Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Calling all A330 Pilots.

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Calling all A330 Pilots.

Old 12th Jan 2003, 16:57
  #1 (permalink)  
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
Calling all A330 Pilots.

As an ATC in a busy Middle Eastern area I was wondering if any of you A330 pilots can answer a question. Why do A330's descend usually 50 NM before most other jets, get lower earlier and as a result go slower earlier. The problem as ATC's is if we make you anything other than number last we're forcing the 767's , 747's and even the other airbus's to descend early so as to stay behind you.

The time I made the A330 stay up and wouldn't give him the early descent to try and keep him No.1 he slowed to 230Kt IAS at FL270 and lost almost 100Kt's G/S and screwed up the whole sequence. So A330 pilots, what can you suggest to keep you guys from being number last all the time???
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 18:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gulf playing Golf
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The A330 will follow a profile from cruise to aproach altitude, depending on what descent speed one has entered in the FMS (generic term). In my company 0.80/300 KIAS. Then 250 KIAS below 10000 like everyone else.

If you one day see an A330 on the ramp, notice the very long wings. They are very clean and willing to fly ;-)...

When will ATC stop expecting aircraft to be able to descend and reduce speed at the same time. Cant be done on the A330.

Hope it helped.....
Payscale is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 19:15
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: u. k.
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The descent profile on the 330 is quite different to the 320 which I both fly. This is due mainly to the huge wing and is exacerbated as we now use engine anti-ice for the descent which increases engine idle rpm. The 320, as with most jets, needs 3 X height but the 330 requires roughly 4 X height. Which means descent at approx 160nms. Thankfully it has got speedbrakes that work as ATC and the descent profile often don't coincide!
Oh, and we all would rather be no. 1 !
raintime is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 20:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
<<the A330 has no ROD at all >>
i.e. a far better aerodynamic design!

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 20:16
  #5 (permalink)  
Tan
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, but the 340 is real heavy because its going a long way...so what's your point...
Tan is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 21:26
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tan

The A340 is underpowered by design and airline specification.

I regularly fly a B744 as #2 for takeoff & going a lot further than the preceding A340. We pass it and outclimb it.

G'day
Feather #3 is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 21:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
....by using 20% more fuel. Good ol' US design GDR
52049er is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 21:37
  #8 (permalink)  
gjp
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: TBD
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
a340

The A340 gets to altitude earlier than most 4 engined aircraft - is far more efficient - makes more money - and is the most modern and pleasant aircraft to fly than any other 4 eng aircraft around - airbus have got a real winner here - oh and by the way - it makes money big time - is real safe and majic to fly - (I've flown both Boeing and airbus and boeing need a huge wake up call)
gjp is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 22:03
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

I assume that when we're talking about the underpowered A340's here we are not refering to the -500 and -600 with their trents are we? Rather than Boeing/Airbus how about CFM/RR?
HOODED is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 22:06
  #10 (permalink)  
gjp
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: TBD
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fokker 50 outclimbing a340

Fokker was probably doing an hours flight - a340 probably on a 12 hr flight !! a lot more payload as well - but you obviously did not think about that
gjp is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2003, 23:25
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Back to the subject!
A330 default in the computer gives a low speed in the descent and with its very efficient wing wants anearly descent, if you input a faster (.8/300kts) descent it is less fuel efficient but will fit in better with the other types. If you leave the guys up who have NOT put in the faster speeds, they should still be able to make it down using 'open' descent (and maybe some speedbrake) and leaving the aircraft flying the faster speed. Going into LGW it is not usually a problem due to the FL130 by goodwood and FL270 at Gibso ( if comming of the ocean).
foxmoth is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 00:12
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London,England
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
(I've flown both Boeing and airbus and boeing need a huge wake up call)
Look at the order books, I would say that they are getting it!.
Max Angle is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 02:11
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It wouldnt have anything to do with Scarebus's being cheap ?
They are after all the hyundi of the sky.


Personally a plane which is laminated together, and then gets moisture in the laminated areas doesn't sound to flash (i prefer rivets) ... but all aircraft have their own faults don't they.
RamAirTurbine is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 05:30
  #14 (permalink)  
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
Thanks all

I didn't want to start the Yank Vs Frog argument up, but I do have to say as a controller the Boeing aircraft do get up quicker as a rule which helps us out. A340's (especially when flown by Cathay) climb like dogs, due to them doing a cruise climb.

I think Airbus's were designed by beancounters, while Boeing aircraft were designed flying enthusiasts. Anyway that wasn't my topic.

The thing is that even though the IAS may stay high on the A330, cos they descend so early you end up with the A330 10,000 ft lower than the guy 10NM behind in trail thus much slower in ground speed which is what counts for us when running a sequence. So invariably the 767/747 has to be pulled back to 250kts to stay behind the A330 doing 300ktIAS. Thats the problem we're left with. And with Emirates buying A330's by the bucket load its getting to be a pain.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 07:48
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry, Hooded.

Yes, the CFM powered versions. Not the -500/600.

G'day
Feather #3 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 08:25
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AirNoServicesAustralia - the point about using the higher speed is that the 330 should not the need to descend quite as early! If you leave the aircraft to its default setting it will descend at M.78/270kts and need the early descent that is such a pain, put say M.82/320kts in as the speeds and it will cope much better, though at a slight fuel penalty.
foxmoth is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 13:00
  #17 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know this is a 330 thread but...

how *are* the 345 and 346 RR power buses doing climb wise compared to the 342 and 343?
MarkD is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 14:45
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the A340 I used to fly{now 747} our default descent speed was .82/320 to 10000ft then 250 same as everyone else.Descent in Managed speed,cos of the efficient wing always means descending well before any other aircraft I have ever flown.

If descent comes late due to ATC or whatever .Open descent with speedbrake does the trick to get back on profile.
I guess different company policy and ideas seem to indicate that .8/300 is often the preferred speed which means descending even earlier still. I suggest the ATC who asked about this if it is a problem with other traffic then keep the guy up longer but remember dont expect us to slow down and descend!!
millerscourt is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 15:11
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I HAVE FLOWN BOTH BOING AND AIRBUS TYPES, BOTTOM LINE IS THEY BOTH MAKE VERY GOOD AEROPLANES. I DON'T CARE WHICH I FLY. WITH REGARD TO DESCENTS INTO DXB, THESE DAYS A LOT OF A/C ARRIVING FROM EUROPE ARRIVING AT PEAK TIME ROUTE VIA IRAN. AS YOU HAVE TO BE ANYTHING BETWEEN FL230 TO FL270 20NM BEFORE ORSAR, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT ALLEVIATED THE DESCENT SPEED PROBLEMS. WITH THOSE RESTRICTIONS EVEN AN A330 IS A BIT LOW ON PROFILE LANDING ON 12 IN DXB LET ALONE 30!!
SANDBLASTER is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2003, 16:42
  #20 (permalink)  
2A
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
- and is the most modern and pleasant aircraft to fly than any other 4 eng aircraft around -

Dont agree at all. I fly to the Far East regularly and I can assure you that there is NO comparison between a 744 and a 340 in terms of comfort/pleasantness. On long haul I and all of my colleagues will always go for the 744. I am mere SLF but I know what I like!
2A is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.