Was that true in every circumstance? Probably not; nor would I expect that to be true.
Perhaps you would find it interesting (perhaps not), that I firmly believe a pilot will learn more and learn better if he (or she) is allowed to understand how his (or her) airplane performs and handles throughout the flight envelope as part of their learning and demonstrating proficiency at stuff like engine-out takeoffs, missed approaches, precision and non-precision instrument approaches, rejected takeoffs, and the like. This means familiarity with control applications in all three axes – varying from minor to major control surface deflections and deflection rates, aircraft response from low power settings to high power settings and vice versa, all while the airplane is at high energy, low altitude; high energy, high altitude; low energy, low altitude; and low energy high altitude circumstances. Of course, various airplane configurations play a part in this understanding. This point leads me to the answer to your specific question about whether I have provided my students with what you referred to as “reasonable EPR settings for phases of flight – or just let them get on with it.” My answer probably won’t come as much of a shock. To use your words, I just let them “get on with it.” I believe that if you have an established power setting, pitch attitude, and airspeed during a climb to, say, 8000 feet – and you are given a level-off instruction at, say, 6000 feet, with instructions to maintain 250 KIAS, it doesn’t take a terribly high level of skill to do that without having a predetermined pitch and power setting to “hang your hat on.” I expect that if this is the student’s very first exposure to the simulator, or to the aircraft, he (or she) might have to make a series of “adjustments” in pitch, power, and trim to achieve the assigned parameters. Further, it might take a couple of attempts to be able to settle the aircraft to within acceptable tolerances of the assigned parameters – without having to resort to setting predetermined pitch, power, and trim points and making adjustments from those points. Instead, I’ve found that once an understanding is reached about how the airplane performs and handles in the above-cited circumstances, further discussions about pitch, bank, power, or trim applications and modifications are usually not necessary.
Additionally, while it may be true that I am entirely unique (although I hardly think so), I judge how effectively the student is assimilating the necessary material by how much “instructing” I have to do throughout the course of any training session. Again, on a personal level, I find that I have to “instruct” less if the student is making continuous control applications in response to input stimuli. Whereas, if the student is making continual adjustments (as opposed to continuous adjustments), I find it necessary to increase the amount of “instructing” that is required. I also find that by letting the continual-control-adjustment students take the necessary time to realize their mistakes and correct them on their own (a very useful training tool, by the way), we usually don’t progress through the syllabus at nearly the pace we should.
I am a HUGE believer in letting the individual pilot select the input stimuli and the order that stimuli is used or recognized. And with that is the belief that he (or she) is most comfortable in using and responding to their individual choices in order to make whatever judgment is necessary about control application strategies. The only caveat I add is that if the results, in the form of the operation of the airplane, are, as I said in my earlier post, “completely and safely, within all the boundaries of required processes and procedures, and within all appropriate rules and regulations, I’m certainly not going to fault your choices.” If this means that you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose to use a whole series of numbers in the form of pitch, bank, power, and/or trim settings … as I said, “be my guest!” My point is that if you learn the way I’ve described, you will have determined your personal preference. However, if someone learns the way you suggest, they will have learned YOUR personal preference – which is perhaps NOT theirs! What is more, it just may not be your personal preference either.
No hard feelings … I’m just expressing my thoughts. Naturally, you (and everyone / anyone else here) are free to disregard as much or as little as you desire.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 16th May 2007 at 20:35.
