Flap 'UP' Speed - 737NG

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by FW

Technically, I can't see what all the fuss is about - both ways have an adequate safety margin and little to no effect on performance.

- I think we all agree there (including the OP) but in terms of 'HF', what would you suggest OP does about the apparent lack of standardisation in the training dept? Obviously, come the LPC/Line Check/Command Assesssment whatever it is always a good idea to 'sing from the company hymn sheet', but what if there are 2 scores? We've all had to 'play the game' - "Oh yes, xxx likes it done this way etc", have we not?

I assume by his absence the OP has had enough abuse and gone elsewhere!

[fireflybob]

If you were handflying the aircraft in the departure phase and the speed was below Min Clean what should you be doing?

[BOAC]

If that was for me, FFB, while it is 'safe', I would expect a 'clip around the ear' from the LTC and an 'incentive' to lower the nose a tad.

Anyone else believe the ICAO 250 below 10 is just 'for the birds' or just RB?

[Rainboe]

I don't see where 'both' ways comes into it- there is an Ops manual, and it is not being appreciated that the OP is adding increments of his own. Whilst under training, they want him to do it as is writ in OMB!
Let's not change the OPs question- it is quite clear what he is doing.

I would have had a tendency to 'bug' the UP speed + 5, giving a bit of leeway to the AFDS + A/T, especially in gusty conditions or with SID profiles that include fairly steep turns after departure. I have been told that I am incorrect to do so because I am 'breaking' the NADP profile?

It's quite easy- fly it as told by the trainers and OMB with no question of adding bits here and there 'for Mum'. When he has some experience, then take it up with the training department. In the meantime, learn to bend with various training opinions that sometimes may seem to contradict themselves- that comes from experienced trainers. But variations of procedures from a learner are not ideal!

Although i believe nothing in our SOPs suggest this, I was led to believe that a mximum of the UP speed + 10kts could be maintained until above 3000 AGL and acceleration is initiated.

AFAIK, this is not 'official' procedure. Given half a chance, I bang it up to 250kt as soon as poss, and if I can get away with it, 300kt. You might have some old woman bleating about that, but there is nothing wrong with it, especially when you have a schedule to keep up! (apologies to older females- it is not meant to offend!).

[fireflybob]

If that was for me, FFB, while it is 'safe', I would expect a 'clip around the ear' from the LTC and an 'incentive' to lower the nose a tad.

Anyone else believe the ICAO 250 below 10 is just 'for the birds' or just RB?

BOAC, Not specifically but I like the answer!

Generally, subject to Airspace Classification and ones OM, 250 kts below 10 will do for me thanks!

[BOAC]

Plus, obviously for RB, birds do not fly in Class A or B airspace

The problem with the speed is that you cannot 'tell' an autopilot to lower the nose and increase speed without......... We all remember the poor A/T/pitch performance of the Classic, particularly after the A/T repsonse was 'softened' around late 80's, and I have seen significant 'excursions' on the NG too.

[Callsign Kilo]

The OP is back. Thanks to everyone for their inputs. Even Rainboe is now giving me 'food for thought'

First of all, my 'mountains from molehills' comment may have been misconstrued? It shouldn't be intended to imply that I and a few others have decided that our SOPs and OMs are all incorrect, that the training department don't have a clue and that the FCTM is open to general interpretation. That would never be the case, and anyone who operated this way is simply a danger.

As you probably have guessed, I sit on the right. I am ever the 'politician.' SOPs, FCIs and our OPs manual are my 'daily bread.' It's the way I am paid to operate and the way I choose to operate. I wouldn't ever consider myself an 'add a bit extra for Mum' kind of pilot. I like to fly my 'profiles' as accurately and as 'to the book' as possible. It raises less eyebrows, but above all it is simply good airmanship.

The 'adding 5kts to the bug' suggestion/query (during the acceleration segment of departure) had risen from a number of scenarios that I and others have found themselves. 9 times out of 10, simply 'bugging the up speed,' as per SOP, allows the AFS to perform as intended. The speed is held accurately, you get the aircraft to clean configuration, the noise abatement profile has ended, you accelerate to a particular speed - end of.

For every departure profile, I would be more than happy to fly this way. However some departure profiles will not allow you to, but more of that later. Focusing upon the 'adding 5kts or so on for gusty conditions' comment, I fully accept and take onboard what Mshamba states, which I believe can be found in my FCM Vol II.

"The autothrottle system also aids in windshear recovery by providing quick response to any increase or decrease in speed. The commanded levels of power may be beyond what the average pilot considers necessary but, in fact, are required by the situation."

I also understand and accept what BOAC suggests:-

The situation CK is asking about involves 'prolonged' flight at bug up (with manoeuvre) where the 737 A/T (commonly) does not control the speed well at bug up. As despegue says, the Classic is known for poor speed control and the NG certainly has its moments.

So day to day, you do as SOPs says. 'Bug and fly the UP speed' for the acceleration segment of the NADP. The A/T has an 'off' day; it does not react as well as you'd hope. You get a ticking off. You are aware of why it happened, what you should have done, what you would have done (automatics or no automatics), but it isn't SOP. Yes, its good airmanship not to have got yourself into that scenario and it's sensible to know the 'redundancy features', if you like, of the aircraft's automation - but what's the answer? What do you say to the LTC on a linecheck who then brings you up on an SOP point, without looking like, as Rainboe believes to be a person who 'apparently have a better idea of how the NG should be flown.'

Back to certain departure profiles. Here's one where I have found myself querying the issue at hand. Girona (LEGE/GRO) 'GEANT 1H' SID from RWY 20. Dept says ahead for 7nm on a radial from the Girona VOR then right turn of about 150-160 degrees to intercept a radial from another VOR. MAX SPEED in turn = 210kts. Now I know MAX Speed doesn't mean you must fly this speed - just don't exceed it. If you do, you won't maintain the desired radius of turn. We are reasonably heavy, I am PF and I suggest using Flap 1 and Flap 1 speed until the turn is complete. 'You won’t need it - just bug up, it's SOP anyway and it will be ok.' I do so. 'UP' speed is around the 210kt mark. Guess what happens. 'You are below the 'UP' speed.' Captain increases the speed on the MCP panel. I am left staggered and don't question in the belief that I would appear that I live by the 'I know better' attitude. Maybe the guy was tired and wasn't really listening to or considering what I briefed on the ground. He's very senior, I leave it at that.

I am going off track again, as this scenario brings up a number of other issues which we all have our opinions on. It has however led me to think more about what is going on with the aircraft, and while it may have been down to a simple error or judgement (without deriding the Captain’s original decision), it has led me to consider what I originally queried.