Interpretation of what is raw data approach.

[sheppey]

Crew room 737 discussion recently on what constitutes a raw data instrument approach. For example, take an NDB instrument approach. One view is it means conducting the approach with flight director off and using RMI needles for tracking. No FMC programming allowed. In other words basic instrument flying skill.

Another argued that raw data is flight directors on, FMC programmed and follow the magenta line using heading bug and VS mode. In other words not using Lnav or Vnav. Personally I think the latter is nonsense and not raw data.

Comments sought

[flyboyike]

Anything without FMS or AFCS involvement is raw data to me.

[Blinkz]

Personally I consider raw data using the actual needles, i.e flying the aircraft as 'raw' as possible. Using the FD to fly using HDG and VS seems counter productive. You'd have to ask the PM continually to adjust things whilst you flew the aircraft. Unless of course the AP is in, but then I definitely don't consider using the AP a raw data approach!

[Denti]

The common understanding on our boeing fleet is that raw data flying consists of manual flight with flight directors and auto thrust off or in ARM. However non precision approaches have to be flown from the database and the presentation to the pilot is exactly the same as on an ILS. Therefore it is of course not true raw data flying, just flight director off practice and following an artificial presentation of a glide path and approach course even if the pilot flying is switching his ND to approach mode instead of map.

Precision approaches are of course "true" raw data if it is an ILS, in the case of GLS approaches there is no way to fly "true" raw data.

[ajd1]

As a UK examiner, I've always interpreted 'raw data' the same as Denti. Only really see it on LSTs and ATPL upgrades, plus we generally do some on Type Rating training to familiarise the student with pitch/thrust settings.

[PEI_3721]

ajd1, you interpretation suggests that there is no need to examine pilots in approach work without a flight director (FD).
Is this official policy, and thereby, does this extend to not requiring flight instruction without FD?
A further concern is the implication that the FD becomes essential equipment; if this is the result of an ops decision then has anyone discussed this with design and certification?

[ajd1]

PEI,
For UK LSTs and LPCs we use Form LST/LPC MPA (SRG 1158).
Item 3.9.3.1 is a mandatory item for LSTs (and ATPL upgrades) and reads as follows: "Precision approach down to a decision height not less than 60m (200 ft)', manually without flight director".
The phrase 'raw data' does not appear, however, in the UK at least, I feel pretty sure that most people interpret the phrase as meaning no F/D.
So to answer the 1st question, no, there is no requirement to examine approaches without F/D except as above.

People with more in depth knowledge than me will have to answer your other questions, however it is true that some Operators' MELs have higher minima for some types of approaches if one or more F/Ds are unserviceable.

[Check Airman]

I understand raw data to be AP and FD off.

[sevenstrokeroll]

/Raw data...data not cooked!

so, if you are getting just data from radio nav without further (cooking), or reinterpretation, it is raw data.

to me, raw data is: heading indicator, attitude indicator, airspeed, altimeter and vertical speed (IVSI optional)...a ball for slip/skid.

nav data, RAW is simply a needle showing either bearing or displacement from selected course.

using a magenta line to follow a llocalizer just reminds us that a true localizer becomes more sensative as you approach the antenna. a magenta line shows constant displacement in terms of miles...not angular.

and a real raw data NDB has the audio morse identifier constantly heard in the background to verify validity of signal.

[4dogs]

I'm with sevenstrokeroll... :ok:

Raw data as a competence demonstration is intended to check a fundamental ability to fly some procedure at the lowest level of instrument display required to be provided in the aircraft. Thus, no flight suggester, no thrust management slave, no 'noughts and ones' translating input data and no stress-relieving flight control manipulator - just that most elusive of skills, manual flight on basic instruments!

Denti had me in stitches with:

However non precision approaches have to be flown from the database...

Ah, children of the magenta... :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Stay Alive,

[nitpicker330]

Denti..... In our outfit you can still fly an non prec approach if it's not in the database, the only restriction is that it cannot be flown in Fully Managed modes ( Airbus ) or LNAV VNAV ( Boeing )

That does not stop you making up your own nice little Flt Pln ( Legs page ) to look at but you MUST use ADF/VOR for tracking.:ok:

Raw Data approaches are those handflown without the FD. Only LNAV/VNAV RNAV approaches MUST use the FD and preferably the AP too.

[FullWings]

I think most of us would agree on "raw data" being no FD or map display in use, i.e. no guidance other than bearings (non-precision), displacements (precision) and the rest of the standard flight instruments (AH, ASI, ALT, VSI...). A percentage would add the criteria of AP and/or AT out, although "manual flight" is distinct from "raw data": you can have neither, one, the other or both on types that I've flown.

Item 3.9.3.1 is a mandatory item for LSTs (and ATPL upgrades) and reads as follows: "Precision approach down to a decision height not less than 60m (200 ft)', manually without flight director".
Interesting, that one, as I work for one of the larger UK airlines and we don't check that. Manually, yes, but w/o FD, no. We've been on ATQP for the last few years so that adds to the confusion.

However non precision approaches have to be flown from the database...
We don't have that restriction but can't go lower than circling minima without the AP engaged on a NPA.

[BaconRash]

Interesting question. When it was introduced the LST "raw data" requirement was to assess a pilot's ability to fly an approach from standby instruments. We term flying with the flight director cheating;)...I mean manual flying.

On line it is good to practice manual approaches (with the FD only on NHPs side) as it does help to keep HPs scan up to speed... without loosing protection of the magenta. Also keeps NHP in the loop.

The CAA have published a number of papers where they express increasing concern about operators discouraging manual flying. It is a degradable skill and if you don't use it ....you will loose it...twice a year in the sim does not cut it. The less experience you have the more this applies.

[despegue]

Do you guys really claim that during your sim. You don't do a single engine raw- data ILS and non precision?! Come on! :ugh::=

[Denti]

We do not use LNAV/VNAV on the boeings, all approaches are flown in approach mode if one is using automatic flight. Doesnt matter which kind. And of course all approaches can be flown manually and with autothrust and flight director off as well, no restrictions of any kind either except low vis of course.

If no approach is in the database we could fly normal nav data based approaches using basic modes or manual flight as well, however we do have complete database coverage for all suitable (runway length) airports in our area of operation and all surrounding areas as well. It is simply SOP to select the approach in the FMC and fly it from there. However we are encouraged to do so without flight directors and autoflight system.

As i said above, personally i consider "true" raw data only uncooked nav data, however in our increasingly electronic world that becomes a thing of the past. Most non precision approaches nowadays are RNAV, precision approaches are slowly moving over to GLS. Neither can be flown raw data, but both can be flown in the familiar ILS style with a normal displacement pointer on the ND instead of a flashy map display.

Sadly a few years ago the requirement to demonstrate a raw data OEI ILS to minimums vanished and we rarely do it nowadays in our checks. We have an increasing part of raw data manual basic IFR flight however to increase basic flight proficiency. Sad in itself that it has to be trained though, but the worldwide trend of LOCIF demands it.

[BaconRash]

Know what you are saying

"Loss of control in flight (LOCIF©) continues to be a major cause of fatalities in the aviation industry. From 1987 to 1996, LOCIF accounted for 32% of U.S. fatal accidents"

Would argue though if manual flight practice had not been driven out by management groups driven by short term safety stat meetings we would have a more capable pilot workforce.

I fly with people who put the autopilot in at flaps up no lights...and take it out again at minimums. When the AP drops out (for any reason) you can almost smell the fear. IMHO thats not right.

[FullWings]

As i said above, personally i consider "true" raw data only uncooked nav data, however in our increasingly electronic world that becomes a thing of the past. Most non precision approaches nowadays are RNAV, precision approaches are slowly moving over to GLS. Neither can be flown raw data, but both can be flown in the familiar ILS style with a normal displacement pointer on the ND instead of a flashy map display.
Agreed.

Another point is that with many EFIS fits, certain things can't be switched off, for instance wind and track information. "Raw data" approaches become much easier when you can just plonk the track on the needle.

Also, PFDs do not encourage much of a "traditional" instrument scan as most of the information is gathered together in one area. With a HUD, the need goes away almost completely.
Do you guys really claim that during your sim. You don't do a single engine raw- data ILS and non precision?! Come on!
Yup. AT in and FD on. Alternate checks with AP in/out. NPA SOPs are for AP in only. That's how the owners of the train set wish it to be played with...

To be fair, the V1 cut - ILS - GA - NPA style of check is becoming consigned to history as isn't a very realistic scenario. I doubt if few or any have ever *had* to follow that sequence in real life. Better to use the limited time to *train* lots of different types of failures to competence.

[sheppey]

Better to use the limited time to *train* lots of different types of failures to competence.

Despite evidence of previous incidents where running out of fuel resulted in jet transports conducting loss of all engines "dead stick" glide and forced landings, it should be noted that few jet transport simulator training syllabus address dead stick landings.

While it may be seen as too time consuming in the simulator to glide no engines from (say) 25,000 ft, the value of such exercises is beyond price. The Air Canada B767 "Gimli Glider" captain who successfully forced landed after running out of fuel at cruise made the point that if only Air Canada had given crews training in dead stick landings he would have felt more confident in pulling it off.

Traditional box ticking simulator exercises ad nauseum need to be reviewed to give crews practice at the rare emergencies of forced landings following loss of all engines and also ditching practice. If pilots have never practiced this what are the chances of success if it really happens? Answer: Zip.