Lufthansa 747 balked landing at LAX

DE727UPS said:
It wouldn't do that if the company paid to update the FMC profile with the winglet mod.
Click to expand...
It's a surefire way to keep crews awake halfway to the west coast over the Rockies at 4am 😆. Now they want us to use the boards to manage the speed when it gets too fast in cruise. Yep you read that right, idk who's idea it was. From all the stories i've heard from the senior daddies it wasn't abnormal to get the clacker several times during the flight, especially on the flights coming into the sort from the west coast.
 
phill1174 said:
It's a surefire way to keep crews awake halfway to the west coast over the Rockies at 4am 😆. Now they want us to use the boards to manage the speed when it gets too fast in cruise. Yep you read that right, idk who's idea it was. From all the stories i've heard from the senior daddies it wasn't abnormal to get the clacker several times during the flight, especially on the flights coming into the sort from the west coast.
Click to expand...

I know for the 747 that’s actually in the Boeing flight crew training manual. Had a guy who came over from the 737 ask if that was our procedure. I said “no, that sounds weird. Let’s look it up.” Sure enough…

Kind of makes sense though. If you’re in heavy turbulence the airspeed is probably all over the place. Bringing the power back too far at altitude is asking for trouble as it’s much easier to bleed off speed than it is to find it again.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I know for the 747 that’s actually in the Boeing flight crew training manual. Had a guy who came over from the 737 ask if that was our procedure. I said “no, that sounds weird. Let’s look it up.” Sure enough…

Kind of makes sense though. If you’re in heavy turbulence the airspeed is probably all over the place. Bringing the power back too far at altitude is asking for trouble as it’s much easier to bleed off speed than it is to find it again.
Click to expand...
I would have to look at the manuals to see what the official recommendation is on the Eskimo-tail guppy, but I have had captains say the same thing and it makes sense. Things could definitely get sporty if the autothrottle yoinked it back too far and then you hit the other side of the wave.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I know for the 747 that’s actually in the Boeing flight crew training manual. Had a guy who came over from the 737 ask if that was our procedure. I said “no, that sounds weird. Let’s look it up.” Sure enough…

Kind of makes sense though. If you’re in heavy turbulence the airspeed is probably all over the place. Bringing the power back too far at altitude is asking for trouble as it’s much easier to bleed off speed than it is to find it again.
Click to expand...

Energy management in that scenario becomes either an over speed or low energy state in coffin’s corner (both of which are undesirable), but the consensus has been take the over speed, even if you have to write it up. It is much easier to deal with than deploying the speed brakes/ boards with the bottom of the airspeed cue rising.

Full disclosure, this is from conversations about flying light twins and not the 747, so I’m not familiar with the dynamics of that machine (spool up time at altitude or Vl/d).
 
CFI A&P said:
Energy management in that scenario becomes either an over speed or low energy state in coffin’s corner (both of which are undesirable), but the consensus has been take the over speed, even if you have to write it up. It is much easier to deal with than deploying the speed brakes/ boards with the bottom of the airspeed cue rising.

Full disclosure, this is from conversations about flying light twins and not the 747, so I’m not familiar with the dynamics of that machine (spool up time at altitude or Vl/d).
Click to expand...

The 400 spools up relatively quickly, the ocho not so much. I’ll pick overspeed over low speed any day.
 
Roger Roger said:
I would have to look at the manuals to see what the official recommendation is on the Eskimo-tail guppy, but I have had captains say the same thing and it makes sense. Things could definitely get sporty if the autothrottle yoinked it back too far and then you hit the other side of the wave.
Click to expand...

Problem is the AT is “slow” to wake up when the speed starts getting away.

My technique, as Mach going to .81 , intervene speed to .75 to get an immediate reaction on the AT for pulling back. Then as we near ~ .78 or whatever the CI speed is, I close the window (or leave it at .76)

That way, the power sway doesn’t result in any low speed recovery.

Works good, lasts long time :)



Don’t be the FO who simply attempts to pull the AT back. You’re fighting the servos as the power pushes itself forward. Seen this many times. I’m not a fan of fight-the-airplane. Aviate it, don’t fight it. :)
 
When doing .85 and 2k separation between max and opt is a good buffer that gives you around 20kts before overspeed. I remember getting our butts kicked off the coast of Japan, couldn't even reach the boards. But the plane did a great job not getting low speed or overspeed alert.
 
Skimmed the thread. Got bored.

Quick version: 24R is short for a 74. The 748 does not like being slow, they probably just ran out of energy earlier then planned.

In turbulence - everyone knows the it's OK to override the throttles and stay ahead on the energy. The whale doesn't walk away from the speed like the 76.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top