777 Energy management tips on approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777 Energy management tips on approach
Hi all,
Are there any recommended “low drag” techniques in the 777? I find that approaches in this plane seem to be rather “messy” in that flaps and gear seem to be extended much earlier than I’m accustomed to on a narrow body. My company recommends landing flap to be set by 1500ft, and we’re always stable, but it seems like we’re dragging the gear and flaps along for much longer than we really need to in order to be stable.
If ATC has no speed instruction, what speed management gates do you aim for?
For bonus points, any tips on a “clean” approach profile at UK airports where they want 160 to 4?
Thanks
Are there any recommended “low drag” techniques in the 777? I find that approaches in this plane seem to be rather “messy” in that flaps and gear seem to be extended much earlier than I’m accustomed to on a narrow body. My company recommends landing flap to be set by 1500ft, and we’re always stable, but it seems like we’re dragging the gear and flaps along for much longer than we really need to in order to be stable.
If ATC has no speed instruction, what speed management gates do you aim for?
For bonus points, any tips on a “clean” approach profile at UK airports where they want 160 to 4?
Thanks
Unfortunately, wide body ops tend to be a little les efficient than what we were used to on the smaller jets. In the age of being stable, and compliant for ATC, it's just a "safer" way of operating - especially as wide body ops tend to be longer duty hours and with less recency.
Long time out of it but recall, if you want 160 @ 4 you will need to will need to have your final flap running before you get to 4. 1000 ft stabilised will be unobtainable otherwise.
Only other gate if I recall was, on slope, 210/220 F15 no gear @ 12
Willing to be corrected by current crew.
Maui
Only other gate if I recall was, on slope, 210/220 F15 no gear @ 12
Willing to be corrected by current crew.
Maui
You can always tell ATC if you cannot comply with an approach speed owing to performance.
Tell them what you can give them instead - say, 160 to 5nm - and they will knit you in with the others.
Tell them what you can give them instead - say, 160 to 5nm - and they will knit you in with the others.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear down, flap 20 at 2000ft RA. Then flap 25 or 30 at 4.5D, select VREF at 4D. Works for us and we usually fly 160 to 4 miles.
USA ATC either have no idea how aircraft work or operators there are willing to take a more relaxed view to stable approach policies based on some of the requests we get (180 to 4 being the most recent request which was politely refused).
USA ATC either have no idea how aircraft work or operators there are willing to take a more relaxed view to stable approach policies based on some of the requests we get (180 to 4 being the most recent request which was politely refused).
250 to 5000’ then F1 & F5 as the speed bleeds off at idle with continuous descent.
Also regularly refused ‘180 to 4’ in the US - instead offered them 180 to 6, or 170 to 5.
The difference between 180@4NM and 160@6NM is 10 seconds at touchdown. There is absolutely no reason to ask the pilots to keep going fast until the last mile. Controllers should be trained to ask what Vfas is, and plan for adequate separation based on everyone flying their VFAS latest at 1000'.
I find that under normal conditions, i.e. not too adverse, you can do 160 to 4, 170 to 5, 180 to 6, etc. without too much trouble. Clean and F1 will accelerate down a 3deg glide, unless there is a significant headwind. F5 juuust about holds the speed and F15/20 need a little bit of power.
Gear at 2,000AAL and land flap just after 5 miles does the trick for stable at 1,000'. That’s about as clean an approach you can make as the drag only really comes in with F25 and F30, so the aircraft is still quite slippery with lower flap settings. The speedbrake gets used a lot - it’s a primary flying control on the 777!
Gear at 2,000AAL and land flap just after 5 miles does the trick for stable at 1,000'. That’s about as clean an approach you can make as the drag only really comes in with F25 and F30, so the aircraft is still quite slippery with lower flap settings. The speedbrake gets used a lot - it’s a primary flying control on the 777!
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At certain bustling U.S. airports, ATC may instruct you to maintain 180 kts until 5 miles. If landing performance isn't a factor, using Flaps 25 during the landing can readily meet the ATC requirement.
)Last edited by wiggy; 5th Oct 2023 at 11:57.
It is worth bearing in mind that whilst there are general similarities when operating both the 777-200 and 777-300 variants, the 777-300 does require a bit more thinking ahead, regarding decisions about where/when to carry out gear and flap extension for landing. The 777 is a bigger, heavier airframe, so all other factors being equal, it tends to have a higher minimum approach and landing speed. Ensuring you can meet ATC requests like 160 kts to 4 nm needs to be considered carefully at the Arrival Briefing stage, and with a 777-300 it is often necessary to ask for a few more knots on the speed, and an extra nautical mile or two on the distance, to ensure an orderly, unhurried configuration process.
Additionally, if landing at a relatively unfamiliar isolated destination, i.e. the nearest suitable diversion is further away, when compared to your other more commonly visited destinations, you will be carrying more diversion fuel than usual, and so, again, the effect of that landing weight and it's associated speeds, need to be planned for, so that a timely message can be passed to ATC, for their approach planning purposes. This principle applies to both the 777-200 and 777-300 variants, of course, but some may be a little taken aback when it is added to the generally increased landing weight of the 777-300.
Additionally, if landing at a relatively unfamiliar isolated destination, i.e. the nearest suitable diversion is further away, when compared to your other more commonly visited destinations, you will be carrying more diversion fuel than usual, and so, again, the effect of that landing weight and it's associated speeds, need to be planned for, so that a timely message can be passed to ATC, for their approach planning purposes. This principle applies to both the 777-200 and 777-300 variants, of course, but some may be a little taken aback when it is added to the generally increased landing weight of the 777-300.
short flights long nights
I find that under normal conditions, i.e. not too adverse, you can do 160 to 4, 170 to 5, 180 to 6, etc. without too much trouble. Clean and F1 will accelerate down a 3deg glide, unless there is a significant headwind. F5 juuust about holds the speed and F15/20 need a little bit of power.
Gear at 2,000AAL and land flap just after 5 miles does the trick for stable at 1,000'. That’s about as clean an approach you can make as the drag only really comes in with F25 and F30, so the aircraft is still quite slippery with lower flap settings. The speedbrake gets used a lot - it’s a primary flying control on the 777!
Gear at 2,000AAL and land flap just after 5 miles does the trick for stable at 1,000'. That’s about as clean an approach you can make as the drag only really comes in with F25 and F30, so the aircraft is still quite slippery with lower flap settings. The speedbrake gets used a lot - it’s a primary flying control on the 777!
short flights long nights
And I agree with that as well. You need to use the SB on the 777 as a flight control.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree. Coming from the 737NG, I used to call the T7 SB the magic lever. While I aimed at not using It, I never felt ashamed for doing so. It gave me the warm feeling that It could bail me out of almost any situation and without any flap restriction. What a tool, I just loved It!
Widebodies tend to be a little more 'slippery' compared to narrowbody aircraft - making energy widebody management somewhat more tricky.
At EIS of the 767, Boeing actually got complaints about how difficult it was to get the 767 to slow down/descend relative to the aircraft they were replacing.
Part of that is just improving technology with newer aircraft, but it also has to do with the target mission - widebodies are designed for longer, faster flights than their narrowbody counterparts, so there is more emphasis on drag.
At EIS of the 767, Boeing actually got complaints about how difficult it was to get the 767 to slow down/descend relative to the aircraft they were replacing.
Part of that is just improving technology with newer aircraft, but it also has to do with the target mission - widebodies are designed for longer, faster flights than their narrowbody counterparts, so there is more emphasis on drag.
