(Stupid) E-Jet questions

[PhilosopherPilot]

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KRDU/STAR/all/pdf

This is more what I am talking about. The system will always keep you at the top of the restriction and GAZER is always at 9,000 feet. So to meet the restriction at HARSH would you make GAZER 8,000 hard and let the speed bleed off in the 3 miles without the boards or would you use the boards? You mentioned passenger comfort.

Well, first of all, 1/2 flight spoilers aren't uncomfortable, and spoilers are there to be used, but that's a whole other discussion.

The Boston KRANN to 27 is pretty much the same. In calm winds it will make the restriction and speed at a 2.7 degree descent angle. In higher winds you just change the angle to 2.5 or less, and it should all work out. It doesn't always go to the top of the constraint, as it all depends on the angle you choose. You have to think ahead and be aware of your energy state, and program the box accordingly.

Now, making GAZER hard at 8000 is fine in this case because it's the same altitude as the final altitude, but that's doing the exact same thing as changing the angle of descent. Making GAZER hard isn't what I'm talking about. That's the same as creating a PBD fix 5 miles prior to slow down. It's all technique, and fine. I'm critical of making the altitudes hard when there are descents further along. That makes the plane level off, then descend again for no reason other than misunderstanding the system.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Everybody needs to just take a deep breath and stop using the term "boards".

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Everybody needs to just take a deep breath and stop using the term "boards".

Ha. "Flight spoilers." You happy?


There...I edited just for you.

 

[ClarkGriswold]

Well, first of all, 1/2 boards aren't uncomfortable, and boards are there to be used, but that's a whole other discussion.

The Boston KRANN to 27 is pretty much the same. In calm winds it will make the restriction and speed at a 2.7 degree descent angle. In higher winds you just change the angle to 2.5 or less, and it should all work out. It doesn't always go to the top of the constraint, as it all depends on the angle you choose. You have to think ahead and be aware of your energy state, and program the box accordingly.

Now, making GAZER hard at 8000 is fine in this case because it's the same altitude as the final altitude, but that's doing the exact same thing as changing the angle of descent. Making GAZER hard isn't what I'm talking about. That's the same as creating a PBD fix 5 miles prior to slow down. It's all technique, and fine. I'm critical of making the altitudes hard when there are descents further along. That makes the plane level off, then descend again for no reason other than misunderstanding the system.

This is exaclty what I am talking about! Planning, thinking, being a damn pilot. One size fits all does not fit in every scenario and that is what you are trying to promote by a setting it and forgetting it VNAV philosophy. Like I mentioned there are ways to double check what altitude fixes will be crossed and I utilize that to do this method thus creating a constant angle, and no changing the angle sometimes doesn't cut it. If you are smart about it changing SOME or 1 of the restrictions to hard will not create level offs, sometimes but in that case it's intentional. I am done with this convo because you are now saying pretty much what I am, or close enough.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

This is exaclty what I am talking about! Planning, thinking, being a damn pilot. One size fits all does not fit in every scenario and that is what you are trying to promote by a setting it and forgetting it VNAV philosophy. Like I mentioned there are ways to double check what altitude fixes will be crossed and I utilize that to do this method thus creating a constant angle, and no changing the angle sometimes doesn't cut it. If you are smart about it changing SOME or 1 of the restrictions to hard will not create level offs, sometimes but in that case it's intentional. I am done with this convo because you are now saying pretty much what I am, or close enough.

We are saying nearly the same thing, with the exception that I never advocate making altitudes hard. There are other methods that are more effective (90% of the time) and don't create negative learning situations for trainees. If you tell someone who barely understands VNAV to make one restriction hard, they can drift and eventually lose confidence in the system when it isn't smooth. Or worse, just start making all altitudes hard because "that's what my instructor taught me."

Now if you thoroughly understand the system and use that as a method I wouldn't debrief it. But I think it's really bad to advocate for that method without knowing the background and understanding the pilot has for VNAV. I would never teach it. It's just too likely to lead to misunderstanding later on.

In place of that, I would teach making a PBD fix a few miles prior to the speed restriction and slow there. (If the angle wasn't going to be sufficient by itself.)

 

[Nark]

I think you guys are also talking about two different aircraft, utilizing the same autopilot.

From what I've been told about the 190, is that it is much easier to handle in conjunction with the FMS. Whereas the 175/170 is constantly playing catch-up. Hence why @ClarkGriswold is advocating "futzing" with the VNAV profile. Where as, again so I'm told, the 190 will do just fine in that profile.

I haven't flown since epic load 23.1 so I'm not sure if the 175 flies the FREDM or KRAHN any better than when I did it last. By the sound of it, it doesn't.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

I think you guys are also talking about two different aircraft, utilizing the same autopilot.

From what I've been told about the 190, is that it is much easier to handle in conjunction with the FMS. Whereas the 175/170 is constantly playing catch-up. Hence why @ClarkGriswold is advocating "futzing" with the VNAV profile. Where as, again so I'm told, the 190 will do just fine in that profile.

I haven't flown since epic load 23.1 so I'm not sure if the 175 flies the FREDM or KRAHN any better than when I did it last. By the sound of it, it doesn't.

That's possible. I have no idea how the 175 performs.

 

[Kingairer]

190 does not slow nearly as well as the 170/175. The 2.5/2.7 Angle is what I typically programmed in and it worked great.

 

[RORO]

I'll look this up. I know that at or above is 11000A and below is 11000B. I think you maybe enter 13000B then enter 11000A to get a between constraint, but I'll have to double check.

We tried that. If you enter 13000B and then enter 11000A right after it kicks out the first altitude and leaves the one most recently entered. In this example, it would be 11000A.

Great discussion about VNAV btw, lots of good advice for people new to the airplane. Ultimately, fly the airplane and dont let it fly you.

 

[AAPalmTree]

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

We tried that. If you enter 13000B and then enter 11000A right after it kicks out the first altitude and leaves the one most recently entered. In this example, it would be 11000A.

Great discussion about VNAV btw, lots of good advice for people new to the airplane. Ultimately, fly the airplane and dont let it fly you.

I'll find out for you. I'm back in the sim next week.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Are you in MCO on the 6th?

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Are you in MCO on the 6th?

I finish at 1700 on the 5th. I'll be in MSY for a 30 hr overnight on the 10th. I get in late on the 9th. You guys overnight there too, right?

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Everybody needs to just take a deep breath and stop using the term "boards".

Speedbrakes.

Or (cat...) paddles.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I'm off from the 8th to the 13th. Guess I'll miss you this time.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

My ride on Compass has confirmed that my polarized lenses are no-go.

 

[PropDriver]

I have nothing to add to this VNAV discussion, but I discovered the option to turn on/off the Flight Summary print out that some planes do after landing.

 

[Kingairer]

We tried that. If you enter 13000B and then enter 11000A right after it kicks out the first altitude and leaves the one most recently entered. In this example, it would be 11000A.

Great discussion about VNAV btw, lots of good advice for people new to the airplane. Ultimately, fly the airplane and dont let it fly you.

what about enter 13000B enter that one. Then do the 11000A. It should work.

 

[surreal1221]

Man I wish you were IAD based. I'd do this every time you took a plane from me

Cause you would know when?

Filtering back down to ATL or running up to DTW? Or, dare I say - DFW?

If you get bounced to DTW, let me know - I'll swap ATL for DTW. Albeit, I think both of us are waiting for the next position notice and I know I can snag a DTW FO slot out of that. That is, if I am still unfortunate enough to be still be at XJT at that point.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Cause you would know when?

Filtering back down to ATL or running up to DTW? Or, dare I say - DFW?

If you get bounced to DTW, let me know - I'll swap ATL for DTW. Albeit, I think both of us are waiting for the next position notice and I know I can snag a DTW FO slot out of that. That is, if I am still unfortunate enough to be still be at XJT at that point.

Yeah. I'm definitely planning on DTW. Was planning on shooting for the end of the year being when I make the swap, but the position notice is rather elusive.

But in IAD I always check the flow board to see who I'm handing the plane off too. Everybody knows eachother up here so I like to see if sticking around would have me run into someone cool.