Originally Posted by
Airbubba
Some of this difference in procedures is philosophical. Americans tend to use minimal callouts and streamlined checklists on more modern aircraft...
Yes, probably so -- the Dassault product I'm currently flying also uses a minimalist philosophy for the electronic takeoff/landing checklists and Cat II/III SOP's.
Silverhawk's characterization of the Gulfstream engineering test pilots video demonstration as a "cowboy" operation is a bit of a puzzlement -- especially when considered in the context of his own post in another thread,
"...Superfluous SOPs only detract from the whole ethos. If one item is deemed to be questionable, then all items become suspect by default.
"Just because eons ago some old fart used to have to retard the throttles on their Viper engines in the climb and used FL200 and 300 as a reminder does not mean modern equipment needs to be governed by rules that are irrelevant."
HUD guidance provides direct, conformal display of the aircraft's actual flight path in addition to the airspeed delta. See slide #9 here:
http://www.wingfiles.com/files/liais...6/20069hud.pps
Any deviation from airspeed or descent profile will show prominently on the HUD (and immediately be corrected) well before it's likely to be detected by the Monitoring Pilot using conventional head-down instruments and/or view through the windscreen.
As confirmed by the audio in the EVS demo, EGPWS makes automatic altitude callouts.
When the Approach Reference (Flight Path Angle) marker and the Flight Path Vector (bird) are both sitting on the runway's touchdown aim point and the airspeed delta is nihl, what is left for the monitoring pilot to call out?
(Silverhawk did not answer the question "Have you flown HUD?"). I still don't understand the basis of his criticism.
Take care,
Zeffy