B737 Talk

Flaps 2 not allowed at our shop.

Any specific reason given for that? The jet will bug you at 180 for flaps 2, if you select it on an LNAV/VNAV approach On the 737-100/200, a flaps 2 takeoff did give some better 2nd segment climb performance than flaps 5 did, especially with the old JT8d motors. Not really used in the Classics onward for takeoff with the CFMs, but still very useful for configurating for approaches if you were wanting the automation to bug you at 180.

Flaps 2 is kind of a 727 holdover, as there is no Flaps 1 in the 727. With the complex/busy 727 wing, Flaps 2 also extended slats 2/3 and 6/7 (of 8 slats) and unlocked the outboard ailerons. Flaps 5 extended the remaining slats 1/4 and 5/8, as well as extending all 6 krueger flaps. Whereas the 727 didn’t have a flaps 1 setting, it did have a flaps 20 setting, which the 737 does not have.
 
Any specific reason given for that? The jet will bug you at 180 for flaps 2, if you select it on an LNAV/VNAV approach On the 737-100/200, a flaps 2 takeoff did give some better 2nd segment climb performance than flaps 5 did, especially with the old JT8d motors. Not really used in the Classics onward for takeoff with the CFMs, but still very useful for configurating for approaches if you were wanting the automation to bug you at 180.

Flaps 2 is kind of a 727 holdover, as there is no Flaps 1 in the 727. With the complex/busy 727 wing, Flaps 2 also extended slats 2/3 and 6/7 (of 8 slats) and unlocked the outboard ailerons. Flaps 5 extended the remaining slats 1/4 and 5/8, as well as extending all 6 krueger flaps. Whereas the 727 didn’t have a flaps 1 setting, it did have a flaps 20 setting, which the 737 does not have.

Posted on page 3, straight from our Flight Handbook:


I don’t buy it because the speed is published, and you’ll get a “2” on the speed scale.

But our manual strictly says do not select flaps 2 unless following a QRH procedure.
 
I would lose my mind if you slowed to 210 too early… and that's my concern, mostly my profit sharing. And ill make sure I show you pictures of my boat, wife, 3 homes, new RV maybe a new RV8, maybe a 4 wheeled RV, and my new $32000 Harley. All while you're trying to learn the plane because its your first month and you haven't flown into Atlanta 2000000 times this week like I have.


Helped you. I know its rough being new :P
 
Here's another one for you guys. Flying ILS tonight in pretty gusty windshear conditions (a southern jet right in front of us went around), I was in LNAV/VNAV until a few miles from FAF, then selected APP mode and captured LOC and G/S. I left A/P and A/T engaged for a while so that I could a little more easily monitor for windshear/go-around criteria, and while A/P and A/T were engaged, I noticed it was really aggressive in lineup corrections. As advertised there were +/- 10 knot gusts/shear pretty much throughout, so it was definitely working hard. But I'm wondering if just leaving it in LNAV/VNAV with the approach built into the FMS, and no intermediate step-downs penetrating the G/S, would have been the better answer? Just seems like it loves to really aggressively chase the localizer, which I feel like you don't see as much in LNAV. Ceilings weren't really a factor, and we weren't doing CAT II/III or anything (was basically a visual from just inside the FAF on down). I eventually just clicked out because it was getting annoying and probably making someone want to barf, but just curious if anyone has thoughts on mode selection in gusty conditions?
 
Here's another one for you guys. Flying ILS tonight in pretty gusty windshear conditions (a southern jet right in front of us went around), I was in LNAV/VNAV until a few miles from FAF, then selected APP mode and captured LOC and G/S. I left A/P and A/T engaged for a while so that I could a little more easily monitor for windshear/go-around criteria, and while A/P and A/T were engaged, I noticed it was really aggressive in lineup corrections. As advertised there were +/- 10 knot gusts/shear pretty much throughout, so it was definitely working hard. But I'm wondering if just leaving it in LNAV/VNAV with the approach built into the FMS, and no intermediate step-downs penetrating the G/S, would have been the better answer? Just seems like it loves to really aggressively chase the localizer, which I feel like you don't see as much in LNAV. Ceilings weren't really a factor, and we weren't doing CAT II/III or anything (was basically a visual from just inside the FAF on down). I eventually just clicked out because it was getting annoying and probably making someone want to barf, but just curious if anyone has thoughts on mode selection in gusty conditions?

Personally, I think your ultimate solution was the best one. You’re visual, click it off and fly it like a 172. The autopilot Is never going to be able to do as good a job as a human pilot in dampening those oscillations, trying different crab angles and knowing when to let the airspeed bounce around a bit as opposed to chasing it. Whether you left it in LNAV VNAV or captured the ILS I personally believe that humans fly better than machines.

To answer your question though, it may be that LNAV VNAV seems less aggressive because in addition to flying the course and vertical path it’s also trying to stay within the RNP. Just spitballing here… I really don’t know.

DC6C4A7B-85C7-44E4-A628-F8DA5F3C5F6F.jpeg
 
If you leave it In VNAV instead of GS ours seem to be about 50-100 feet high down the slope... sometimes it comes in slightly left or right as well. Most guys let the LOC/GS do the work if they are available, or click it off and hand fly it.
 
Click it off and fly it. In those conditions, get a feel early for the crab you have to keep in to maintain centerline, rather than take over late and be fiddle-fracking with it on short final. Agree with Zap, in conditions like you describe, a decent pilot can fly it smoother than the autopilot can in making constant corrections. However, the usual ham fisted pilot will probably be worse than the autopilot.
 
Agreed. In gusty winds, I’ll have AP/AT off by 1000 AGL so I can start to get a feel for it.


VNAV all the way down will most likely leave you high. I’ve seen the chasing, it’s more pronounced In certain places (eg, EWR ILS 22L) where it tires to “hunt” so I click the AP even earlier here.

You aren’t wrong, just verbalize what you’re doing and I think most CAs would be okay with it. If it’s windy, I’d rather the guy get the AP off sooner than normal. Some of the worst hand-flying pilots are the ones who turn the AP on at 1,000 AGL and click it off only at 100-200ft AGL. Like, come on.
 
Here's another one for you guys. Flying ILS tonight in pretty gusty windshear conditions (a southern jet right in front of us went around), I was in LNAV/VNAV until a few miles from FAF, then selected APP mode and captured LOC and G/S. I left A/P and A/T engaged for a while so that I could a little more easily monitor for windshear/go-around criteria, and while A/P and A/T were engaged, I noticed it was really aggressive in lineup corrections. As advertised there were +/- 10 knot gusts/shear pretty much throughout, so it was definitely working hard. But I'm wondering if just leaving it in LNAV/VNAV with the approach built into the FMS, and no intermediate step-downs penetrating the G/S, would have been the better answer? Just seems like it loves to really aggressively chase the localizer, which I feel like you don't see as much in LNAV. Ceilings weren't really a factor, and we weren't doing CAT II/III or anything (was basically a visual from just inside the FAF on down). I eventually just clicked out because it was getting annoying and probably making someone want to barf, but just curious if anyone has thoughts on mode selection in gusty conditions?

If you ever get blessed by ATC to land on 16L at SEA this happens a lot when aircraft cross the runway. The LOC and GS start swinging around wildly for a brief moment while each aircraft crosses. Its way better to leave it in LNAV/VNAV or as many people already said just hand fly it to "dampen" the oscillations.

I too am a hand fly it person. The sooner the better. However not every captain is OK with that so its best to brief it and see how they feel. Some don't mind it if it's off super early or they even like to see it. Others in much more rare cases don't like it.
 
It’s 34L for us peasants, which upslopes right about the same angle as flare on the -900ER, which is awesome
Hey they all pay the same!

 
Here's a question for you guys. Let's say that a fictional carrier (perhaps many) can MEL an inop main fuel tank quantity indicator (the fuel gage in the cockpit), with some very specific procedures for gassing up, and then requiring the crew to continually manually update GW based the inop side being assumed to be same fuel as the operative side (plus whatever center tank indicates). For the sake of discussion, assume this flight is at night. I presume fuel leaks aren't all that common, but in the worst case scenario where there is a fuel leak on the side that has an inop indicator, how will you know?

As you know, the QRH/procedure for fuel leak assumes you have operative fuel indicators, and uses that information (i.e. accurate total fuel) to determine if a leak exists. The notes don't have a whole lot of other real great ways of recognizing a fuel leak. It seems that eventually you would get a lo press light on the bad side pumps, which wouldn't really do much good. Don't think the fuel imbalance indication would be operative? or maybe it would? It's night, so nobody would probably see it happening up at cruise with the wing/landing lights off. My assumption is that this would present itself as an airplane that is requiring more and more rudder trim (in autopilot) to keep wings level, and then you'd get fuel pump lights followed by that side flaming out. And then your life would quickly go to •.

Maybe a more interesting reverse case would be a suspected fuel leak on the known good side. That just seems a little too evil though.

I realize this is probably a good question to ask in recurrent, but I figured it might at a minimum, highlight a lack of my systems knowledge, or maybe even a good discussion :)
 
Here's a question for you guys. Let's say that a fictional carrier (perhaps many) can MEL an inop main fuel tank quantity indicator (the fuel gage in the cockpit), with some very specific procedures for gassing up, and then requiring the crew to continually manually update GW based the inop side being assumed to be same fuel as the operative side (plus whatever center tank indicates). For the sake of discussion, assume this flight is at night. I presume fuel leaks aren't all that common, but in the worst case scenario where there is a fuel leak on the side that has an inop indicator, how will you know?

As you know, the QRH/procedure for fuel leak assumes you have operative fuel indicators, and uses that information (i.e. accurate total fuel) to determine if a leak exists. The notes don't have a whole lot of other real great ways of recognizing a fuel leak. It seems that eventually you would get a lo press light on the bad side pumps, which wouldn't really do much good. Don't think the fuel imbalance indication would be operative? or maybe it would? It's night, so nobody would probably see it happening up at cruise with the wing/landing lights off. My assumption is that this would present itself as an airplane that is requiring more and more rudder trim (in autopilot) to keep wings level, and then you'd get fuel pump lights followed by that side flaming out. And then your life would quickly go to •.

Maybe a more interesting reverse case would be a suspected fuel leak on the known good side. That just seems a little too evil though.

I realize this is probably a good question to ask in recurrent, but I figured it might at a minimum, highlight a lack of my systems knowledge, or maybe even a good discussion :)
In this situation, unless we’re flying the plane 1 leg to go somewhere to be fixed…I’m going to be voicing my concern for “is this really smart?”.

The company is going to keep that plane flying till it’s convenient for them to fix it, or a pilot refuses it.

It sounds like more work than I might be willing to tack onto a flight that might be at the end of a long trip/day/going into a task saturated environment.

but that’s just me
 
In this situation, unless we’re flying the plane 1 leg to go somewhere to be fixed…I’m going to be voicing my concern for “is this really smart?”.

The company is going to keep that plane flying till it’s convenient for them to fix it, or a pilot refuses it.

It sounds like more work than I might be willing to tack onto a flight that might be at the end of a long trip/day/going into a task saturated environment.

but that’s just me

Yeah, a friend, found this to be a particularly f****ed up MEL. Like, no way he would have ever taken a Navy jet in his entire life with this gripe.
 
We have fuel quantity MELs fairly regularly. Even more fun when you do a crossing with one.
But the balance of that vs un declared haz spontaneously combusting turning us into a 600mph Solo Stove at 30 W, fires keep me up at night a bit more than fuel quantity indications.
 
Here's a question for you guys. Let's say that a fictional carrier (perhaps many) can MEL an inop main fuel tank quantity indicator (the fuel gage in the cockpit), with some very specific procedures for gassing up, and then requiring the crew to continually manually update GW based the inop side being assumed to be same fuel as the operative side (plus whatever center tank indicates). For the sake of discussion, assume this flight is at night. I presume fuel leaks aren't all that common, but in the worst case scenario where there is a fuel leak on the side that has an inop indicator, how will you know?

As you know, the QRH/procedure for fuel leak assumes you have operative fuel indicators, and uses that information (i.e. accurate total fuel) to determine if a leak exists. The notes don't have a whole lot of other real great ways of recognizing a fuel leak. It seems that eventually you would get a lo press light on the bad side pumps, which wouldn't really do much good. Don't think the fuel imbalance indication would be operative? or maybe it would? It's night, so nobody would probably see it happening up at cruise with the wing/landing lights off. My assumption is that this would present itself as an airplane that is requiring more and more rudder trim (in autopilot) to keep wings level, and then you'd get fuel pump lights followed by that side flaming out. And then your life would quickly go to •.

Maybe a more interesting reverse case would be a suspected fuel leak on the known good side. That just seems a little too evil though.

I realize this is probably a good question to ask in recurrent, but I figured it might at a minimum, highlight a lack of my systems knowledge, or maybe even a good discussion :)

This is a very common MEL on the MD11 and it has posed a problem when the math is done wrong when they stick the tanks. There have been a couple of diversions and rollbacks caused by not having enough fuel. It was even a problem for an ACMI 747 operator when they were flying over Pakistan and had one roll back. The amount of fuel they had when upon landing in India was startling to say the least. Honestly, the chance of them getting the math wrong when sticking the tanks is the greater risk.
 
Back
Top