747-8F does not correcty respect speed constraints

[windshearDK 52]

1 hour ago, Jetlinker said:

The problem with switching to FLCH or VS on an RNAV STAR is that you are leaving the VNAV profile, and unless you continue to set floor altitudes along the way you also lose altitude constraint protections as you descend.

If you have real world experience, you would know how rare it is to do an entire STAR in VNAV...

[Jetlinker 13]

7 minutes ago, windshearDK said:

If you have real world experience, you would know how rare it is to do an entire STAR in VNAV...

I do, more than 20 years of it. And yes, I know that 9 out of 10 times ATC is eventually going to give an instruction that conflicts with the profile. In which case, yes, you switch to FLCH as the constraints become irrelevant. As long as you are doing what the STAR is commanding you to do, however, there is no need to leave VNAV. I did my initial training in the airplane with a very experienced former BA 747 pilot, and this is something he drilled into us. You can and should fly in VNAV until ATC gives you a reason to deviate from it. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jetlinker

[windshearDK 52]

1 minute ago, Jetlinker said:

You can fly in VNAV until ATC gives you a reason to deviate from it. 

Exactly how I do it... Hence... The subject at hand...

[Jetlinker 13]

2 minutes ago, windshearDK said:

Exactly how I do it... Hence... The subject at hand...

Honestly I think we are both on the same page but are at a miscommunication regarding the scenario. The original poster was referring to adhering to speeds published on a STAR, and that is what I was referring to as well. 

[windshearDK 52]

18 minutes ago, Jetlinker said:

Honestly I think we are both on the same page but are at a miscommunication regarding the scenario. The original poster was referring to adhering to speeds published on a STAR, and that is what I was referring to as well. 

And that's where I said, that if the restraints didn't match the performance of the aircraft, you either talk to ATC or switch to FL CHG... I most likely would have done so before this anyways...

[Jetlinker 13]

1 minute ago, windshearDK said:

And that's where I said, that if the restraints didn't match the performance of the aircraft, you either talk to ATC or switch to FL CHG... I most likely would have done so before this anyways...

Well, they do match the performance, you just have to add flaps. 😅 I mean, sure, you can ask to go min clean speed I guess. You might get it or you might not depending on traffic. If they deny it though, you can speed intervene once flaps are added and still remain on the VNAV profile while going the published speed on the arrival. I guess I’m not understanding why FLCH or VS would come into play here, intervening allows you to fly in VNAV at the specified speed. 

As I said earlier in the thread, a lot of this is technique. At the end of the day, do what works for you, especially in a home simulator. The virtual FAA is pretty lenient. 😅

[windshearDK 52]

1 minute ago, Jetlinker said:

Well, they do match the performance, you just have to add flaps. 😅 I mean, sure, you can ask to go min clean speed I guess. You might get it or you might not depending on traffic. If they deny it though, you can speed intervene once flaps are added and still remain on the VNAV profile while going the published speed on the arrival. I guess I’m not understanding why FLCH or VS would come into play here, intervening allows you to fly in VNAV at the specified speed. 

There we go! No need to say that the 748 doesn't fly STARs correctly 🙂 

[Jetlinker 13]

35 minutes ago, windshearDK said:

There we go! No need to say that the 748 doesn't fly STARs correctly 🙂 

Yes, I’ve tried to be cautious as to not assert something as fact that I’m not 100% confident in. This is why I stated that I’m merely going off of my recollection. We have a lot more 400’s than -8’s so perhaps this particular scenario isn’t one that I have ever encountered in the real world to note the difference. Either way, it’s not a big deal. Frankly I regret ever getting into the discussion, I was just trying to help the guy out that posted in the first place. 😅

[Sekkha 15]

7 minutes ago, Jetlinker said:

Yes, I’ve tried to be cautious as to not assert something as fact that I’m not 100% confident in. 

next time you say something which you are not being absolutely sure of,  try to get assistance by a lawyer... LOL ...if not you are lost here...this place seems to be a court of justice sometimes...even when somebody does as you did, which is admitting from the very first moment that you could perhaps be wrong (something not everybody does even when proofen to be wrong)

 

best regards

[scandinavian13 5,192]

6 minutes ago, Sekkha said:

next time you say something which you are not being absolutely sure of,  try to get assistance by a lawyer... LOL ...if not you are lost here...this place seems to be a court of justice sometimes...even when somebody does as you did, which is admitting from the very first moment that you could perhaps be wrong (something not everybody does even when proofen to be wrong)

Don't cherry pick. You'll note the post I keyed in on was stated categorically.

[windshearDK 52]

9 minutes ago, Sekkha said:

next time you say something which you are not being absolutely sure of,  try to get assistance by a lawyer... LOL ...if not you are lost here...this place seems to be a court of justice sometimes...even when somebody does as you did, which is admitting from the very first moment that you could perhaps be wrong (something not everybody does even when proofen to be wrong)

lol if people disagree with your statements its taken as an attack... M'kay

[Jetlinker 13]

1 minute ago, scandinavian13 said:

Don't cherry pick. You'll note the post I keyed in on was stated categorically.

My comment was rather brash and I understand why you said something. Again, I apologize. I initially took his post as a passive aggressive jab at the actions of two deceased pilots in a very unfortunate situation, and I took a bit of offense to it. It was an overreaction on my part and I can admit when I’m wrong. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

1 minute ago, Jetlinker said:

My comment was rather brash and I understand why you said something. Again, I apologize. I initially took his post as a passive aggressive jab at the actions of two deceased pilots in a very unfortunate situation, and I took a bit of offense to it. It was an overreaction on my part and I can admit when I’m wrong. 

You're not wrong. Bit of a miscommunication, I think.