Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes  
User currently onlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4395 times:

I understand that on modern airliners like the Airbii, VOR frequency changes are input pre-flight and automatically executed by the flight management system thereafter.

Do operator SOP's require that flight crew confirm each frequency change nonetheless? Is there an aural or visual warning with each automatic frequency change? Do crew have to identify each beacon on the dot-dash even if the ND indicates that the beacon has been captured and the aircraft is properly tracking thereto?

Faro


The chalice not my son
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4393 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Do operator SOP's require that flight crew confirm each frequency change nonetheless?

No, the change takes place automatically and most of the times you just don't even recognize the change. The airplanes do a check on their own. They listen to the identification. Iniatially the frequency of the new VOR is displayed and when correctly identified the three letter code of the VOR is displayed.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently onlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4386 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 1):
The airplanes do a check on their own

Is this a VOR vs other radio navigation aids type check or VOR vs GPS/IRU (comparison of radio navigation position -taking into account the newly-caputred VOR- with GPS/IRU)? Conceivably, one could also tune in the other VOR (or even the VHF Comm's) to the same beacon to confirm proper functioning of the active onboard receivers.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4377 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
I understand that on modern airliners like the Airbii, VOR frequency changes are input pre-flight

No, they are not input by the flight crew. The FMGC tunes the VORs automatically based on what is loaded into the FMGC.

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Do operator SOP's require that flight crew confirm each frequency change nonetheless?

If you have GPS you don't even look at the VOR selection. Prior to GPS integration, SOP was to have the departure set up in case you needed it. For en-route navigation, you just let the VOR do it's own thing. Now, there is no need to tune anything in.

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Do crew have to identify each beacon on the dot-dash even if the ND indicates that the beacon has been captured and the aircraft is properly tracking thereto?

No, on all pure glass aircraft the VOR and ILS is automatically identified. You get the letter identifier on the ND when the navaid has been identified.


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4375 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Faro (Reply 2):
Is this a VOR vs other radio navigation aids type check or VOR vs GPS/IRU

The airplane does a check on the dot dashes if the identifier is correct. If not then it doesn't show the identifier and only shows the frequency.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 3):
No, they are not input by the flight crew. The FMGC tunes the VORs automatically based on what is loaded into the FMGC.

For the SID I do enter them manually.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4372 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 4):
For the SID I do enter them manually.

Let me ask you the same question I do with FOs that are getting line training...Why?


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9032 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4368 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
Let me ask you the same question I do with FOs that are getting line training...Why?

Because our MD11 doesn't tune the correct VORs for the departure. And it is SOP in our airline.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4366 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 6):
Because our MD11 doesn't tune the correct VORs for the departure. And it is SOP in our airline.

Interesting that it is still SOP since both Boeing and Airbus have removed that from their FCTM. If GPS is installed you certainly don't gain anything by selecting the navaids on departure and it does not give you any "fall back" capability. Just another useless thing the PF has to do and brief.


User currently onlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4360 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 7):
Just another useless thing the PF has to do and brief

I am an amateur pilot only and tend to like procedures since I am not as proficient at keeping ahead of the airplane as you people are, but I don't see why it should be totally useless. I would tend to think that -in any profession- anything done manually is a bonus to one's short-term memory, the event and the data concerned are and stay fresher in the mind. Perhaps that can come in handy in certain stressful operational situations? Just an impression though, I can't put myself in your shoes.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4353 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 8):
I am an amateur pilot only and tend to like procedures since I am not as proficient at keeping ahead of the airplane as you people are, but I don't see why it should be totally useless. I would tend to think that -in any profession- anything done manually is a bonus to one's short-term memory, the event and the data concerned are and stay fresher in the mind. Perhaps that can come in handy in certain stressful operational situations? Just an impression though, I can't put myself in your shoes

If you are flying a "glass" aircraft, you have the ND in front of you and essentially you have the route depicted in front of you. With the route loaded in the FMC, you will have the waypoints (navaids or fixes) depicted on the ND. You don't really have any raw data displayed in front of you since the FMS/FMGS is following the calculate route from the FMS. Having the navaids tuned won't show up on the ND so it really becomes a task that isn't going to give you any additional information. One of the common reasons for manually tuning the navaids is in case of a FMS failure. In reality, you will have to lose quite a bit of capability before it becomes an issue and then you're not going anyplace. all you have to do is declare a PAN and get vectors to where you want to go.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2825 posts, RR: 45
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4243 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Do operator SOP's require that flight crew confirm each frequency change nonetheless? Is there an aural or visual warning with each automatic frequency change? Do crew have to identify each beacon on the dot-dash even if the ND indicates that the beacon has been captured and the aircraft is properly tracking thereto?

Hi, Faro. Understand that the aircraft are NOT tracking inbound or outbound on VOR radials like an analog airplane would. The FMC/FMGC wants the VOR (and really the DME) data to refine the aircraft present position continuously. Depending on the aircraft and installation GPS may augment or dispense with the need for the DME updating altogether.

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 4):
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 3):
No, they are not input by the flight crew. The FMGC tunes the VORs automatically based on what is loaded into the FMGC.

For the SID I do enter them manually.

We do as well as long as it can be flown with ground based navaids (i.e. not an RNAV only DP.)

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 4):
For the SID I do enter them manually.

Let me ask you the same question I do with FOs that are getting line training...Why?

Because we do a lot of mountain flying and it is in our SOP to do so.

Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 6):
And it is SOP in our airline.

Good enough reason for me.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 7):
Interesting that it is still SOP since both Boeing and Airbus have removed that from their FCTM.

And not all operators use Boeing or Airbus books, nor does everyone fly Boeing or Airbus built aircraft.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
One of the common reasons for manually tuning the navaids is in case of a FMS failure. In reality, you will have to lose quite a bit of capability before it becomes an issue and then you're not going anyplace. all you have to do is declare a PAN and get vectors to where you want to go.

Or as long as it isn't an RNAV only DP, you can set it up manually and switch to arc or rose and fly it yourself without being dependent on ATC to save you. This is especially prudent in some remote mountainous areas we fly with poor navaids and ATC. That is why my operator still requires it. Sounds like a prudent plan to me.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4234 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 10):
Or as long as it isn't an RNAV only DP, you can set it up manually and switch to arc or rose and fly it yourself without being dependent on ATC to save you. This is especially prudent in some remote mountainous areas we fly with poor navaids and ATC. That is why my operator still requires it. Sounds like a prudent plan to me

I guess I would disagree. We also fly in some very remote mountainous areas and in parts of the world where navaid coverage and reliability isn't the best and ATC is either non-existent or minimaly staffed and if there is one aircraft in the sky, they become task saturated. We have found that with GPS updating the degree of accuracy is much greater than any ground based navaid would ever be. With GPS updating the FMS/FMGS does a much better job at navigating than ground based navaids. In addition, with the FMS/FMGC you can even tailor departures to take into consideration things like turn radius thus ensuring terrain and obstacle clearance in the most critical areas.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 10):
And not all operators use Boeing or Airbus books, nor does everyone fly Boeing or Airbus built aircraft.

I don't think I said everyone flew Boeing or Airbus. Those are what we have in our fleet, so I can only speak of them. I can assure you everyone who operates Boeing or Airbus uses their manuals. There might be some carrier input that is approved by A or B, but they are A or B manuals. What other manuals are there if you are operating Airbus or Boeing?


User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4221 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):

There is no penalty for being over prepared. So what if you tune the navaid, its just putting in the identifier of the VOR/NDB for the Pegasus (if it does not autotune for some reason when you LS the procedure) and I assume the thing the Airbus has does is similar. What, maybe 4 keystrokes at best?

I will say your correct when the FMC tuns and "locks" the nav rad page from being changed when it detects navaids the are required for the procedure but its still good to verify it.

Plus even if I'm RNAV primary and flying an non-RNAV thing, I still like to "watch" the raw data via the RMIs or what have you while in LNAV. IMO, it keeps you more inside the loop. Heck I even like to have the initial missed approach stuff backed up and ready.

To the OP, like has been said before navaids are not "really" used for enroute navigation. As long as the position is reasonably fixed, the LRNS (Long Range Nav System) can be used as primary. Then depending on what you got, the FMC will use the different things, automatically, to update itself.
Here is the updating Hierarchy for traditional Boeing FMCs (PEG, PIP, NON-PIP, AFMC, etc)
1 LOC+GPS
1 LOC+DME
GPS
LOC
DME/DME*
VOR/DME**
IRS NAV ONLY

* Lowest value supported buy the FAA and many other agencies.
** Confirms with the B-RNAV requirement in Europe.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2825 posts, RR: 45
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4201 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 10):
Or as long as it isn't an RNAV only DP, you can set it up manually and switch to arc or rose and fly it yourself without being dependent on ATC to save you. This is especially prudent in some remote mountainous areas we fly with poor navaids and ATC. That is why my operator still requires it. Sounds like a prudent plan to me

I guess I would disagree. We also fly in some very remote mountainous areas and in parts of the world where navaid coverage and reliability isn't the best and ATC is either non-existent or minimaly staffed and if there is one aircraft in the sky, they become task saturated. We have found that with GPS updating the degree of accuracy is much greater than any ground based navaid would ever be. With GPS updating the FMS/FMGS does a much better job at navigating than ground based navaids. In addition, with the FMS/FMGC you can even tailor departures to take into consideration things like turn radius thus ensuring terrain and obstacle clearance in the most critical areas.

Normally yes. The point is that in the case of the inability to fly the departure due to FMS/RNAV issues shortly after takeoff, the ability to quickly transition to conventional navaids is of great value especially when there is terrain close by. Maybe it's just me (and my company,) but I would rather be prepared for that eventuality even if remote than to be scrambling and asking for ATC assistance with no map on my ND. It doesn't take me much time to set up the navaids for the departure, so I do it. And, of course, my operator requires it.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 10):
And not all operators use Boeing or Airbus books, nor does everyone fly Boeing or Airbus built aircraft.

I don't think I said everyone flew Boeing or Airbus. Those are what we have in our fleet, so I can only speak of them. I can assure you everyone who operates Boeing or Airbus uses their manuals. There might be some carrier input that is approved by A or B, but they are A or B manuals. What other manuals are there if you are operating Airbus or Boeing?

That is incorrect. Operators are free to design their own manuals as an alternative to manuals provided by the manufacturer. They must be approved by the certification authority, in my company's case, the FAA.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
There is no penalty for being over prepared. So what if you tune the navaid, its just putting in the identifier of the VOR/NDB for the Pegasus (if it does not autotune for some reason when you LS the procedure) and I assume the thing the Airbus has does is similar. What, maybe 4 keystrokes at best?

I will say your correct when the FMC tuns and "locks" the nav rad page from being changed when it detects navaids the are required for the procedure but its still good to verify it.

Plus even if I'm RNAV primary and flying an non-RNAV thing, I still like to "watch" the raw data via the RMIs or what have you while in LNAV. IMO, it keeps you more inside the loop. Heck I even like to have the initial missed approach stuff backed up and ready.

I agree with you, DescendVia. It takes essentially zero time to set up, so why not do it? Of course many carriers (including mine) require it anyway.


User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4199 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13):

I agree with you, DescendVia. It takes essentially zero time to set up, so why not do it? Of course many carriers (including mine) require it anyway.

Same with us and its actually the second checklist item on all fleet. Plus something very similar is also there for the descent checklist and its actually like the third item.

Plus the engine out navaids (I like build as much as you can of it into the FIX page if its complex) is still better then nothing. Perfect balance for me is the initial stuff for the DP and the E/O stuff on the FIX page with the navaids in the standby spots. I think the Airbus guys do that (minus the FIX page of course) even though all our T-procedures are coded into the Airbus database and go active when it detects the engine failure IIRC.

[Edited 2009-05-26 20:19:33]

User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2825 posts, RR: 45
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4195 times:



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 14):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13):

I agree with you, DescendVia. It takes essentially zero time to set up, so why not do it? Of course many carriers (including mine) require it anyway.

Same with us and its actually the second checklist item on all fleet. Plus something very similar is also there for the descent checklist and its actually like the third item.

Yeah, ours is also in the checklist and the navaid setup has to be briefed for departure and approach. It works well, and it's so ingrained that it's really second nature.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 14):
Plus the engine out navaids (I like build as much as you can of it into the FIX page if its complex) is still better then nothing. Perfect balance for me is the initial stuff for the DP and the E/O stuff on the FIX page with the navaids in the standby spots. I think the a lot Airbus guys do that (minus the FIX page of course) even though all our T-procedures are coded into the database and go active when it detects the engine failure IIRC.

Since we have several different fleets, the individual procedures and techniques vary somewhat, but in all there are certain things that have to be hard tuned and briefed. I also use the fix page extensively, but that's technique for us.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4176 times:

We use long range nav at all times, so we usually leave the VOR in autotune.

The company doesn't even want us manually tuning for an approach. The aircraft will load the proper frequency and set the correct CRS on the HSI with the approach loaded in the FMS and when within 25nm of the station.



DMI
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4164 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13):
That is incorrect. Operators are free to design their own manuals as an alternative to manuals provided by the manufacturer. They must be approved by the certification authority, in my company's case, the FAA.

Actually, that is incorrect. The aircraft manufacturer has to give a "no technical objection" and without that the FAA/EASA will not allow the manual to be published. If the manufacturer's liability will be increased they will not issue approval for the changes to the manual to proceed.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
Here is the updating Hierarchy for traditional Boeing FMCs (PEG, PIP, NON-PIP, AFMC, etc)
1 LOC+GPS
1 LOC+DME
GPS
LOC
DME/DME*
VOR/DME**
IRS NAV ONLY

Don't know what aircraft you're flying but your list is incorrect!

The primary FMC update is GPS/GPS. As long as you have dual GPS the FMC will never look at anything else! After the GPS it's ILS DME/ILS DME, then VOR DME/VOR DME, then VOR/VOR and then finally VOR/DME. (I have only flown the 757 and 744 and Airbus is essentially the same pecking order)

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
There is no penalty for being over prepared. So what if you tune the navaid, its just putting in the identifier of the VOR/NDB for the Pegasus (if it does not autotune for some reason when you LS the procedure) and I assume the thing the Airbus has does is similar. What, maybe 4 keystrokes at best?

I will say your correct when the FMC tuns and "locks" the nav rad page from being changed when it detects navaids the are required for the procedure but its still good to verify it.

On the Airbus and latest Boeings you are using a belt with suspenders! If there is a navaid that is required for the procedure (arrival or departure) the FMC will auto tune that navaid, you can manually tune any navaid you want in it's place. So, the issue of "being ready just in case" is a moot point since the FMC does it anyhow. Look what you have to lose before you get to the point of using raw VOR/DME data! You're not going anyplace anyhow so you will have to declare at least a PAN. After that ATC will do what you want. Now you have more time to diagnose the problem and fly the aircraft. Every one keeps talking about SOPs and I am a big believer of them, but they are based on, among other things, the manufacturer's recommendations, like the FCTM. Both Boeing and Airbus have emphatically stated the use of automation is primary. I am not saying to violate SOPs but every company I have been with haas their SOP setup so the FMC the king. I will say sometimes on a missed there is a navaid that's not there such as a NDB but all our ADFs are removed and we use the FMC reference for the NDB.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 15):
Yeah, ours is also in the checklist and the navaid setup has to be briefed for departure and approach. It works well, and it's so ingrained that it's really second nature.

Again, I just want to point the FAA has allowed FMS/FMGS aircraft with GPS (Dual) to remove the ADF from the aircraft. They still allow those aircraft to fly a NDB approach. So, what do you do then?????

I understand what you are saying about being prepared, but in reality, you have to lose quite a but before you are relying on raw nav data! Even now, there is no requirement, as long as you have dual GPS updating to have raw data selected when doing a NP approach, either in LNAV/VNAV or heading/VS or SELECTED/SELECTED......


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1959 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4155 times:

On the ERJ, we were trained to setup initial navaids and radials on the HSI as a "technique" for departures which are based on such. Obviously this is not possible on an RNAV departure, and since it is trained as a technique it is not necessarily mandatory anyway.

Once airborne, we are not required to tune or monitor navaid identifiers unless the FMS(s) is/are deferred and we are using ground based navaids as the primary means of navigation. However, most pilots put the Nav radios into "auto-tune" mode, in which the FMS automatically selects a nearby navaid and selects its frequency into your nav radio (and it's not necessarily a navaid on which your route of flight is based). In addition, some pilots prefer to work with ground-based navaids presented on their displays when they are the non-flying pilot, as a means to backup the FMS data the flying pilot is using. Personally, I view that final technique as overkill.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4151 times:



Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 18):
On the ERJ, we were trained to setup initial navaids and radials on the HSI as a "technique" for departures which are based on such. Obviously this is not possible on an RNAV departure, and since it is trained as a technique it is not necessarily mandatory anyway.

 checkmark  I agree 1000%. As a TRE, it is very difficult to separate technique from procedure. But you are absolutely correct.

As you write, it is overkill. Giving line checks to pilots, I will ask them why they are spending time setting up everything manually. The answer I get because Captain XXX said that's what should be done. But, then when I ask why, I get the "deer in the headlight" look. It's not SOP but technique. Big difference in my opinion.

Personally, if someone wants to do that, then as long as they have a rational reason, that's fine. But, the issue of just in case, doesn't hold a lot of water. We have to lose quite a bit of capability before we get down to that level. You aren't going anyplace, so, to me, it is a lot of work for no return.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

About the only time we will "hard tune" a nav aid would be to display an Eng. Out Sid on the ND so as to see the radials for turns or xing restrict (HKG comes to mind off 07s or SFS). We may superimpose a hard tuned vor if there's a restriction like "make your turn prior to the ABC 127R" or something similar even though the NAV mode will still do it. As a rule no we don't. PhilSquares is right sometimes I see guys putting all this stuff into the NAVRAD and just wonder WHY?

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4143 times:



Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 20):
About the only time we will "hard tune" a nav aid would be to display an Eng. Out Sid on the ND so as to see the radials for turns or xing restrict (HKG comes to mind off 07s or SFS).

What is recommended as a technique is to set the EO in the secondary flight plan with the EO RTB. That way, it's just a simple, activate/execute. Again, it's just a technique....


User currently onlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4125 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
I understand what you are saying about being prepared, but in reality, you have to lose quite a but before you are relying on raw nav data!

Thanx for a very informative thread; automation really is the norm I guess given the reliability of the nav equipment at hand in modern airliners. In terms of proficiency however, do line pilots have to do some raw nav data, director-less legs once in a while like I imagine you have to do with manual instrument landings? Or is the skill level needed for such not really a worry...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):

Don't know what aircraft you're flying but your list is incorrect!

No sir your incorrect. To be sure I got the list right I pulled out the Boeing book as I posted. That list is the hierarchy for the best to least precise updating.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Both Boeing and Airbus have emphatically stated the use of automation is primary

Nor are we saying where not using it. I will say the on our 757/767s its impossible to watch RAW data in the MAP mode since the RMI goes into ATD. They in-turn have one guy (usually PNF) in raw data for the initial intercept or DME turn or whatever just to be part of the redundancy that is like. Not only from SOP but you can also trace it to our C/L/R section about staying in the loop IMO.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Again, I just want to point the FAA has allowed FMS/FMGS aircraft with GPS (Dual) to remove the ADF from the aircraft. They still allow those aircraft to fly a NDB approach. So, what do you do then?????

Then thats not-applicable and you won't tune the navaid   Our Airbus' don't actually need the VOR or NDB (for approaches if a list of stuff is met) and there is only one ADF selector in the plane now. Though again, if its there it has to be tuned (per SOP). The only time they say the navaid is not needed is if one is part of an RNAV approach BUT they still recommenced it.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 21):
What is recommended as a technique is to set the EO in the secondary flight plan with the EO RTB. That way, it's just a simple, activate/execute. Again, it's just a technique....

Very good idea......... Do you keep one FMC with RTE2 open to have it on the EFIS or just have it standing by? I really like that idea since no one is really using the EO SID functions of the PIP and PEG.  bigthumbsup 

It all comes down to company policy and we can keep going around in circles but I think "having it there" is a little smarter then not even through it probably will not be used or is needed.

[Edited 2009-05-27 08:09:08]

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4078 times:



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 23):
No sir your incorrect. To be sure I got the list right I pulled out the Boeing book as I posted. That list is the hierarchy for the best to least precise updating

I will qualify my statement. On the 400 here is the list. The 75/76 are technically first generation glass, not the same as the 744/777 and A32X, 330/340. Here is a cut and paste out of Vol 2

FMC position updating using IRS and navigation sensor positions occurs in the
following priority order:
• 2 GPS
• LOC and GPS
• LOC and DME-DME
• LOC and collocated VOR/DME
• IRS and LOC
• IRS and GPS
• IRS and DME-DME
• IRS and collocated VOR/DME
• IRS

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 23):
I will say the on our 757/767s its impossible to watch RAW data in the MAP mode since the RMI goes into ATD. They in-turn have one guy (usually PNF) in raw data for the initial intercept or DME turn or whatever just to be part of the redundancy that is like. Not only from SOP but you can also trace it to our C/L/R section about staying in the loop IMO.

And my point is on many carriers, as long as you have 2 GPS updating and the Nav Accuracy in high, you can complete the entire procedure with both pilots in NAV. Neither pilot has to select VOR Rose.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 23):
Then thats not-applicable and you won't tune the navaid Our Airbus' don't actually need the VOR or NDB (for approaches if a list of stuff is met) and there is only one ADF selector in the plane now. Though again, if its there it has to be tuned (per SOP). The only time they say the navaid is not needed is if one is part of an RNAV approach BUT they still recommenced it.

I don't see what you mean, so I will restate my position. On all of our aircraft, the ADFs have been removed. We can still do a NDB approach and no navaid will be tuned since there is no ADF. The rationale is on a dark thunderstorm and lightening night the FMC derived position of the beacon will be infinitely better than the RMI needle. As long as you are on the magenta line you are on the bearing. But, as you pointed out "recommend" is very different than mandated. The problem in most airlines is often times technique becomes procedure.....

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 23):
It all comes down to company policy and we can keep going around in circles but I think "having it there" is a little smarter then not even through it probably will not be used or is needed.

You are missing my point. You will "have it there" on the ND no matter what. If you lose both NDs are you going to continue the approach on the RMI? I certainly wouldn't. That's my point. The redundancy of the ND, FMC/FMGC, GPS and IRS/ADIRU is so much higher than the old steam gauge instruments that it is, in my opinion and Boeing and Airbus, much better to let the automated system do what it was designed to do.

Please don't say that I am advocating not following SOP. I am not. However, some airlines are more progressive in changing SOPs based on what the aircraft designer recommends.


25 PGNCS : But that's not what you said. What you said was: Airlines (at least in the US) are free to design any manual system they wish and write what they wan
26 PhilSquares : Not to beat a dead horse, perhaps semantics, but if Boeing or Airbus has a technical objection, that part of the "in house" FCOM of VOL 1or 2 won't b
27 PGNCS : Great to hear. I have worked for three 121 carriers, have been an APD, and have participated in re-engineering and writing pilot manual sets for a ve
28 PhilSquares : Please re-read what I wrote. Boeing or Airbus will not issue a no technical objection if they think their liability will increase. I worked for the c
29 Post contains links and images DescendVia : I concur with that! My point was on the A319/320 the NDB and VOR don't actually need to be operational for the approach Also that the two ADF positio
30 PhilSquares : Sounds like a bash to me. Especially when it comes from an admitted non-pilot! But the segment altitudes are already in the FMC. That is what you bri
31 DescendVia : I am to a pilot just not an "airline" pilot yet. I have hours on the 767 an have studied the plane for the past 2+ years. I also know a lot "my" airl
32 PhilSquares : I don't have ESP and can only go by what you write and have in your profile. I will give you the quote out of your profile. Occupation: Propane and p
33 Faro : I don't mean to "intrude" but I find it fascinating that procedures should vary between operators, even if minutely. Not that it really matters in the
34 Post contains links DescendVia : You obviously don't want cartoons. http://www.fox.com/kingofthehill/ I never said "Boeing" did. I said the databases for our "Boeing" aircraft. Look
35 PhilSquares : Could have fooled me! That's your decision. All I am trying to do is figure out what you're saying. The problem is you appear to be using the termino
36 DescendVia : I'm using the terminology right from the FM. As I said before: I don't know, fly, or even really like the Airbus so I don't have a complete grasp. I
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
VOR-proficient Posters: Looking For Revision Help posted Wed Sep 3 2008 17:09:49 by Triebwerk
Using VOR's For Navigation posted Mon Nov 12 2001 23:11:13 by Tbar220
Looking For VOR & GPS. posted Wed Feb 21 2001 12:18:26 by Gabriel
Updated 777 Characteristics For Airport Planning posted Sat May 23 2009 06:34:12 by SunriseValley
Opinions On Systems For Network Planning? posted Fri May 22 2009 13:55:50 by Sankaps
Automatic Spoilers posted Sat May 9 2009 02:37:09 by Propilot83
All-Moving Fins For Airliners? posted Fri May 8 2009 01:49:24 by Faro
Ground Spoilers Necessary For Dispatch? posted Fri May 8 2009 00:53:32 by Faro
FCOM/AFM For ATR42-500 posted Mon May 4 2009 15:18:09 by Marydee11
A Question For A Pilot About Mach posted Mon May 4 2009 15:14:17 by Ozark1

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format