737 airspeed unreliable QRH

[fox niner]

A few days back I received a new procedure in my 737 QRH, for airspeed unreliable. We now have a set of thrust settings in combination with a specific pitch attitude, as memory items.
Config flaps up: 4 degrees pitch up, and 75% N1
Config flaps extended: 10 degrees pitch up and 80% N1

This afternoon we were happily flying along at FL400 at M.79, pitch was 2.5 degrees and N1 was 89%.
My point is this: if our airspeed was going haywire at that point, the new procedure would require us to increase pitch to 4 degrees, while retarding thrust to 75%!!! At FL 400????
No way.

Where did this procedure come from? My airmanship is going to prevent me from following these new memory items. I refuse.

[8che]

Boeing has introduced this for most if not all of their types. I'll simply let Boeing answer this for you:

These pitch and power settings provide a simple reference setting for the crew to use for a short period of time while the initial steps of the checklist are accomplished. These settings do not ensure a level flight or constant airspeed at any particular altitude/airspeed/weight combination. However, they do ensure that at any and all weight/altitude combinations, the aircraft will accelerate from low speeds, and slow from a high speeds, as we cannot assume the aircraft is in stable flight when the NNC is run. It is more likely that the crew or the autopilot has destabilized the airplane as a result of erroneous airspeed indications prior to identification of the need to run the NNC. These memory item pitch and power settings often result in a significant climb (from lower altitudes) and can also result in a gradual descent (from higher altitudes).

Remember unreliable airspeed is rarely obvious as in your example. Things don't go haywire it can often be subtle to begin with. Try blocked Pitots on takeoff in the sim and see how many crews lose control of the aeroplane before they have a clue whats happened. Boeing assumes you may lose control before any confirmed diagnosis hence this procedure to keep you alive along enough to try and work it out.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

8, can I trouble you for a link to that piece please?

[nick14]

Foxniner,

Listen to your aircraft manufacturer they know better than all of us and have genuinely produced a procedure to follow which covers all situations for all types, truely incredible.

What will happen at FL400 is that you will decelerate and begin a descent. During which you then complete the rest of the QRH and eventually get to setting pitch and thrust from the PI section.

Lord spandex, if you have a Boeing FCTM it should have been updated at the same time and is in there.

[RAT 5]

If you do this manoeuvre during SID, e.g. 6000' level flight on a busy TMA, you are heading for trouble. ATC want you in level flight. You set these parameters and climb and accelerate. While attempting to follow the check list you get an RA. ATC is shouting at you to maintain 6000' due traffic. By sensible airmanship you have noticed your Power/Attitude/Speed does not achieve the required performance and you do an immediate cross check of all 3 ASI's. You decide quickly who has the functioning side and they become PF. The PF calls for QRH. What is wrong with that process? If the PF now sets the QRH memory parameters you disturb a controlled situation and make t worse. Is that good airmanship?
I'm curious why you would want to do something you know will not work for you. Indeed, IF you are confused, then perhaps follow the new QRH procedure. It should say:
CHOOSE ONE: Confused ......... 4 degrees 75% .....SET.

Not confused........Fly the a/c as required.

[highflyer40]

Thing is if you follow the procedure you have TIME. AC will find the speed that these settings will deliver and then will stay in stable flight while you troubleshoot. Yes you may descend or climb if you already are slow and if you are near traffic declare a pan and do what you like while you sort it.

[finals24]

I believe that AF 447 is behind this change. It is a catchall but would have saved that aircraft.

[nick14]

Cross checking your ASI has been found to be a poor way of establishing a reliable source. What if you have two that agree but are incorrect or a strange failure like an ADIRU fault etc. what are you comparing them to and how do you determine correct indications?

All these scenarios are covered in the QRH.

Declare PAN/Mayday and fly the aircraft.

[Skyjob]

If you do this manoeuvre during SID, e.g. 6000' level flight on a busy TMA, you are heading for trouble. ATC want you in level flight. You set these parameters and climb and accelerate. While attempting to follow the check list you get an RA. ATC is shouting at you to maintain 6000' due traffic.

RAT5, remember the reason of the unreliable airspeed could also have an effect on incorrect altimeter readings, including those providing input to transponder for altitude alerting. Thus you may think you are in level flight, or indeed ATC might, when in fact you are not. TCAS is only as good as its inputs, which in this case can be wrong. The list of items which may be unreliable are included at the bottom of the 737NG checklist by Boeing, as is the list which is relievable.
The following are reliable:
•Attitude
•N1
•Ground speed
•Radio altitude
One or more of the following may be evidence of unreliable airspeed or Mach indications:
•Speed/altitude information not consistent with pitch attitude and thrust setting
•SPD failure flag
•SPD LIM failure flag
•IAS DISAGREE alert
•Blank or fluctuating airspeed display
•Variation between captain and first officer airspeed displays
•Radome damage or loss
•Overspeed warning
•Simultaneous overspeed and stall warnings.
Until you identify failure (possibly after running the checklist) you cannot guarantee that any RA is valid either as the selected altitude information (item 1 on above list) may not be accurate.

[8che]

RAT 5


Listen to Skyjob....Listen to Boeing and then read about AEROPERU 603. (there are other examples too)

[FlyingStone]

The 4°/75% is ballpark figure which keeps the aircraft flying, when you have either no airspeed indication or no idea which airspeed indication is correct.

It is not meant as a "I can still fly RVSM to destination" figure. Its sole purpose is to keep enough airflow over the wings so the aircraft continues to fly (but not so fast as to have it fall apart), while you bring out the PI figures, as suggested.

[nick14]

Why is there so much opposition to a manufacturers procedure??

[RAT 5]

Why is there so much opposition to a manufacturers procedure??

I'm not sure that is quite correct. It's a very sweeping statement. It is a considerable change from the 'manufacturer's previous procedure'. This is not the first time the manufacturer has made significant changes. If it was OK before what has caused such a large change? I've asked Boeing pilots about other changes they've made previously to their QRH procedures and received very vague wishy-washy answers.
It's not an opposition it's a cry for information and understanding. Nowt wrong with that; it's what pilots do.

[nick14]

The OP has stated he is going to ignore it as have many pilots I have talked to. It's frustrating when so much has been done to come up with the changes for the better

[Judd]

Try blocked Pitots on takeoff in the sim and see how many crews lose control of the aeroplane before they have a clue whats happened.

I don't know about blocked pitot heads because that should normally be picked up during the take off roll during the 80 knots (Boeing) or 100 knots(Airbus) IAS check, thus permitting an early abort if required.

The really nasty gotcha (in the 737 Classic anyway) is a blocked captain's static vent. During the take off roll until airborne, flight instrument indications are normal. After lift off the captain's altimeter does not move; nor does his VSI. This is where the captain has to be careful when the first officer calls "Positive rate of climb" on his side that the captain doesn't automatically reply "Gear Up". Because he does not have the usual indications of positive rate of climb on his side since his static vent is blocked.

Soon after in the initial climb (about 30 seconds after airborne) the captains ASI needle starts to slowly go backwards and indicate a speed loss due to its blocked static vent. As the airspeed needle continues to fall back, it triggers a spurious wind-shear warning and a few seconds later, off goes the stick shaker as well. The stick shaker of course is giving a false warning and the first tendency as a startle factor (seen in the simulator, anyway) is to lower the nose.

The fix is to disregard the spurious warnings and maintain the correct climb attitude for the configuration, check the correct N1. A quick check of the ground speed read-out will give the pilot a confirmation which ASI is untrustworthy. That is one reason why a glance at the expected ground speed read-out at the 80 knot or 100 knot call is a useful back-up against an unexpected erroneous airspeed event.

The blocked static vent can cause real confusion initially; which is why the pilot needs to fly expected body angle and N1 for the state of flight until trouble shooting sorts things out. During the sorting out process in the climb, be careful not to overspeed the flaps as it is all too easy to concentrate on various aural and visual warnings and ASI readings and forget that the aircraft is still accelerating fast.

[Skyjob]

The blocked static vent can cause real confusion initially; which is why the pilot needs to fly expected body angle and N1 for the state of flight until trouble shooting sorts things out. During the sorting out process in the climb, be careful not to overspeed the flaps as it is all too easy to concentrate on various aural and visual warnings and ASI readings and forget that the aircraft is still accelerating fast.

And if transponder is also set at 1 then incorrect TCAS information is available to crew and ATC until rectified...

Agreed with Boeing: FLY the aircraft, set the pitch and power and troubleshoot.
Flaps out, usually thus low level, give a climb rate.
Flaps up, usually higher flight levels/altitude, give a descent rate.
Both above scenarios are safe, sure there are exceptions to the norm, but it is safer then any other option.
Do not disregards the Boeing advice, follow it instead.

[Spooky 2]

Lets see...Boeing has tested, demonstrated, and validated these procedures in the E cab, Level D simulator and the actual aircraft. Go ahead and use your own procedures in lieu. Let us know how they work out for?:eek:

[FullWings]

If this procedure had been around (and flown) by Birgenair 301 and Air France 447, then they and their passengers might be still around to talk to. Air Asia 8501 is looking similar.

When I did the training, it was explained much like the quote from Boeing near the beginning of the thread. It’s a two-sizes-fits-all get-you-out-of-the-doo-doo procedure for when the aircraft is misbehaving and you have picked it up late or are uncertain as to exactly what’s happening.

Having an insidious pitot/static issue in IMC and turbulence is very different to a sudden loss of airspeed indication when you’re fully stable on short finals. However, if you make a mess (however small) of the rest of the approach and landing with your own version of “airspeed unreliable”, the first question will be: “Why didn’t you follow the QRH drill and sort it out later?”

I know this seems like “dumbing down” and I myself make sure I know enough performance attitudes to cover most phases of flight without having to look them up but from a point-of-view of overall safety, this procedure will as near as possible 100% keep you flying and under control. As professionals we are paid to follow (within reason) the safest path, not the most personally satisfying or neat one...

[JammedStab]

It is not only the 737. On the 747 we now have two different pitch and power combinations for unreliable airspeed. One for flaps up and one for flaps extended.

For flaps up, we set 80% N1 and 4 degrees nose up. Yesterday in cruise at a heavy weight a bit above optimum altitude was typical at 2.5-3 degrees nose up and 92% power.

It seems foolish to me to increase pitch and reduce thrust if we notice that our airspeed is unreliable. In fact it might be downright dangerous.

[BARKINGMAD]

So far none of the aircraft manufacturer(s), Mr A nor Mr B nor Mr E, appear to mention checking that the Stab Trim is somewhere near where it should be for the configurations.


Or is the profession of the opinion that it's not really important, or maybe such a check will overload the highly trained and competent Bonobo Chimps in the average airliner flight deck?


It certainly seemed to play a large part in some of the recent LOC/stalling accidents and incidents, yet has been omitted from the latest revised procedures.


Braced for incoming..........

[FullWings]

On the 777 it’s 10degs/85% or 4degs/70%.
It seems foolish to me to increase pitch and reduce thrust if we notice that our airspeed is unreliable. In fact it might be downright dangerous.
I think it has to be reiterated that these figures are not expected to produce level flight or cruise airspeeds. Just something that keeps you inside the flight envelope while you diagnose the problem and get the QRH out.

One thing is pretty much guaranteed: the failure will catch you by surprise and it will be of a type you haven’t experienced before. It will probably interact with auto systems in a “interesting” way, too.
So far none of the aircraft manufacturer(s), Mr A nor Mr B nor Mr E, appear to mention checking that the Stab Trim is somewhere near where it should be for the configurations.
A good point. Maybe it is assumed, much like stick/yoke forward, houses get bigger, stick/yoke back, houses get smaller then bigger again? They do mention trim when it comes to upset recovery, which could be needed if the UAS scenario has been in play for a while until noticed...

[cosmo kramer]

Probably introduced by Boeing because they know only a minority are still able to fly manually. If regularly practiced, the appropriate pitch and power values are ingrained.

You guys go ahead with what Boeing prescribes, I'll stick with 12-15 deg pitch on takeoff, 6 deg/65% N1 for level flight below FL100 and 2 deg/85% N1 in cruise.

[Callsign Kilo]

In the Air France case, it has been said that if the PF had initially done nothing at all the chance of survival would have been much greater.

Anyway, question relating to the use of the FPV. With the previous memory items in place,I can remember a sim session where the use of the FPV was actively encouraged. I recall the emphasis was placed on getting the aircraft into level flight (a complete loss of airspeed data was simulated after departure). Taking account of terrain etc the aircraft was placed in level flight and the three former memory items were performed. The FPV could be used.

The recent NNC states that FPV information could be inaccurate. So what are its inputs considering it displays drift and flight path angle? Thanks

[galdian]

The procedure is primarily targeted at high altitude/high weight where the margins between the stalls is minimum and is SOLELY disigned to keep the aircraft from stalling and provide the crew with as much time as required to try and work out what the f**ks going on and not misdiangose anything due
to any (incorrect) perception of time constraints.

I also was a non-believer initially, the day the change came out I flew at FL400, around 135,000lb, 3 degrees and 90% N1.


Was in the SIM a few days later and tried the NNC, A/P off...A/T off...F/D off...CWS set 4degrees (I'm a bad gaijin and not scared of white man magic, worked good-o)....75% N1.


SIM finally entered a shallow descent, entered the low speed margin but at no time did it approach or enter a high or low speed stall.
Suspect that's the intent Mr Boeing had in mind, if so then a success.


If you get in the SIM try it for yourself - seeing is believing - or if you really want to stir up your Flt Ops Dept try it on a line flight.
You'll most certainly attract their attention!!

[nick14]

Jammed stab,

Review the lift equation and then rethink.

The aircraft will decelerate and then descend, it's not dangerous at all and Boeing have tested it!

Follow the procedure

Flight path vector receives static inputs so may be unreliable, depends on the failure.

[cosmo kramer]

SIM finally entered a shallow descent, entered the low speed margin but at no time did it approach or enter a high or low speed stall.
Suspect that's the intent Mr Boeing had in mind, if so then a success.

How close did it come to stall? A slight bit of turbulence and it might not be so much fun to be in the low speed band.

[framer]

I'm not 100% sold on it either but have to admit that I tried it in the sim and even at flap 40 MLW it found it's sweet spot and never stalled.

[zlin77]

I attended a meeting last year, chaired by A Boeing Technical Pilot, he discussed the new unreliable airspeed procedure ,stating that the power/attitude settings were the same across all Boeing types.... it is designed to keep you in a safe flight regime while you drag out your trusty QRH and look up exact figures for your type/weight/altitude/flight-mode....

[RAT 5]

it is designed to keep you in a safe flight regime while you drag out your trusty QRH and look up exact figures for your type/weight/altitude/flight-mode....

My question is: if I know that 6 & 60% will keep me safe at 6000' at 220kts or 3 & 65% at 250kts, or 2 & 85% at 0.76m >FL370 and something in-between at mid-levels,why would I do something else while time is spent searching for the QRH which will tell me what I already know. Meanwhile the a/c is doing something I don't want it to do.

I understand the argument that for those who are unsure what to do they can set these parameters and go through the whole process and survive. It is an attempt to avoid panic and achieve some calm control. But one size fits all, scenarios & pilots, is not comfortable for me. I teach the new procedure in the sim during a SID and all the students ask "why don't we set 6 & 60% that has been beaten into us as a safe setting for 220kts? If we set 4 & 75% it causes us more problems?" It is not easy to find an answer other than "because the QRH says so." It is not easy to explain why. IMHO pilots should be able to understand the 'why'.
I suspect many of us will 'have to agree to disagree'.

[victorc10]

If both (or all three/four) of you know whats going on then that is fine, but if not all of the crew are on the same page then there is potential for a further layer of confusion. Whilst I also know the rough setting for each of the major flight regimes, I will follow the QRH....then everyone knows what to expect and can feel more comfortable in the procedure.

Of course if someone forgets to check the library and QRH is not on board...it can be useful to know what to set!!.

[JammedStab]

Jammed stab,

Review the lift equation and then rethink.

The aircraft will decelerate and then descend, it's not dangerous at all and Boeing have tested it!

Follow the procedure

Flight path vector receives static inputs so may be unreliable, depends on the failure.

Thanks for the info. However, I may not necessarily just mindlessly "Follow the procedure" as is often quoted and will consider maintaining present pitch and power while in cruise as we do know that this has been working for much of the flight so far. I suspect a few captain's here might say "I have control" if their F/O ever did such a maneuver in normal flight at top of descent with reasoning for taking control being that it was an unsafe maneuver. But I may be wrong.

How about a few out there on this thread actually try this at TOD and then post back on this thread what the result was. Reduce power, pitch up slowly to avoid a climb and then get back to us. Try for flights below at and above optimum. It is deemed to be safe so there should be no issues. It will be interesting to hear the results.

[BARKINGMAD]

"How about a few out there on this thread actually try this at TOD and then post back on this thread what the result was. Reduce power, pitch up slowly to avoid a climb and then get back to us. Try for flights below at and above optimum. It is deemed to be safe so there should be no issues. It will be interesting to hear the results."


And if something out of the ordinary occurs "it will be interesting to hear" the subsequent interview with fleet/flight manager(s)!!


Whilst I appreciate the desire for some HARD info on this topic, I doubt whether a line sector is the place for such research by ordinary line dogs.


However, it reinforces my oft-voiced opinion that the particular type simulator is NOT the realistic tool we are all sold by training and management.


Post AF447 when still practising the art, I made sure I knew with instant recall what pitch/power/trim my craft was using to survive at the cruise mass at the (aerodynamically dodgy) cruise altitude, where, when things go wrong, they go wrong quickly.


The 73NG seemed to be happy with the rule of 3s, namely 3ish degrees pitch, 90% N1 and 6.0ish on the stab trim. The cruise N1 was usually a bit less than 90, but if the wind powered instruments go AWOL, then I think I'd rather go too fast than risk slowing and reducing my energy and risking stalling. I am convinced this type, at cruise mass/altitude, will inevitably slow down with 75% N1 and would not be happy to go there.


Thank you Mr Boeing for doing some work on this, but you are the organisation who recommends I select Eng Anti-ice ON plus Airframe Anti-ice ON, above FL350, if I run into volcanic ash??!! Those of you on the type might like to imagine the resultant chaos if/when the dual bleed trip occurs as you are trying to sort out the Ash Encounter procedure!!


Still have not had a satisfactory answer to this one, and I'm NOT pretending I'm cleverer than their TPs, but here is a QRH item which directly contradicts the recommendation in another QRH, so I and others are left with a certain lack of confidence in some published procedures. And yes, the lawyers would have a field day, but if I'm still alive to argue then so be it.


Tin hat at the ready..........

[galdian]

Some are misunderstanding that the NNC change is ESSENTIALLY, 99.9999% about hot and high situations where you have f**k all airspeed to play with before a stall - whether high speed or low speed.

At FL280/300 or so you can literally set whatever power/pitch you want and you will NEVER STALL.
The AirFrance incident did NOT occur at FL280 - it occurred when hot and high.

CK: apologies but did not see the margin to low speed stall, end of SIM session and the others wanted to call it quits, all I wanted to see was what would happen when (IMHO) setting a high pitch/low power when hot and high should get extremely ugly.
Having tried the scoreline is: Boeing 1, Galdian 0. :p

Regards your concerns about low speed stall - why can't it be high speed stall if you're in turbulence with strong vertical windshear??
Personally if I was in or approaching ANY stall I'd be calling it quits - drag off the power, setting around 0 degrees pitch, making a "mayday" and getting down to FL280 and luxuriate in all that margin between high/slow stalls whilst trying to sort out what's going on.

Live to fight (flight) another day! :ok:

[cosmo kramer]

Regards your concerns about low speed stall - why can't it be high speed stall if you're in turbulence with strong vertical windshear??
Do you mean an accelerated stall or high speed buffet?

Accelerated stall (occurring at a higher speed than a 1G stall) is exactly what I mean. If you are deep in the low speed band, you are awfully close to the 1G stall speed. A few bumps of turbulence and the wing is stalled.

I have never heard of high speed buffet (supersonic shockwaves) causing disruption of the airflow to an extent that is causes the wing to stall in the case of 737. I doubt that turbulence would contribute further to the disruption of the airflow caused by the shockwaves as I would believe they are purely a function of the speed. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway, Boeing did dive tests with full thrust as part of the certification!! The drag rises so much that it is not possible to accelerate the aircraft to such speeds in normal attitudes.


Exceeding MMO/VMO is no big deal, there is a huge margin. So, I would still go for the safe numbers:

12-15 deg pitch on takeoff

Descent all altitudes:
-1 deg / idle

Climb, at climb thrust:
Sealevel: 10
FL100: 8
FL200: 6
FL300: 4
FL400: 2

6 deg / 65% for level flight below FL100
2 deg / 85% for level flight at cruising altitude.

The short version (easy to remember): 12-15, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, -1 - and the thrust settings 65/85 to go with 6 and 2.

In my opinion Boeing are dumbing things down, because they know the eroding manual flying skills causes people not to know these values anymore.

AF447 has been mentioned as an example. My point: Had they maintained a normal cruise pitch and thrust, nothing would have happened! From the CVR it appears that they never recognised the airspeed disagree, hence they would never have set pitch and thrust to a predetermined value, even if Airbus had had procedures comparable to the new ones of Boeing.

So for those who can still fly, "use attitude and thrust to maintain control". For those that can't, they will probably be so startled that it won't matter what procedures they use. Sad state of affairs. :(

[framer]

I have to say that Cosmo has summed up the current state of affairs very well.
Particularly this;
So for those who can still fly, "use attitude and thrust to maintain control". For those that can't, they will probably be so startled that it won't matter what procedures they use. Sad state of affairs.
I think that pilots flying today could be roughly divided into two groups, one group who have attitude as their first go-to because they actually have experience flying aircraft IMC and learnt ( probably subconsciously) that a good scan is built around attitude, and the second group who have never learnt and practiced that.

[RAT 5]

I think that pilots flying today could be roughly divided into two groups, one group who have attitude as their first go-to because they actually have experience flying aircraft IMC and learnt ( probably subconsciously) that a good scan is built around attitude, and the second group who have never learnt and practiced that.

The root cause of this statement is not the line plot training but the training of the flying school student. That is where the basics should be ingrained. I receive 148hr cadets to start a jet TQ course. Some are good, some OK. They have not had the 'attitude is the heart & start of the scan' pumped into them. Scarily I now hear from a TC on A320 that he is line training cadet pilots with 79hrs total from a MPL course. Can this really be true..correct...good idea? They must have done, hopefully, a huge amount of sim flying IR/IMC to be allowed anywhere near a pax a/c wit only 79hrs air time. Have they been pounded into good IR scanning?
I know nothing of MPL, but the dilution of training seems to be close to bottom.

IMHO the new unreliable airspeed procedures is a knee jerk reaction to a couple of events that should not have led to an accident. It's a one size fits all, in all circumstances, "flying for dummies" solution. I'd rather teach the guys better in their foundation phase, AND practice it.

Amidst all this, one thing I find very unsettling: With a blocked pitot or static source the 1st thing you may notice (on the more modern a/c) is an "IAS disagree" flag. (It is not there on older a/c. You determined something was amiss due to incompatible ATT/Power/Speed interrogation = scan.) You call for the B737 IAS Disagree QRH (non memory). It directs you, after no action, to the "Unreliable Airspeed QRH. Here there are memory items, the definition of which are actions that need to be competed expeditiously. So why the delay going via the non-memory IAS disagree QRH? I am confused, perplexed and consider this not good. It confuses the heck out of the more intelligent cadets.

An added note about all these new additional bells & whistles is it encourages a laziness in scan. You wait for a caution/warning to tell you something is wrong and then react. IMHO it is good airmanship to know your a/c and understand/perceive when it is sick and not behaving itself. You can then be proactive in reducing the oncoming bunfight. After every incident/accident a new bell or whistle is added. After THY in AMS there is a new "airspeed low" vocal. It happens when the IAS is deep in the yellow. I didn't know blind pilots were allowed to fly. There is a caution to tell you that +5 degrees attitude with level flight, an IAS 250kts and accelerating is not correct. There are cautions to tell you that +10 degrees, VSI climbing but speed increasing is not correct. etc. etc. How can a pilot have an IR on type and not know these things?
After flying a B732 I flew B767. We learnt to fly it in the same manner. Keep you eyes around the cockpit. I moved on to a B727 company that had acquired B757. The instructors there taught to "follow the FD!!" and "no need to keep scanning the overhead or instrument panel as EICAS is installed". They advised a lowering of alertness and thereby encouraged reactive operations, not proactive. That was 25 years ago. We've slipped a long way down the slope since then. If you know the a/c, and you should, then do the correct thing to keep it safe, by knowledge. It galls me to have to do something I know will not work and will then need to be adjusted. Someone said you have to be quick to get into the P.I. QRH, but as always don't rush. I am still curious what the PF, who has the failed side, is doing while PM is searching for "IAS Disagree" QRH and it all going to worms. The "Unreliable Airspeed" QRH has not yet been reached. So what is happening during this delay by the low time cadet as PF in RHS?

[TypeIV]

I've tried the new memory items for two PCs in a row now and on the simulator simulating a gross weight of 65t and we've always tended to go towards an overspeed situation rather quickly when flaps are up at low level, so you have to be pretty quick on getting the QRH out in order to be able to reduce the thrust.

Is it the sim that is too slick or is it something that you've experienced as well? or is it just my flying that's too crappy? :}

[nick14]

If you don't know about MPL then please research it, it is an evolution of training in which pilots are trained in job specific skills rather than the generic SEP/MEP. 240 hrs total of which most is done on a device representing the type they will ultimately fly. It's brilliant, anyway thread drift.

It's clear that some people on here are not willing to use the new procedures. If you are safe then I guess no one can argue with that. I however will do what the QRH and manufacturer have told me.

[Capn Bloggs]

(MPL) It's brilliant, anyway thread drift.
Simply a cheaper way to get bums on seats. Any outfit worth it's salt could easily train into the worst "real" pilot the ins and outs of two-crew jet flying. The greatest cause of accidents now is LOC; in the time given, an MPL person simply cannot have the stick and rudder skills necessary to reduce the LOC accident rate. Without extensive initial ongoing recurrent sim training (which isn't happening) stick and rudder "experience" will never be gained by an MPL.

[nick14]

Bloggs you are wrong.

It is not cheaper as the devices required to train from the early stages are much more advanced and require more features than before. It also takes longer and requires a commitment from the airline in question for the pilot to be streamed onto type. Under EASA they also require 12 landings not 6 so it's another cost for the operator.

One of the major parts of the course is UPRT and they receive more training of that than any other course, it is targeted training using the very best in simulator software and type specific.

Tell me how 40hrs on an MEP helps a student learn how to recover from a nose high upset in an A320?

The industry research and feedback is very good and often better than the conventional ATPL course and having talked to LTCs training these guys they have often said that the quality is higher than that of an ATPL student.

Say what you like but industry statistics say it all. Everyone I have met that has disliked the MPL system is ignorant to how it works. I was once the same.

[Capn Bloggs]

Fuel Flow's the best thrust-setter. Same fuel flow gives almost the same IAS, regardless of level as well as same deck angle. I don't fly the 777, but 75% N1 at high alt seems very low!

The industry research and feedback is very good and often better than the conventional ATPL course and having talked to LTCs training these guys they have often said that the quality is higher than that of an ATPL student.
Well, improve the ATPL course!

[nick14]

Why? If they have something that works well and has taken 30+ years work then why ditch it for an improved ATPL course just because some people don't like how many hours a pilot has done?

The MPL is everything the ATPL should have been.

[JammedStab]

"How about a few out there on this thread actually try this at TOD and then post back on this thread what the result was. Reduce power, pitch up slowly to avoid a climb and then get back to us. Try for flights below at and above optimum. It is deemed to be safe so there should be no issues. It will be interesting to hear the results."


And if something out of the ordinary occurs "it will be interesting to hear" the subsequent interview with fleet/flight manager(s)!!




I have been assured that it is safe so why not try it. If it is good enough for those without proper airspeed indications, it shouldn't be a problem for those with proper airspeed indications. All of a sudden it seems that there is a hesitancy to do this safe maneuver. Perhaps for good reason, which is why I questioned reducing thrust and increasing pitch in the first place.

[nick14]

Because it is a procedure to be used to ensure safe flight in a non normal situation, not to be trialed by line pilots with passengers on board.

Why not try anything in the FCTM/QRH if you have that attitude? The place to try these things out is in the simulator.

[JammedStab]

Because it is a procedure to be used to ensure safe flight in a non normal situation, not to be trialed by line pilots with passengers on board.

Why not try anything in the FCTM/QRH if you have that attitude? The place to try these things out is in the simulator.

Actually, I don't have that attitude. I wouldn't dream of reducing thrust and pitching up while in cruise. I just wanted to point out the interesting reality of being told how a maneuver is deemed to be quite safe that it can be done safely without even an ASI yet is something one dares not attempt when airspeed indications are normal due to the potential consequences.

My suggestion to the manufacturer would be to make the checklist slightly more complicated by stating that if at a pitch and power setting that has been proven to be safe while in level flight(or at least in cruise), maintain that pitch and power setting(or some similar well thought out procedure) instead of trying to match up a procedure that works at lower levels to cruise flight. I think you will find that most pilots would do this while in cruise anyways. At least I hope so.

[nick14]

It does work in the cruise, that's the point. All altitudes and weights the speed will be safe. I have tried it at the extremes of the envelope and it works.

[Capt Turbo]

Since AF 447 I have done the "hi altitude confusion" scenario with a few dozens wide body Airbus crews, lately with SFOs/Cruise capts at the controls.
Scary stuff: When brought into the situation unprepared, only a few have managed to control it, the majority departed into an unrecoverable aircraft state.

The main reason is CONFUSION & FALSE WARNINGS in combination with no default plan. Events develop surprisingly fast, too fast for any QRH study. Regrettably, the AB QRH/memory items deal with the low altitude scenario, not the hi altitude (it is there, but not as immidiate action and is hidden as small print in a table).

Several posts here mention basic airmanship as a mantra. For those of us who have done tail slides in a F-104 or Mirage, airmanship is in the veines, but there are a lot of pilots out there - especially in new airlines in the 3rd world - for whome anything but computerized flight in the middle of the envelope is a grey area. Sad, yes, but a fact of our industry as it is today.

Realising this, Boing have come up with this life saving, simple, easy to memorise procedure. When I teach my boyz this, they survive; when not, they die. Simple fact...

So I either tell my various CEOs to allocate the extra money to hire only proficient, competent aviators (will not happen, of course) or I teach something that works for everyone. I wish AB will soon publish something similar to Boing. Not perfect, but far better than what we have today.

Turbo.
PS: For the smart a***s only: Your 0-wind GPS GS is 500 knots at GPS altitude 40.000'. What is your IAS? (Knowing that can save your day, too.)

[JammedStab]

So I either tell my various CEOs to allocate the extra money to hire only proficient, competent aviators (will not happen, of course) or I teach something that works for everyone. I wish AB will soon publish something similar to Boing. Not perfect, but far better than what we have today.



I suppose the overall reality of aviation dictates this procedure publication by the manufacturer. Makes the questions on this subject prior to a sim check easy to answer now.

Thanks

[nick14]

Tailslides in a fighter jet have very little to do with the operation of a passenger jet. You could say that just because I haven't flown anything other than Boeing jets I shouldn't have been hired. I have no other experience but I seem to do alright.

Wasn't the air Asia captain an ex fighter pilot?

[B737900er]

Nick - Fighter pilots are the best pilots in the world, Didn't you watch the 1985 cult classic 'Top Gun'? :E

Whats more entertaining is ex military running a civil airline - Behind the times, with a hint of cluelessness.

Now back on topic.