"where in the book is flaps 10 not approved to be used"

If you don't want me to use flaps 10, go ahead and make the stupid decision to ban its use in the book except for takeoff in the max. Until then, I will use flaps 10 when appropriate. Saves company fuel because the gear isn't hanging out for 20-30 miles creating all that drag( bet that would reverse the company decision real quick if they did try to outright ban the use of flaps 2 and 10).

Had a similar issue at my regional. Each CKP had their own interpretation of how to follow the book and some had machoism going on. Doing a fed ride with one of my students with the company approved CKP to act like a fed in the jump for their upgrade fed ride. Coming into the airport, winds were gusting around 40 knots. We had the performance to land using flaps 22 and thus chose that configuration for better Vfe margin and performance in case of windshear( also in my opinion, flaps 22 also resulted in less drastic changes in thrust settings). Land no issues, fed ride passed. The acting fed puts on his CKP hat on and goes, " You know the book says the preferred config is flaps 45 right?" We go, " yes sir" cause cooperate to graduate, etc but FFS it says preferred, not required or shall. We also had CKP that believed that if you couldn't maintain 15 knots from the adjusted approach speed to Vfe of flaps 45 you shouldn't be a pilot( where the machoism comes in). Sure should we be able to do it if we had to? Sure, but if the conditions to use 22 is possible, why not increase the margins?

Our approach profile at the regional was set up to intercept the GS at the FAF which was not real world realistic. At least our profile isn't that rigid( only recommended to go gear down flaps 15 at 1 dot or NLT 2000').......

 

no. I agree. I just couldn’t believe it. Flaps 2.

 

Yeah I was mostly responding to that CKP through your reply. Why my question of where it is in the book being in quotes would have been my internal response to that CKP and relation of my regional with similar story in relation of interpretation of the book. That CKP took the "preferred" configuration to be flaps 45 as a requirement and the only way to stay compliant with the book.

Not that you were disagreeing with me.

I am sure I will eventually get debriefed on using VS to prevent false RA's or because I don't need to dive it down when only need to lose 500-1000' because they also emphasize use of VNAV or level change only.

 

During Covid they were cold calling, someone left me two messages. That's sketchy lol.

 

That's unworkable when they in a recent year had 741 applicants with 1000 hrs TPIC (some perhaps Caravan which didn't meet the intent of the requirement which really was SEL fighter or TPIC MEL) and hired 2211 pilots that year. Take out non transport category TPIC time, fighter time, figure out DL/UA/SW etc, etc were all getting the same candidates, and your requirement would have limited AA to 100-200 pilots that year?

 

Bingo. The ability to only fly in a canned situation is troubling. LIfe isn't like that. How about a partial speedbrake extension to smoothly, and gradually, get rid of the excess energy. Why bother with that when you can use full speed brakes and solve the slight above desirable energy state RIGHT NOW! ??

 

I love these 'rules'. I'd always tell guys to ask them where the it's written in writing? There's SOP's and techniques. Both have value but trying to make a personal preference a SOP isn't in the book.

 

AA has the weakest CKA requirements. 500 hrs as CA. F100 CA? You can now be a 777 CKA for the entire world. Get 100 hrs in type and you're a CKA. So IOE plus one month = CKA. Ugh. Never been outside the U.S.? That's okay...you've been a Captain for 500 hrs. :-( Most U.S. airlines require time in type (if available), usually 500 but some required 1000 hrs. Some required 500 or 1000 hrs in type.

Time in type helps. Doing other flying helps. It's like the pilots that think the world comes to an end if you exceed 250 kts below 10,000'. The world doesn't become flat if you do. Being afraid of the edge of the energy box is a poor knowledge base to have if you're teaching others.

 

Or at least have time in type. Plenty of 737 CA's have w/b experience. Upgrade to CKA on a plane they have FO experience on? IMO nothing wrong with that. Nothing beats having MD-80 CKA, who've only flown it domestically, become 777 CKA.

 

RSVM also says to not exceed 1000 FPM within 1000' of level off with traffic nearby. But if you mention VS at altitude they get cross-eyed - "but that removes your stall protection." Uh, dropping to 500 FPM has you concerned about stall protection?

Shoot, we had a RA to descend and the guy was more than 2400' above us. Diving from FL430 to FL340. Beats me how high above us he was when the RA was triggered. Controller afterwards - "sorry. I never expected him to descend 8000' in a minute."