A320fumes

Just interested, Do guys at airlines besides CAL use constant rate, vert speed, descents or rely totally on vnav/flc for climbs & descents? Cal guys will know what I mean.

B757200ER

VNAV always for climb, usually for descent until 10,000 feet, then FL CH.

Unless you're only changing 1000/2000 ft in altitude, then V/S works great.

Typhoonpilot

At EK we do use the technique to reduce descent rate by using vertical speed in the terminal environment in order to maintain a continuous descent until established on the glidepath. Most European airports require CDA approaches only allowing a 1 mile level segment prior to Glideslope intercept.

FMS/VNAV can do it, but only if programmed properly and you are left on the STAR. Once you get onto vectors all bets are off and vertical speed is the best way to accomplish a CDA. Good control authorities will tell you track miles remaining so that you can calculate a good descent rate in order to accomplish the CDA.

It is possible to remain in FLCH HOLD and increase thrust to reduce descent rate, but it's not a very practical techique in the terminal environment as it takes far longer to set what you want. I would use that technique higher up in the descent in some cases, but generally like vertical speed better. But again, only to reduce descent rate.


Typhoonpilot

cactusmike

We use vnav for climb and descent while you are in lnav. On an off - path descent I use FLCH. V/S is useful as Typhoon pilot said, to establish a constant rate descent to slow down. It is also useful when you have some intermediate step downs without a lot of altitude loss involved. It minimizes the constant thrust changes you get, sort of like levelling off for ATC only to get the next altitude change just as the thrust levers come back. One other bonus with v/s is the green arc is more accurate in predicting where you will reach your descent point.

We are transitioning to vnav nonprecision approaches (shades of the managed approach in the 'bus). No more "dive and drive" approaches. We use vnav path with speed intervention. It works great.

ockham

I find that most pilots that have a certain desire to be smooth with the aircraft use vertical speed to transition between vertical modes of operation. A change of a couple thousand feet in vnav can be quite dramatic in terms of passenger comfort. The vertical speed mode can also smooth out the overcontrolling that certain ATC's seem to be so fond of (meaning stepping down 2,000 feet at a time).
That being said certain types of pilots should not get to far away from using Vnav. Flying has a certain amount of "art" involved and some are not blessed with the same brushes and eye for life's rich tapestry.

A320fumes

I would agree. The 75/76 is a wonderful aircraft, but using flc or vnav usually pulls the throttles back to idle, not smooth at all in most cases.

B757200ER

Remember, YOU control the aircraft, not the other way around. 'Smooth' is up to the pilot, and the 757/767 can be flown smoothly all day long, if you know what you're doing.

ockham

Smooth is in the eye of the beholder. What is one man's smooth would be judged to be a complete sky flail by another.

757Driver

Right on the money. Nothing worse than flying a red-eye and letting VNAV take you from 33,000 to 35,000. VSPD for climbs/descents at altitude for changes less than 3000 feet.

NGINEWHOISWHAT

Lazy pilots aren't smooth ... at least that's been my experience. The more a pilot cares about the ride he/ she gives the pax, that translates into a smoother ride and a better use of the automation. V/S for shorter climbs and descents. My mother hates to fly and I try to treat each flight as if she was riding in the back. In the terminal environment, however, all bets are off.

Tom