Fellow Aviator

Dear Colleagues,

Regarding an up comming sim check with a southern european B757 operator, I need help with B757 power settings. I would like to know how much EPR and ANU/AND is needed for typical situations such as T/O, climb, CRZ, normal descent, approach etc. Also, help with abnormal things such as steep turns will help very much. I have never flow jets, please feel free to give any tips or pointers that might come to mind.

Sincere thanks.

Fresca

I am assuming we are talking abut RB211-E4.
By using assumed temp for T/O the EPR varies with weight, temp, flap setting and so forth.
During approach the rule of thumb for standard ILS works well for me:
Flap 30 - EPR 1.20
Flap 25 - EPR 1.18
Steep turns 45° bank, clean, speed 250: Add about 0.05 EPR and keep the pitch at 5°.

zerograv

Fellow Aviator

Depending on equipment installed (avionics) on the ADI (attitude director indicator) there is on the left the "speed tape" which provides indication of airspeed and in it, when you are for instance, accelerating, there will be an yellow arrow which is the "speed trend" which tells the speed at which you'll be in 10 seconds (it emanates from the speed you are at and indicates speed is changing). So, once you have the speed you want and you see that "speed trend" arrow indicating you are accelerating or decelerating you correct the throttle output by decreasing or increasing it as appropriate.
Very useful tool for maintaining airspeed, the speed trend.

You say that you never flew jets before. The people assessing you should help you. They will probably just want to assess you basic skills and not your knowledge of the aircraft. "First things first" Fly the aircraft and if you don't understand something that is occuring, don't be afraid to ask why is such thing happening.

Hope this was of help.

Best of luck,
Zerograv

Fellow Aviator

Thanks guys good tips! Zerograv: You are right, they probably don't expect to know the A/C inside out but a little preparation doesn't hurt

Fresca: For the normal ILS, how would you configure for it? Like: flaps 20 and gear down before G/S (and power settings) etc... Any rule of thumb for level flight at MDA in LDG conf, if that were to happen? How about go around procedures.

Cheers

XPMorten

http://www.757.org.uk/sops/index.html

M

haughtney1

The most important instrument to incorporate into your scan on the 757 (I've been flying it for about 3 years) is the IVSI,
So set your pitch attitude on the ILS...at between 1 and 2 degrees (depending on weight)
Set the thrust for flap vref30 + 5 which will be between 1.18EPR and 1.20EPR
and make SMALL adjustments, the key is not to over control, the sim will be a little twitchy..just keep the control inputs small.
As for a non-precision approach to MDA, I would suggest you plan for a constant descent angle..rather than a platform level off.
Good luck

Fellow Aviator

Cheers guys!! This is exactly what I was after for. Thanks!!

Fellow Aviator

One follow-up question:

How much EPR is needed for 250kt KIAS level flight in clean configuration for exapmle at FL100 and FL200? I'm trying to figure out how much would power settings vary at different altitudes. Is a there considerable difference?

Thanks

AirRabbit

I’m going to wander a bit off the reservation here for a quick moment (at least I hope it’s quick). It has to do with flying an airplane and programming an airplane.

I am well aware that there are a lot of features on a lot of modern airplanes that allows, and often demands, that a pilot understand what he (or she) wants the airplane to do and then be proficient in translating that desire into programming the various systems. He (or she) is then to watch carefully as the airplane does as programmed.

That is all “well and good,” but it doesn’t do a lot for the continued education and proficiency of that pilot in “flying” the airplane. Granted, to be completely proficient in SOME airplanes, what I just described is not an alternative – it IS a requirement. No argument. But, on those aircraft, when the computer functions decide to take longer to “think” or it somehow “misinterprets” the “translation,” the pilot is going to HAVE to FLY the airplane – in direct law if necessary. And, this is true on all airplanes without all that “magic” installed.

This brings me back to Fellow Aviator’s original request for assistance:
Please, understand that I’m NOT picking on Fellow Aviator! He just brings to mind something that, to me, has always felt like “sandpaper.” His plea for assistance sounds to me like an “interview” session – designed to see if an applicant knows how to fly; and, if I am correct, it is probably NOT a session to see if an applicant knows how to “program” a specific type of airplane. When I had students transitioning into the airplane on which I was teaching and they asked similar questions (which I interpreted as necessary “crutches”) – I usually responded with a bit of advice that they probably considered a bit “cold-shouldered.” I’d say something whitty and bright, like, “If you’re on final approach and find that you’re a bit slow, I’d suggest you push forward a bit on these,” and tap the throttles; or “If you’re a bit nose low, you have this very handy tool to make an adjustment,” while tapping the control column. And then I’d throw in an oft-used phrase, “remember, anything that will take you to it, will take you through it.”

I fully understand the uncertainty about being examined regarding whether or not you can “fly” – and not wanting to screw up a pretty good chance. But, at least for me and the guys I work with, observing someone take a few extra minutes to figure out those kinds of things for themselves gives me a pretty good idea that the pilot I’m observing has (or does not have) a good, basic understanding of the way an airplane “flys,” and what kinds of control applications can be made to have that airplane “fly” the way that pilot desires. If I see someone spending time adjusting specific EPR, EGT, or N2 settings and/or moving the attitude to some specific point each time something changes I’m going to assume that he (or she) doesn’t know as much about what is necessary to make the airplane do what is required at that moment as compared to “trusting” what someone else has said “works for them” in similar circumstances. If I wanted to hire that “other” pilot, that’s who I’d hire. But, in that I’m looking at the pilot in the simulator (or airplane), THAT’s who I want to see “fly.” I’m not interested to see if THAT person can accurately interpret what was said by someone else. Of course, I think this begs the question, “should a pilot really ‘trust’ what another pilot uses as a control application strategy for any given circumstance?”

It is my opinion that pilots, in general, are very adaptive in their ability to adjust to differing circumstances – but, they are also quite different from individual to individual. I don’t believe that any pilot really knows what input stimuli they use or that they really know in what order they use the myriad of input stimuli available. Of course, because they are adaptive, pilots usually CAN use specifically prescribed stimuli – and many, given enough practice, can adequately use that prescribed stimuli, even if it is NOT what would he (or she) would use, given an individual selection opportunity, to make the airplane respond the way he (or she) desires.

It is my opinion that a pilot uses his (or her) own choices of “streaming input stimuli” to make conscious or sub- conscious decisions about control application strategies in order to have the airplane “do” what is desired. I use the term “streaming,” because, as we were taught from the beginning, flying is a constant adjustment of pitch, bank, power, and trim – based on what is seen from second to second. In my experience, I find it relatively rare that a pilot, who regularly uses his (or her) decisions about control application strategies, changes what he (or she) is used to using as input stimuli, shift to another’s suggestion, and do very well at it.

I say ALL of this simply to point out that trusting someone else’s thoughts and interpretations of input stimuli may not be what you want to demonstrate to someone making a hiring decision. And, at some point, each of us is going to have to develop our own set of application strategies, based on what we, as individuals, see, recognize, and interpret, and from this know, based on experience, what control application response to make in order to achieve the desired results.

OK. I’m off my soapbox (for now). I’ll let you judge whether or not that was a “quick” moment of deviation.

Fellow Aviator

Rabbit:
I notice from your profile that you have a vast amount of experience from a long and diversified career; military, instructing, airline etc. I value your opinion, however I don't agree with all you said.

The purpouse of an sim check is mainly to assess one ability to cooperate in a multi crew environment and the ability to cope with new situations. Also basic flying and procedural skills are evaluated. You are very correct on the fact that relying only on ramdom advise from an internet board is not the way to learn how to fly.

My view to a job interview is that you absolutely must prepare. All the other candidates will do it, except those who do not understund the importance of this. Please notice that I have flying experince, I only havn't flow a jet. Like we know, there are fundamental differences in flying TPs and jets. I am not on keen learing these differences in the sim. Learing these differences in the sim will only take capacity away from the asingment, and would put me in a worse position to those who are prepared.

In my opinion it is safe to say that the assessor will spot those who are not up to the task, desipe they might have been given some information beforehand. Random tips only will not help ont to get through, but they might give some advantage especially if the canditates are on par with eachother.

Preparation is something I need to do, unless I'm willing to give competitive advantage to the prepared candidates...

misd-agin

AirRabbit,

I disagree to some extent. Different a/c designs take completely different power settings. Some use FF as primary power on approach, some use N1, and others use EPR. I think a reasonable starting point makes sense for new pilots. After that I tell them "this gets you close, after that you're still a pilot".

757/767 are actually fairly easy. 250 KTS clean, or on speed in landing configuration, you can double your a/c gross wt. and get a power setting that's close to what you need using Fuel Fuel. (additional headwinds need a bit more power, but hey, we're all pilots so figure it out!)

IE, 250,000 lbs = 5,000/engine 200,000 lbs = 4,000/engine.

So typical 757 approach fuel flow is 3,500-4,000/engine.

Another 'gauge' is top of descent fuel flow should be very close to your approach fuel flow setting. (cruise KIAS roughly 250 KTS which is the same power setting as approach power...)

757 N1 on final is typically around 57% and sometimes a bit higher.

EPR? Never look at it so I have no idea.

T.O. pitch about 17 degrees. Climbout down low around 10-12. Approach attitude around 2.5 nose up, but with the great visibility of the 757 it appears to be nose low from the cockpit.

I'm a big fan of turning off the autothrottles. The pitch/feel changes so greatly with power changes the 'hunting' of the autothrottles push the nose up and down while hand flying. Many a newbie has given themselves a handful of aircraft due to auto throttle induced PIO's.

AirRabbit

Hi Gentlemen:
First, thank you both for the kind words of support. Second, I expected that there would be some “I-don’t-completely-agree-with-you” comments … as I typically have a habit of speaking my mind … and IF I truly advocate the differences between pilots (at least as much as the similarities that exist), and I believe I do, I also have to expect (and acknowledge) those differences, and, therefore, the disagreements you have … and that’s fine. There certainly is more than just ONE way to “fly;” and, technique plays a huge part in aviation … and it also does in the application of either of the examples I want to describe, below.

I guess I come from what has become known as “the old school” of piloting. That generally says the reason for pilot controls being in the cockpit in the first place is to allow the pilot to control the airplane. OK, maybe that’s a bit harsh. However, those controls are there to allow the pilot to continuously control the airplane. Perhaps I should explain the difference between how I use the words “continuous” and “continual.” The word “continuous” implies an uninterrupted flow of something; whereas the word “continual” implies a flow of something that is often interrupted and re-initiated in a cyclic manner. While it’s probably not the best analogy going, I think of “flying” in one or the other of these ways. Either the pilot continuously controls the airplane (pitch, bank, power, and trim) without interruption; or, the pilot sets specific values of these parameters, observes the results, and makes adjustments in those values.

In the first example, in my opinion, the pilot is continuously controlling the airplane. The pilot makes an input and evaluates the responding airplane as the input is made. Necessary adjustments to the input are made while the airplane is responding, and is continuously (uninterruptedly) adjusted in response to continuous (uninterrupted) evaluation of the success of the currently applied adjustment. Yeah, I know, that may sound like double-talk, but, give it a chance – I think you’ll see what I’m saying.

However, in the second example, again, in my opinion, the pilot observes the situation, makes a decision about where to position the controls, does so, and waits for the airplane to respond. At that point, the pilot observes the situation, makes a decision about where to position the controls, does so, and waits for the airplane to respond. This cycle is continually repeated; start, stop, start, stop, etc.

To me, this second way is a very “mechanical” way of flying an airplane. Can it be done? Sure! George does it all the time. But, its really hard to separate “continually” and “continuously” simply by observing George’s inputs; and that’s because George does it so many times a second. However, George doesn’t learn and he doesn’t anticipate. Whereas, I believe YOU can, and should, do BOTH.

If I was looking to hire a pilot and, as part of that hiring process I was asked to watch a pilot fly a simulator session, I’m afraid I’d be more likely to be more interested in the pilot who took control of the airplane and made it do what he (or she) wanted it to do; rather than the pilot who established some parameter (pitch, bank, power, and/or trim) and waited to see what the airplane was going to do with that input.

As I’ve heard here many times before, the phrase “horses for courses” may apply – then, again, it may not. And, since in my history, the bosses I’ve had seemed to have liked (and, I guess, still do) what I’ve done, and am doing, and why, I am probably going to keep doing what I’ve been doing. But, of course, I wish all the best for both of you and continue to plead … please be careful!

Rangas

Here is something I received during my initial training for the 757.
POWER SETTING 757:
250 kts Clean : +80 clean : +40 flaps 5 : +20 gear/flaps 20 : 3° glideslope : WT
2 eng : 1.17 / 3NU : 1.14 / 5 NU : 1.18 / 8 NU : 1.24 / 4 NU : 1.17 / 2 NU : 83.0 (90.0 Add 0.02 EPR)
1 eng : 1.34 / 3 NU : 1.28 / 6 NU : 1.31 / 8 NU : 1.48 / 4 NU : 1.20 / 4 NU : 83.0 (90.0 Add 0.04 EPR)
Hope it helps.

DooblerChina

Rangas has given some really accurate pitch/power settings and they are great if the sim flies accurately and the weight is based on 83T.

However, this isn't always the case.... When I fly the sim, I tend to set 1.2EPR/2-3deg and refine from there. You won't be a million miles out, as you can see from the post above. The biggest exception being Gear down, flap 20 - obviously a fair bit more power is needed and a higher nose attitude.

In response to a previous question. From a platform of 2 - 3000' be level at flap 5, go gr down flap 20 on glideslope alive, watch the ballon on flap 20. The drap should bring your speed back to + 40 and then call for flap 30 on glideslop capture. In theory almost no change of thrust will be needed.

I do advocate making minor changes in thrust, however - If large changes of speed are needed, don't be afraid to be agressive with the thrust levers. Jets are slippery little buggers and if for some reason you are 15kn fast then pull the levers right back. But be careful of the pitch/power couple and remember to put the levers back to that trusty 1.2 when within 5kn as the engines might need a second to spool up.

I don't know your background but remember some basics - if you are on the glideslope and all is looking well, don't try and fight it down. The 75 is probably better at flying an ILS than you are! Don't forget shes been doing it a lot longer. So if alls looking rosy, make small corrections, fly your attitudes and dont forget to flare!!

On a separate note, Air Rabbit, you make some really valuable points, I do agree with your theory that we need to input an action, wait for the reault and then act on it, the best pilots do that. I really wouldn't learn pitch/power tables because the likelyhood is that the instructor knows all about them and sets the aircraft heavy!!! What I have suggested is an aiming point which I have used on ferry flights up to tankering sectors. (I was way out on the ferry) Also I think getting a few hints and tips is invaluable. If I was a sim examiner (and I'm not) I would be really impressed if the guy had bothered to go and learn some basic techniques which will help him in he sim. If I was looking for a new employee... I would certainly look for the people who have put time and effort into the detail. This would surely imply that he would be a great asset to the company for the future. The pilot who doesn't prepare for sim checks is an idiot. I cannot believe for one second that you don't prepare for the 6 monthly grind, and I fail to distinguish the difference here.

Fellow Aviator

Thanks to all contributors, most helpful

AirRabbit

Hey DooblerChina:

A couple of comments: First, I think you may have misunderstood my point in citing the two examples I did. I indicated that the second example was a very “mechanical” way of flying the airplane. I think that is a mistake; primarily because it is simply beyond human capability to do and do correctly. I was not advocating a “mechanical” way of flying the airplane. 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. Should they, for some reason, decide to wait to see what the airplane does after their initial input, they are going to be late in making necessary adjustments. And, importantly, if the pilot is flying mechanically, he (or she) is going to have to know what mechanical position to which the airplane controls will have to be positioned to get the airplane to move to the condition originally desired – since, now, the airplane would be in some other condition than it was at the start. In order to do this throughout the normal operating envelope of any airplane, this will absolutely necessitate a huge data base of understanding pitch, bank, power, and trim settings for various weights, configurations, and energy states (airspeeds) and a computer-like recognition of what combination of these factors are most likely to achieve the desired condition from the current condition. As I said, “beyond human capability;” certainly, at least, beyond THIS human’s capability!

Secondly, I am certainly NOT advocating going into any situation unprepared; certainly not any situation where your ability is going to be assessed. Reviewing procedures (when to lower the flaps and gear, when to call for checklists, what is the sequence of events for an RTO, etc.); recalling specific numbers (like limiting weights, temperatures, speeds, etc.); refreshing recollections of locations of certain things (like the MEL or CDL, temperature conversion charts, etc) are always helpful in preparing for a simulator or line check. But, the distinguishing difference that I believe you said you didn’t see, is, from my perspective, that trying to “fudge” a bit by trying to remember specific pitch, bank, power, or trim settings for certain circumstances can be more cumbersome (and if you’re not at all familiar with the specifics you’re trying to remember, it is likely to be a lot worse than cumbersome!) than just doing what you normally do in those same circumstances.

So, without any animosity what-so-ever, I believe that if you are the type of person that absolutely “needs” to have a whole series of numbers, as provided by Rangas for power settings … be my guest. As long as you do your job 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. However, I would think that you might be able to be more “aware” of your surroundings were you to choose a more “conventional” way of operating the airplane – and, at least in some cases, that might be an aid in moving up in your organization.

extreme P

Columns don't quite match up but flap/gear/ias corresponds to up/up/250. Copy the epr/n1/ff/pitch portion and put it to the right of ias for the whole thing.
Conditions Used to record above data from America West Simulator PHX
No Wind
Alt 2992
3000 Feet ASL
Vref 20 85 tons 139
Vref 30 85 tons 128
Condition 85 Tons Flap Gear IAS
Two Engines
Level Flight UP UP 250
Level Flight UP UP R + 80
Level Flight 1 UP R + 60
Level Flight 5 UP R + 40
Level Flight 15 UP R + 20
Level Flight 20 Down R + 20
Level Flight 30 Down R + 10
1200 FPM Down 30 Down R + 10
700 FPM Down 30 Down R + 10
Level flight 45 Bank Up UP 250
Single Engine
Level Flight Up Up 250
Level Flight Up Up 230
Level Flight Up Up R + 80
Level Flight 1 Up R + 60
Level Flight 5 Up R + 40
Level Flight 15 Up R + 20
Level Flight 20 Down R + 20
700 FPM Down 20 Down R + 10
EPR N 1 Fuel Flow Pitch
1.17 61.5 1.9 3
1.16 57.5 1.9 5.5
1.15 56.6 1.8 7
1.17 58 1.9 7
1.19 60.5 2 8
1.25 66.7 2.2 5
1.31 72.7 2.6 3
1.09 47.5 1.2 -1.5
1.19 60.5 2.1 0
1.24 69 2.2 4.5
1.36 79 3.3 3
1.34 76.6 3 4.5
1.34 76.1 3 5
1.31 73.3 2.8 7
1.34 75.8 3 7
1.37 78.2 3.1 8
1.5 85.9 4.1 5
1.26 68 2.3 2.5

Silvershadow

Don't forget the 757 "balloons" like mad when the flap runs from 5 to 20.

AirRabbit

Ouch! Where have you gone, NBS?

Fellow Aviator

AirRabbit:
Sir, with all due respect, you should start a new thread for debate of your subject. Your opinion has been voiced, but this thread is about B757 power settings.