Southwest tries to redecorate LGA tower

[JDean3204]

haha I put that comment at a 10% chance of making sense to anyone, I go to sleep too now.......something about being bought off a 3 day trip after day 1, and being in my bed 2 nights early

Ooh nice. I got slid into a day off, first time here a day off has been encroached. They paid me back a day off though so all good.

 

[///AMG]

Ooh nice. I got slid into a day off, first time here a day off has been encroached. They paid me back a day off though so all good.

hah I told my surprised boys "for every one of these times, there will be 2 that I won't be home in time". Maybe that was a little too cynical, too being stuck with a broken jet somewhere crappy, of a response. Only *checks watch* 18 years will tell

 

[JustinS]

…do a two engine flaps 15 landing when you can safely.

You guys are allowed to do Flaps 15 landings in normal ops??

Agreed on most, but I’m not a fan of flaps 1 over 230 kts. Use the speed brakes to bring it back to 230 first, or get the gear down. Some guys I fly with will call flaps 1 as fast as ~247-248 knots. Not necessary. If you truly feel you need flaps 1 at 248 kts, get the gear out. Or use the speed brakes.

What is it that you’re concerned about extending the flaps above 230? Structural load? Wear and tear? Airframe vibration?

 

[ZapBrannigan]

You guys are allowed to do Flaps 15 landings in normal ops??



What is it that you’re concerned about extending the flaps above 230? Structural load? Wear and tear? Airframe vibration?

Yes, we can do Flap 15 landings.

The classics had flap spindles that have been known to break. We had one in South Texas that broke. Thankfully the FO was an aerobatic pilot and managed to save the airplane. Bad juju.

They changed the design on the NG to more robust flap tracks and drive. It can handle the higher air loads.

At our shop they’re on a “flaps are not a drag device” kick right now.

Forget that flaps one and speed brakes in a place like ATL on the downwind descent makes life easier for both us and the controllers. That’s fine. I’ll drag the gear if that’s what they really want,

 

[Ian_J]

Agreed on most, but I’m not a fan of flaps 1 over 230 kts. Use the speed brakes to bring it back to 230 first, or get the gear down. Some guys I fly with will call flaps 1 as fast as ~247-248 knots. Not necessary. If you truly feel you need flaps 1 at 248 kts, get the gear out. Or use the speed brakes.

What is it that you’re concerned about extending the flaps above 230? Structural load? Wear and tear? Airframe vibration?

Yeah. And I hope you (CC) keep quiet about what you’re a fan of or what you think isn’t necessary when it isn’t your leg. Nothing like having to learn the CA’s non-flight manual likes and dislikes every damn trip.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

As long as we’re discussing Captains likes and dislikes… whats up with FOs plowing into moderate turbulence at cruising speed? We get paid by the minute. Slow down to turbulence penetration speed. These things are 20+ years old and built by the lowest bidder. I’d rather not test their structural integrity.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Yeah. And I hope you (CC) keep quiet about what you’re a fan of or what you think isn’t necessary when it isn’t your leg. Nothing like having to learn the CA’s non-flight manual likes and dislikes every damn trip.

Really? If you’re “that” FO, then you should read the FH portion that says flaps 1 should be selected at up+10.


It’s poor form. If things are that bad you need flaps 1 at 248 knots, you should have caught it and fixed it earlier. Get the gear down, cause you’re probably gonna need it now.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You guys are allowed to do Flaps 15 landings in normal ops??



What is it that you’re concerned about extending the flaps above 230? Structural load? Wear and tear? Airframe vibration?

Yes we can.
Yeah, FH says excessive wear and tear on TE flaps.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

As long as we’re discussing Captains likes and dislikes… whats up with FOs plowing into moderate turbulence at cruising speed? We get paid by the minute. Slow down to turbulence penetration speed. These things are 20+ years old and built by the lowest bidder. I’d rather not test their structural integrity.

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.

 

[scooter2525]

POV this thread

 

[Inverted]

Forget that flaps one and speed brakes in a place like ATL on the downwind descent makes life easier for both us and the controllers. That’s fine. I’ll drag the gear if that’s what they really want,

Oh cool, our training departments are talking to each other lol!

AS is on a huge fuel savings kick. Single engine taxi is normal ops now, with a two-engine taxi obviously available if needed, but they are so concerned about fuel but I seriously wonder what the impact is to use the gear way too early, and do these momentary level offs as you get sequenced and vectored. These events happen hundreds of times a day and it may only be a half second of added fuel burn per plane per event but that adds up and it has to be impactful...

 

[Ian_J]

Really? If you’re “that” FO, then you should read the FH portion that says flaps 1 should be selected at up+10.


It’s poor form. If things are that bad you need flaps 1 at 248 knots, you should have caught it and fixed it earlier. Get the gear down, cause you’re probably gonna need it now.

Any chance that your FH (whatever that is) is specific to your shop?

If your “FH” says should be up + 10, I agree that should occur and you or the FO would have a written reference to back up that speed and setting. An arbitrary 230 is arbitrary.

Without written guidance, “poor form” is 100% your opinion backed up by nothing but your own little thoughts. Without written guidance other than flaps 1 limit at 250, 248 is absolutely fine. It may not mean “things are that bad.” It could mean the PF made a choice within the limits of the book.

A 737 book I’m familiar with gives no guidance for “preferred” flap speeds as opposed to placarded speeds. It does however allow the use of Flaps 2 by referencing the PFD flaps 2 maneuvering speed indication.

Do you see what I’m getting at?

 

[killbilly]

I’m not surprised, the lack of spacial awareness, configuration, etc is kinda shocking. You have to “think in 3D” with this job and all you need to know is your distance, speed, and alt to the runway. It’s not that hard.

Ok since you got me on a rant I see guys all the time can’t even fathom increasing airspeed in a descent gets you down quicker, then go to idle and level off for the speed restriction.

Maybe “energy management” isn’t really taught anymore?

This is the best flying thread we've had in a long time.

In my recent experience, energy management is sort of ancillary to a given lesson plan of the day. It was more focused on at the regional, but with so many 1500-hour wonders coming from piston singles and twins (of which I was one) the bits on energy management needed to be ENERGY MANAGEMENT because there was so much else we were trying to absorb. It's our job to do that, but now flying larger airplanes, I'm still having 'a-ha!' moments as I go that connect all the way back to flying the -145. This is a good thing, I think. It means learning is still occurring.

I was fortunate enough to at least have some introductory acro in my experience bag which gave me a bit of a visceral sense of how energy management works, but it's more subtle with a transport category airplane. That being said, scenarios around energy management flying the Canabus were pretty common in training, because she's a slippery, sexy bird that does not like to slow down without a bit of coaxing.

My sim partner introduced me to a very practical application of trading altitude for speed to meet a level off during training, on the ROBUC3 with a 150 knot tailwind. I knew the concept in theory, but to put it into play in a real scenario was a terrific lesson. And our company, in the 220, has been putting a LOT of emphasis on this concept lately and I felt really prepared to deal with this once I got on the line.

Counterpoint, where are you going to learn energy management in the airplane when 75% plus of the places you go, you’re getting slowed and vectored and stepped down by ATC anyway? And certainly the checking I mean training center ain’t gonna teach you. At least speaking for myself as an FNG, the only time I really got to play with it much was SE OE, and only because it was beautiful and clear. Oh and again as a Junior guy, half the time you’re coming out of back to back redeye transcons and the finer points of energy management take a back seat to “easy button”.

Yup. I've been making a point to note which legs are going to be more viable for that type of practice. If I've got a CA whom I sense is one willing to work with me, I'll specifically ask for those legs/scenarios so I can learn something - the key is that it's the right kind of CA for it.

If it's my leg, when I talk about PM duties, I always ask....."hey if you have any energy management tips or techniques in general, I'm all ears". Especially when we are going to somewhere new (for me). Every big airport has its nuances, and some of that corporate knowledge is part of the "energy management" topic. No plan works in a vacuum......ATC/outside factors have a vote too. And it's still a license to learn, always.

I actually enjoy the times when they throw you a turd ball with no notice. Other than gusty crosswind to contaminated short runway, it's about the only challenge we have in this corner of aviation.

Which brings me to this little anecdote - I finally had a really good day as a baby Canabus driver. Had a fantastic CA that I got along with, and I'd briefed that I wanted to hand fly the approach from the base (it was a looooonnnng base, and I wanted to do it earlier but stuff was super busy and I wanted to err on the side of caution) going into MSY, and he was cool with that. Approach had given us some lousy vectors and left us high (and alternately fast, then slow, then fast again) by the time they cleared us for the approach. I probably *should* have called for FD off, but I didn't, instead I just ignored it and flew it down (the lesson there is, the FD sucks in some scenarios, but I had @MikeD 's voice ringing in my ears the whole time, 'it's just an airplane, fly it, you don't need the stupid FD) and turned a sub-optimal setup into a stabilized approach and landing. I still had the ATs on, which I guess is "cheating" some, but working toward deleting those, too.

The CA was complimentary of how I handled it and damn, it felt good for the first time as I'm just now about 80 hours on the airplane and beginning to feel it right. A large part of being able to do that was that I've kept asking for guidance/coaching as a newbie. I wouldn't have done/tried that with *every* CA I've flown with, but this guy was a natural mentor and it has helped me a lot. I have so much to learn going forward, but this was a tiny little victory for me.

 

[Roger Roger]

I guess I don’t see the heartache about dangling the gear early, provided you’re not then leveling and driving along with it out. But I’m coming from an airplane where you couldn’t use ANY flaps with spoilers, so early gear was just another tool in the box.

 

[Inverted]

Really? If you’re “that” FO, then you should read the FH portion that says flaps 1 should be selected at up+10.

Can you tell me what page you found that on, because I can't find it.

The Flap section of the FH in normal ops basically says that Boeing logic for descents is speed brakes, then gear, then if you need to slow down it is flaps. Under approaches it talks about not using the flaps as speed brakes which I don't even know what that means...

Under flap extension schedule it really only says that flaps should be extended before going below the next flap extension schedule.

I do not see in the FH where it says what you said. I am sure it is buried in there but I don't see it. Regardless if it says it in the FH or not, the word "should" removes it from a limitation and in my mind, I will do it if I can but I won't lose a second of sleep calling for flaps 1 at 249kts and decelerating.

 

[Roger Roger]

Can you tell me what page you found that on, because I can't find it.

The Flap section of the FH in normal ops basically says that Boeing logic for descents is speed brakes, then gear, then if you need to slow down it is flaps. Under approaches it talks about not using the flaps as speed brakes which I don't even know what that means...

Under flap extension schedule it really only says that flaps should be extended before going below the next flap extension schedule.

I do not see in the FH where it says what you said. I am sure it is buried in there but I don't see it. Regardless if it says it in the FH or not, the word "should" removes it from a limitation and in my mind, I will do it if I can but I won't lose a second of sleep calling for flaps 1 at 249kts and decelerating.

The wonderful consistency of the training department strikes again, because there are definitely instructors out there who will criticize you for that. And when you’re an FNG to the plane that’s primacy, and as we all know from CFI theory primacy is hard to break.

 

[MikeD]

This is the best flying thread we've had in a long time.

In my recent experience, energy management is sort of ancillary to a given lesson plan of the day. It was more focused on at the regional, but with so many 1500-hour wonders coming from piston singles and twins (of which I was one) the bits on energy management needed to be ENERGY MANAGEMENT because there was so much else we were trying to absorb. It's our job to do that, but now flying larger airplanes, I'm still having 'a-ha!' moments as I go that connect all the way back to flying the -145. This is a good thing, I think. It means learning is still occurring.

I was fortunate enough to at least have some introductory acro in my experience bag which gave me a bit of a visceral sense of how energy management works, but it's more subtle with a transport category airplane. That being said, scenarios around energy management flying the Canabus were pretty common in training, because she's a slippery, sexy bird that does not like to slow down without a bit of coaxing.

My sim partner introduced me to a very practical application of trading altitude for speed to meet a level off during training, on the ROBUC3 with a 150 knot tailwind. I knew the concept in theory, but to put it into play in a real scenario was a terrific lesson. And our company, in the 220, has been putting a LOT of emphasis on this concept lately and I felt really prepared to deal with this once I got on the line.



Yup. I've been making a point to note which legs are going to be more viable for that type of practice. If I've got a CA whom I sense is one willing to work with me, I'll specifically ask for those legs/scenarios so I can learn something - the key is that it's the right kind of CA for it.



Which brings me to this little anecdote - I finally had a really good day as a baby Canabus driver. Had a fantastic CA that I got along with, and I'd briefed that I wanted to hand fly the approach from the base (it was a looooonnnng base, and I wanted to do it earlier but stuff was super busy and I wanted to err on the side of caution) going into MSY, and he was cool with that. Approach had given us some lousy vectors and left us high (and alternately fast, then slow, then fast again) by the time they cleared us for the approach. I probably *should* have called for FD off, but I didn't, instead I just ignored it and flew it down (the lesson there is, the FD sucks in some scenarios, but I had @MikeD 's voice ringing in my ears the whole time, 'it's just an airplane, fly it, you don't need the stupid FD) and turned a sub-optimal setup into a stabilized approach and landing. I still had the ATs on, which I guess is "cheating" some, but working toward deleting those, too.

The CA was complimentary of how I handled it and damn, it felt good for the first time as I'm just now about 80 hours on the airplane and beginning to feel it right. A large part of being able to do that was that I've kept asking for guidance/coaching as a newbie. I wouldn't have done/tried that with *every* CA I've flown with, but this guy was a natural mentor and it has helped me a lot. I have so much to learn going forward, but this was a tiny little victory for me.

Very nicely done here. At the end of the day, a plane just flies. Although, what it does when it’s flying, is directly related to the ability of the pilot in maintaining SA and staying ahead of it. And that’s where the trick is.

 

[Roger Roger]

Also, I already miss flying in Southeast . Airport in sight through 18, cleared for the visual, click click click click

Learning how to operate in busy airports/airspace is a good skill and it’s good to stretch oneself, but dang, I miss it

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Oh cool, our training departments are talking to each other lol!

AS is on a huge fuel savings kick. Single engine taxi is normal ops now, with a two-engine taxi obviously available if needed, but they are so concerned about fuel but I seriously wonder what the impact is to use the gear way too early, and do these momentary level offs as you get sequenced and vectored. These events happen hundreds of times a day and it may only be a half second of added fuel burn per plane per event but that adds up and it has to be impactful...

Do you guys have any 700s? I’ve noticed the 700s single engine taxi like you’re trying to drive through a swamp. It takes a TON of power.

I think I’ve tracked down the problem to different tires on the -700 vs the -800/Max. It has a softer sidewall. As a result I almost never single engine taxi in the. -700, where I will frequently do it in the 800 or Max.

 

[Roger Roger]

Do you guys have any 700s? I’ve noticed the 700s single engine taxi like you’re trying to drive through a swamp. It takes a TON of power.

I think I’ve tracked down the problem to different tires on the -700 vs the -800/Max. It has a softer sidewall. As a result I almost never single engine taxi in the. -700, where I will frequently do it in the 800 or Max.

We have a few, mostly used up in AK. But I guess they run around socal a bit too.