777/787 VNAV approach
Thread Starter

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 161
Likes: 7
From: N/A
777/787 VNAV approach
Any idea why Boeing require using VNAV with speed intervention active (ie the speed window open) during the final approach. And
2) why they don't recommend adding extra speed constraints to the final approach waypoints.
I recall in the 737 we simply leave the speed window closed in VNAV approach and then the A/T would maintain the Vref + wind correction (set in the approach page) when we select landing flaps. Wouldn’t the similar behavior occur in the 777/787?
2) why they don't recommend adding extra speed constraints to the final approach waypoints.
I recall in the 737 we simply leave the speed window closed in VNAV approach and then the A/T would maintain the Vref + wind correction (set in the approach page) when we select landing flaps. Wouldn’t the similar behavior occur in the 777/787?

Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 800
Likes: 279
From: East of Westralia
Unlike the 737 NG the FMC will happily
command a speed below the current flap speed, requiring you to open the speed window. The FMC on the 787 is more like the old Pegasus FMC on the 767 - in many ways a step backwards from the FMC on the 737 NG.
command a speed below the current flap speed, requiring you to open the speed window. The FMC on the 787 is more like the old Pegasus FMC on the 767 - in many ways a step backwards from the FMC on the 737 NG.


Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 350
Likes: 147
From: FL390
I also believe that it should fly to either the UP speed or the green flap speed shown on the PFD when in the intermediate stages of the approach with the speed window closed. It’s an easy thing to miss given that it will close itself when you activate VNAV.

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,343
Likes: 822
From: Tring, UK
I think it’s the difference between the Smiths and Honeywell FMCs. They also allowed you to enter a destination QNH, if I remember correctly, that alleviated the step changes in path when going from QNE to QNH. Giving the FMC the ability to drive the commanded speed well below flap speeds has always seemed a questionable decision to me...

Joined: Dec 2005
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 329
From: Hong Kong


Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 350
Likes: 147
From: FL390
But… but… you would just have it command the lower speed when you take the next stage of flaps. So if you’re at UP, and select 1, the target speed is 1. Then you select flaps 5, which becomes the next target speed. You don’t need to slow below the flap speed until you get to 25 or 30, and then it’ll just use FMC speed + wind correction.
Spoiler

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,343
Likes: 822
From: Tring, UK
But… but… you would just have it command the lower speed when you take the next stage of flaps. So if you’re at UP, and select 1, the target speed is 1. Then you select flaps 5, which becomes the next target speed. You don’t need to slow below the flap speed until you get to 25 or 30, and then it’ll just use FMC speed + wind correction.
Thread Starter

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 161
Likes: 7
From: N/A

Joined: Dec 2005
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 329
From: Hong Kong

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 694
Likes: 16
From: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Having spent upwards of ten years on 737's with FMC's, and now having spent a bit of time on the 777, I'm honestly baffled at some of the decisions Boeing made on the 777 FMC - to me, and I say this knowing it could just be my lack of knowledge, but a lot of it seems like a significant step backwards? Why do I (for example) have to input a speed AND altitude constraint at a point if all I wanted was a speed constraint? For example - in the 737, at Waypoint X, I could input 250/ if I wanted an FMC commanded speed in VNAV of 250 KIAS. The FMC would then show the predicted altitude at that point (let's say I'm in a descent) in small numerals. In the 777 I am forced to enter an at, 'A' or below, 'B' hard limit, which sometimes involves a bit of guesswork/predictions that the computer is supposed to be making for me (and is, in the background!) I also can no longer see the predicated altitude at that point assuming I remained in VNAV PATH on the profile.
If memory serves me right, I could also enter a Mach number in the 737 FMC as '0.78' or '.78' (the zero could be omitted, or not) whereas in the 777 the zero MUST be omitted (but NOT in our pre formatted ACARS messages, where the zero MUST be entered because we hate standardising), maybe my memory is playing tricks on me again though.
There are a few other points that baffle me as to why they are the way they are, but.....well, it just is what it is.
If memory serves me right, I could also enter a Mach number in the 737 FMC as '0.78' or '.78' (the zero could be omitted, or not) whereas in the 777 the zero MUST be omitted (but NOT in our pre formatted ACARS messages, where the zero MUST be entered because we hate standardising), maybe my memory is playing tricks on me again though.
There are a few other points that baffle me as to why they are the way they are, but.....well, it just is what it is.




