User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 7:21 am

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
 
wilco737
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 7:27 am



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
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 am



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
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 7:53 am



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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
wilco737
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 7:57 am



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
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 8:05 am



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?
Fly fast, live slow
 
wilco737
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 8:08 am



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
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 8:13 am



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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 8:24 am



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
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Mon May 25, 2009 8:52 am



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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Tue May 26, 2009 9:30 pm



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.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Tue May 26, 2009 10:16 pm



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?
Fly fast, live slow
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 12:12 am



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.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 2:36 am



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.
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 2:52 am

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]
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 3:09 am



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.
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 5:05 am

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
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 6:54 am



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......
Fly fast, live slow
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 7:42 am

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.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 8:19 am



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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 8:41 am

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?
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 9:13 am



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....
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 10:26 am



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
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 2:51 pm

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]
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 3:41 pm



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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 6:04 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
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.

But that's not what you said. What you said was:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 11):
I can assure you everyone who operates Boeing or Airbus uses their manuals.

Airlines (at least in the US) are free to design any manual system they wish and write what they want as long as it is approved by their POI. The base documents for the staff writing manuals for an airline will come from the manufacturer, but they are then able to add information not in the manufacturer's operations books (frequently this comes from the manufacturer's maintenance manual or supplemental material), reorganize information, engineer different procedures and checklists, and do many other things as long as it yields at least an equivalent level of safety. The manuals I have had inside dealings with have always been reviewed by the airline, the manufacturer, and the administrator prior to approval, but they were in NO way Boeing or Airbus (or McD) books, which was your statement in reply 11, although they had been reviewed for technical accuracy by the manufacturer's tech reps.

Manufacturer flight crew manuals vary widely in their quality, and are frequently stripped to the very bone; Boeing is widely viewed as the worst, though the Airbus FCOM system has issues of its own. Several carriers (including one I am intimately familiar with) have elected to add information to their manuals (generally from other manufacturer's manuals) that is not found anywhere in the operator manual set, as is their prerogative. There are many advantages of using in-house manuals, a fact which the FAA understands. In my dealing with the POI, APOI, and fleet program managers at the CMO which oversaw the manuals development that I personally participated in, the FAA, the airline, and the manufacturer worked very well together, and support from the manufacturers and the administrator yielded a VASTLY superior set of manuals to that furnished by the manufacturer.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
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.

The issue under discussion was not approach work as much as setting up a DP. The approach can always be abandoned, once past V1 however, the DP can't be. The points DescendVia and I were making were primarily related to flying a DP. We both understand fully how the FMC autotunes navaids, but your point "the issue of 'being ready just in case' is a moot point since the FMC does it anyhow" ignores any problems the FMC might have on departure. FMC failures, timeouts, resynching, etc. do happen. Our point is that if there are underlying navaids that allow you to fly the procedure, it is good operational practice to tune them, and be ready to fly the aircraft safely away from the ground using rose or arc, a CDI, and DME. It costs me nothing to be prepared, and while extremely unlikely, I don't want to be the guy departing a mountainous South American airport in the middle of the night who has to make a PAN call requesting local ATC assistance. I would much rather be the guy who has the cockpit set up in advance to fly the aircraft safely away from the ground with no outside assistance required, and then once at altitude troubleshoot with the checklist.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
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.

Sure; is ATC excellent in all the parts of the world you fly? It isn't even good some of the places we fly.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
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.

Not all companies are alike; many have learned different things by different means, some of them decidedly bad. Neither DescendVia or I has said we don't use automation (I can speak for myself and say I love it), and in fact we have both said we DO use it, but that we take the time to set up the cockpit and have a plan if the automation fails. It's also in our procedures to do so.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
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?????

Why all the question marks? It's a simple question with a simple answer. You fly the approach per your company procedures, of course. If you company procedures allow for doing an NDB approach with GPS guidance in lieu of ADF as the method of navigation, by all means do so. If you read what I wrote carefully, I made it clear that my policy was (and our SOP is) to back up RNAV procedures with raw data "as long as it can be flown with ground based navaids" (reply 10). If you don't have an ADF onboard, you can't tune anything, which makes the approach conceptually a pure RNAV approach with no ground based underlayment. I didn't say RNAV or RNP approaches were unsafe or undesirable either; I have no objection to RNAV procedures, but when they can be backed up with ground based navaids it costs me nothing to set them up and be prepared.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
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......

In your procedures at least. If there is a ground based navaid appropriate to the approach we have to set it up. Sometimes there isn't; obviously then we don't.

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.

Excellent point. Procedure and technique are different. I have been discussing procedural requirements. There are certainly excellent (and numerous) techniques (radials in the fix page, etc.) that can assist in situational awareness that go above and beyond the procedural requirements. I encourage all pilots to learn from the techniques of others.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 19):
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.

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

Also speaking as a APD/TCE I find the array of techniques utterly amazing. Having said that, I am only looking for procedural compliance and not specific techniques from any pilot or applicant. The two are normally fairly easily distinguishable.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 19):
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.

That is completely fair, and you are right: pilots should never be held to a technique. If it's that big of a deal it needs to be codified into a procedure.

Quoting Faro (Reply 22):
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?

We normally do manual landings; most of the raw data and FMC-out stuff is in the simulator, as it is normally reliable.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 23):
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).

That mirrors our policy.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 23):
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.

Route 2 is a great tool, especially for EO departures that differ from the routing in Route 1; we also use it a lot prior to TOD to load alternate arrivals (LAX is a prime example).

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
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!

How do you know it's incorrect if you don't know what aircraft he's flying?

That actually looks correct for newer Pegasus 767's to me, although I don't know that's what he is flying.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 24):
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.

Again, this is the case at your company. Others may be (and are) different.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 24):
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.....

What's not to understand? If the navaid is there, he tunes it. If it's not, he doesn't. We grasp your point about the accuracy of the GPS/FMC position versus the RMI. Neither of us are saying we wouldn't use RNAV to fly the approach. What we are saying is that if the NDB is actually present and operational, it costs us nothing to tune it and have it displayed in the cockpit. It's also required per SOP for us.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 24):
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.

We get your point. But you WON'T "'have it there' on the ND no matter what" in the case of some FMC failures. Nobody is knocking the automation; we are simply making the point that there is no reason not to have a backup plan and the navaids set up to execute it, and several valid reasons for doing so, one of which is that our procedures require it.

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.

Agreed: it doesn't hurt to be prepared.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 6:43 pm



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 25):
But that's not what you said. What you said was:

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 be allowed. The FAA just won't sign off on it. I have worked for 2 121 carriers and was a APD at both of them and the Director of Training at one. I can assure you neither Boeing or Airbus will allow any substantial changes to the content. The format and nice to know info that is in the company standard manuals will certainly be allowed. But, substantial changes that increase Airbus' or Boeing's liability will be DOA.

Moving on...

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 25):
We both understand fully how the FMC autotunes navaids, but your point "the issue of 'being ready just in case' is a moot point since the FMC does it anyhow" ignores any problems the FMC might have on departure. FMC failures, timeouts, resynching, etc. do happen.

Again, I am hearing both sides of the argument. For FMC resyncing or timeouts, you still have an accurate ND. If you have a single FMC failure, it's no real big deal since you have another. However ,if you have a dual FMC failure, you do have problems. One of which will be no ND. And no matter what you have hard tuned, it's not going to be displayed. So, again, it's like wearing a belt and suspenders.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 25):
If you don't have an ADF onboard, you can't tune anything, which makes the approach conceptually a pure RNAV approach with no ground based underlayment. I didn't say RNAV or RNP approaches were unsafe or undesirable either; I have no objection to RNAV procedures, but when they can be backed up with ground based navaids it costs me nothing to set them up and be prepared.

Again, I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. First ehy are not conceptually a RNAV approach, they are still a NDB approach. Only thing is the FMC generated postion of the NDB will be much more accurate than the physical NDB as seen on the RMI needle. We demonstrated that several years ago to the FAA and subsequently they authorized the removal of the ADF from our 121 N reg aircraft. The point i was trying to make is how do you tune a NDB when you don't have one? If your answer is all your aircraft have NDBs then great, but as you out not every company is the same. And neither are two regulatory agencies the same. The UK CAA has a big issue with VNAV on NP approaches, while every other regulatory body is satisfied.

I guess I am amazed that some US airlines are really that far behind on the acceptance of automation and current generation navigation capabilities. I can't remember the last time I had a Jepp chart out during the approach. Our SOP is the PF briefs the approach/departure off the box, the PM verifies the routing by the Jepp chart and once that's done, everyone puts them away. The FMC flies the departure and arrival and once it's routing has been entered and verified there is no need for the Jepp chart. That took a while for me to get used to, but now it's been over 10 years and I find it very easy. If ther are multiple approaches we have loaded, we brief them both.

Just interesting to see how other airlines do it.
Fly fast, live slow
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 7:14 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 26):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 25):
But that's not what you said. What you said was:

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 be allowed. The FAA just won't sign off on it. I have worked for 2 121 carriers and was a APD at both of them and the Director of Training at one. I can assure you neither Boeing or Airbus will allow any substantial changes to the content. The format and nice to know info that is in the company standard manuals will certainly be allowed. But, substantial changes that increase Airbus' or Boeing's liability will be DOA.

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 very large US 121 carrier. If you read my post, you will note that I said that manufacturer representatives reviewed the manuals for accuracy, and they were developed with the full cooperation of both the manufacturers and the FAA. They are NOT at ALL the same as the manufacturer's books. CLEARLY if Boeing or Airbus has a technical objection to the manuals, the FAA would not approve them; I never said otherwise. If the manufacturer had an objection, then they think we made a mistake; if, in fact, we did, it was corrected in draft. It takes a sizable team upwards of a year to produce an approved manual set for an advanced aircraft like the A-320, which was the biggest single project I worked on. It does not increase Boeing's liability if an airline changes their books, it increases the airline's liability that deviated from their house guidance. This is one reason why airlines elect to use manufacturer's books.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 26):
And no matter what you have hard tuned, it's not going to be displayed. So, again, it's like wearing a belt and suspenders.

It will be displayed just as soon as I switch the ND to rose or arc, which takes all of a second or so.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 26):
I guess I am amazed that some US airlines are really that far behind on the acceptance of automation and current generation navigation capabilities.

Just because we don't do it like you doesn't mean we are backwards, ignorant, or don't know what we're doing. Some airlines value the ability to rapidly shift to lower levels of automation and believe that having the navaids set up in advance for that eventuality adds another layer of safety to the operation.

I guess I am amazed that some airlines don't value being prepared to fly without the FMS.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Wed May 27, 2009 7:49 pm



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 27):
It does not increase Boeing's liability if an airline changes their books, it increases the airline's liability that deviated from their house guidance. This is one reason why airlines elect to use manufacturer's books.

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 carrier that introduced the 744, we had a very different 2 engine procedure when compared to what Boeing had for the 400. Ours was based on the 747-100 with the JT7-3A even though we had no aircraft like that. After countless hours in the sim, they finally relented and approved our procedure. Our justification was horizontal standardization through the airline. Now move ahead 20 years and Boeing has issued a technical objection for the flight control check that is none after engine start. Our SOP, based on Boeing's recommendation was to do it at the gate. We want to change it to what other airlines use and that is check it on the taxi out. Boeing will nto budge. So, that issue is dead because Boeing feels their liability will be increased.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 27):
Just because we don't do it like you doesn't mean we are backwards, ignorant, or don't know what we're doing

Now, be careful. I didn't write that, infer that, imply that and quite frankly don't believe that. So perhaps you should edit that part. What I am trying to point out is that for the most there is a perception of standards and forward thinking that has the major US, EU and Oceania carriers as being on the leading edge of thinking. LH has a quiet cockpit with no mode change calls on the Airbus. But, my comments were just a statement that I too was living on false assumptions.
Fly fast, live slow
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 1:15 am

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 25):
(I can speak for myself and say I love it)

I concur with that!

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 24):
I don't see what you mean, so I will restate my position

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 positions on the Airbus thing, have been removed and are placarded INOP as well though other fleets still have them. Now I don't fly, know, or even really like the plane (though I seem to use it in a lot of my examples    ) but as I know it the VOR does have to be there if the approach is not LSKable and your forced to do selected/selected. Now the NDB approach has to be LSKable to even attempt the approach. They in-turn get to fly the approach to the published minimums. So basically its an RNAV approach.

For the 777 and 747, only the NDB can be missing or OTS and the approach has to be hand built since NDB approaches are not in the non Airbus databases. Though if the airport is WGS-84 complaint, the FMS can substituted for a VOR if said VOR is OTS and its part of our T-procedure (E/O SID).

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 26):
guess I am amazed that some US airlines are really that far behind on the acceptance of automation and current generation navigation capabilities. I can't remember the last time I had a Jepp chart out during the approach. Our SOP is the PF briefs the approach/departure off the box, the PM verifies the routing by the Jepp chart and once that's done, everyone puts them away.

I don't mean to bash your airline but that is one "crappy" SOP. If I knew that was going on, I would avoid your airline like the plague. I have personally forgot segment altitudes (especially on the long descend via stuff into LAX) but thanks to chart all I had to do was take a quick glimpse at it. I mean trying to remember that stuff w/o the chart just adds something else that doesn't need to be there in that phase of flight. Plus your sort of playing in the "chart required" rule. Why not be prepared for flight?

Here is an example of when I would use what myself and PGNCS have been taking about. **



I would, and IIRC I am required, to be in RAW data for the initial intercept. I say required because I think the database is just coded as SFO-BARTN when you LS this SID. So you can't LNAV it initially Phil, so your method can't be used. If you tune the navaids and have them on the ND (since I assume you fly a 744 from a previous topic) your good to go as well if the navaids didn't auto tune when you LS the SID already. Now once on the SFO 090R, I would just re-sequence direct BARTN, verify/activate/execute, and LNAV. Once in LNAV I would flip back to the MAP and allow the FMC to pick its own navaids.

See we are (myself and PGNCS) not talking about tuning every navaid for the procedure but maybe just the initial critical ones!

** This is the Dumbarton 6 out of SFO if you wanted to see the entire thing.

[Edited 2009-05-27 18:45:22]

[Edited 2009-05-27 18:47:40]
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 5:54 am



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 29):
I don't mean to bash your airline but that is one "crappy" SOP

Sounds like a bash to me. Especially when it comes from an admitted non-pilot!

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 29):
I have personally forgot segment altitudes (especially on the long descend via stuff into LAX) but thanks to chart all I had to do was take a quick glimpse at it. I mean trying to remember that stuff w/o the chart just adds something else that doesn't need to be there in that phase of flight. Plus your sort of playing in the "chart required" rule. Why not be prepared for flight?

But the segment altitudes are already in the FMC. That is what you brief. How can you say it's not there? What "chart required rule"? What is flying the aircraft? The FMC is and it has the info you briefed in it. If it was correct in the briefing it will still be correct!

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 29):
I would, and IIRC I am required, to be in RAW data for the initial intercept. I say required because I think the database is just coded as SFO-BARTN when you LS this SID.

Well, not having it in front of me, I still disagree. While I agree you will have SFO BARTN, you can still do it in LNAV. You will have a discon in it but all you have to do is to set the SFO 090 in the route page and it's done. You won't be in LNAV for departure, you will be in heading and it's then simply a matter of selecting LNAV after the turn is underway.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 29):
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 positions on the Airbus thing, have been removed and are placarded INOP as well though other fleets still have them. Now I don't fly, know, or even really like the plane (though I seem to use it in a lot of my examples ) but as I know it the VOR does have to be there if the approach is not LSKable and your forced to do selected/selected. Now the NDB approach has to be LSKable to even attempt the approach. They in-turn get to fly the approach to the published minimums. So basically its an RNAV approach.

On the 744, they are being removed also, so it' s not an Airbus issue. I have never mentioned VOR so let's not bring that into the discussion. However, but I will laugh that you are in this discussion even though you "don't fly". But, you are wrong on what you are saying about having the NDB LSKable. We can build tha approach in the FMC and as long as we then have the proper information we can do the approach. Our SOP tells us that if there in on G/S angle present in the FMC then we have to use V/S for the descent. If there is a NDB approach in the data base then we are all set. We can still use it in LNAV and VNAV as long at there is a G/S value there. Either way we fly the approach to MDA+50 feet.

So, again, I don't know what point you are trying to make in the quoted section of your post. At the end the day, I don't care what people do or don't do, assuming they are complying with what ever SOP they have. I am a big advocate of automation and I enjoy using it to it's utmost capability. If some people, like this poster, want the comfort of having a piece of paper to hold, even though it has the same information the FMC has, then fine. I just think it's funny. Reminds me of the line pilots give about electronic manuals...."but I need a piece of paper to read, I can't study off a computer". As Bob Dylan said, "the times they are a changin". AFM!
Fly fast, live slow
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 30):
non-pilot!



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 30):
are in this discussion even though you "don't fly"

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" airlines SOPs done pat. Plus I think you need to re-read what I said about "don't fly!"

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 30):
You will have a discon

No you don't and I know this by the fact that I was up there and watched the guys set it up about 2 months ago.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 30):
But, you are wrong on what you are saying about having the NDB LSKable

Again I'm not wrong on the NDB having to be LSKable for the Airbus at "my" airline. Our Boeing databases (one is older and smaller found on the 737 and one is one-mega world) don't include NDB approaches. So you have to either LS an ILS approach and modify or hand build it. In turn the planes that can do VNAV approaches have to revert back to V/S and MDA+50. Again for the Airbus, if is not there then you can't fly it since the only approved way at "my" airline is to fly it manged/manged, which just happens to be the only way "we" can fly RNAV approaches in that plane.

Either way were getting off topic. I feel being a bit over prepared is never going to kill you nor add significant duties to your job.

[Edited 2009-05-28 07:30:03]
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 3:31 pm



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 31):

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" airlines SOPs done pat. Plus I think you need to re-read what I said about "don't fly!"


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 propane accessories. and Other info: Strickland Propane assistant manager. So, you can tell me what I am to believe. As I said, I can only reference what is written by youI

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 31):
No you don't and I know this by the fact that I was up there and watched the guys set it up about 2 months ago.

I can tell you for a fact, on the 744, if you takeoff in heading you will have a discon! Now if you arm LNAV it will give you a turn and it might even be a right turn depending on your heading. I have some time in the 757 and it should work the same way, but I am not sure. If you go back and read my posts you will see I specifically mentioned the current generation of glass. That would exclude the 757/767.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 31):
Our Boeing databases (one is older and smaller found on the 737 and one is one-mega world) don't include NDB approaches.

Don't think Boeing makes the databases. But in most cases ours do. Sounds like you might want to speak with "your" airline!

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 31):
In turn the planes that can do VNAV approaches have to revert back to V/S and MDA+50. Again for the Airbus, if is not there then you can't fly it since the only approved way at "my" airline is to fly it manged/manged, which just happens to be the only way "we" can fly RNAV approaches in that plane.

Again, maybe it's semantics but what you are describing is not a RNAV approach. If you have to do a LOC only that is "your" database, you are not doing a RNAV approach. You are doing a Non Precision approach. Again, I am not familiar with "your" airline, but every airline I know of allows the pilots to do the NP in various modes. For the Boeing it can be LNAV/VNAV, LNAV/VS or Heading/VS and in the Airbus Managed/Managed, Managed/Selected or Selected/Selected. If your airline is different, I really don't care but to quote you.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 29):
I don't mean to bash your airline but that is one "crappy" SOP. If I knew that was going on, I would avoid your airline like the plague.

Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
Faro
Topic Author
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 3:59 pm

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 grand scheme of things, no one airline is more incident-prone due to one specific procedural particularity with respect to another. From a passenger's point of view you're all doing a fantastic job!

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 4:24 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 32):
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 propane accessories. and Other info: Strickland Propane assistant manager. So, you can tell me what I am to believe. As I said, I can only reference what is written by youI

You obviously don't want cartoons.
http://www.fox.com/kingofthehill/

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 32):
Don't think Boeing makes the databases. But in most cases ours do. Sounds like you might want to speak with "your" airline!

I never said "Boeing" did. I said the databases for our "Boeing" aircraft.

Look your really not reading closely at what I'm typing and I'm tried of going around in circles, so I'm done with this conversation. I'm saying what "my" airline approves in response to your query about a previous comment, not about what the "majority" of airlines allow.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 4:45 pm



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 34):


I never said "Boeing" did. I said the databases for our "Boeing" aircraft.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 31):
Our Boeing databases (one is older and smaller found on the 737 and one is one-mega world) don't include NDB approaches.

Could have fooled me!

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 34):
Look your really not reading closely at what I'm typing and I'm tried of going around in circles, so I'm done with this conversation. I'm saying what "my" airline approves in response to your query about a previous comment, not about what the "majority" of airlines allow

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 terminology incorrectly and that is further convoluting the issue. From my perspective, this isn't an issue of right or wrong as you have portrayed it by your comments, but an issue in learning. Sorry you feel that way.
Fly fast, live slow
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes

Thu May 28, 2009 4:54 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 35):
The problem is you appear to be using the terminology incorrectly and that is further convoluting the issue.

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 only know of the things I talked about since I thought those were some pretty cool.

[Edited 2009-05-28 09:58:12]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests