FPV 737 usefulness

[Davz]

Having a bit of an argument with my housemate on the overall usefulness of the FPV in the 737. I think it's useful enough to use it as extra reference but he is embarrassed by me saying that hahahaha your thoughts?

[JT8D-17]

I find it completely useless, especially when there is a crosswind.

[Papa_Golf]

I just switch it on for fun to confirm my mental maths. I never use it as a reference.

[de facto]

I just switch it on for fun to confirm my mental maths. I never use it as a reference.

Yep,useless in normal ops,never using it even when flying raw data.

[Hotel Charlie]

Guess one has to have fighter backround to really appreciate it maybe .... good for steep turns though :)

[Boss du Manche]

FPV is very, very usefull when encountering unusual attitudes. You can put the FPV on the horizon and the airplane will fly level.

The optimum difference between the FPV and airplane attitude is 5 degrees. If it is more, you need to select flaps.

[fireflybob]

Also useful for flying raw data ILS - as you approach the GS you want the FPV to be 3 degrees or so below horizon

[ImbracableCrunk]

At KAL, they used the FPV for base and turn to final on a visual approach.

I used the display above the glareshield, myself.

[misd-agin]

"FPV is very, very usefull when encountering unusual attitudes. You can put the FPV on the horizon and the airplane will fly level.

The optimum difference between the FPV and airplane attitude is 5 degrees. If it is more, you need to select flaps."



I just commented on the 737-800 high altitude stall recovery thread. This post is an example of techniques that work in some events but won't work in all events. If you experience a very high AOA event putting the FPV on the horizon WON'T NECESSARILY reduce the AOA below the stall AOA or perhaps won't allow the aircraft to fly level.

"The optimum difference"? You need to select flaps prior to the minimum flap speed. There is no "optimum difference".

I have about 2500 hrs with Boeing AOA gauges. Using the FPV differential is less accurate than using the AOA but we still used the minimum flap speeds which is Boeing's procedure.

[RAT 5]

What I find very disturbing is guys who have had no advice, but like toys; switch on FPV & FD. SOP is to have FD on at all times. Here is an FPV with no SOP advice. They have both on?????????
I then hear of guys who advocate using FPV for the final of a circling approach. This is a visual approach from low level. You are looking out of the window having set an attitude. IMHO the minuscule FPV is the last thing you should be looking at.

[BARKINGMAD]

"The optimum difference between the FPV and airplane attitude is 5 degrees. If it is more, you need to select flaps."

Now I know what was wrong with my NG over 10 years of operating. And there was me tolerating 2.5/3.0 degress NU attitude in level cruising flight!

Funny the F/O never ever suggested I lower flap to correct this wierd anomaly, maybe they were afraid of upsetting a grumpy old fart??!!

Newbies, please be wary of what you read in these pages. Whomsoever came up with this rubbish should try getting some real experience before pontificating on the topic of attitude flying.

I thought this was the "Professional"/"Flight Deck" forum??!! :rolleyes:

[Amadis of Gaul]

Barkingmad, relax. This hasn't been a "professional forum" for some time...

[vapilot2004]

The FPV is handy on NP approaches with a variable crosswind as it reacts more quickly than the eye can detect drift - particularly at night. If the approach is not stabilized however, it is next to useless. Other than that and as mentioned, a wind shear warning, the FPV should serve as a cross-check item only and one should never focus on the thing.

[USMCProbe]

The FPV is more useful on a HUD than on a PFD, but it is still useful. I don't know if I would feel that way, however, if I hadn't gotten used to it first by flying with a HUD as the primary instrument.

The absolutely best use for the FPV is in the case of unreliable airspeed. You can simply fly AOA using the FPV.

The FPV is where the aircraft is going, instantaneously. The perpendicular distance, in degrees, from where the aircraft is pointed, and the FPV, is you AOA.

Cruise is 2-3 degrees. Clean maneuvering or any maneuvering flap speed is around 7. I believe approach is flown at 4-5. Stall on a 737 is low teens, I can't remember the exact figure.

[misd-agin]

Boeing doesn't use the FPV in it's loss of airspeed checklist because they don't know under which situations it will, or won't, be displayed.

It isn't a primary instrument. If other instruments, and Boeing's procedures, are working and the FPV is displayed and working it can be used. The problem is many people tried to make it a primary instrument which gets into the inappropriate techniques post I made previously.

[Ditched]

Although it can be useful i almost never use it.

Dont use it in Airspeed Unreliable. It will show on the display but pitot/static information is fed into it somehow so it cant be garanteed to show correctly!

The times i would use it are on a (night) NPA in gusty conditions, after you switch off the F/D's the FPV symbol doubles in size. You can determine your vertical path (relative to the horizon) as well as drift (the FPV symbol below the vertical bar is 10 deg, end of the horizontal bar is 20 deg). The FPV is very sensitive therefor it helps in detecting windshear.

Most pilots I fly with dislike it. Same goes for VSD but thats a different topic.

[Derfred]

Having flown the HUD (in which flight path vector is the primary focus in most phases of flight), I find it handy (when I don't have a HUD) for:

1. Engine out acceleration;

2. Raw data (i.e. no flight director) hand flying, such as visual circuits (both for maintaining level flight and subsequently establishing 3 degree approach, or steep turns, or various other raw data manoeuvres.

I find it more useful in simulators than the aircraft, mainly because the above manoeuvres are generally done in simulators rather than the aircraft, and there is less "feedback" and/or "feel" in a simulator than in a real aircraft, so the more aids the better. But having practiced using it in those scenarios in simulators, if I ever found myself in one of those situations in an aircraft on a dark and stormy night, I would probably use it. Hence I always have it turned on.

You can, of course, achieve everything just as easily by scanning to the IVSI, the only difference being that the FPV is closer to the centre of the ADI so can be monitored more closely (or even continuously) while flying attitude as the primary instrument.

I once believed it may be useful in an unreliable airspeed scenario, but Boeing have since updated the checklist to say it may not be reliable (as noted by previous poster). I actually really like that advice, because attitude and thrust really should be the only things you are thinking about in an unreliable airspeed scenario.

Dismissing it as a toy is a bit rich. It is not intended to replace a flight director, but in the event you don't have a flight director it becomes more useful. In fact, in a HUD, it is generally used in conjunction with a guidance cue, which is simply a flight director referenced to the flight path vector rather than the aircraft nose.

[Skyjob]

The FPV is much more cleverly designed and can be much more effectively used then what most people think. The designers of it have put a lot of thought and expertise in the functionality and it should be treated as such, not put down as an ineffective tool. More in-depth knowledge of the tool would be more beneficial to pilots, unfortunately that knowledge is not readily available as many "trainers" are not aware of its full capacity.

The tool is introduced on NG and future fleets and thus is here to stay, learn from it, look into its design more detailed and see what clever functionality it offers and when it is removed from view (when not able in providing accurate enough information to you) and then post back on the "useless", "never use it", tool called FPV

[Field In Sight]

Interesting discussion. I currently fly the Airbus and find the FPV very useful to aid accurate manual flight.

I'll be on the 737 Max in a few years and am glad to hear that the feature will still be available.

Pity there won't be a table to eat off :(

[fireflybob]

Interesting discussion. I currently fly the Airbus and find the FPV very useful to aid accurate manual flight.

I'll be on the 737 Max in a few years and am glad to hear that the feature will still be available.


Having flown both types the FPV has more uses on the A320 etc as the a/c (under normal law) is trajectory stable. Also on the Airbus there is a scale on the horizon on the Attitude Indicator and the desired track can be set showing as an index - these facilities are not available on the B737 NG but maybe the Max will be different?

[pudoc]

Also useful for flying raw data ILS - as you approach the GS you want the FPV to be 3 degrees or so below horizon


Not really raw data then is it. :rolleyes:

[fireflybob]

Not really raw data then is it.

A question of semantics but certainly a sensible use of available resources if you need to fly a raw data.

[de facto]

I then hear of guys who advocate using FPV for the final of a circling approach. This is a visual approach from low level. You are looking out of the window having set an attitude. IMHO the minuscule FPV is the last thing you should be looking at.

Hallelujah:ok:

Youve been cruising at 3 deg nose up for few hours and a thrust of about 88%,
you fly around weather and you get IAS disagree then unreliable airspeed...amazing how many will choose select 4 deg nose up and thrust of 75%:uhoh:

[RAT 5]

de facto: that one has been thrashed to death earlier. I hope Boeing come to their senses on that one sooner rather than later. It is a sticking plaster on the wound when an operation is needed = improved basic training.

Fireflybob: raw data ILS was a requirement to test skills long before FPV was invented. That skill test should not be diluted by later technology allowing cheating.

[fireflybob]

Fireflybob: raw data ILS was a requirement to test skills long before FPV was invented

RAT5, I am aware of that.

That skill test should not be diluted by later technology allowing cheating

Who said anything about a skill test?

[RAT 5]

Test of Skill!

[fireflybob]

Test of Skill!

All my approaches are a test of skill

[Snakecharma]

Criticism of FPV tools typically come from people with little or no experience of using them.

It is a different mindset to a certain degree but certainly not a toy or a waste of time.

The embraer ejets use FPV for everything except takeoff, and it is brilliant. Similarly the 330 uses FPV though the implementation, in my opinion, isn't as good as the embraer.

I have flown the 737 with FPV as well and when tied in with the track up display on the ND makes flying approaches much easier, even in an unstable machine like the 737.

I wish the 330 had the VSD like the embraer and vertical direct to, but alas it doesn't :(

[USMCProbe]

I would bet Boeing doesn't recommend its use has more to do with a lack of training and proficiency than its usefulness.

Like I said before, if I hadn't got used to it on a HUD, I don't know if I would have ever gotten used to it.

I can't think of any FPV that has ANY pitot static input. It should be coming straight from the INS.


Boeing and Airbus training for unreliable speed makes one HUGE assumption of power and pitch: That is that you are close to the desired speed. If you bled off a bunch of speed, or are too fast, you have to get back to the correct speed before pitch and power do any good.

I prefer just flying AOA, which I can do because, well, I used to do it in a HUD. They should train it more.

[c100driver]

That's what the Pitch Limit Indicators are for?

[fireflybob]

Heh heh touché would have been appropriate if Rat5 had said it to you. ....unless of course your saying that Rat5 has made a good point? It doesn't make sense if you say it about your own comment.
For all intensive purposes that is.....

framer, you are correct. I have edited the post to remove "touché".

Have a nice day!

[USMCProbe]

c100;
The pitch limiters help you when your AOA is too high approaching stall. They are of no use at normal AOA and airspeed. The FPV works perfectly for AOA in normal cruise and approach AOA.

Unfortunately it is not something that is trained.

[Jwscud]

The FPV as implemented on a PFD is only half a solution. The whole point of the original FPV was that it was displayed as part of the HUD to provide instantaneous flight path info and as such is brilliant.

When using it as part of a visual segment on say the 737, all it gives you is another piece of information about the flight path that you have to integrate into your brain and respond to together with the view out of the window &c.

I use it on runways with no visual or electronic slope guidance, and in IMC close to minima as a reminder where to look for the runway but not in other circumstances.

[TypeIV]

In the real airplane I mostly use it for descentplanning.

In the sim with 1eng F/D off approaches it makes things much easier. Pass the descent point, lower the nose to put the FPV onto the desired glidepath while simultaneously setting the N1. On the sim printout, you will have a perfectly straight line hitting the all the altitude gates within 10-20ft with almost no input at all on the column wheel regardless of the headwind. If the instructor says FPV-off though, it tends to look a little different :}