All I can say is: listen to LiveATC.net at NYC or Heathrow, and listen to the 747s going long-range. You'll find many are cleared faster than 250 below 10000 ft.

 

FYI Concorde was not supposed to be given special handling - it just happened that way. There were times she was kept slow for spacing.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

I just explained why. By restricting traffic to a specified speed you can actually increase the number of aircraft that can be handled in a specified piece of airspace.

 

I don't know your background scandinavian13 but your post is crap

 

Craig,

I currently work with the FAA on traffic flow management, have been in the ATC ring (and currently work closely with them), and I'm a pilot. How is my post a load of crap?

 

First, I note you're from Australia. Since I quoted the FARs, I'm not addressing Australia at all. If you're calling my posts crap because I'm not mentioning Aussie rules, then you're a little off base. My post never purported to address anything outside of the US (otherwise, I would've cited other rules).

 

Second, nowhere in the 7110.65 does it say ATC can waive the FARs. In fact, it states quite the opposite in Section 7. You'll note that there are no provisions in that language to waive the requirements of 91.117. Furthermore, to my point that pilots do not need to report, 5-7-2 Note 1 states "Pilots are expected to comply with the other provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.117 without notification." ATC does not operate by a separate set of rules. They still must abide by the FARs.

 

Third, I understand fully what the 250/10 restriction is all about. What the rule is intended to accomplish isn't the issue. The issue is the exception provided by 91.117d, and unless you have a valid point against it in the FARs, there's no point in continuing to quote the theory behind the rules.

 

If you want to throw down about rules and regulations pertaining to operations in the United States, you've really picked the wrong person...

 

Actually, it is ultimately up to ATC. If they clear you faster, you can do it. You need to request it. If ATC deny it, you can't do it. This even applied to Concorde! 250 kts unless cleared faster (then she flew at 400 kts below 10000 ft after clearance!).

 

If you're talking outside of the US, sure. If you're referring to the US, not at all.

In the United States, if a pilot asks ATC to go faster than 250 under 10,000 other than for reasons under 91.117d, ATC cannot grant it. As stated above, the controller bible (the 7110.65) provides no language for controllers to waive the restrictions of 91.117, and specifically states that pilots following 91.117 are not required to report, or request anything.

 

You're correct in that ATC may restrict them lower to meet operational need, but the 7110.65 also points out to the controller that "t is the pilot's responsibility and prerogative to refuse speed adjustment that he/she considers excessive or contrary to the aircraft's operating specifications." The AIM also reflects this on the pilot side.

 

So, if ATC restricts an MD-11 to 250 on departure, and the pilot sees that he or she cannot meet this demand in a clean config, he or she may refuse it within PIC authority provided in Part 91 of the FARs. Granted, the pilot may also accept the restriction and leave the slats/flaps out longer as mentioned earlier to help ATC out.

 

Life in the sky isn't all black and white.

I don't need to listen to ATC because I know the game.

 

Removing the speed restriction below 10 is not unusual but it is entirely related to traffic and the route.

 

I know the only aircraft in reality to be given special handling was the an aircraft with the Queen. Concorde was from my knowledge speed restricted was for arrival not departure. Concorde was so special, it had its own flex routes across the atlantic

I don't need to listen to ATC because I know the game.

 

What game are you talking about? The only game here in the States is the FARs.

 

Removing the speed restriction below 10 is not unusual but it is entirely related to traffic and the route.

 

You're right. It's not unusual, but it's not something you're going to hear coming from ATC (in the States anyway). ATC is there to deal with the exceptions. If a 73 going 250 under 10 is followed by an MD11 going 265 (without ever requesting authorization), ATC will simply vector one out of the way of the other. Speed restrictions are a matter of last resort when it comes to the tools of vectors, altitude and speed.

 

I know the only aircraft in reality to be given special handling was the an aircraft with the Queen. Concorde was from my knowledge speed restricted was for arrival not departure. Concorde was so special, it had its own flex routes across the atlantic

 

Define special handling...

Special handling from ATC? Nope.

"Special handling" as part of 91.117d? Yep.

 

...and Concorde's routes weren't flex at all. Track SN, SM, and SO never changed. The reason they had those routes was that they flew higher than the normal traffic did. As these routes were higher than most of the effects jet-stream influenced winds, and not in conflict with traffic for the same reasons, there was no need to change them like the normal NATs. It didn't get anything because it needed special handling. Rather, it got those because it didn't need any handling at all, as far as Oceanic was concerned, as it was out of the way of everyone else.

This topic is getting hot, and perhaps not in a good way. Common sense dictates that you don't call someones else's claim "crap" unless you want pick a fight. And to be absolutely clear: We're discussing things that is gibberish to 99% of the world population. It is quite advanced and sophisticated, so much that there should be no need for a pissing contest. You both (Kyle and Craig) seem to have your arguments in order, but please. If I want to read flaming posts, I usually have other forums discussing other topics fulfilling my needs for everyday drama.

 

Keep it civil please, I have so much respect for you guys.

 

Morten

The bickering has once again totally hijacked the thread and it doesn't even pertain to the original question.

Ok Ok calm down guys. I get the idea. I was just asking about why the aircraft didnt follow the restriction in the FMC. Now that I know that it may have not been able to meet the clean speed I can look into that now. I learn something everyday. Ill keep the slats out and see if that helps.

 

Thanks for the responses.

I just explained why. By restricting traffic to a specified speed you can actually increase the number of aircraft that can be handled in a specified piece of airspace.

 

I don't know your background scandinavian13 but your post is crap

 

LOL

Ok Ok calm down guys. I get the idea. I was just asking about why the aircraft didnt follow the restriction in the FMC. Now that I know that it may have not been able to meet the clean speed I can look into that now. I learn something everyday. Ill keep the slats out and see if that helps.

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

That's just the point of all of my posts. Clean up and go the speed the FMC requests. It's perfectly normal, realistic and legal.

 

The AP is behaving normally. The FMS is requesting a normal and legal speed. Fly as you would normally. No need to leave flaps or slats out or mess with the speed...

 

The bickering has once again totally hijacked the thread and it doesn't even pertain to the original question.

 

It really does. The OP stated the AP is behaving incorrectly. I stated why it was behaving normally and someone tried to claim I was wrong, so I defended myself (and further answered the original question).

Ok Ok calm down guys. I get the idea. I was just asking about why the aircraft didnt follow the restriction in the FMC. Now that I know that it may have not been able to meet the clean speed I can look into that now. I learn something everyday. Ill keep the slats out and see if that helps.

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

The original requirement of 250 below 10000 came after two mid air collisions over the us in the 60s involving newer and faster jet aircraft against props.

 

The last one in 1967 between a DC9 going max speed into a Beech Baron gave the blanket resolution.

 

Over the years this rule has evolved more and more with the usual legal jargon to try to ensure nobody finds a reason not to adhere to the rule without telling anybody.

 

This still leads to interpretations, those who believe the book says no and that is that, and those who believe the book provides a guideline to a required outcome.

 

Down here you will hear us say "cancel speed restrictions below 10000" if traffic is light and there are no potential conflicts, or if the pilot requests it for performance reasons and it can be accomodated.

 

If your fmc says your clean speed on climb is higher than 250 then request it and manage it, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

The md11 is a wonderful machine, but does not like to fly slow.

Again, just for clarification, in the States you don't have to request. It's implied and the controllers are familiar with the aircraft that normally operate at these speeds. The mid-shift would be a terrible shift to work at Memphis TRACON if you had to...

FedEx 1415, approved.

FedEx 52, approved.

FedEx 1242, approved.

...approved

...radar contact, approved.

 

Remember, controllers are people, too. They're more than capable of remembering the aircraft types that are heavy enough or designed in such a way that speed could be an issue. If they see MD11 on the scope, they know how it's going to handle for the most part, and they also know that they may be flying a bit faster than the rest of the crowd.

 

Additionally, the guys who wrote the code for your FMC aren't exactly amateurs, either. The reason it's written that way is because it's supposed to be that way.

 

Pull the blinders of simisms off and enjoy it how it's supposed to be enjoyed. The 250/10 rule is not a black and white rule like most simmers think it is. If you doubt me, come join me at work. Honest invitation (just give me a few extra days if you're not a US Citizen). I'd be glad to show you Potomac and parts of the Command Center, and I'll even have a few controllers answer your questions.

 

 

 

EDIT:

Sorry for the rather emphatic replies, but it's a tough pill to take when people are telling you that the points you're making are invalid, or are listening to the less accurate points because they're closer to what they're used to, or sound better. I realize the 250/10 thing is something that most simmers grew up with - heck, I did - but when someone who is a pilot, was at one point going to be a controller, and someone who works with the FAA shows up to provide guidance, what more do you want? Granted, I'll defer to someone who specializes in aviation law because they could probably bring case law into the discussion, but still.

 

Remember, just because you hear it doesn't mean that it's required. Ever fly into a Class C field and hear a pilot request a clearance into the C? I have. Most of the time, the controller simply says "affirmative, you're cleared into the Class C." It's an implicit clearance once you establish two way comms, but some pilots forget. In the case of 91.117, most people (both pilots and controllers alike) just aren't intimately familiar with it, which is why you'll hear them ask for it occasionally. In a similar manner to the Class C "clearance," a controller likely just says "approved."

 

As I always say to my VFR buddies when they blindly accept what's handed to them:

You're flying VFR in your Cessna today. If someone from the FSDO ramp checks you and you don't have charts, can they fault you?

 

The answer is no, but what have all of your instructors, and pilot friends told you? Charts are required right? Wrong. Granted, I'm not going to tell you that it's smart to fly without them, but be careful with what people tell you in the world of aviation. There are a good number of people who don't know enough about them, but assert that they do, even as high as designated examiners. Sad, but true. This is why I'm always a big supporter of going to the manual yourself.

 

 

 

TL;DR:

Sorry for the heated emotions, but when I quote the regs, in addition to having a relevant background to the discussion and someone calls you a liar and others ignore what you're saying, it's tough to handle. Why continue to try to answer peoples' questions if they're going to tell you that you're lying, or ignore the input, despite bringing just about every aviation source into the dance supporting your argument?

I find it hard to believe that ATCOs anywhere on the planet don't realise that the larger commercial aircraft (MD11, B763, A330, 340, 380, B744, B777 et al) will in all probability have to exceed 250 below 10000ft in order to achieve clean speed...& that pilots 'routinely' ask ATC to fly at a clean speed above 250kts in order to achieve this...that's about as plausible as keeping one of these aircraft 'dirty' (flaps/slats out) purely to maintain 250 below 10000ft 'just because'.

 

In FS flying the 250/10000 rule 'just because' is (as Kyle aluded to) one of the biggest 'simisms' out there.

 

The box of smoke & mirrors generally calls it ECON SPEED for a very good reason - & modern commercial pilots will take advantage of it these days whenever possible. The name of the game being the movement of whatever the payload is from one place to another as ecconomically as possible having burnt the least amount of hydrocarbon fuel as is possible.

 

Why would you do otherwise in FS?

 

If you are forcing an MD11 to remain at or below 250kts in the climb - even though the box of smoke & mirrors is telling you otherwise - no doubt with full climb power set - & with lift devices still deployed - you must be standing the thing on it's tail as it tries to fly speed on elevator - hardly realistic & a sure fire way of allowing the plane to get well ahead of you...or...you are flying the thing in vertical speed.

 

It's either a genius new innovation you have stumbled upon (& you had better get on to Boeing & Airbus pronto!!) or you have wasted your 'hard earned' on a product that is simulating something a little way beyond your expectations.

 

Happy flighting everyone.

Oh for crying in a bucket! Its a GAME! If you want superasonic at 3000ft do so, who cares how tightly one hugs the FARs? I mean really!!

 

We answered the op, move on!

 

who cares how tightly one hugs the FARs? I mean really!!

 

Clearly the OP cared enough to make the thread. I'm just trying to minimize the misinformation out there, which, you have to admit, is a big problem in the sim community.

No Kyle, the OP asked a simple question which was hijacked by a lot of people trying to show they know more than others or their opinions should be counted over others.

 

Nobody is asking anybody to change everybody's perceptions or misconceptions and thus starting a futile quest which was never the intention of the original post.

 

I feel sorry for the OP, i hope he is not afraid to post a question again.

 

Mods, suggest this thread is closed please.