I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's certainly… plausible.
Southwest tries to redecorate LGA tower
- Thread starter NovemberEcho
- Start date
I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's certainly… plausible.
Yeah. The winds are 31 are always kindhearted and retiring. 13 winds are baneful and minatory. And 22 winds will almost always take you over New Jersey on the miss... Horrifying!!!
Wait! What? I have to manually make my aircraft do what I intend it to do, even if ONLY by hand?? I think I need to retire or go fly a push-button plane. This business is getting out of control.It's officially a maneuver, in our Maneuvers Validation every year. You have to show a takeoff to a RNAV SID. Easy and boring, but has to be demonstrated.
(At least at our shop)
And no, still no flaps 2
Needles tell you the truth of your alignment. Act accordingly. And back up your assist. Redundancy is the heart of aviation.
Signs and wonders!...It's not the one thing. It's the tide. It's the dismal tide.
Toobdrvr
Estrellas Asesino
ZapBrannigan
If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
Cause that’s *severe* turbulence speed
I’m the same way. If it’s bumpy moderate, May as well pull it back to .76
Probably get more margin too from max/min maneuver bar.
Apologize for the necro post. I was just told by an FO that this is the *severe* turbulence penetration speed. So that reminded me of this post.
The limitation itself doesn’t specify severe (at least not in our manuals). There is a paragraph elsewhere in the manual that talks about what to do if you find yourself in severe, and one of the items is slow to turbulence penetration speed. But the limitation itself doesn’t specify.
I’m frustrated by people plowing through bumpy air at cruise speed and if I ask them to slow down a bit they slow to .78 or .77. I don’t feel like I should need to be explicit. I’m also tired of having to ask. Just do it! If it’s more than light chop, slow to turbulence penetration speed! Drive it like you own it, not like you rent it.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Don’t get me wrong, I pull it back too.
The Bus did a better job with opening the speed window, and speed changeover to indicated knots. Then AT would hold that a lot better. The 737 doesn’t care which speed window it is. Just doesn’t do as good a job holding the speed in really bumpy conditions.
I’ll pull it back .76 to .77 same as you.
I’m about to fly back to LA but I’ll look in our manuals later to see the exact wording.
ZapBrannigan
If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t trying to correct anything you said. Just complaining a bit about my flying partners or perhaps the culture at my airline that is resulting in what I believe to be poor technique - arguably in violation of the AOM, but at the very least uncomfortable.
phill1174
Well-Known Member
I think it’s a culture thing. Same thing happens here. For the most part folks have to be damn near in moderate chop before they’ll slow down. I’ve been guilty of it too sometimes, especially if it’s been a long night.
Makes sense when you hear about how we always flew the barber pole in the past and even now having a CI of 450 is normal on next day air flights.
Skåning
Well-Known Member
Do FOs touch the seatbelt sign without asking at your company?
ERfly
Well-Known Member
Yikes! The most I've seen at the other color on the 767 is CI200. We usually fly around in 80, which is about 320-ish on the way up, .81 in cruise and 300-ish on the way down.
And guys still edit the climb and descent speeds off the zipper because the A/Ts are so sloppy.
The A/Ts are also the reason that most guys will slow down when it gets really bumpy, so we don't have to worry about an overspeed.
On the other end, if we're early, have a good tailwind or it's a Saturday, we always seemed to get TOCO'd (Top of Climb Optimization), which is CI0.
Coming into The Planet, though, it doesn't matter, the STARs all have us doing 290 and most guys will pick up the mach number to above .80...unless it's an Airbus. No one knows what those guys do or think and most of us are too afraid to ask!
Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
It’s different on the 747 because our turbulence penetration speed is so high, but upset recovery training in the sim changed the way I fly in turbulence.
In the -400 our penetration speed is 290-310 or .82-85. I used to fly towards the bottom of those speeds. In reality I’m not concerned with damaging the aircraft in turbulence so much as I am a high or low speed loss of control. Part of our UPRT was showing how long it takes to get speed bank at a high altitude. It was one of those things that I knew, but seeing it in practice made me start flying towards the higher speeds. It’s easy to lose speed if we have to, much harder to find it.
phill1174
Well-Known Member
This is really when I see people slow down. Over the Rockies especially. I’m always amazed at how crappy a job the A/T’s do. Opening the window vs. changing the box speed helps a bit.
The cost indexes they give us aren’t really realistic on the night side. I love it because I get to fly fast though. Usually it’s backed off to 320(330 non winglet) going up and down and .82 in cruise if it’s right against the barber pole.
It’s funny because during the day we’ll have a CI of 40 and I’ll watch some guys chug along descending at 268kts. I’m always surprised when ATC doesn’t ask WTF we’re flying so slow.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Happens here a lot. At VX as FO, we didn’t touch it unless it was discussed with the CA (something like, hey it’s kinda bumpy whatcha think)?
What’s kinda annoying is there are some FOs at the FIRST hint of a bump will just reach up and throw the sign on.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Are you sure you work for SWA talking like this!?
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
If you’re on the higher side of optimum, .76 can put you on the slower side of the window than you want to be. Of course if it’s that rough you probably want to head down 2000’ unless you’re the guy I was flying with last night 
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I hate going slow in a jet, for that reason: acceleration is painfully slow in the flight levels and may require a descent. I'd rather accept a momentary overspeed than run the risk of running out of energy: I've seen more low-energy-at-high-altitude events than I have seen overspeeds and I can tell you that the latter are far easier to manage.
We did find some honest to goodness moderate bumps on the way back from LIH that warranted slowing down. Otherwise I frankly think all that slowing down does is prolong your time in said bumps.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
What if flight ops bulletins were still written in such detail...anyway. Also, the physics haven't changed that much.
@inigo88 — any thoughts? I've been looking through a bunch of places in Parts 1 and 25 and actually haven't clearly found how this airspeed was established for the 737, merely that a rough air airspeed that does not result in "too frequent" actuation of the overspeed warning (Vra/Mra) must be established.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I'm assuming that the airspeed presented as "turbulence air penetration speed" in that manual is properly called Vb, which is defined as:
(25.335), whatever that means. I actually think a table providing Vb is in my Operational Data Manual now that I think of it.
A high altitude stall is a lot more trouble than the momentary actuation of the overspeed warning, as we all should reasonably know here. Vra/Mra are apparently 'new' insofar as they are in Part 25 as amended in 2024.