Originally Posted by
maxjet
My question as a check airman would be why would you want to descend a a slower rate?
Simple. Most turbine aircraft are more efficient the higher they are. Higher TAS, less fuel flow. Plus, I can't count the number of times ATC has started me down from a perfectly smooth cruise altitude into lower altitudes that have chop.
Originally Posted by
maxjet
There is probably a reason why ATC is giving you a early descent or a descent of only a few 1000's feet.
Enroute, a lot of the times it's simply an LOA with the adjacent ARTCC that traffic (say inbound from New York Center to CLE or DTW via such and such STAR) get handed off at FL2X0. In these cases I always come down very gradually and have yet to hear anything about it.
Originally Posted by
Senior Skipper
If they ask what your vertical speed is, and you're only doing 600fpm, I'd take it as an indication that you need to do better, unless they state otherwise.
I've had many Captains tell me the controller "is trying to give you a hint." I've visited an ATC facility, and one myth quick put to bed was that controllers give 'hints' as opposed to instructions. If they need something, they will tell you. Once in a blue moon, my rate of descent is inadequate, in which case the controller will say, "at least 1500FPM till you're through FL270 for traffic," or "be level in 90 seconds or less." No biggie.
Originally Posted by
CEFO
We fly our aircraft the same way. 3.5 degree VNAV path. Seems a pretty common technique, although there are a folks out there who feel the need to start down imediately when you get a PD descent. Why waste the gas? Watch the crossing restrictions of course.
If not on profile, make it 500' a min until they ask for more. ATC makes mistakes too so dont be afraid to query them if you need or want to stay high or CANT make a restriction. Bottom line fly your aircraft, dont let atc take the controls.
Agreed. I'm not a company man, but I'm thinking about fuel conservation. You never know when you'll need it. A few months ago I flew with an FO who had a "we need to get down, we need to get down" approach to flying, and going into a less busy Canadian Airport, his vertical planning had him level at 3,000FT 40 miles from the field. Fuel flow was through the roof and TAS/GS were both pathetic. Added both fuel consumption and time to the flight. What was the point of that? My carrier wants to save gas by giving us less and less on each flight, but they really don't teach vertical planning at the schoolhouse. If they did, they might better realize their goals.