March 6, 20179 yr Yeah I know Romain, and I went back and edited that out. At least I thought I did. I wanted to say that the FMC will not constrain the climb speed in the manner the OP choose. I guess you could insert a custom waypoint at where you think 10000 might be and use a constraint on the LEGS page but there is no need to do that. Operate the aircraft in accordance with best practices. Dan Downs KCRP
March 6, 20179 yr Quote The FMS will not constraint speed in the case. Dan, would an entry of 250/10000 on the SPD RESTR line on the CLB page not limit the speed? John H Watson (retired 744/767 Avionics engineer)
March 7, 20179 yr 18 hours ago, Budbud said: More and more airports implementing this rule whatever the airspace class is. I guess that at very airport with several runways used at the same time for takeoff and landing (such as LFPG with 2 rwys for takeoff and 2 for ldg.) And aircrafts taking off and landing every 2 minutes, it is safer to restrict the speed of the traffic in the crowdy lower airspace. If all these jets were departing and arriving at 300+ kts, I'm not sure the ATC could cope with the task. Actually here in the UAE, we can waive the speed restriction, which we usually do on departures. Get em out of your airspace asap ;-) I know when I was still at FAA, KIAH was allowed to waive the 250K rule, but I think it was only for Departures. I'm sure someone with more recency in the USA can correct me on that. Scott Kendall S Mann Still Telling Pilots Where To Go!!
March 7, 20179 yr 14 hours ago, skyymann said: I know when I was still at FAA, KIAH was allowed to waive the 250K rule, but I think it was only for Departures. I'm sure someone with more recency in the USA can correct me on that. Yup..., some time ago..decades...there was a permanent NOTAM for KIAH setting 280k as the speed. This has been superseded by the wording of the FARs that allow such operation when it is deemed necessary for safety without needing a waiver or exception from ATC. Dan Downs KCRP
March 8, 20179 yr Commercial Member What was there before was essentially a 91.117a exemption. As Dan mentioned, 91.117d was added to cover that, instead of a specific SOP/LOA arrangement. Kyle Rodgers
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.