737 descent without speedbrake?

[Caveman]

Guppie,


I understand. Cheers......

 

[Snoopy58]

The CRJ will not descend at a decent rate (say at least 1500 fpm) and stay at 210 KIAS. My choices are: pick a slower descent rate, flaps, flight spoilers or some combination of the three. I choose spoilers. Why? Because I'm 30 knots faster than min clean and I don't need the flaps for safe maneauvering. When I level at 4000 I'll need less thrust to maintain speed and altitude clean than I would with flaps 8 or 20.

I agree that flaps would be a bad option for you, but why do you need to descend quicker than 1500 fmp??? If you get to your level-off altitude & have to push up power, you got there at least somewhat early; if it looks like you'll be droning at 4000' for a while, why hurry down with the S/B so you get there sooner only to then push up the power (sooner) & burn more gas? The 737 will only do about 1200 fpm at 210, or about 1600 at 250, and it's rare that we need to use speedbrakes in most terminal areas. Sometimes it happens, or sometimes it's useful (abeam the field at 10,000, cleared the visual #1), and cases like that toss out all the drag you got and play the speed & distance so you push up power for a stabilized approach but not miles sooner.

It's uncommon that ATC plans you (generic you, not you Caveman) into a corner that you have to use boards. If they're holding you high past your top-of-descent point, deal with it... go fast (the fuel's burned, but at least you get the speed) if you can, and if they want to make you high AND go slow all the way down, tell them that you may not be able to make the crossing restriction. They'll either waive the restriction, or the speed, or tell you to "do your best."

Or maybe you'll be #20 behind the guy who needs a 15 mile final fully configured... but not likely. ATC generally knows when they've goofed.

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

Why not just adjust rate of descent to maintain assigned or planned speed at flight idle?Plan your TOD based on that rate and ground speed..

Anything over 500 fpm is gravy according to ATC..Why give them more unless YOU need it?

Mike

 

[F/O]

Why would anybody use VNAV on the CIVET?? Save yourself a lot of grief and use V/S...and keep it niiiiice and smooth......

 

[Thedude]

Man I wish the controllers in the JFK area thought that anything over 500'fpm was gravy.

 

[English]

The use of speedbrakes is a crutch to cover for bad planning, either on ATC's or the pilot's part. It's bad form, IMHO. I learned when flying corporate that passengers hate it and are very uncomfortable with it. Now that I know that, I NEVER use them unless absolutely necessary. I think I've used them twice and hated every second of it. The 737 descends just fine under normal circumstances without them.

Now when I fly in the back on other airlines, I wince whenever the speedbrakes come out. Some guys actually add power with the speedbrakes out...I don't get it. I guess power management and efficiency are lost on some.

 

[80/20]

Most pilots want to glide down from cruise at idle without premature drag (speedbrakes). At the same time as they avoid getting down too early and burn extra fuel while dragging along at low altitudes. Some call the speedbrake handle “the lever of shame” or “pilot error correction handle”.

Many 737 pilots calculate top of descent with the 3X formula: Decent distance required is about 3 miles per 1000 ft. with 280 KIAS and no wind. Correct for wind by using +/-2 miles per 10 kts of tail/headwind. A completely programmed FMC with published arrival altitude restrictions, ISA deviations and winds at various altitudes will refine this even further through VNAV. VNAV also calculate the most economical profile by customizing climb, cruise and decent speeds through a number of sophisticated calculations. VNAV works fine as long as you don’t trust it 100%. Back VNAV up with the 3X formula and combine it with local experience of what ATC normally will give to anticipate and plan ahead to avoid getting too high. This will minimize the need for speedbrakes. MCP SPEED or V/S is better than VNAV if you have to make last minute changes. This will avoid the rollercoaster that F/O discussed. VNAV tends to slow down early below 10.000 ft - many pilots will delay flaps until they have to slow down in order to fly a stabilized approach.

There will still be times when you have done everything right and ATC keeps you up high too long. As MLBWINGBORN wrote you can always adjust your rate of descent if you are a bit high. Simply lower the nose, increase you forward speed and rate of descent. You can do this up to the clacker. The problems start when you have turbulence and must stay around 280 or get an ATC speed restriction. That’s when you say unable or plan to extend gear a bit early or use speedbrakes.

The speed brake will only increase the rate of descent by about 6-700 fpm at 250 and 8-900 fpm at 280. On NG with winglets, the speedbrake is so inefficient that Boeing had to include gear extension in the QRH emergency descent checklist.

 

[Thedude]

I really wished that people would not refer to the speedbrake as the handle of shame. Its just another tool in your bag of tricks. Refering to it in such a negative manner will and does cause newbies in the right seat to be hesitant to use it and the might feel is if they have failed in some way. I work for a 727 operator and coming into DFW we get/ask for short appraoches all the time. Thats means we are on downwind a 10,000' and they want us to turn a five mile final over the dam at 210kts or greater. Sure no problem. Two way to do ....start getting configured at 10,000 or pull the brake and stay clean until you line up. We prefer to stay clean...it keeps the speed up (ATC loves that part) and you dont have the flaps out there vibrating like they are about to come off.
But then again,I will have to say nothing beats proper planning. Since we dont have V-nav, auto-throttles, or any of that advanced wizz-bang stuff we do a lot of mental mathmatics. It can get real intersting sometimes. Like going from SAT-LAX with no area-nav equip (no gps) and the auto-pilot won't stay engaged. I never was very good at math but I tell you I have become quicker on tabulating descent profiles.

 

[80/20]

Thedude - I agree 100% with what you say. Most of the postings on this thread lead to the same conclusion: As long as you make a genuine attempt to fly economically there is no shame in using the speedbrakes to handle unanticipated changes. What is a shame, is to stay up high too long at your own choice and routinely use the speedbrake to compensate for personal lack of planning at the expense of your airline.
Talking abut first generation jets, Thedude, “Nintendo kids” without your round dial background sometimes relies too much on the FMS. Computers are not too smart and you may end up way too high if you don’t back up with good old airmanship.

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

Man I wish the controllers in the JFK area
thought that anything over 500'fpm was gravy.

While they may not like 500 fpm..There is nothing wrong with it under most circumtances..

As long as you are complying with the clearance YOU excepted or any other restrictions they may have asked for its no big deal..

In a Boeing 737-700 its very rarely an issue..210 = 1100 to 1200 fpm..250 =1500 to 1600 at flight idle..

The only time I might push the issue of 500 fpm is after theyve dumped me early and asked for a continued descent..I will roll in 500 fpm in the MCP and adjust power for.74/300 until I get back on profile..

Other than that.. Its flight idle descent planning and the speed brakes only if I cant figure out another way of energy managment..

If the box and I are close..I will keep the descent required numbers cross checked all the way down with my math..

If ive done my job and its starting to look like ive got less outs than I started with..I wont bat an eye when I reach for the lever..

One of the benefits ive gotten from flying Lears in both the cargo and passenger business is both an appreciation for and dislike of speed brakes..
Passengers hated them and I didnt like the large pitch change/stick forces needed to deploy them smoothly..

Night cargo was a whole different world. The things we did with Lears still makes me smile..Popping the boards and dumping the gear high and close was normal procedure..
Swapping the flaps for the boards on schedule and spooling at 500 was a thing of magic to those sitting on the jumpseat..

The difference between the two is the required operation and the operating enviroment..
One tolerated the boards less than the other..

As for SWA..If im working hard and its just not working out..The boards are required and the guy next to me isnt gonna slap my hand..Period..

If im asleep at the switch and I need them because im being stupid..
Hes gonna say something because im not doing my job..Not because Ive reached for the boards..

Mike

 

[LAXSaabdude]

The use of speedbrakes is a crutch to cover for bad planning, either on ATC's or the pilot's part. It's bad form, IMHO. I learned when flying corporate that passengers hate it and are very uncomfortable with it. Now that I know that, I NEVER use them unless absolutely necessary. I think I've used them twice and hated every second of it. The 737 descends just fine under normal circumstances without them.

Now when I fly in the back on other airlines, I wince whenever the speedbrakes come out. Some guys actually add power with the speedbrakes out...I don't get it. I guess power management and efficiency are lost on some.

Good point. I almost never use the boards on the EMJ. I plan my descents in VNAV at 3200FPM, and descend idle at about 3700FPM, which gives me a little lead time to initiate a smooth level off.

Someone was talking about the overuse of spoilers at Comair. One thing I have noticed at Eagle is a reluctance to use high descent rates from cruise, and an overuse of drag in the terminal area. I remember this back in the Saab, as well, very few wanted to descend more than 1000FPM, but would then have no problem hanging out full gear and flaps from 6000' to make the airport! Go figure!

LAXSaabdude.

 

[TIS]

Good grief people... !!!

They're on the airplane. They are a secondary flight control. Use them if you need them! So they make the airplane shake a little. TOUGH TURTLE! Get over it!

Didn't ANYONE LEARN TO FLY IN GLIDERS?

TIS

 

[TIS]

And one more thing...

...There was this discussion about the use of reversers earlier. English would do well to pay some attention to it. The use of speedbrakes depends on the airplane involved!

"The use of speedbrakes is a crutch to cover for bad planning, either on ATC's or the pilot's part."

Gee, that's nice! You try flying a G-IV in almost any ATC approach environment and tell me they ain't essential!

I know you probably don't think too much of us little guys flying corporate aircraft but I have two themes for you - 1:Corporate aircraft are part 25 too and, 2: you'd better be in either a 747-400 or a 777 before you tell me that your airplane is more to handle than a G-IV!

TIS

 

[LAXSaabdude]

No one is saying "don't use 'em". The point is, use them when you NEED them. For example, I spent an entire month flying with an FO who would pop the boards every single time he passed through 10,000 feet descending into ORD. It didn't matter that we were still over Lake Michigan, and ORD was in an east flow, this guy just HAD to get down to 7,000 right now! No "expedite" from ATC, no crossing restrictions, just descend and maintain. There was no need for this, it was just sloppy flying on his part.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[TIS]

You're right. No one says specifically, "Don't use 'em."

But it's IMPLIED all over the place. I went back through and found these quotes from all over the thread.

"As long as ATC doesn't screw you, you should never have to use the speed brakes."

"With proper descent planning and energy management you very rarely have to use them."

"As an old Cap'n on the DC9 told me (after smacking my hand), "That handle's only for when somebody screwed up son. If nobody screwed up, don't touch it!""

"There does, in fact, appear to be an "oldschool" belief that the use of speedbrakes is bad form. I got the hand-slap scars to prove it."


"Now that I know that, I NEVER use them unless absolutely necessary. I think I've used them twice and hated every second of it. The 737 descends just fine under normal circumstances without them."

And finally, there's this one:

"Now when I fly in the back on other airlines, I wince whenever the speedbrakes come out. Some guys actually add power with the speedbrakes out...I don't get it. I guess power management and efficiency are lost on some."


Once again, you're right. No one is saying that use of the speed brakes is a no-no but there is a WHOLE LOT of coercive chatter about how you shouldn't need to and you're a lazy pilot if you have to. My point was, and remains, that use of the speedbrakes is at least aircraft specific and is also often situationally specific. Trying to pin an operational philosophy on something as widely varied as the need for additional drag on any particular flight is not practical.

TIS

 

[TIS]

And yet another thing

In a couple of places folks have made reference to a rate of 500'/min as being what ATC expects when a descent clearance is issued. It is not correct that anything over this rate is "gravy!" ATC expects you to descend at a rate that's optimal for the aircraft and they have a list of aircraft and what each will do to use as a guideline.

There are two viewpoints from shich this must be seen. First, there is AIM Para. 4-4-9 (d), which says:

"d. When ATC has not used the term "AT PILOT'S DISCRETION" nor imposed any climb or descent restrictions, pilots should initiate climb or descent promptly on acknowledgement of the clearance. Descend or climb at an optimum rate consistent with the operating characteristics of the aircraft to 1,000 feet above or below the assigned altitude, and then attempt to descend or climb at a rate of between 500 and 1,500 fpm until the assigned altitude is reached. If at anytime the pilot is unable to climb or descend at a rate of at least 500 feet a minute, advise ATC. If it is necessary to level off at an intermediate altitude during climb or descent, advise ATC, except when leveling off at 10,000 feet MSL on descent, or 2,500 feet above airport elevation (prior to entering a Class B, Class C, or Class D surface area), when required for speed reduction.

REFERENCE-
14 CFR Section 91.117.

NOTE-
Leveling off at 10,000 feet MSL on descent or 2,500 feet above airport elevation (prior to entering a Class B, Class C, or Class D surface area) to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117 airspeed restrictions is commonplace. Controllers anticipate this action and plan accordingly. Leveling off at any other time on climb or descent may seriously affect air traffic handling by ATC. Consequently, it is imperative that pilots make every effort to fulfill the above expected actions to aid ATC in safely handling and expediting traffic."

Here's the link: http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html#4-4-9


The other viewpoint from which this must be understood is that of the controller who issues an altitude clearance. What a controller is told you will do when he issues a clearance is found in FAA Order 7110.65P - most often redferred to as the Controllers' Handbook. Para 4-5-7 (d) addresses he specific example of issuance of a clearance without any express or implied pilot discretion.

"EXAMPLE-
"United Four Seventeen, descend and maintain six thousand."

NOTE-
The pilot is expected to commence descent upon receipt of the clearance and to descend at the suggested rates specified in the AIM, para 4-4-9, Adherence to Clearance, until reaching the assigned altitude of 6,000 feet."

So, we're back to the AIM at least as far as we're concerned. However, that's not all that the controller has at his disposal. Appendix A of 7110.65P is packed full of aircraft information for controller reference. The figures are very enlightening since they are the only real guidance controllers have as to the performance of a particular aircraft type.

Here's a link to the page: http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Appendices/atcapda.html

Here's what it says a 737-300 can be expected to do in terms of performance:

Climb = 5,500'/min
Descent = 3,500'/min

Now, no matter what you think of these numbers they ARE what controllers think you will do. This is what controllers feel is optimal - for AIM purposes.

The last thing I wanted to stress is that you can't just loung aournd up there. When ATC issues a descent or a speed restriction you are expectd to comply with the instruction promptly. Simply pulling the power back and waiting four or five minutes for the thing to slow from 270 to 210 isn't gonna cut it. That's not timely compliance and it could mess a thing or two up.

Here's the reference from AIM 4-4-9:
"Leveling off at 10,000 feet MSL on descent or 2,500 feet above airport elevation (prior to entering a Class B, Class C, or Class D surface area) to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117 airspeed restrictions is commonplace. Controllers anticipate this action and plan accordingly. Leveling off at any other time on climb or descent may seriously affect air traffic handling by ATC. Consequently, it is imperative that pilots make every effort to fulfill the above expected actions to aid ATC in safely handling and expediting traffic."


There's a lot more to this but I'm outta time right now. I think I'll just sit back and see how this goes over.

TIS

 

[Cactus73]

There are times, especially in PHX/LAS that the boards work better than flaps.

Sometimes you are turning downwind and get cleared down to 6000 from 8000. You aren't sure what your sequence is yet but you want to slow to 210 and start getting down if you going to get the visual without delay. If you use flaps you run the risk of flying a 20 mile downwind at flaps 1 or 5.

At AWA, our flap speed is 210 or slower for any flaps.

What I have found is that spoilers with more than flaps 5 are useless and full spoilers just shake the heck out of the airplane.

Sometimes just a little bit of spoiler at 210 knots gets you down and lets you figure out your sequence before getting dirty.

LAX is a whole different story. Coming from LAS you are filed on the Civit 25L. Often times they will change you to the Mitts right on top of Civit and then ask for 210 knots or less. Can't throw out the flaps until 210 knots and you really don't want the gear hanging out over Ontario. So the boards come out.

The boards should be used, just not all the time. There are times for them and times when guys just get trigger happy and pull them for no reason.

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

TIS..

As you can see the AIM is very non specific about what is a required rate..In fact there is none unless its been assigned or less than 500 FPM with the required report..


What is optimum for one aircraft or carrier may not work at all for others..
What is optimum for me is any rate that helps me maintain or reaquire my companys or aircrafts profile for optimal performance..

The AIM clearly spells that out in both its not mentioning of any specific rates required and the use of the word optimal..

Optimal for who?ATC or my aircraft?
Optimal for what circustances?

The published rates for the 737 are at best the max possible and not optimal for daily operation of the aircraft on the line..

A controller that plans on a loaded 737-300 making 5500 fpm on a regular basis is not working traffic on this planet..

And if he asks for 3500 fpm descent I would be sure to ask why..

A rate this high isnt anywhere near any published profile ive seen and no where near the one my company pays me to fly..

They can ask for alot of things from the safe confines of a cool dark room wearing jeans and a Polo shirt..

But our job is to decide what is optimal for the circumstances we find our aircraft in.

Not the circumstances they find themselves in..

Mike

 

[F/O]

One of the benefits ive gotten from flying Lears in both the cargo and passenger business is both an appreciation for and dislike of speed brakes..
Passengers hated them and I didnt like the large pitch change/stick forces needed to deploy them smoothly..

Is there really ANY way to deploy them smoothly? The spoilers on a Lear are truly a terribly designed system. I always wondered why there wasn't a neutral "off" position in addition to extend and retract so you could just crack them a bit...

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

Is there really ANY way to deploy them smoothly? The spoilers on a Lear are truly a terribly designed system. I always wondered why there wasn't a neutral "off" position in addition to extend and retract so you could just crack them a bit...

Yes..With lots of practice you can..

As you may well know,the stick forces required to deploy smoothly vary greatly with speed..
Guys with lots of Lear experience can do it well enough so as not to feel the change in pitch..

At one point I was pretty good at it and could get them out without pinning people to the roof..
But..Even as smooth as I could be they never liked the noise.

All corperate jets of that era had pretty much the same design for spoilers..On/Off..

Only later were we able to modulate spoilers or have nice things like lift dump similar to the HS-125 or CL-601..

Mike

 

[TIS]

Hey MLBWINGBORN, don't shoot the messenger!

MLBWINGBORN

You may not agree with what the controllers have in their handbook about what we can or cannot do but you DO have to live with it. You see, it's the ONLY thing they have upon which to base their decisions about how to handle IFR traffic (other than experience, which can't be counted upon with less than fully qualified controllers), and because it's published, a judge can read about it. If a controller winds up testifying that he thought you were going to handle the airplane a particular way based on the only published guidline he has for assuming such, the judge will read the same thing the controller read and turn to you with some tough questions to answer.

I'll bet you believe, as we are all taught, that you have the entire runway when you're cleared to land, don't you? Well, I've got some bad news for you. You don't! I'll bet you didn't know that pilots have been sucessfully violated on a 91.23 (failure to adhere to ATC instrcutions) because they did not make a turnoff from a runway they were told to make? It's true. It's happened several times and the reason it's happened is because controllers have it in their book that we should only need the first two-thirds of the runway to land. They are told this so that they have a guideline to help them with runway spacing decision-making.

So you see, there's a problem that can arise from the difference between what pilots are taught about handling airplanes and what controllers are taught about handling airplanes. In this scenario, the result is that if you're not off the runway, or if it's apparent that you won't be and they need you off because of their planning, they'll start barking at you to keep it moving. If you don't do it and it creates a conflict, they're going to offload their troubles on you for failure to comply.

It doesn't matter what you do or do not know about their book once it goes to court. The judge will determine that, as with many situations in which supervision is required, sometimes there isn't time to ask 'why'. You must simply comply and ask questions later. The FAA lawyers will have a very easy time proving that you didn't comply and that's all it takes to lose.

I say all this to make the point that you might not like what ATC expects, or the basis upon which they rest their assumptions, but the FAA lawyers WILL hang their collective hats on things that you do not know if it makes a difference in whose face the egg winds up on.

I can tell you that if you try to tell a center controller that the optimum rate of descent for your 737 is 500'/min., no matter what the circumstances are, when you're asked why the slow descent rate it's not gonna be accepted. I can also tell you that if a conflict results from YOU not doing what the controller knows he can reasonably expect, you're going to get a phone number to call about a possible 91.23 pilot deviation. Rates in excess of 500'/min are, therefore, not simply "gravy."

If you truly need to descend at a rate like that then you need to advise the controller. Now you might not think so because it's not an expressly required report per the regualtions. It is however, an implied required report. It comes under the catch-all heading of "pertinent to the safety of flight," which you ARE required to report . The term 'safety of flight' HAS been legally interpreted so that it can apply to things occurring outside YOUR airplane. In other words, safety of flight isn't just about YOU and you must anticipate the probable effect of your handling of the aircraft if that handling differs significantly from what is normal. What's normal may well come down to expert testimony in court but is that realy where one wants to end up? If you're doing something unusual or if your operating requirements might affect the way ATC plans your handling, you need to let them know - it's just common sense.

I know you and probably quite a few other people out there will see this as splitting hairs. Fine. See it that way. It doesn't make the assertion that it's completely up to you how you operate the aircraft any more true. There ARE times when the phrase, "Work with me here," applies to the pilot.

As a PIC your job is to operate the aircraft safely. A controller's job is to keep aircraft far enough apart to meet safety standards. When those two jobs are at odds it does not relieve you of your responsibility to work with the controller so that both jobs ARE done without conflict. In other words, it's not your job to dig in your heels and isolate your job from his.


TIS

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

MLBWINGBORN

You may not agree with what the controllers have in their handbook about what we can or cannot do but you DO have to live with it. You see, it's the ONLY thing they have upon which to base their decisions about how to handle IFR traffic (other than experience, which can't be counted upon with less than fully qualified controllers), and because it's published, a judge can read about it. If a controller winds up testifying that he thought you were going to handle the airplane a particular way based on the only published guidline he has for assuming such, the judge will read the same thing the controller read and turn to you with some tough questions to answer.

I'll bet you believe, as we are all taught, that you have the entire runway when you're cleared to land, don't you? Well, I've got some bad news for you. You don't! I'll bet you didn't know that pilots have been sucessfully violated on a 91.23 (failure to adhere to ATC instrcutions) because they did not make a turnoff from a runway they were told to make? It's true. It's happened several times and the reason it's happened is because controllers have it in their book that we should only need the first two-thirds of the runway to land. They are told this so that they have a guideline to help them with runway spacing decision-making.

So you see, there's a problem that can arise from the difference between what pilots are taught about handling airplanes and what controllers are taught about handling airplanes. In this scenario, the result is that if you're not off the runway, or if it's apparent that you won't be and they need you off because of their planning, they'll start barking at you to keep it moving. If you don't do it and it creates a conflict, they're going to offload their troubles on you for failure to comply.

It doesn't matter what you do or do not know about their book once it goes to court. The judge will determine that, as with many situations in which supervision is required, sometimes there isn't time to ask 'why'. You must simply comply and ask questions later. The FAA lawyers will have a very easy time proving that you didn't comply and that's all it takes to lose.

I say all this to make the point that you might not like what ATC expects, or the basis upon which they rest their assumptions, but the FAA lawyers WILL hang their collective hats on things that you do not know if it makes a difference in whose face the egg winds up on.

I can tell you that if you try to tell a center controller that the optimum rate of descent for your 737 is 500'/min., no matter what the circumstances are, when you're asked why the slow descent rate it's not gonna be accepted. I can also tell you that if a conflict results from YOU not doing what the controller knows he can reasonably expect, you're going to get a phone number to call about a possible 91.23 pilot deviation. Rates in excess of 500'/min are, therefore, not simply "gravy."

If you truly need to descend at a rate like that then you need to advise the controller. Now you might not think so because it's not an expressly required report per the regualtions. It is however, an implied required report. It comes under the catch-all heading of "pertinent to the safety of flight," which you ARE required to report . The term 'safety of flight' HAS been legally interpreted so that it can apply to things occurring outside YOUR airplane. In other words, safety of flight isn't just about YOU and you must anticipate the probable effect of your handling of the aircraft if that handling differs significantly from what is normal. What's normal may well come down to expert testimony in court but is that realy where one wants to end up? If you're doing something unusual or if your operating requirements might affect the way ATC plans your handling, you need to let them know - it's just common sense.

I know you and probably quite a few other people out there will see this as splitting hairs. Fine. See it that way. It doesn't make the assertion that it's completely up to you how you operate the aircraft any more true. There ARE times when the phrase, "Work with me here," applies to the pilot.

As a PIC your job is to operate the aircraft safely. A controller's job is to keep aircraft far enough apart to meet safety standards. When those two jobs are at odds it does not relieve you of your responsibility to work with the controller so that both jobs ARE done without conflict. In other words, it's not your job to dig in your heels and isolate your job from his.


TIS

TIS..

While you are a master at cut and paste..those skills pale in comparison to your ability to take completely out of context even your own example of FAR violations..
Your continued suggestion that someone is "shooting the messenger" shows much of what is behind your postings..
A strong..even to a fault.. desire to make a point to the masses..And those that may disagree with you are thought of as attackers of your cause.."Shooting the messenger"as it were..

I suspect that much time is spent looking for the gross wrongs that only you seem to understand and the rest of the world very often dosent get your "point"..

Good luck with your search..Fight the good fight..

Mike

 

[skydraulic]

The Dunlops are the best to slow down if you have to in a hurry. Otherwise, not to often. Previous posts on planned descent are pretty much right on, in using the vnav.

I think they're Michelins.

Dunlops, Michelins, Goodyear...doesn't matter what the name, they're all still made in Mexico