Well Done EK Flight Ops. Management! (Morphed to the V/S thread)

[Charlie Murdoch]

I shared some drinks with one of the recruitment officers last week, and she inofrmed me that as of January, EK has run out of suitable pilot applicants on file! So a hearty well done to Idle Redhead, TCAS and Mister Ed, you have successfully managed your way into a crisis through ignorance and inaction.

Let's see how you rationalise your way out of this one.

:sad:

[twieke]

The requirement of 4000 hours for an fo will be reduced to 2000 hours or so and guess what, the pond is full of happy candidates again. Problem,....what problem?

[Trashed Aviator]

The guys with 2000hrs can still apply to most other major Airlines so they may not get the extra crew required. Apparently you can get into CX with 1000hrs .

[outhouse]

Well a reduction in experience to maintain a recruitment quota fills me with confidence!! If this fails to gain the expected results what will be the next ploy in the cunning plan (assuming a plan exists). Following some of the comments made in similar threads regarding the massif expansion that some of the ME airlines are committed to and the seemingly lack of a suitable infrastructure to support this expansion and the attitude of local Airworthiness Authorities to not want to rock the boat, I expect the ultimate result will sadly be a predicable one.

Outhouse.

[atiuta]

Check your mail Charlie.

[Payscale]

There is no problem There is no crisis!

1000 hours pilots in the right seat. DECs in the left! Halas....:{

The wet dream where "they" run out of pilots and come crying with bags of money is not going to happen...sorry...wake up! There is always some glider pilot from Ulan Bator ( no disrespect intented) who would love to come.

Remember the concept is proven, we fly around with cadets in the right seat.

[Soft Altitude]

Quite right, only what does a glider from Ulan Bator knows about CRM and Team work, obviously a major issue with EK recruitment !
EK is not interested in getting quality, they are interested in getting quantity and SILENT quantity, people who listen and nod around all day long on the flight deck and in the office, hailing the other guy's "good point" even if inexistent, questioning a decision or action is obviously a big no no with EK as they have proven it many times so far.
Keep up the good recruitment work EK :yuk:

[chinawladi]

No problem. We'll just have more pilots capable of draggin in a ek plane at 2000ft, at 30 miles with flaps1, 12° nose up and 160kts. But they memorised and perpetuately resing the perfect 10 minute oz-brief 1 hour before landing and therfore pass any dumb ppc without complaint.
"mc donalds - i'm lovin' it".

[outhouse]

I would like to just get some clarification re the cadet pilot in the right hand seat.
Experience indicates that most emerging airlines have a young blood program; this generally is structured to allow company sponsored cadets who have completed basic training (CPL & IR and Type Rating) to gain experience and hours, flying revenue flights under the guidance and supervision of qualified TRI’s initially, then LTC’s and after satisfactory competence testing and a suitable number of hours experience being released to fly with aircraft commanders. I would expect that a similar procedure exists with EK.

Back in the good old days I remember that they flew as second officers and acted as the third member of the flight deck crew, thus ensuring the correct balanced level of experience available.

The use of these extremely low hour pilots to fill a right hand seat without suitable checks and balances seems to me to be rather inappropriate, clarification please.
outhouse.

[readytocopy]

No problem. We'll just have more pilots capable of draggin in a ek plane at 2000ft, at 30 miles with flaps1, 12° nose up and 160kts. But they memorised and perpetuately resing the perfect 10 minute oz-brief 1 hour before landing and therfore pass any dumb ppc without complaint.
"mc donalds - i'm lovin' it".


Good one....the long anticated briefing. After the first 10 sec all you hear is Blah Blah Blah. By the way I like my ND clean...no green circles around DXB...its VFR and I can see where I am going + it doesn't say we need to put green circles anywhere in the SOP's...must be an old OZ thing that stuck...and hey there is only one way to get to RWY 12 and one way to get to RWY 30...I don't want to hear you brief it...its not a big airport...it's home base...and "standard route" is fine for a briefing....oh and don't TELL me to tell you that I should say "I have finished programming the FMC" ...you can ask me if you want ie. "you done with the box"...CRM is also a visual thing....if I am sitting there picking my arse...I haven't decided to take a break from programing....I am obviously done and you saw me.

[flying fijian]

Too right Charlie

Its all about economics.The pilot pool is getting smaller but EK's conditions arent competitive enough.Take a look at what they are paying pilots in India now!!!

If they want quality they need to pay the bucks.

Its that simple.

[White Knight]

Do you want the "long brief" or the "short brief" - ie "Dubai's over there.." or "Dubai":} :} Works for me..... Keep the LOOOOOOONNNNGGGG Oz briefings DownUnder please chaps....

[helen-damnation]

And then there's the payrise :eek:
You didn't hear it here first because it's in other forums but...

10%+ in January is the current rumour :zzz:
(in addition to any rise in April) :ok:

Might get a few more people to look but I don't think the flood of
applications will be startling :=

[Sal-e]

Is CRM an issue with EK? Because I believe several authourities will be looking at that very soon. In particular, fatigue management.

[helen-damnation]

Muttley Crew
I would agree but this came from a good source.
Keep any eye out regarding basings as well, except that you'll need more time in the company to qualify ;)

[montencee]

Is CRM an issue with EK? .................. In particular, fatigue management.

Oh yes, EK management are taking the fatigue issue very seriously. The local regulatory authority have been under pressure from EK to raise the annual flying hours from 900 to 1000 or even 1100 for several months now, but so far the authority have not capitulated.

Although the problem is not simply the number of hours flown but more the combination of short haul/long haul duties with no sensible rest structure in place, this partly due to the shortfall in crews.

[BYMONEK]

CRM an issue in EK? Naah, just stick a few incorrect slides onto Pelesys every 6 months for the PPC refresher and job done. :rolleyes:

Come on guys, that's got to be better than having to sit in a classroom for a whole day and actually discuss it. We might actually learn something that way and knowledge is a dangerous thing! After all, much has already been learnt from several EK 'incidents'.

[chinawladi]

160kts at Flap1.... fcuk me!!!

*Note to self - bid to avoid flying with china-lady...*


Mutt-mate: This was meant to be sarcastic, not scientific........:ugh:
if you read one of my earlier statements on speeds, you'd see what i think of flying below GD.

(By the way, how low is VLS F1 on a 330 with 160t? I don't know, i admit, but it shouldn't be too far away from 160.)

china

[semper fi]

Well, Asiana sticks 800 hour f/o's in the right seat of their 330's straight from their ab initio schools, haven't heard one of theirs buy the farm yet, maybe that is the trend worldwide??:confused: :confused:

[Homer J. Simpson]

Good one....the long anticated briefing. After the first 10 sec all you hear is Blah Blah Blah. By the way I like my ND clean...no green circles around DXB...its VFR and I can see where I am going + it doesn't say we need to put green circles anywhere in the SOP's...must be an old OZ thing that stuck...and hey there is only one way to get to RWY 12 and one way to get to RWY 30...I don't want to hear you brief it...its not a big airport...it's home base...and "standard route" is fine for a briefing....oh and don't TELL me to tell you that I should say "I have finished programming the FMC" ...you can ask me if you want ie. "you done with the box"...CRM is also a visual thing....if I am sitting there picking my arse...I haven't decided to take a break from programing....I am obviously done and you saw me.

Readytocopy....my sentiments exactly. I can think of a few others too!

[GoreTex]

Mutt,
the 10 min brief is an Aussie thing, I never met anybody else in EK who briefs that long and forget the most essential things.

[max AB]

A lot of Aussie bashing today, why would that be??? Oh yeah, we just flogged the poms at cricket!

[EGGW]

Meow!!!! Sorry i missed the news on that, can you quickly brief me on the cricket score?? I said brief maaaaaate :}

Well done to the OZ mates, but you buggers sure know how to do terminally booooooooooooring briefs. Not all i will happily admit. :ok:

EGGW

[CAYNINE]

Oy there mates, us colonials that arrived on these sandy shores in recent years also sit there and struggle to stay awake during monotone magnormous briefs that have so much verbalisation about the departure and everything down to the colour of the sky that embarassment sets in.

Less talk about crap and more about important things like where the blo*dy hills are would be a great start.

[Lite Bulb]

Forget employing 300 hour cadets, the company already has it's own scheme in place, what about all those 2000 - 3000hour Jet f/o's and turboprop Captains out there. They would be ideal to fill the right seat slots, young, keen and happy to do the years service until they swap seats. The problem EK has is finding Captains so they will be looking for dec's for sometime to come. Let's hope the standards are not relaxed so I can rest easily when my family are aboard.

[Vorsicht]

Why is it that everyone assumes the standards are relaxed after they are employed??

V

[TangoUniform]

Why is it that everyone assumes the standards are relaxed after they are employed??

V

Now that's funny. Well said. BTW, straight from the horses mouth last week, "only 20 DECs hired next year".
TU

[MR8]

...BTW, straight from the horses mouth last week, "only 20 DECs hired next year".
TU

That's 20 too much!!

MR8

[Fart Master]

20 DEC's, yeah right.

Just like the "DEC's will not delay anybodies upgrade":mad:

[MTOW]

Isn't it funny that we've switched totally to the Boeing FCTM - except in regards to briefs, which are anything but. We insist on making sure the other guy knows our mother's maiden name, the colour of the knickers she briefly wore on her wedding night - and whether they were heirlooms handed dowm to her by her mother. And we're supposed to tell the other guy all this again and again and again.

And now we have to have the book out for each b.....r.....i....e....f.... in case we might miss one chapter of the unbrief.

I agree with the comment someone made above - you stop hearing a word that's being droned ... sorry, said after the eleventh word. Why not do it the Boeing way? - Tell the other guy what's different about the departure / arrival. The rest is SOP, and shouldn't be recited, over and and over over again.

And what's this 'Australian' thing regarding the 'War and Peace' unbriefs? Is that an Airbus thing?

[square leg]

I think we should optimise the usage of SOP's to our advantage. When it says "appropriate items", then only brief the appropriate items for approach.

At the CBC mention the taxi route and have a quick look at the chart on the wall and consider the the taxi route discussed. Don't forget to mention that it's "not for operational use" as stated at the bottom.:)

Think about it from a different angle. When doing all those gross error checks, things like flaps, flex, speeds are mentioned. There is no need to mention them again when we "brief" the departure as it's already been mentioned. While we brief from the box, I think we should think outside of the box.

[CAYNINE]

You will find that the "Australian thing" is a direct decendant from pre '89 Ansett and Australian Airlines. It's mainly the 14 year capts that do this. You will not see many other Ozzies in the right and newish in the left that have this tendancy.

[Wiley]

I can't think of too many people who fit the "Australia 89 thing" in positions of power on the Boeing. So, to repeat MTOW's question: is this insistence of mega briefings coming from the Australian checkies on the Airbus fleet?

Personally, I can't think of a more inappropriate word than "brief" for what we currently do.

[Backwater]

Aiming Point. Well said. When I figure out who you are I'll buy you a beer...
Rgds

[Austin Holed]

Aiming Point: I like what you say about the briefings, wise words, but...
"the woefully deteriorating standard of flight crew applicants over the past 10 years"
Gosh, I never realised us new joiners (only 4 years for me) were so much worse than those who joined 10 years ago.

[4HolerPoler]

Careful guys; avoid getting into a scrap about different nationalities and their respective foibles - we need to stick together on such issues.

Please think twice before lashing out at your colleagues.

Thanks. 4HP

[chinawladi]

As I seem to have kicked off this drift from the original thread, I’d like to clarify:
By saying “oz-brief” I used a common stereotype about dull and long briefs. As a matter of fact it no longer sticks to Australians only, it has become a expression that fits more than one nationality.


As for this:

Like it or not, non-compliance to the FOM and SOPs leaves you on very thin ice should something unfortunate happen. Everything is recorded and to say you briefed in the pub the previous night ain't going to cut it before the "prosecution".

Giving short briefs has nothing to do with non-compliance to FOM or SOP. These are requirements for personal knowledge but not required briefing contents. Wanting to evade any prosecution by spamming up the voice recorder would lead to singing the whole FOM before each flight.

A good brief is BRIEF, gives the essential differencies or specialities of the operation to come. The shorter it is, the closer to execution we can give the brief and the better it will be retained by both pilots. We should NOT repeat the standards or we lose all the attention of our collegue.

I assume that in the early days of EK some good soul set up ONE possible brief in the FCOM, as a examlpe to fall back for cadets and newbees. It then slowly became almost religion because it was safer to memorise and reproduce what someone else had already published without having his @.. kicked, than using ones own brain,experience and airmenship.
Let's get back to that and hear some precise briefs that address the ACTUAL operation and not some tiring, presung, heard it a thousand time "... no action below 400ft except silencing the warning and raising the gear by this handle ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz "

china

[ruserious]

Ahh Muttley you have been in the Middle East too long, nice bit of blame shifting and denial going on there. ;)
There are good and bad sorts in all Nationalities and as a generalisation the Oz Mates take the bikkie for the long brief. Fair or not you (or your Nationality) generally deserve the reputation you have got.

[Oblaaspop]

Indeed Muttley, and I'm sure had he have briefed the entire STAR arrival route into his home base, including tracks and distances (despite the fact the FMS Database had already been in use for 3 weeks, and couldn't possibly have changed!) he would have totally prevented the said wingtip misshap!! NOT!!!

Surely you must see the point being made?

In a previous life at home base, my brief used to be "If I tell you that we're taking off from that runway over there (while pointing out the window), I've said too much"......KISS

[chinawladi]

Agreed Mutt, but the FOM also states:

All briefings should be clear and
concise as lengthy briefings can be
counter-productive.
Briefings should be kept practical,
dealing with actual conditions relating
to the particular flight.

Food for thought and discussion, I know.

[watertheflowers]

................precise briefs that address the ACTUAL operation and not some tiring, presung, heard it a thousand time "... no action below 400ft except silencing the warning and raising the gear by this handle ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz "

china

On the other hand what about all the alarm bells left ringing, gear left down, terrain warnings due TOGA not applied that happen in the simulator. Mostly because the guy hasn't given a moments thought to what he will really do if an engine does fail at V1 and has no recall of the required sequence of actions.

I do not exagerate (much) and briefings are for the briefer to review his actions for his own benefit as well as the briefees.

Chances are that when a crew have to follow a complicated procedure that is not rehearsed or repeated on a regular basis they will make mistakes. This could include EFATO, RTO and probably NPAs as well.

No great fan of the EK brief as a whole but when an engine stops we might be pleased that we thought about it just half an hour ago rather than at the last recurrent check.

WTF

[ruserious]

Andd of course the ONLY failure you will ever have in real life is a EFATO or RTO. Monkey see, monkey do, monkey has very few skills

[watertheflowers]

Andd of course the ONLY failure you will ever have in real life is a EFATO or RTO.........

S'pose that along with avoiding flying into a hill and windshear recovery EFATO and RTO require immediate recall of rarely used memory actions, whereas most other failures are managed as time allows using aircraft or paper checklists.

Forgot to mention circling approaches, mostly flown to a standard somewhere between mediocre and bad. Which brings into question the usual spiel that includes the visual quick return after takeoff, often briefed without consideration to the hazy conditions that would make such a manouvre hazardous in the extreme.

WTF

[ruserious]

OK, I'll bite..
Yes they are time critical events, but in every other airline I have flown the bus, we managed to get by on just the critical points. Not the verbalising of every possible action you are going to make including what autopilot modes you are going to select, when you are going to select them etc. etc. Who gives a monkeys about what you are going to do to the FCU above 1100', its just unnecessary noise.

Give your average pilot an engine failure at 200' and watch how many mess it up, because they are so preprogrammed into the paint by numbers V1 EFATO.

Briefs should be about the important aspects and threats to a specific flight. Due to the humans limited ability to listen and concentrate, they need to be brief and contextually pertinent, not the same old waffle that drones in one ear and out the other.

[flareflyer]

Guys,
in stead of bothering Aussies or other nationalities why don't we stick to the thread?

If i am not wrong the thread was about lack of pilots for emirates recruitment.............

So, we better show our management that we are professionals.................

Who cares about the briefing? Follow S.O.P. that's it.

[Brix]

Cant't help it. By reading this thread about making simple things complicated there's just one reply: pathetic. Are you lads still getting the Volmet wx of all of central Europe when taking off from Munich to Dubai? The common (wealth) sense doesn't seem to be changing which makes me feel a lucky punk cos I' ve changed it - for meself.

Happy holidays - if there is one.

[MTOW]

I wouldn't be bothered if it was a briefing. Instead, it's a multi-volume, time-consuming tome, and as many have already said, I honestly think most don't hear what's being said and some who intone it don't have clue what they're saying - they just say it by rote.

As someone has already said - the Boeing FCTM says to mention only what's going to be different about the departure. Like most things from Boeing, it's only put into print after careful and well-considered deliberation by some people who are considerably smarter than most of us.

And getting back to the subject of the thread, yes, I believe that recruiting are struggling to find enough candidates of the same calibre they are used to having to choose from, but I don't consider it would be a bad thing at all if they were instructed to broaden their search to include high time turbo prop pilots to come here as FOs.

I think most such people would make excellent FOs, and probably better ones than many who have gone straight into big jets from their initial training.

[BYMONEK]

MTOW

Can't agree with your last comment i'm afraid. Do you think Jamie Oliver would be a better chef if he'd cut his teeth flipping burgers in Mcdonalds.............."pucker".........."lovely jubbily"!

That doesn't mean to say, however, that I don't agree with recruiting prop guys. I'm not so sure that our training department's current 'checking' culture is set up for it. Getting guys to be aware of, let alone execute CDA's, is frustrating until you realise they've simply not been taught throughout training. Some have never even heard of it! If there was one sure way of improving fuel costs, even by 0.5%, this would be it. last week, level at 2000' while 12 miles out.....with speedbrake until 2500'. Bonkers! :ugh: I bet we're still one of the worst into the UK. After the yanks.

And before someone tries to tell me otherwise, yes, it is possible to combine one without compromising on a stabilised approach.

[MTOW]

OK, I'm happy if we agree to disagree. It's just that I don't think it's a bad thing to have some prople among the FO ranks who've had a fright or two and dealt with it themselves in second level (turbo prop) operations.

I accept they might require a bit more training - but most of them might be a bit more content to accept that they'll need a few years in the right seat before they start demanding their upgrade.

Re the CDRs: I'm still amazed how many FO's I encounter who are unwilling to use V/S mode because they tell me some captains have criticised them for using it. Had a guy drag it in at 2000' for God knows how many miles with 20 flap out a couple of days ago. It would have been soooo easy to have made it a continuous descent - and saved a bucketload of fuel.

[scanscanscan]

IMHO v/s should only be used on final descent configured to land on a npa and used to control small changes in the ROD if required.
To see v/s mode used by a new Fo in prolonged descent from cruise or even used in the climb autopilot in or when manual flying caused me to rapidly wake up as my stall protection had just been lost.
Sorry... but based on 10years B767 flying and the things I saw that is my two fills worth. Off to take my medication.

[BYMONEK]

I can see the concern regarding V/S use in the climb, with a high rate commanded or at high level, but in the descent? I'm sorry, but shouldn't we both be awake anyway regardless of the mode we're using. And if some people don't like it then open up the throttles in FLT/CHG. You are allowed to touch them you know!

[chinawladi]

Wow, scanscan, you might have been shook by some FO, but now you scare me! Prop guy's might have a certain lack of experience, but you seem to have too much and should consider leaving a two man cockpit meethinks.
I very much back up BYMONEK on this.

[typhoonpilot]

IMHO v/s should only be used on final descent configured to land on a npa and used to control small changes in the ROD if required.
To see v/s mode used by a new Fo in prolonged descent from cruise or even used in the climb autopilot in or when manual flying caused me to rapidly wake up as my stall protection had just been lost.
Sorry... but based on 10years B767 flying and the things I saw that is my two fills worth. Off to take my medication.


Nobody is saying to use Vertical Speed in a prolonged descent from cruise or when climbing with the autopilot disengaged.

Not directed at you per say, but at others who may have the mistaken impression that a B777 is a B767. A Boeing 777 IS NOT a Boeing 767. Keep your old company procedures and your old aircraft ideas out of the picture. Read Chapter 9 of the FCOM, specifically "Pitch Envelope Protection". You'll find that it really is very difficult to stall a B777.

The use of Vertical Speed in the terminal environment to accurately fly a CDA approach is widely accepted. It can be done in FLCH with the thrust levers, but that requires a lot more work and heads down time and isn't anywhere near as smooth.

Have you noticed the number of TCAS RAs being reported recently? Guys need to be aware of their rate of climb or descent in RVSM airspace. If it is too high when approaching the cleared level they must decrease it to less than 1500FPM ( preferably 500 to 1000FPM ). One way to easily do that is to use Vertical Speed.

The use of Vertical Speed was brought up recently. I think those who were teaching that it stood for "Very Seldom" have now been put straight. :E :ok:


Typhoonpilot

[BYMONEK]

Typhoon

Couldn't agree more :ok: Just a shame the training dep't don't emphasise it more!

[ruserious]

Ahhh but Studi, you would then have to think for yourself. I agree completely with you a well planned and executed open descent ought to be the optimum method.

[typhoonpilot]

I agree with you also studi, but ATC contrainsts often times prevent that from happening. What the guys here are talking about is that perfect "open descent" plan getting messed with by extra track miles on downwind, etc. Then what do you do? Some people leave it in that descent until level, not adjusting for the extra track miles, resulting in a long period of level flight. That is where the use of Vertical Speed, or some other method to reduce the descent rate, would be preferred.


Typhoonpilot

[ruserious]

Anyway, as Open Descent requires some thought, we would have to call the FCDM for permission to use it, as we are not allowed to think independently any longer :}

[scanscanscan]

Sorry guys.. my error... I failed to notice this was titled as an Emirates thread.
Please do whatever you like on the B777.
Happy for you if Boeing have finally fixed this killer mode on their new machines.
Chinawaladi...you can relax... I retired in May 2000...hope you make retirement also.

[Wiley]

As someone has mentioned already, I find you frequently have to consider using V/S mode in the climb these days if in very crowded airspace or risk setting off an TA or even an RA on the TCAS. I accept that this was a very bad idea on earlier types, but Boeing seem to have covered most bases very well on the 777, as since selecting V/S in the last 1000' or so of the climb always involves a major reduction in RoC and both pilots are very much aware of what's going on in doing so, the chances of getting into a stall are almost non existent.

I think you can save considerable amounts of fuel (and not blow the noise monitors in places like Heathrow) using V/S and the 'green banana' to effect in descent rather than always using Level Change, which can result in repeated noisy, costly spool-ups.

But it would seem there are a few die hards still out there who think using V/S puts you into an open descent. It might have been true on a 707, but it isn't on a 777.

[atiuta]

Two things about this topic.

1. It's off topic.

2. May as well join you, I can't recall anyone getting excited about V/S in descent. Use it to reach TOC and you may get someone's attention, but I can't see what the issue is otherwise. Yes we all know about risk of TCAS (the real one) approaching an intermediate level, but I'm talking close to optimum altitude when the climb rate is normally less than 1000 fpm. Why on earth would you want to use V/S at this point?

Once-upon-a-time, Emirates used to ban the use of V/S in the climb and apart from the discussed possibility of TCAS there really is no need to use that mode and every reason not to. Spare a thought for the other guy if he gets a bit edgy in those circumstances.

[Vorsicht]

I'm guessing you've never flown a 707

V

[atiuta]

Why stay in the dark ages if you don't need to.....

[trimotor]

The use of V/S in the climb is entirely valid, though its only practical application is ROD reduction for TCAS considerations approaching intermediate level-off's and TOC points that are below the MAX in the 300ER. ROC will often be 2500 fpm+ at this point, especially above FL310ish, when it's switched to mach no climb schedule.

[Wiley]

You are quite correct. Vorischt. I was alluding to the era if that's any excuse.

[NO LAND 3]

V/S is just a pain for making a level change. No less than four separate actions involved plus you must remember to set the new cruise level in the FMC. And don't forget to reselect VNAV you rascal! How about flying the plane as the manufacturer designed it. It is obvious whether a conflict is likely if you look at the TCAS display; in which case v/s may be appropriate.
I was under the impression that TCAS 7.0 reduced the likelihood of inappropriate TCAS RAs as well.
Life can be so simple...

[typhoonpilot]

I was under the impression that TCAS 7.0 reduced the likelihood of inappropriate TCAS RAs as well.


Apparently not as much as thought. Here is an excerpt from the most recent TCAS Safety Bulletin

"The Aeronautical Information Manual, 4-4-9 (d) says “…Descend or climb at an optimum rate consistent with the operating characteristics of the aircraft to 1000 feet above or below the assigned altitude, and then attempt to descend or climb at a rate of between 500 and 1500 fpm until the assigned altitude is reached.” Similar guidance is found in the FAA’s AC120-55B, “Air
Carrier Operational Approval and Use of TCAS II.” Modern Flight Management Systems (FMS) designed for optimum efficiency do not comply with these guidelines. EUROCONTROL has published ACAS II Safety Bulletins that make similar recommendations.

Many TCAS operational experts believe that at a minimum, crews should follow this procedure when they are aware of conflicting traffic either by advice from Air Traffic Control, information from the TCAS traffic display, or by having received a TCAS Traffic Advisory. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has had discussions on this issue since 2000. As a result of these discussions, the seventh meeting of the Operations Panel, held in May 2006, agreed to recommend the following amendment to International Standards and Practices (PANS-OPS):

When the pilot is made aware of an aircraft at an adjacent altitude or flight level by an airborne traffic display, the pilot should consider using appropriate procedures to ensure that a rate of climb or descent of less than 8 m/sec (1500 ft/min) is achieved at least 300m (1000 ft) before the assigned level.
An additional recommendation proposed by the Operations Panel requires operators to specify the procedures for compliance.

Concern has been expressed about crews flying highly automated aircraft
interfering with aircraft automation. TCAS monitoring programs show that reducing the vertical speed nearing level off altitude, especially when the crew is aware that there is another aircraft in close proximity at an adjacent altitude, greatly reduces the probability of an aircraft receiving any RA.
Limited surveys of airline crews show that most airlines do not teach this procedure. However many crews have adopted this technique and are comfortable employing it. Many unnecessary TCAS II advisories are generated when aircraft approach their cleared level-off altitude with a high vertical rate when another aircraft is in close vertical proximity. A recent
study has concluded that reducing vertical speed during the last 1000 feet of a climb or descent to 1500fpm or less may reduce RAs in European airspace by at least 22%, and the number of “nuisance” RAs by at least 43%. Data collected by Lufthansa demonstrates that crews who reduce their vertical speed when approaching an assigned altitude realize a 67% reduction in the
number of RAs received when compared to those crews that do not reduce their vertical speed"

Linky (http://www.faa.gov/and/and500/500/docs/TCAS_SAFETY_BULLETIN.pdf) to the full article.


Typhoonpilot

[atiuta]

I don't think anyone is disputing the value of V/S if a TCAS situation is likely.

I fail to understand however the desire to use V/S in the latter stages of a normal climb and there were some posts earlier disparging the mode in the terminal area on descent.

V/S is there for a reason, not every reason. Like any mode it has a time and place. TOC, full thrust, subtle speed decay is not one of them.

[NO LAND 3]

[QUOTE=typhoonpilot;3034963].
crews should follow this procedure when they are aware of conflicting traffic

Thanks for an informative post TP. I'd like to make a training point: I find the trainers tend to advocate use of v/s for any FL change in RVSM airspace (ie 95% of our ops) when in fact there is no point if no obvious conflict exists. I prefer to leave VNAV engaged in this case.

[readytocopy]

Why is it that everyone assumes the standards are relaxed after they are employed??
V
No one is saying that the standards should be relaxed after being hired....are we doing what we do because it is good airmanship or are we just doing it because it is in the FOM and we are covering our butts. This has nothing to do with standard...Airmanship is GONE....by the way Homer...I have a few more....I don't want to be briefed about the cost index and the wind component...or a particular taxiway that is closed on the other side of the field....don't tell me about the mountains by Fujerah....oh by the way if we had a emergency descent...I am not going to pull out the DARD...I am going to use my EGPWS and grid MORA and my eyes and get an idea of the altitude I am going to descend too. It is funny we use EGPWS to avoid CFIT but it says in the FOM not to use it a method of navigation....Why are these methods so frowned upon and thought of as unorthodox when I look at it as making a complicated situation into a simple one by using the tools provided....oh and "damn if you do and damn if you don't"...there is no winning. I personally think we are so scared of our own shaddow that something is going to happen.

[violate]

Its simple, EK policies are produced with one primary goal, to protect the company in the event of pilot error. They are NOT produced to support you to do a better job

[777SandMan]

I shared some drinks with one of the recruitment officers last week, and she inofrmed me that as of January, EK has run out of suitable pilot applicants on file! So a hearty well done to Idle Redhead, TCAS and Mister Ed, you have successfully managed your way into a crisis through ignorance and inaction.

Let's see how you rationalise your way out of this one.

:sad:
Pitty that these individuals do not read these forums and stay in touch with what is happening in their kingdoms! As it is prime holiday season, they are most likely lazing away around a pool / ski slope / beach. (Delete if required). :p ;) :zzz:

[Marcellus Wallace]

TCAS Change 7.0 or ACAS II was introduced for RVSM - you no longer get "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC" flying past another with 1000 feet separation - the envelope was changed to the region of 700-800 feet.

Plus when 2 aircraft converge - one climbing and another descending the logic in the software would be inclined to give you commands which required the least v/s change i.e. climbing/descending through each others levels - TCAS is not coupled and does not know what the Autopilot is doing i.e. ALT ACQ/ALT *

Good idea to reduce the ROC/ROD approaching cleared levels/altitudes by whatever means.