767-300 brakes question
08-24-2015 | 08:14 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 6
From: 777
Yeah, but with all the training and new people we have on the different fleets, we need perspective. Being skeptical about TK is a good start. The level of experience in a fleet is going down rapidly.
Drinking cool-aid from TK is not helping. People spouting TK doctrine here is misleading at best.
Drinking cool-aid from TK is not helping. People spouting TK doctrine here is misleading at best.
08-24-2015 | 09:07 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Capt.
I think one of the reasons there are so many concerns with tail strikes on the 737 is all the various makes and models that pilots fly.
All have different lengths and all have different landing characteristics. All give pilots a different sight picture.
Pretty soon, our pilots will be flying a combined fleet type of
B757 200 and 300
B767 300 and 400
Do we still have any tail strike concerns?
About a year ago I flew a 767 400. totally different feel and deck angle. I only get to fly one about once a year. Now I fly 767 300 about half the time. My landings in that fleet are pretty consistent, but when I go out and fly a 757 200 and a 300 it takes a few legs to get comfortable again.
I think it's all about the sight picture for me. I really like to keep a consistent deck angle as it helps me get a predictable touch down point. It is nice to be able to keep it in the touch down zone by helping me keep a consistent flare picture.
Not sure if the TK people are thinking about that, but the minimization of tail strikes, shorter roll outs/prevention of runway overruns, to me would be more prudent concerns than saving a few gallons of fuel.
We fly too many fleet types for this "technique" in my opinion.
All have different lengths and all have different landing characteristics. All give pilots a different sight picture.
Pretty soon, our pilots will be flying a combined fleet type of
B757 200 and 300
B767 300 and 400
Do we still have any tail strike concerns?
About a year ago I flew a 767 400. totally different feel and deck angle. I only get to fly one about once a year. Now I fly 767 300 about half the time. My landings in that fleet are pretty consistent, but when I go out and fly a 757 200 and a 300 it takes a few legs to get comfortable again.
I think it's all about the sight picture for me. I really like to keep a consistent deck angle as it helps me get a predictable touch down point. It is nice to be able to keep it in the touch down zone by helping me keep a consistent flare picture.
Not sure if the TK people are thinking about that, but the minimization of tail strikes, shorter roll outs/prevention of runway overruns, to me would be more prudent concerns than saving a few gallons of fuel.
We fly too many fleet types for this "technique" in my opinion.
757-200/300, 767-300, and 767-400?
08-25-2015 | 11:48 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
I'm no rocket surgeon, but I've been flying the 76T for 8 years. I land the 757 flaps 25 90% of the time. No A/B. It takes about .02-.03 less epr on tgt and I like the extra 1-1.5% nose up....increases my greases. I land the 767-300 flaps 30. No A/B. My goal is to not use the brakes till after the 80 kt call...if then. Try to get to the gate with 0s and 1s on the brake temps (depending on Cap taxi technique) 
. That's the game anyway....cheesy, but fun. Now throw in JAC, OGG, or ORD 27L (make C for the north port) and I improvise. Of note...the book says 763 brake temps of 3 and 4 are NORMAL RANGE.
. That's the game anyway....cheesy, but fun. Now throw in JAC, OGG, or ORD 27L (make C for the north port) and I improvise. Of note...the book says 763 brake temps of 3 and 4 are NORMAL RANGE.
08-25-2015 | 12:03 PM
#55
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
08-25-2015 | 12:07 PM
#56
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
Yes.
Previously flown B 757 200, 300, B 767 200 and 400 from L CAL as an FO.
Previously flown the same as a Captain, batted to B76T. Being batted back to B756 soon.
more experience with the carbon brakes. I really like them.
I wasn't aware that 3's and 4's were considered normal on the B767 300. Good info. thanks.
Previously flown B 757 200, 300, B 767 200 and 400 from L CAL as an FO.
Previously flown the same as a Captain, batted to B76T. Being batted back to B756 soon.
more experience with the carbon brakes. I really like them.
I wasn't aware that 3's and 4's were considered normal on the B767 300. Good info. thanks.
08-25-2015 | 01:45 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
I tried to use sarcasm but there seems to be a bit of "technique" battle going on here. Let's get a couple of things in front first.
1. The most basic goal of each landing is to safely get the airplane on the ground and stopped within the confines of the runway.
2. Boeing and Airbus both sell airplanes with a pitch of what the maximize load capability of their airplanes is capable of.
3. Most normal landings are not runway length limited.
4. Landing flaps and auto brake selection are determined based on economies and performance needs.
5. Runway short, wet, contaminated, MEL, equipment malfunctions, wind, WX, terrain considerations, and more are how pilots determine what to select.
6. Fuel use (and approach noise) is the last consideration by the Pilot in Command when deciding which flap and autobrake settings they should use.
7. There is no "blanket" or "one size fits all" methodology.
1. The most basic goal of each landing is to safely get the airplane on the ground and stopped within the confines of the runway.
2. Boeing and Airbus both sell airplanes with a pitch of what the maximize load capability of their airplanes is capable of.
3. Most normal landings are not runway length limited.
4. Landing flaps and auto brake selection are determined based on economies and performance needs.
5. Runway short, wet, contaminated, MEL, equipment malfunctions, wind, WX, terrain considerations, and more are how pilots determine what to select.
6. Fuel use (and approach noise) is the last consideration by the Pilot in Command when deciding which flap and autobrake settings they should use.
7. There is no "blanket" or "one size fits all" methodology.
08-25-2015 | 04:04 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
I tried to use sarcasm but there seems to be a bit of "technique" battle going on here. Let's get a couple of things in front first.
1. The most basic goal of each landing is to safely get the airplane on the ground and stopped within the confines of the runway.
2. Boeing and Airbus both sell airplanes with a pitch of what the maximize load capability of their airplanes is capable of.
3. Most normal landings are not runway length limited.
4. Landing flaps and auto brake selection are determined based on economies and performance needs.
5. Runway short, wet, contaminated, MEL, equipment malfunctions, wind, WX, terrain considerations, and more are how pilots determine what to select.
6. Fuel use (and approach noise) is the last consideration by the Pilot in Command when deciding which flap and autobrake settings they should use.
7. There is no "blanket" or "one size fits all" methodology.
1. The most basic goal of each landing is to safely get the airplane on the ground and stopped within the confines of the runway.
2. Boeing and Airbus both sell airplanes with a pitch of what the maximize load capability of their airplanes is capable of.
3. Most normal landings are not runway length limited.
4. Landing flaps and auto brake selection are determined based on economies and performance needs.
5. Runway short, wet, contaminated, MEL, equipment malfunctions, wind, WX, terrain considerations, and more are how pilots determine what to select.
6. Fuel use (and approach noise) is the last consideration by the Pilot in Command when deciding which flap and autobrake settings they should use.
7. There is no "blanket" or "one size fits all" methodology.
08-25-2015 | 04:24 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
Ugle
I'm very familiar with the FM and FOM and FAA requirements and why we must, not optional, are required to do things like pull up a runway performance for specific flaps and autobrake use. But when the FM says it is normal to use 25 flaps over 30 and autobrakes is that a "must" or "will" use or is it a policy and recommended instruction? The two are different.
I'm very familiar with the FM and FOM and FAA requirements and why we must, not optional, are required to do things like pull up a runway performance for specific flaps and autobrake use. But when the FM says it is normal to use 25 flaps over 30 and autobrakes is that a "must" or "will" use or is it a policy and recommended instruction? The two are different.
08-25-2015 | 05:31 PM
#60
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
From: B787 CA - SFO
Ugle
I'm very familiar with the FM and FOM and FAA requirements and why we must, not optional, are required to do things like pull up a runway performance for specific flaps and autobrake use. But when the FM says it is normal to use 25 flaps over 30 and autobrakes is that a "must" or "will" use or is it a policy and recommended instruction? The two are different.
I'm very familiar with the FM and FOM and FAA requirements and why we must, not optional, are required to do things like pull up a runway performance for specific flaps and autobrake use. But when the FM says it is normal to use 25 flaps over 30 and autobrakes is that a "must" or "will" use or is it a policy and recommended instruction? The two are different.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
