Slowing at/by 10K

[HS125]

I was with you until this last part.

"Bring the throttles up to make the runway"??

Most companies that have stabilized approach criteria including "Engines spooled" for a good reason.

If you're attempting to stay at idle all the way to the runway, I think you're setting yourself up for a situation where you might need some more power and it won't be there. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. I've never done that and I never would intentionally. I've flown with pilots that do it and I don't like it and I don't hesitate to let them know how I feel about it.

Idle to the marker or gear down perhaps is a nice goal for style points. Depends on how accomodating ATC is that day.

Go back an reread my original post! In the paragraph before the one you quote, I said that I stabilize the approach by 1,000 AGL. If I have to bring the throttles up at any point before 1,000 AGL to make it to the runway, or do unusual maneuvering to get to 1,000 AGL and stabilized, then I didn't plan the descent propperly. It's all energy management.

Not only is it for style points, it's the most fuel efficient.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Not sure what the previous three pages have said, but in ASA's POH it states.... Unless otherwise requested by ATC, deceleration should be accomplished in level flight. (4-22)

 

[AdlerDriver]

Go back an reread my original post! In the paragraph before the one you quote, I said that I stabilize the approach by 1,000 AGL. If I have to bring the throttles up at any point before 1,000 AGL to make it to the runway, or do unusual maneuvering to get to 1,000 AGL and stabilized, then I didn't plan the descent propperly. It's all energy management.

Not only is it for style points, it's the most fuel efficient.

Got it. I figured I didn't read it right - I was in a hurry.

The micro-manage control of ATC when flying in to most major airports seems like it would preclude you from accomplishing this very often. Probably doable at smaller, less controlled fields.

 

[HS125]

Got it. I figured I didn't read it right - I was in a hurry.

The micro-manage control of ATC when flying in to most major airports seems like it would preclude you from accomplishing this very often. Probably doable at smaller, less controlled fields.

ATC requirements make it difficult at most airports, but when you get to do it it's a lot of fun and challenging. However, when you go to some airports on a regular basis and learn the local ATC practices, you can modify your procedures to accomplish some of the same principles.

 

[pilot error]

so much easier in countries that say things like, "descend and maintain fl40, maintain 310 kts as long as practical".

 

[JFReservist]

along these lines...

Hold West - or anyone else
I was out your way a few days ago and coming in on the Opaca arrival. We were cleared below 10000 and there was some discussion as to the lack of speed restriction outside 12 miles from the coast line. Does anyone know offhand where can I find the rule about the no-250 speed restriction? By the way, do you ever clear military aircraft for the 'channel visual' to 8L?

Mahalo

 

[Hold West]

Hold West - or anyone else
I was out your way a few days ago and coming in on the Opaca arrival. We were cleared below 10000 and there was some discussion as to the lack of speed restriction outside 12 miles from the coast line. Does anyone know offhand where can I find the rule about the no-250 speed restriction? By the way, do you ever clear military aircraft for the 'channel visual' to 8L?

Mahalo

I'm at work now, I'll dig up the logic on >250 below 10,000 when I have a few minutes later.

I don't work HNL approach proper, but I was on a team a while back that worked on several things, amongst them was a proposed charted procedure for the channel visual. It never went anywhere for various reasons. Essentially the only ones that get cleared for the channel visual are local operators of non-heavy aircraft. Personally I think it would help everyone to chart it and let everyone that wants to play, since it's a big timesaver, and a noise saver as well. But that's just me....

 

[cheater1239]

this makes ecceding 250 below ten o.k.



Section 91.1: Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and §§91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with §§91.1 through 91.21; §§91.101 through 91.143; §§91.151 through 91.159; §§91.167 through 91.193; §91.203; §91.205; §§91.209 through 91.217; §91.221; §§91.303 through 91.319; §§91.323 through 91.327; §91.605; §91.609; §§91.703 through 91.715; and §91.903.

 

[Hold West]

this makes ecceding 250 below ten o.k.

Thanks, Cheater!

 

[Gorilla]

Gorilla,

When I first read this I thought you were saying you liked to maintain a constant rate-of-descent as selected on the MCP as you slowed to 250KIAS between 12K and 10K. The only way I could see this happening is if you were descending with power set well above idle which would be very fuel inefficient.

If already at idle the only way to slow to 250KIAS would be to decrease the rate-of-descent below that selected on the MCP by raising the nose until the selected speed is reached. When the selected speed is attained the nose will pitch down again to attempt to regain the selected V/S. Is that your technique?

A lot of check airmen I have encountered really don't like pilots to use V/S, especially below 10K, not only because of the lack of speed protection in V/S but more importantly because you can fly away from an altitude selected on the MCP in V/S. I believe there have been some accidents where pilots inadvertently flew into the ground using V/S with a higher altitude selected on the MCP.

You are correct, the profile I describe by definition cannot be an idle descent, and is not as fuel efficient as it could be. Sometimes we're forced to start down early, sometimes we choose to do it. All I was saying is that if it's possible, I like to keep pitch changes small and slow.

At least in a 737-800, ~2600 fpm V/S, idle power, will produce a steadily increasing airspeed up to about 320 knots at 14,000'. With the speed dialed back, which brings the throttles to idle, and the V/S set, it's still pretty efficient. The pitch is relatively fixed. At 14,000, I like to slowly bring the nose up, real slowly, and at maybe 1,000 fpm the A/S will bleed off nicely to 250.

It's just a stupid way I entertain myself. Going level change at 40,000' (VNAV idle descent isn't much better) imitates a submarine pretty well, prompting "AH OOOOOH GAH!" catcalls from the other seet. I just think V/S is smoother and I feel more in control of where the aircraft is going vertically.