Morbid curiosity. Upgrade times?

SFCC/UND said:
You guys don't have Brake Temps on your Aerordata?


Funny how this isn't a problem on 74. Wonder if that's because of the nextgen box we have? Cause I know the classic box had some funky stuff from the 76 era.

At brown they just started showing estimated brake Temps on aerodata for landing. That helps not getting into the 5 temp range.
Click to expand...

We are able to use our performance software to estimate if brakes will need cooling (BTMS >= 5), but the issue is guys will not let the ABs do their thing.

For example, kicking off ABs and stomping on the pedals while still 100+ CAS to make an exit. Or not understanding how reversers take the loads off brakes, etc. The 76 has great brakes, but they will get hot as hell at high weights if you aren’t smart about it.
 
SFCC/UND said:
You guys don't have Brake Temps on your Aerordata?


Funny how this isn't a problem on 74. Wonder if that's because of the nextgen box we have? Cause I know the classic box had some funky stuff from the 76 era.

At brown they just started showing estimated brake Temps on aerodata for landing. That helps not getting into the 5 temp range.
Click to expand...

We do now, but usually the explanation is (incorrectly) about stopping distance instead of brake temp.
 
Somewhere nearing ETP…

“Honolulu Center, Southwest 342 at FL350, request direct KHNL.”

“Honolulu Center, hello?”

“Dude why aren’t they responding?”


;)
 
GypsyPilot said:
Yep, it’s crazy how badly some guys screw up VNAV, and just cannot get it through their thick skulls.

The biggest misunderstandings I see (for the Boeings) is VNAV PTH logic. Recently had a captain admonish me for not opening the speed window as we descended via an arrival. He absolutely insisted that it must be done that way. Of course that immediately takes the plane out of Path and into VNAV SPD, thus not protecting speeds and going out of PTH

Don’t even get me started on the stupidity I see with Autobrakes during MLGW landings.

What really baffles me is that they’ll screw up this stuff, and then totally blow it off after landing and don’t care to understand it.

Thank god I’m upgrading soon, this kind of crap just drives me insane after a few years.

Edit: Meant not protecting speed, not altitude.
Click to expand...

Dont know about the 767, but on the 737 opening the speed window (intervene) basically makes it like lvl chg that honors at or above constraints. It will show VNAV SPD, but nothing to panic about. Too many guys do get on edge because it isn’t showing VNAV PTH.

I’m a believer in reprogramming the box, so as long as you do it correctly. If done while descending in VNAV PTH, protect your altitude via higher selection to honor next constraint while box recalculates.

Once the descent starts, don’t do it multiple times. Just once. No one wants a dual
FMC failure because both kept thinking too hard.

BE458053-77BF-4494-B0DD-D62A01DD0B89.jpeg



B57AC2CD-3079-49BC-AF2B-34B5C8B74385.jpeg
 
As for that pilot action, I agree but to a degree. Coming in the Ironman arrival into LA, we got a speed other than the 280kts. By intervening, the airplane basically lvl chgs and honors the at or above constraints. So now it started to do dive and drive on all the fixes that were at or above. So I did reprogram the descent page speed and closed the window. As I said, just do it once. Don’t risk re-calculations multiple times.

Also, descent page speed can’t be lower than the next speed restriction on the legs page for an upcoming fix. May have to change that speed first.

Eg, say descent speed 280 and Ironman fix ABC speed also 280. If they do 260 all the way to BAYST, you can open the speed window and let it dive/drive at 260 in VNAV SPD.

Open window initially with 260. Legs page 260/ on the right side of ABC that had 280 kt restriction. Then descent page speed 260. Execute. Let box re-calculate. Then when done, close speed window and go back into VNAV PTH.

Again, do only once during descent itself. No multiple recalculations otherwise you might break the box brain.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
As for that pilot action, I agree but to a degree. Coming in the Ironman arrival into LA, we got a speed other than the 280kts. By intervening, the airplane basically lvl chgs and honors the at or above constraints. So now it started to do dive and drive on all the fixes that were at or above. So I did reprogram the descent page speed and closed the window. As I said, just do it once. Don’t risk re-calculations multiple times.

Also, descent page speed can’t be lower than the next speed restriction on the legs page for an upcoming fix. May have to change that speed first.

Eg, say descent speed 280 and Ironman fix ABC speed also 280. If they do 260 all the way to BAYST, you can open the speed window and let it dive/drive at 260 in VNAV SPD.

Open window initially with 260. Legs page 260/ on the right side of ABC that had 280 kt restriction. Then descent page speed 260. Execute. Let box re-calculate. Then when done, close speed window and go back into VNAV PTH.

Again, do only once during descent itself. No multiple recalculations otherwise you might break the box brain.
Click to expand...

Never heard of the potential for dual FMC failure by making the box recalculate the path when you change the speed multiple times. Good info to stick in the ‘weird things’ file for the airframe. Not quite up there with ‘oil gulping’ though. Then again, could be a difference is software versions too.

If I know the potential for multiple uncharted speed changes exist on the arrival, I prefer to do a little more legwork in cruise and determine where I can effectively and efficiently get VNAV out of idle path and into geopath. Then I can manage the airspeed changes with the speed window open and still honor the path.

I know that takes away speed protections as programmed in the FMC, but I’d rather do a little aviating regarding speed than to have the airplane recalculate the path and enter a flight idle dive or almost level off to recapture the path. Makes for a much better ride in the cabin.

This is one of the things I do like about the 737 VNAV. There are multiple techniques one can use to achieve the same end result.
 
ctab5060X said:
There are multiple techniques one can use to achieve the same end result.
Click to expand...
I personally do not consider this a hallmark of good human design, though this is the subject of endless debate in multiple disciplines and nobody's actually right, but they do enjoy filling pages and pages on it.
 
Can you Boeing folks change the angle of descent in order to help the FMS/autopilot make both the constraint of speed and altitude? On the Honeywell in the 190 on the PERF INIT page you can change your descent angle to eg., 2.5. This helps with strong tailwinds on the descent along with different ATC speed requests. Because if you don’t the VNAV honors altitude 1st and speed is an afterthought. I see many guys just accept the 3.0 angle and gets them into trouble. Also speed brakes seem taboo to too many but they are on the plane for a reason. I do agree that too many inputs into the FMS or messing with the FCP will come back to bite you.
 
Soul Brotha' said:
Can you Boeing folks change the angle of descent in order to help the FMS/autopilot make both the constraint of speed and altitude? On the Honeywell in the 190 on the PERF INIT page you can change your descent angle to eg., 2.5. This helps with strong tailwinds on the descent along with different ATC speed requests. Because if you don’t the VNAV honors altitude 1st and speed is an afterthought. I see many guys just accept the 3.0 angle and gets them into trouble. Also speed brakes seem taboo to too many but they are on the plane for a reason. I do agree that too many inputs into the FMS or messing with the FCP will come back to bite you.
Click to expand...

Here in the past and on other sites as well. I've read post that if you have to use speed breaks, you're a terrible pilot. Or you at least have poor planning. Could be a reason why.
 
Soul Brotha' said:
Can you Boeing folks change the angle of descent in order to help the FMS/autopilot make both the constraint of speed and altitude? On the Honeywell in the 190 on the PERF INIT page you can change your descent angle to eg., 2.5. This helps with strong tailwinds on the descent along with different ATC speed requests. Because if you don’t the VNAV honors altitude 1st and speed is an afterthought. I see many guys just accept the 3.0 angle and gets them into trouble. Also speed brakes seem taboo to too many but they are on the plane for a reason. I do agree that too many inputs into the FMS or messing with the FCP will come back to bite you.
Click to expand...

No.

That, along with the vertical direct to function, are two of the biggest things I miss from my time on the 190.

3.0 degrees and a tailwind is asking for trouble in the 190. To keep the speed reasonable and make restrictions on something like the ROBUC into BOS would require flight spoilers. I tried to avoid spoilers as much as possible or at least limit them to halfway on the Embraer.
 
Soul Brotha' said:
Can you Boeing folks change the angle of descent in order to help the FMS/autopilot make both the constraint of speed and altitude? On the Honeywell in the 190 on the PERF INIT page you can change your descent angle to eg., 2.5. This helps with strong tailwinds on the descent along with different ATC speed requests. Because if you don’t the VNAV honors altitude 1st and speed is an afterthought. I see many guys just accept the 3.0 angle and gets them into trouble. Also speed brakes seem taboo to too many but they are on the plane for a reason. I do agree that too many inputs into the FMS or messing with the FCP will come back to bite you.
Click to expand...

I used the descent rate at TOD in progress page 2 to determine how much to shallow the angle. If I remember correctly, and it's been almost 5 years now, an angle that produces 2,500 FPM in the descent seemed to be a pretty good compromise between fuel efficiency and making restrictions.
 
Soul Brotha' said:
Can you Boeing folks change the angle of descent in order to help the FMS/autopilot make both the constraint of speed and altitude? On the Honeywell in the 190 on the PERF INIT page you can change your descent angle to eg., 2.5. This helps with strong tailwinds on the descent along with different ATC speed requests. Because if you don’t the VNAV honors altitude 1st and speed is an afterthought. I see many guys just accept the 3.0 angle and gets them into trouble. Also speed brakes seem taboo to too many but they are on the plane for a reason. I do agree that too many inputs into the FMS or messing with the FCP will come back to bite you.
Click to expand...

No, but you can sort of do that by selecting forecast icing altitudes in the DES/FORECAST page, TAI/ON ALT. It will move the TOD back (shallowing the angle), in anticipation of needing EAI.
 
Maximilian_Jenius said:
Here in the past and on other sites as well. I've read post that if you have to use speed breaks, you're a terrible pilot. Or you at least have poor planning. Could be a reason why.
Click to expand...

On the 747 you're almost always guaranteed to use speedbrakes. Especially on the dash 8, it is such a clean wing and does not want to slow down. Back on the Emb 145, I almost never used the brakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top