Flightradar 24

Pfft.

You know you’ve arrived when you have a personal callsign. Not Goose or any of that homoerotic shite, a proper one, name and number.

Mine was ASTEL 39.

Mahoosive set of balls.

I was working at Air Service Training.





















Teaching Air Cadets On Cessna 150s.:lick:
Hawk 556. I was even a weapons grade **** back then :)
 
I was Aaron 500. I still use it now when I'm on Peleton.
 

Ritch

LE
@Toastie - I'm trying to find a straight answer about jet aircraft climb rates. I know they differ per aircraft and load etc but what's the average climb rate for a 787?
 
@Toastie - I'm trying to find a straight answer about jet aircraft climb rates. I know they differ per aircraft and load etc but what's the average climb rate for a 787?
A piece of string.

So many variables. Can you give me a bit more?
 
A piece of string.

So many variables. Can you give me a bit more?
If asked they can give you 5k per minute on a normal scheduled pax flight :)
 

Ritch

LE
A piece of string.

So many variables. Can you give me a bit more?
It's nothing major. I'm just using that flight sim on Android that I was telling you about and when departing, I stick a 2000-2500ft per minute climb rate on and wondered if that was representative. Most commonly flying wide-bodies on long-haul with plenty of pax and gas.
 
It's nothing major. I'm just using that flight sim on Android that I was telling you about and when departing, I stick a 2000-2500ft per minute climb rate on and wondered if that was representative. Most commonly flying wide-bodies on long-haul with plenty of pax and gas.
Sounds about right. Approach is 750 fpm for a 3 degree approach at c140 kts
 

Ritch

LE
Sounds about right. Approach is 750 fpm for a 3 degree approach at c140 kts
Cheers, much appreciated.

The approach...well 750 is a bit too shallow for what I've been able to pull off...

I did an approach into LAX in a 747-400 and the after report told me it was a 6000fpm approach. Oops.
 
Cheers, much appreciated.

The approach...well 750 is a bit too shallow for what I've been able to pull off...

I did an approach into LAX in a 747-400 and the after report told me it was a 6000fpm approach. Oops.
Rate of decent at a given angle is a function of ground speed. I reckon if you take your foot off the gas and stop flying approaches at Mach 9 things will settle down a bit.

Have a cut out and keep:

7F2D2EA5-9171-4011-9C50-922A2363C9AA.jpeg


This is for a standard 3 degree glide path. At a ground speed of 140 knots you need to have an RoD of 740 fpm and from 4 miles finals to the Missed Approach point will take you 1 min 42 secs.

To get 6000 fpm you were flying at roughly 1200 knots.

Fail.
 
Last edited:
As per the article, it belongs to OSR and is retrofitted with spray kit to spray oil dispersants on spills. It requires operation at low altitudes so the dispersants don’t, er, disperse. It’s a fun type of flying but the endless hours on standby don’t appeal.

In years gone by it was done by Air Atlantique using Dakotas. I went for a job there and did a Flight with them which meant doing low level runs requiring a climb at the end of the run to turn round without sticking the wingtip in the oggin.........

My skills weren’t up to it so early in my career (and probably still aren’t).

Here’s the OSR 727 at Farnborough:

 
I’ve been doing a bit of research on this Rate of Climb (RoC) thing and there’s no published data in our Performance Manuals*.

This doesn’t surprise me as we usually fly a speed that the system computes as the most economic compromise between covering ground and climbing. We want to climb as fast as possible as climbing burns more fuel as does being lower down as jets are most efficient at altitude. The offset of that is if you climb very steeply it’s uncomfortable for passengers and you’re very slow so it takes you longer to get to faster, more efficient speeds, hence the compromise speed / RoC known as ECON Climb Speed.

People like @exbluejob try and bugger it up by asking us to increase rates of either climb or descent because they can’t be arsed to move people so they get us to do their job for them. Generally we achieve this by tutting and then either reducing speed to increase RoC or increasing speed to increase RoD (descent). Gravity works. They then getting really dickish and say increase your rate of descent and reduce speed at which point we’d stick the speed brake out and ask them which do you want because we can’t do both. Newton refers.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying “fly at a given speed and you’ll get whatever you get in terms of uppy downy stuff”.

* The only reference I could find for a given RoC is for still being capable of a 100fpm climb with one engine failed and the gear down. We’d use this if we had to land in a hurry after take off and had an engine out and couldn’t / didn’t want to retract the gear. This is vanishingly small likelihood stuff but if you’re taking notes, the 787-9 is capable of maintain 1800’ and climbing at 100fpm at a weight of 200 tonnes and an air temperature of 25C. You need the 100fpm bit so that if you get low on the subsequent approach you can crawl back up into the descent path.

To put all of that into perspective, a 200T take off weight would take a full load to Maylasia+. Unless we were actively on fire we’d just dump fuel before trying a landing and even then, you’d bring the gear up which would hugely reduce drag and massively improve the above figures. We are given them so we are aware of where the absolute limit is, I can’t conceive of any circumstances bar an out of control fire and the loss of gear control systems simultaneously where we’d go anywhere near that.

I’m off out to get a life now.
 
I’ve been doing a bit of research on this Rate of Climb (RoC) thing and there’s no published data in our Performance Manuals*.

This doesn’t surprise me as we usually fly a speed that the system computes as the most economic compromise between covering ground and climbing. We want to climb as fast as possible as climbing burns more fuel as does being lower down as jets are most efficient at altitude. The offset of that is if you climb very steeply it’s uncomfortable for passengers and you’re very slow so it takes you longer to get to faster, more efficient speeds, hence the compromise speed / RoC known as ECON Climb Speed.

People like @exbluejob try and bugger it up by asking us to increase rates of either climb or descent because they can’t be arsed to move people so they get us to do their job for them. Generally we achieve this by tutting and then either reducing speed to increase RoC or increasing speed to increase RoD (descent). Gravity works. They then getting really dickish and say increase your rate of descent and reduce speed at which point we’d stick the speed brake out and ask them which do you want because we can’t do both. Newton refers.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying “fly at a given speed and you’ll get whatever you get in terms of uppy downy stuff”.

* The only reference I could find for a given RoC is for still being capable of a 100fpm climb with one engine failed and the gear down. We’d use this if we had to land in a hurry after take off and had an engine out and couldn’t / didn’t want to retract the gear. This is vanishingly small likelihood stuff but if you’re taking notes, the 787-9 is capable of maintain 1800’ and climbing at 100fpm at a weight of 200 tonnes and an air temperature of 25C. You need the 100fpm bit so that if you get low on the subsequent approach you can crawl back up into the descent path.

To put all of that into perspective, a 200T take off weight would take a full load to Maylasia+. Unless we were actively on fire we’d just dump fuel before trying a landing and even then, you’d bring the gear up which would hugely reduce drag and massively improve the above figures. We are given them so we are aware of where the absolute limit is, I can’t conceive of any circumstances bar an out of control fire and the loss of gear control systems simultaneously where we’d go anywhere near that.

I’m off out to get a life now.
If I remember correctly the only stated RoC in any document I have ever seen is the requirement to achieve such that 300ft/mile is achieved on climbout.
 
People like @exbluejob try and bugger it up by asking us to increase rates of either climb or descent because they can’t be arsed to move people so they get us to do their job for them. Generally we achieve this by tutting and then either reducing speed to increase RoC or increasing speed to increase RoD (descent). Gravity works. They then getting really dickish and say increase your rate of descent and reduce speed at which point we’d stick the speed brake out and ask them which do you want because we can’t do both. Newton refers.
We only do it to give us a sense of power (and control) ;-) Actually it's quite rare to ask civil to give you a good rate or expedite descent. Once you climb out on the SID we generally know what type of performance to expect, airbus were particularly slow around 300' per minute. Military aircraft (I'm talking 20 years ago when I had a licence) we would ask all the time, particularly Harriers returning from Wales to Wittering as they were quite high passing through the airways and needed to get down quickly on the other side. Although turning the aircraft on its back and ploughing straight down was eventually frowned upon as the radars couldn't keep up with the mode C height and no one knew what level they were actually at.
I once had a pair of F15 climbing and asked them to give me a good rate, which they did but they actually stopped moving forwards which wasn't what I actually wanted!

Edited to add - Of course you know why you have to reduce speed on approach. There used to be a bit of back chat on Heathrow diector (in particular) about what speed they were doing. Until Mode S came in and we could see what speed was input to the FMS, gotcha!!
 
If I remember correctly the only stated RoC in any document I have ever seen is the requirement to achieve such that 300ft/mile is achieved on climbout.
Yeah, Perf A.

Ditto Missed Approach
 
We only do it to give us a sense of power (and control) ;-) Actually it's quite rare to ask civil to give you a good rate or expedite descent. Once you climb out on the SID we generally know what type of performance to expect, airbus were particularly slow around 300' per minute. Military aircraft (I'm talking 20 years ago when I had a licence) we would ask all the time, particularly Harriers returning from Wales to Wittering as they were quite high passing through the airways and needed to get down quickly on the other side. Although turning the aircraft on its back and ploughing straight down was eventually frowned upon as the radars couldn't keep up with the mode C height and no one knew what level they were actually at.
I once had a pair of F15 climbing and asked them to give me a good rate, which they did but they actually stopped moving forwards which wasn't what I actually wanted!

Edited to add - Of course you know why you have to reduce speed on approach. There used to be a bit of back chat on Heathrow diector (in particular) about what speed they were doing. Until Mode S came in and we could see what speed was input to the FMS, gotcha!!
Don’t know what Sectors you work but it’s common for requests to change rate in and out of Manchester.

Mode S is arse. ISTR that we get +/- 5 kts so we don’t have to put flap out for the sake of say 2 kts. When Mode S first came out there were a few (I suspect) ex East German ATCers who get quite animated if we didn’t select exactly what we’d been given on the Mode Control Speed. To be fair, it was only a few and the overwhelming majority get that we are all on the same side.

The yanks can be difficult sometimes. We go to Sanford near Orlando and the place is swarming with light aircraft. TCAS looks like an advert for acne treatment with all the yellow dots and they push really hard to offload us from radar vectors to go visual.

Fuck off, it’s a 787 not an F16.
 

Ritch

LE
Rate of decent at a given angle is a function of ground speed. I reckon if you take your foot off the gas and stop flying approaches at Mach 9 things will settle down a bit.

Have a cut out and keep:

View attachment 438620

This is for a standard 3 degree glide path. At a ground speed of 140 knots you need to have an RoD of 740 fpm and from 4 miles finals to the Missed Approach point will take you 1 min 42 secs.

To get 6000 fpm you were flying at roughly 1200 knots.

Fail.
I can't quite believe it myself but I have been flying like normal (well, I'm not a pilot but I reckon it's normal). I've been on autopilot, following the waypoints set in and end up on approach, where you select approach and then you take over on the controls a few miles from landing. In the mentioned case of me achieving a respectable 6000fpm descent, I was only doing 140 knots. So I've either bent the laws of physics or the Sim is broken. :D
 

Ritch

LE
As per the article, it belongs to OSR and is retrofitted with spray kit to spray oil dispersants on spills. It requires operation at low altitudes so the dispersants don’t, er, disperse. It’s a fun type of flying but the endless hours on standby don’t appeal.

In years gone by it was done by Air Atlantique using Dakotas. I went for a job there and did a Flight with them which meant doing low level runs requiring a climb at the end of the run to turn round without sticking the wingtip in the oggin.........

My skills weren’t up to it so early in my career (and probably still aren’t).

Here’s the OSR 727 at Farnborough:

It's often flying over my head in Sheffield on its approach to Doncaster Robin Hood. It has such a different sound that I can hear it and immediately recognise it.
 
We only do it to give us a sense of power (and control) ;-) Actually it's quite rare to ask civil to give you a good rate or expedite descent. Once you climb out on the SID we generally know what type of performance to expect, airbus were particularly slow around 300' per minute. Military aircraft (I'm talking 20 years ago when I had a licence) we would ask all the time, particularly Harriers returning from Wales to Wittering as they were quite high passing through the airways and needed to get down quickly on the other side. Although turning the aircraft on its back and ploughing straight down was eventually frowned upon as the radars couldn't keep up with the mode C height and no one knew what level they were actually at.
I once had a pair of F15 climbing and asked them to give me a good rate, which they did but they actually stopped moving forwards which wasn't what I actually wanted!

Edited to add - Of course you know why you have to reduce speed on approach. There used to be a bit of back chat on Heathrow diector (in particular) about what speed they were doing. Until Mode S came in and we could see what speed was input to the FMS, gotcha!!
I did my IREs course with the CAA on an HS125 sim at Gatwick. The sim was owned and operated by a chap called Tony Angel (RIP) and he was renowned for his background humorous chatter during the long airways sectors. This was my favourite when he was playing London Control.

“Pan Am 123 (yes it was that long ago) that’s the second time you have changed speed without calling. What will be your eventual speed?”

“Well sir I guess my eventual speed will be zero”
 

Top