Accelerating at 10,000'

[TallWeeds]

What is the expectation or rule with regards to climb rate as you accelerate at 10,000 feet? AIM 4-4-10 part d. mentions climbing at 500 to 1550 fpm the last 1000 feet of climb. It mentions that leveling off at 10,000 feet to slow on descent is OK. It also says that if you can't maintain a 500 fpm climb or descent to let ATC know.

At my first airline we were instructed to get the nose down and get to 310 knots by 11,000 feet. The check airman would give you a bit of grief if you didn't do it. At the second airline I noticed many pilots just kind of waffling up to climb speed. Sometimes we wouldn't reach 290 until 15,000 feet. It drove me nuts. Today, at the third and final shop, I lowered the nose at 10k to accelerate. I was doing anywhere from 400 to 700 fpm climb. ATC got a little testy and asked if I had leveled off. I checked all our manuals and the FAR/AIM and couldn't find an expectation other than those listed above. Thoughts, feelings, and opinions on the matter?

 

[Adler]

Nice job holding 6,020. Let’s get that down to 6,000.

 

[Roger Roger]

Roll inverted and pull.

 

[Jordan93]

Roll inverted and pull.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Roll inverted and pull out.

Fixed it

 

[jynxyjoe]

What is the expectation or rule with regards to climb rate as you accelerate at 10,000 feet? AIM 4-4-10 part d. mentions climbing at 500 to 1550 fpm the last 1000 feet of climb. It mentions that leveling off at 10,000 feet to slow on descent is OK. It also says that if you can't maintain a 500 fpm climb or descent to let ATC know.

At my first airline we were instructed to get the nose down and get to 310 knots by 11,000 feet. The check airman would give you a bit of grief if you didn't do it. At the second airline I noticed many pilots just kind of waffling up to climb speed. Sometimes we wouldn't reach 290 until 15,000 feet. It drove me nuts. Today, at the third and final shop, I lowered the nose at 10k to accelerate. I was doing anywhere from 400 to 700 fpm climb. ATC got a little testy and asked if I had leveled off. I checked all our manuals and the FAR/AIM and couldn't find an expectation other than those listed above. Thoughts, feelings, and opinions on the matter?

Other than refusing to look at far or aim unless my fom commands it i think ur fine. I haven't dealt with anyone trying to get me to 310 by 11000, and neither method bothers me. Personally i get to 290 somewhere between 11-13k. I get there when i get there.

 

[jynxyjoe]

What is the expectation or rule with regards to climb rate as you accelerate at 10,000 feet? AIM 4-4-10 part d. mentions climbing at 500 to 1550 fpm the last 1000 feet of climb. It mentions that leveling off at 10,000 feet to slow on descent is OK. It also says that if you can't maintain a 500 fpm climb or descent to let ATC know.

At my first airline we were instructed to get the nose down and get to 310 knots by 11,000 feet. The check airman would give you a bit of grief if you didn't do it. At the second airline I noticed many pilots just kind of waffling up to climb speed. Sometimes we wouldn't reach 290 until 15,000 feet. It drove me nuts. Today, at the third and final shop, I lowered the nose at 10k to accelerate. I was doing anywhere from 400 to 700 fpm climb. ATC got a little testy and asked if I had leveled off. I checked all our manuals and the FAR/AIM and couldn't find an expectation other than those listed above. Thoughts, feelings, and opinions on the matter?

Just played with it. Vs 500 and it gets there before 11k. It's ok. Not my favorite techique.

 

[TallWeeds]

Just played with it. Vs 500 and it gets there before 11k. It's ok. Not my favorite techique.

I'm almost always hand flying until I get to the flight planned speed above ten. I have yet to find an autopilot that accelerates how I like.

This conversation came about due to fuel usage while accelerating. While I realize it is a small amount of gas, I wonder what most flight planning software assumes when the speed changes? Does the software assume that at 10k the speed is immediately 310kts for example? Or does it plan for you to reach the speed at 11k or 14k? More or less an exercise in precision. Same type of thing @Adler mentioned.

 

[jynxyjoe]

I'm almost always hand flying until I get to the flight planned speed above ten. I have yet to find an autopilot that accelerates how I like.

This conversation came about due to fuel usage while accelerating. While I realize it is a small amount of gas, I wonder what most flight planning software assumes when the speed changes? Does the software assume that at 10k the speed is immediately 310kts for example? Or does it plan for you to reach the speed at 11k or 14k? More or less an exercise in precision. Same type of thing @Adler mentioned.

Well most people just use vnav if you want the best fuel, that's the final answer, if you dont have vnav then delay flap and gear extention to last minute. Im gonna save way more on that then whatever you feel is being wasted while i gradually change speeds.

 

[TallWeeds]

Well most people just use vnav if you want the best fuel, that's the final answer, if you dont have vnav then delay flap and gear extention to last minute. Im gonna save way more on that then whatever you feel is being wasted while i gradually change speeds.

VNAV should be the most efficient. However, have you ever seen a jet in a speed hold mode that didn't have a constantly changing vertical speed? It varies minute to minute and is totally random. Anybody can hand fly it smoother. It's impossible to accurately flight plan for those fluctuations.

I realize this is a miniscule problem. A few pounds of fuel out of tens of thousands. But if you want to fly by the seat of your pants, rent a Cub on the weekends. 121 flying should be as precise as possible.

 

[jynxyjoe]

VNAV should be the most efficient. However, have you ever seen a jet in a speed hold mode that didn't have a constantly changing vertical speed? It varies minute to minute and is totally random. Anybody can hand fly it smoother. It's impossible to accurately flight plan for those fluctuations.

I realize this is a miniscule problem. A few pounds of fuel out of tens of thousands. But if you want to fly by the seat of your pants, rent a Cub on the weekends. 121 flying should be as precise as possible.

Well you turn this into rocket surgery if you want. Your argument used to be saving gas, now it's to be as precise as possible. If, in your mind, those are married together, fine and go about your business. Personally ive found the more you make the job about the flying the more you lose in big picture. We've had some hilariously good guys metaphorically plow in the upgrade because all they cared about was the hand flying. If what i do "bugs the hell outa you" or some variation I'd hope you get into this ancient tao'an art ive found, its a deep core belief of mine based on centuries of natural science and the metaphysical, called... Relax-ercising. You just stop sweating the small stuff.

I cant think of any time i got that call from atc you had, but i probably wouldnt remember. If you're a flying up type guy, switch it up and kick off the auto at 12k especially in nyc. That keeps me sharp enough, and its certainly a lot more engaging than pointing up at 12 degree, to7.5 degrees, to 5.0 degrees, to 2.5 plus or minus .5 altitude depending.

The VNAV on the 737s ive flown do a great job in vnav.

 

[Adler]

VNAV should be the most efficient. However, have you ever seen a jet in a speed hold mode that didn't have a constantly changing vertical speed? It varies minute to minute and is totally random. Anybody can hand fly it smoother. It's impossible to accurately flight plan for those fluctuations.

Like it or not, you were probably one of the last 121 pilots to learn how to actually fly, in a plane that was the last of the pilot’s planes no lesss. You and I learned from an instructor that held us to the highest of standards, teaching a skill set decades removed from the industry. Today, all that matters is “did we have to file an ASAP this leg, no ok great work” or the more common “Yea we need to file an ASAP but nobody died so good work”.

Just be happy you have a good job and remember that you’re basically the only one in the world who understands or cares.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Like it or not, you were probably one of the last 121 pilots to learn how to actually fly, in a plane that was the last of the pilot’s planes no lesss. You and I learned from an instructor that held us to the highest of standards, teaching a skill set decades removed from the industry. Today, all that matters is “did we have to file an ASAP this leg, no ok great work” or the more common “Yea we need to file an ASAP but nobody died so good work”.

Just be happy you have a good job and remember that you’re basically the only one in the world who understands or cares.

Lol. Come fly 1000 hours with no autopilot in 1900 in new england and then sit in the jumpseat while the big boys miss autopilot missed the altitude into boston on the vnav and they say to you "dumb thing always does that". You guys better learn someday, you're in the minority for a reason. There's no need to turn this stuff into astronaut camp, and youre not as good as you think you are. If you can't accept that learn to relax a little.

 

[TallWeeds]

Lol. Come fly 1000 hours with no autopilot in 1900 in new england and then sit in the jumpseat while the big boys miss autopilot missed the altitude into boston on the vnav and they say to you "dumb thing always does that". You guys better learn someday, you're in the minority for a reason. There's no need to turn this stuff into astronaut camp, and youre not as good as you think you are. If you can't accept that learn to relax a little.

You have a profile that you are supposed to fly for almost every part of a flight. All I'm saying is there should be some precision in the acceleration at 10,000 feet.

I never flew the 1900 in the NE. But I did go from instructing in a Cirrus to hand flying a 727 on arcing VOR approaches at 4AM in Mexico. Different but same. I love having the autopilot now but I've seen the other side.

 

[jynxyjoe]

You have a profile that you are supposed to fly for almost every precision part of a flight. All I'm saying is there should be some precision in the acceleration at 10,000 feet.

I never flew the 1900 in the NE. But I did go from instructing in a Cirrus to hand flying a 727 on arcing VOR approaches at 4AM in Mexico. Different but same. I love having the autopilot now but I've seen the other side.

I understood your point. I told you what i though of it.

Was it your 11th leg that day, after 3 days of 8 leggers, flying 119 hours in a month? And no auto pilot right? Not you had an auto and turned it off because you wanted to "stay sharp".

I have no problem reading any of your points and you have a logical sequence. It's tough getting to fly with all us half rate pilots, i got it man.

 

[Adler]

Was it your 11th leg that day, after 3 days of 8 leggers, flying 119 hours in a month? And no auto pilot right? Not you had an auto and turned it off because you wanted to "stay sharp".

Since you started the pecker measuring contests, the hardest approach you did on your checkride was the all engines operating autopilot coupled approach. It really was more of a straight and level kind of tool. Not to mention the week @TallWeeds and I flew with a deferred autopilot, pulling 24 hour days back to back to back, each with 4-5 legs. I was very happy to be engineering for those. But hey, it wasn’t a 1900 in the northeast; now if it was a metroliner...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

VNAV should be the most efficient. However, have you ever seen a jet in a speed hold mode that didn't have a constantly changing vertical speed? It varies minute to minute and is totally random. Anybody can hand fly it smoother. It's impossible to accurately flight plan for those fluctuations.

I realize this is a miniscule problem. A few pounds of fuel out of tens of thousands. But if you want to fly by the seat of your pants, rent a Cub on the weekends. 121 flying should be as precise as possible.

Boeing engineering will tell you to use the VNAV and let it handle it for you because that will save the most gas. I promise you, nobody in the back can feel those fluctuations in vertical speed. The computer is working to maintain the correct profile speed as closely as possible, which is how it maintains maximum efficiency. Maintaining a constant vertical speed instead will actually reduce efficiency.

 

[jynxyjoe]

The hardest approach you did on your checkride was the all engines operating autopilot coupled approach. It really was more of a straight and level kind of tool. Not to mention the week @TallWeeds and I flew with a deferred autopilot, pulling 24 hour days back to back, each with 4-5 legs. I was very happy to be engineering for those. But hey, it wasn’t a 1900 in the northeast so...

So... Fine, the 727 was better and we are all lesser and bow. You take this either direction you feel helps your argument. In the end there's you telling @TallWeeds you and him are on an island, better than your peers in dramatic fashion.

Like it or not, you were probably one of the last 121 pilots to learn how to actually fly, in a plane that was the last of the pilot’s planes no lesss. You and I learned from an instructor that held us to the highest of standards, teaching a skill set decades removed from the industry. Today, all that matters is “did we have to file an ASAP this leg, no ok great work” or the more common “Yea we need to file an ASAP but nobody died so good work”.

Just be happy you have a good job and remember that you’re basically the only one in the world who understands or cares.

So with that bizarre level of narcissist pilot hanger talk i refer you to my last point in my previous post. You having to deal with us meer mortals must be terrible, i don't know where you two find the energy. But i know we're better for it.

 

[Adler]

So with that bizarre level of narcissist pilot hanger talk i refer you to my last point in my previous post. You having to deal with us meer mortals must be terrible, i don't know where you two find the energy. But i know we're better for it.

Uhhh, I was answering the question you asked...

 

[jynxyjoe]

Uhhh, I was answering the question you asked...

Whooooooo. No you had "but i didnt fly the 1900 in the ne so.....".
I could only reply to what was posted.