following a runway change to a parallel runway at about 10 miles, where the 'candidate' went head down to programme the computer for the new runway
You have to be kidding .. but I know you're not .. a sad indictment of the Industry's training programs and general understanding of flight management .. regardless of which seat is concerned.
JT and BOAC,
Nothing is black and white, just shades of grey. With all due respect, whether "re-programming" (which you are not doing -- that's for software people) for the runway change --- as a decision to be evaluated by the check pilot, as "good" or "bad" needs a lot more information. Which airport/aircraft/runway even before we consider weather --- and who was pilot flying and who was support, and so on and so forth.
If the "re-programming" is confined to simply FMCS (by whatever name) selection of the runway, which brings up the ILS frequency and the go-around ---- this is no more labor intensive than manually selecting an ILS frequency by the keyboard, indeed, on some Boeing types, fewer keystrokes for lots more operationally useful information.
Even before the days of the "magenta line", at places like so many of the major US airports, I would suggest that having the ILS up for the runway you have just sidestepped to is a good idea ----- for the DME, if nothing else --- if it is at 10 miles of so ---- if it is a change at 800 ft at KLAX, from 25L to 25R, another story.
Quite honestly, I could spend several hours with a student posing all sorts of variations on the theme of just this one item, a "relatively" late runway change --- even before you get to type specific recommendations.
Lest you want to write me of as a "modern" technology captive, I go back far enough to have actually flown an MF Range, and was forced to become all too familiar with VAR, the US and Europe, at the time, having long since graduated to the VOR and (mercifully briefly) the Decca Navigator.
Modern flighdeck systems are wonderful aids, but we are seeing them become a crutch ---- the latest being Honeywell's "stable approach monitor" add-on to EGPWS ---- obviously Honeywell believes there is a market/safety sales pitch for this "you'r hot/high/going to land long and run off the end" performance prediction monitor. I abhor the thought that we actually need it, but I fear Honeywell is probably onto a nice little earner.
Remember:
Rule 1: Fly the aeroplane
Rule 2: Repealed due to politically correct EOE policies.
Rule 3: There is no Rule 3, see Rule 1
All in all, a very thought provoking thread.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Remember BOAC landing at Sharjah instead of Dubai, QF, Barber's Point instead of Honolulu, LH at Northolt, and many more --- having the ILS up might have been a bloody good idea --- how many have been trapped by "under planning" a visual approach??