Calling all A330 Pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirNoServicesAustralia
Heh I have been flying both Boeing and Airbus into Dubai for the last 15 years and frequently since EK got their 330's. You complain about them slowing to 250kts at 10,000ft so far out. As mentioned above it is the result of a very efficient airframe, probably the most efficient available today. Therefore there is a simple solution, change the requirement to slowdown at 10,000ft to slowing down at a specific distance from the airport. That will keep everyone on a common footing and the flatter profile of the more efficient 330 (the 340) and other future aircraft will be catered for.
As a current operator of the 343, I am not sure that the 345 & 346 will have any great improvement in performance. I might be wrong but it is my understanding the the new versions are built for efficiency and at 100 tons heavier MTOW and having to fullfil the same performance requirements as other quads then the extra power is required to achieve the higher MTOW.
I also aggree with the previous comment about it being time for Boeing to wake up and have a serious look at their product. With 7000plus hours on various Boeings and another 8000plus on Airbus 320/340 I believe Boeing need to modernise ASAP. Don't get me wrong, BOTH manufacturers make fine aircraft, its just that with the exception of the 777, all of the Boeings are starting to be rather dated. And there is a comon saying "you can't make strawberry jam from pigsh*t"
Have a nice day
Heh I have been flying both Boeing and Airbus into Dubai for the last 15 years and frequently since EK got their 330's. You complain about them slowing to 250kts at 10,000ft so far out. As mentioned above it is the result of a very efficient airframe, probably the most efficient available today. Therefore there is a simple solution, change the requirement to slowdown at 10,000ft to slowing down at a specific distance from the airport. That will keep everyone on a common footing and the flatter profile of the more efficient 330 (the 340) and other future aircraft will be catered for.
As a current operator of the 343, I am not sure that the 345 & 346 will have any great improvement in performance. I might be wrong but it is my understanding the the new versions are built for efficiency and at 100 tons heavier MTOW and having to fullfil the same performance requirements as other quads then the extra power is required to achieve the higher MTOW.
I also aggree with the previous comment about it being time for Boeing to wake up and have a serious look at their product. With 7000plus hours on various Boeings and another 8000plus on Airbus 320/340 I believe Boeing need to modernise ASAP. Don't get me wrong, BOTH manufacturers make fine aircraft, its just that with the exception of the 777, all of the Boeings are starting to be rather dated. And there is a comon saying "you can't make strawberry jam from pigsh*t"
Have a nice day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SANDBLASTER
I'm sorry but we are getting on a daily basis Emirates A330's maintaining FL270 30NM prior to ORSAR requesting further descent and either making us call Tehran to get a release or holding them up. So for Rwy 12 even FL270 at Orsar isn't low enough. Which has the effect of these guys being out of the jetstream and 100 Kts slower than the high TUGOS flyers.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being funny (I fly A330 by the way), but isn't it interesting that no other ATC agency has reported problems with this? UAE isn't the only area with level restrictions. Many times coming into all kinds of places, we have been level pegging with 767's etc, and there is no difference in the way ATC handles us.
As has been stated, the A330 will not go down and slow down without a lot of speedbrake, and if you don't modify the descent speed, it will carry out a very slow, but very efficient descent. You can't have it both ways! Maybe a bit more flexibility from both sides is the key here?
Also, about 767's climbing faster than 330's - not much in it really, but please remember that the 330 will be going to a higher level and will in all probability be cruising faster than the 767. I'm not getting into the A vs. B debate - that's just how it is.
As has been stated, the A330 will not go down and slow down without a lot of speedbrake, and if you don't modify the descent speed, it will carry out a very slow, but very efficient descent. You can't have it both ways! Maybe a bit more flexibility from both sides is the key here?
Also, about 767's climbing faster than 330's - not much in it really, but please remember that the 330 will be going to a higher level and will in all probability be cruising faster than the 767. I'm not getting into the A vs. B debate - that's just how it is.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Camelot
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirNoServicesAustralia
OK, so here is the REAL deal.
The A330, when left to it's own devices will start a slow shallow descent from a long way out as this is evidently the most economic way to operate the machine. However, as long as the pilots are informed of ATC requirements/restrictions prior to the descent point and have time to plan for a faster descent from closer in the aeroplane will happily comply. Increasing speed once the descent has commenced means either pushing the nose down and increasing the ROD, which ultimatly gets you low on profile or increasing power (and burning fuel) to maintain the current ROD whilst accelerating.
Then, throw in 10-15 knots on the tail until 1000' onto 12L and things get REALLY interesting!
The A330, when left to it's own devices will start a slow shallow descent from a long way out as this is evidently the most economic way to operate the machine. However, as long as the pilots are informed of ATC requirements/restrictions prior to the descent point and have time to plan for a faster descent from closer in the aeroplane will happily comply. Increasing speed once the descent has commenced means either pushing the nose down and increasing the ROD, which ultimatly gets you low on profile or increasing power (and burning fuel) to maintain the current ROD whilst accelerating.
Then, throw in 10-15 knots on the tail until 1000' onto 12L and things get REALLY interesting!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gulf playing Golf
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates is about 50/50 on Airbus and Boeing. And yes we do operate alot in your area. Planes are not designed for my or your pleasure.
You want a vehicle that is safe and economic to operate. No more. No less.
I have flown B767 and A330. Whatever is best, on a personal level, is a matter of taste.
All this Boeing vs Airbus business is quite irrelevant. DXB controllers don't have trouble fitting us in with eachother. Why cant you?
You want a vehicle that is safe and economic to operate. No more. No less.
I have flown B767 and A330. Whatever is best, on a personal level, is a matter of taste.
All this Boeing vs Airbus business is quite irrelevant. DXB controllers don't have trouble fitting us in with eachother. Why cant you?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..........and you guys can keep on arguing about climb and descent performance all day long, but you're wasting your time..........remember at the end of the day it's the accountants who make the decisions, and the 340 simply makes money!
Drain Bamaged
Speaking about an efficient airframe, here a quote from AT Capt. Robert Pichet:
"Airbus did a fantastic aerodynamic design with the A-330"
I guess he is the one who will never complain about it.
"Airbus did a fantastic aerodynamic design with the A-330"
I guess he is the one who will never complain about it.
Ain't that the truth...but if some of the PPRuNe Airbus bashers had been in ATC for that one, they'd have asked him to get down quicker and then hold 160 to 4! Off the point, though, I hadn't noticed until this morning how beautiful they actually are - a case of "what looks right is right" given the efficiency.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
340-600 climb performance is a tad better than the gentlemanly C2 powered -300. For example, at 370t at ISA +10 it will take about 31mins to climb to FL330, (Cathay has a MTOW of 375t and Virgin 368t). -300 under the same conditions @ 257t (C2) is about 37mins (C4 powered -300 @ 270t about 34 mins. Power to weight ratio on a 370t -600 is about 3.7:1 and on a 270t C4 powered -300 about 4.3:1, and a 257t C2 -300 about 4.5:1, approximately!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: kuala lumpur
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a late comer into the aviation industry,Airbus came out with something better but slightly different from old Boeing.
With 2nd stage of approach flaps(equivalent to boeing's flap 5 or 10),a A330 can fly at 140kts!This can hold up a B737 on app.The solution of this topic is we should learn to respect and accept new mechine in our industry.I've flown the A330 and B777,trust me,Airbus is SHE and Boeing is a HE.
With 2nd stage of approach flaps(equivalent to boeing's flap 5 or 10),a A330 can fly at 140kts!This can hold up a B737 on app.The solution of this topic is we should learn to respect and accept new mechine in our industry.I've flown the A330 and B777,trust me,Airbus is SHE and Boeing is a HE.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: South
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I regularly see A330s descending into my sector from a cruise of FL400 down to FL270, with varying wind conditions. Most of the time they leave the descent late and I've seen a ROD in excess of 7000fpm passing FL300, or so my radar indicates. Therefore it is possible to get the aircraft to perform very well if required, plus a decent rate of climb is available if desired by ATC. This is obviously due to the A330 being a twin, as opposed to the Controllers nightmare climbing A340, which one day will cause an unwary Controller a lot of grief, as they level off or climb at 200fpm to accelerate, without notifying ATC.
PLEASE A340 drivers do the decent thing and tell ATC of a ROC less then 500fpm, like the rules state.
The best BUS for us is the minibus A319, great ROC plus high forward speed in the climb.
Regards
Night Shift
The nights are long, and the days are hard. The Gravy train has stopped.
PLEASE A340 drivers do the decent thing and tell ATC of a ROC less then 500fpm, like the rules state.
The best BUS for us is the minibus A319, great ROC plus high forward speed in the climb.
Regards
Night Shift
The nights are long, and the days are hard. The Gravy train has stopped.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Grown Ups think they know better than Airbus so we drift around with cost index 30 but then plan selected .81 over the ocean. Downside gives a descent speed of .78/275 which is no use to man nor beast. as we also fly with the spy in the cab, I tend to leave the CI and amend the descent to .81/310. Dropping the cabin rate to 250'/min uses less fuel in descent but starts you down in a cruise descent well out. Now if you are going into SFB or coming off the ocean Eastbound this can help - 290 abeam LIFFY/DUB, LGW restrictions etc are easily met, on a profile of sorts with minimal fuel wasteage. Here comes the problem though - as previous posters have said, it has a big wing, it can get a scurry on but only until you reach .84/320 and then the wing soars like an Eagle as opposed to the 320 which soars like an Anvil ! All in all a challenge at times. What I still can't understand is why on the 320 we are 30 miles behind Britannia at TOD and 4 miles behind them on final 
