enroute considerations when flying a jet

[downwind]

Dear all,

Would like some advice from people regarding the enroute phase of the flight in a jet.

What should you as a flight crew be thinking in the back of your mind when cruising at flightlevels ie: terrain for depressurisation etc.. would be nice to get some ideas thank you.

[Capt Claret]

I can't think of a jet that wouldn't maintain at least A100 on a single engine, therefore terrain is not much of an issue for a depressurisation in Australia.

More important, depending on the size of the aircraft, is, where will I go if the destination becomes unusable.

If I have a fire, and have to land ASAP, where will I go. Will my chosen alternate have the facilities to allow me to manage pax, exit the aircraft for a pre flight inspection, to supervise refuelling? Are there any maintenance facilities?

[Tmbstory]

Downwind:

Always consider the "Part 25 Principle of no one failure should result in a Catastrophe".

For the enroute phase of flight keep in mind of where you are and where you are going and "what if this happened now".

Hope this helps.

Tmb

[Checkboard]

Flying in Europe, I place a circle on the map (using the FMC) to mark terrain above 10,000' - and on entering the circle give a quick brief on depressurization, initial safe descent altitude and escape path. I also place a circle around Mt Blanc, if that is in the area.

If I am keen I use the FMC to calculate Critical points to company bases, in case of a diversion required, but not necessarily to the nearest airport.

I check en-route weather forecasts if there is a chance of weather which would affect an emergency diversion (fog or thunderstorms).

For political situational awareness, if I am flying over areas in Europe with low levels of civil stability, I download the travel advice from the Foreign Office website for those countries, and print them out to read en-route, which might affect, say, a medical diversion.

Serbia travel advice (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/europe/serbia?ta=health&pg=5)
There is a reciprocal healthcare agreement for British nationals, which entitles you to free treatment in Serbia for genuine emergencies. However, the health system in all parts of Serbia is suffering from widespread shortage of medicines and other essentials. Payment in cash is normally required for treatment and you should take out comprehensive travel insurance to cover medical evacuation.

[Old Smokey]

Frankly, I can't think of too many differences in en-route contingency planning in a large jet than in a smaller turbo-prop or going back even further, a DC3:ok:

Overall, my thoughts are that the number of possible problems would be less, e.g. Iceing at high levels is a low probability, but when I think of carrying icebergs on F27s, Viscounts etc. at lower levels, I'm glad I'm not there any more.

Capt. Claret is correct in saying en-route MEA poses no real problem in Australia for jets with 1 engine Inop, but on the 2 engined B777 an Afghanistan crossing with MEA up to 19,000 ft is not a problem there either.

About the only significant problem is that jets USUALLY are larger and heavier than their propeller driven counterparts, and the list of suitable airports for diversion reduces in accordance with aircraft size.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[SNS3Guppy]

Perhaps the biggest difference between some turbojet equipment and piston or turboprop equipment is the range and the capabilities. Many turbojet aircraft tend to go higher (although we used to do FL410 in the Piaggio Avanti, and it was faster than a Cessna Citation). Crossing large areas requires a careful look at the weather, overflight issues, and evolving depressurization issues.

I'm not sure what the significance of 10,000' is, given that one may be over the ocean on one portion of a leg, and over high terrain exceeding 18,000' on another. Look at the evolving terrain beneath the aircraft and make decisions...not just a line at 10,000' (which becomes irrelevant if higher terrain is below).

Knowing where one's options are at all times makes a transition from a normal point-to-point flight much easier in the event of a diversion. Knowing one's fuel state in relation to one's diversion capabilities is important. That is, if one has to descend in the event of a depressurization or during a fire and subsequent depressurization, what are one's options at any given time with the fuel available, considering terrain, and weather? What was true and hour ago may not be true now, particularly given evolving weather and changing terrain beneath the aircraft.

Turbojet aircraft are used because they're fast and they can cover long distances. This may mean overflight issues; one may have to consider the ramifications of needing to detour around a country rather than overfly it, either during a diversion, or in the normal course of operations. This can affect fuel reserves and mandate changes in the flight. A diversion while going into Afghanistan, for example, may mean that while a field in Iran is closer, it's not advised...have this in mind before reaching a point where things may become critical, and have options always in mind.

The optimum flight altitude changes during the flight as weight is lost, and ensuring the most efficient operation of the airplane is an ongoing evaluation. One must look not only at the optimum altitude for fuel consumption vs. cruise speed, but also headwinds and weather.

Enroute, navigation is a primary concern, of course, and depending where one is, maintaining various types of communications, position reports, etc, is also part of the process. Position reports, in turn, sometimes involve additional information such as ongoing updates or estimated time of arrival, accurate fuel updates,and so forth. This information is passed on to the aircraft operator (airline or company), and used to make determinations regarding diversions, re-release points, and so forth.

[Checkboard]

I'm not sure what the significance of 10,000' is, given that one may be over the ocean on one portion of a leg, and over high terrain exceeding 18,000' on another. Look at the evolving terrain beneath the aircraft and make decisions...not just a line at 10,000' (which becomes irrelevant if higher terrain is below).

:confused::confused:

If you are stumbling along, and experience a depressurization, then you swing into the emergency descent - which as a standard stops at FL100. It would be all too easy to do this over the Alps - with a nasty TERRAIN alert and subsequent problems. Hence the brief that, once over terrain with a LSALT above 10,000 we need to be aware that we shall do something different. :rolleyes:

Enroute, navigation is a primary concern, of course,
Not these days, with dual GPS enabled P-RNAV capable FMCs. :rolleyes:

[Boeing man]

I pay attention for where jet streams are and the resultant clear air turbulence at high levels. In a 737 300 we are very limited to higher levels at max pay load trying to make the distance.coffin corner could really upset the gin and tonics down the back .

[Checkboard]

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv20/Checkboard/Terrainorientation.jpg

737-700 cockpit, with terrain drawn onto map display using a phantom flight plan, and utilizing the points of the Jeppesen Alps driftdown orientation chart (page E-11, in the En-Route section of the text manual)

[SNS3Guppy]

If you are stumbling along, and experience a depressurization, then you swing into the emergency descent - which as a standard stops at FL100. It would be all too easy to do this over the Alps - with a nasty TERRAIN alert and subsequent problems. Hence the brief that, once over terrain with a LSALT above 10,000 we need to be aware that we shall do something different.

We use 14,000 as our initial descent target, assuming flat terrain. Before we start down, however, we'll know how far we want to go. If it's a long way and we're shooting for an equal time point alternate (ETP alternate), then we have other altitudes we'll use.

10,000 is a rather arbitrary altitude, which appears to presume no oxygen available, and a short cruise to where ever one intends to land. Once one gets down to lower altitudes, one had better have a good plan and a short flight.

Not these days, with dual GPS enabled P-RNAV capable FMCs.

That's what the crew in American Airlines #965 thought, too. Lots of redundancy, a solid data base, enter the information, and you're good to go. At least a little way.

We have seven GPS sources on board, and triple INS/IRS, and navigation is always a primary concern. Particularly when operating adjacent to hostile airspace and unfriendly countries.

Your FMC won't tell you about avoiding the terrain on the way down, save for EGPWS integration, and that's nothing to navigate by. It's an emergency device, and if you're receiving warnings from that, then you're really in trouble. You should know where you are and how low you can go and that's a function of navigation, not simply pushing buttons on the FMC.

Too many "children of the magenta line" today that think they have a FMS/FMC, and they're golden. The crew of Flight 965 was golden, too. Now, of course, they're dead.

[Checkboard]

10,000 is a rather arbitrary altitude, which appears to presume no oxygen available, and a short cruise to where ever one intends to land.
It is an arbitrary altitude - you'll have to talk to the regulators about why they chose it. It is easier to descend to this, and remove the mask to co-ordinate and communicate with the passengers after the descent. My area of operations always permits a short cruise, if required, to land.

Your FMC won't tell you about avoiding the terrain on the way down,hence the briefing when entering areas of high terrain.

That's what the crew in American Airlines #965 thought
This thread is about en-route, not approach phases of flight. Just saying that, these days, navigation in the en-route phase (while obviously it needs to be monitored) isn't "a primary concern". I should, thinking about it, concede that it is a primary concern, but these days not a primary workload item.

[tubby linton]

Smart cockpit has a European Alps Depressursation Strategy chart to download and best of all it is free!
SmartCockpit - Airline training guides, Aviation, Operations, Safety (http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/swissknife/flight_case/0003/)

[SNS3Guppy]

Well and good if it's all domestic flying and you have two areas to overfly...flat and mountainous.

On longer international routes, flying may pass a dozen times or more between high mountainous terrain and flat ground. We don't brief the terrain each time we may or may not be approaching mountains.

Come to think of it, I've never heard a briefing "when entering areas of high terrain."

To which regulators do you refer? No training program I've undertaken refers to 10,000 as an emergency descent altitude. None of the companies or agencies for whom I've flown used it, and the arbitrary altitude that we've always used at Flight Safety and Simuflite courses has been 14,000', excepting where higher terrain or MEA intervenes.

I grew up and spent much of my early flying life in places where terrain was well above 10,000. In fact, density altitude where I learned to fly was often above 8,000 to 10,000', and the idea of predicating an emergency descent to that altitude seems a bit odd to me. The actual descent altitude specified in my aircraft operating manual, directly from Boeing, is 14,000, or higher as required.

[Checkboard]

Our B737-700 QRH checklist, and every other one I have seen or heard of:
3. Without delay, descend to the lowest safe altitude or 10,000 feet, whichever is higher.

[wiggy]

..No training program I've undertaken refers to 10,000 as an emergency descent altitude. None of the companies or agencies for whom I've flown used it, and the arbitrary altitude that we've always used at Flight Safety and Simuflite courses has been 14,000', excepting where higher terrain or MEA intervenes.


Well just to throw another number into the mix, "my" 777 Ops manual, which is supposedly a direct lift from Boeing, says "MSA or 15000 feet (10000 feet if fuel endurance is not critical) whichever is higher..."

[GlueBall]

I usually fly relaxed and don't worry in advance. So far there hasn't been much thinking/worrying to do in my 4-engine jet on long haul. :ooh:

[aterpster]

SNS3Guppy:

That's what the crew in American Airlines #965 thought, too. Lots of redundancy, a solid data base, enter the information, and you're good to go. At least a little way.

.......

Too many "children of the magenta line" today that think they have a FMS/FMC, and they're golden. The crew of Flight 965 was golden, too. Now, of course, they're dead.

The phrase "errant blunder" describes the result of the most grossly inept actions of the AAL 965 crew. Historically, in the design of nav aids and instrument flight procedures it has never been possible to protect against gross errors by flight crews.

Having said that, had that horribly inattentive, disoriented (unoriented?) crew had 3-D synthetic vision integrated with EGPWS/TAWS there is a good chance they would have seen the situation in sufficient time to have prevented the crash.

They descended through a lot of beneign, but unprotected black air before they gradually came upon relatively forgiving terrain (compared to other terrain further away).

[downwind]

thank you for all the replys,

Does any one else have any more factors apart from terrain that one must think of?????

[SNS3Guppy]

I usually fly relaxed and don't worry in advance. So far there hasn't been much thinking/worrying to do in my 4-engine jet on long haul.

I fly long-haul, too. Some of the best, sagest advice I ever received came from a liason officer years ago who said in his briefing, simply "stay tense."

I pondered on that statement for some time before coming to fully rest on it. The enormity of those two simple words carries a far bigger import than simply the connotation of whether or not to relax. Complacency kills, whether it became the inappropriate focus on a gear light in EAL #401 in the Everglades, or the loss of AA #965 near Cali. Staying tense is constantly scanning for traffic. Staying tense is being prepared. Staying tense is so many things, and one can do it at a relaxed pace (despite the apparent disparity). Stay tense, stay alive.

Many moons ago when I moonlighted as a security guard to supplement my meager pilot's salary, I serviced automatic teller machines with large sums of cash. This necessitated carrying a sidearm, and that necessitated training and qualification with a handgun. One of the training exercises involved (bear with me, it does relate to flying, I promise) holding a heavy bank bag that was weighted down to replicate a bag of money, in one's shooting hand. That is, for a right handed shooter, one would hold the bag in the right hand. At the call to fire, one would dispose of the money, draw the sidearm, and put two shots to center mass, and one to the head of a target, an exercise known as the mozambique drill.

An interesting phenomenon took place with shooters. Often they would attempt to transfer the bank bag to their weak hand, or would hesitate while their mind aligned with the shoot. Bear in mind that the scenario involved a bad guy who was already in play; the money was no longer important because the guard was about to lose his life. His speed disposing of the money, drawing his weapon, and putting the rounds on target was critical to surviving the incident. Never the less, shooter after shooter hesitated, then in panic mode made poorly placed shots. This same shooter, when asked to fire the same drill without the bank bag, would have excellent shot placement, grouping, and time splits. No worries. Why then, the difference?

The exercise with the bank bag replicated something the guard would encounter on the street...carrying money and coming under fire. In fact, the week I did my qualification, six separate armed robberies had happened in the city, involving weapons confrontations with criminals, while servicing teller machines. It wasn't something to be taken lightly.

The bank bag took the shooter's mind. His focus was subconsciously tied to that bag. His purpose, of course, was to protect the money...but what's the point if one's about to die? The money becomes unimportant at that stage, because you can't protect the money if you're dead. Therefore, abandon the money, protect your life, then live to protect the money. Simple. The shooter, however, tended to have a connection to the tactile feel of the bag in the hand, with the muscles already grasping the weight of the contents. To mentally shift gears from carrying the bag to the opposite of abandoning the bag and going for the pistol...took training. One had to have an alert state of mind, with the idea of coming under attack constantly at the forefront. One had to be constantly searching, ready...tense.

Likewise, one doesn't need to be exhausting one's brain cells and tiring one's self by sweating profusely as one stares out into oblivion with empty-field myopia, while cruising the flight levels...but one can't fall into the trap of the Northwest Airlines #188 crew that missed their destination while arguing about union rights and pay issues, and tapping away on their computers, either. They could have stood to remain a little more tense about their job, and a little less tense about peripheral issues.

Some times we get focused, just on the wrong things. How many of us have driven for a time and suddenly realized that we don't remember the last few miles of highway, or going through that last traffic light? We saw it, perhaps, but our mind was on autopilot. Our subconscious saw the light was green and entered the intersection, though perhaps we were distracted or lost in thought. Something else took our mind, and our own complacency allowed us to do something unsafe...even though it would be entirely against our nature to do so. Ever glanced down at the spedometer and found that you're going a lot faster than you should, or than you intended? This is complacency; this is the failure of not paying attention. This is the failure of not staying tense.

Semantics, perhaps, but you see my point.


Having said that, had that horribly inattentive, disoriented (unoriented?) crew had 3-D synthetic vision integrated with EGPWS/TAWS there is a good chance they would have seen the situation in sufficient time to have prevented the crash.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, and though it didn't actually occur in the enroute portion but rather the arrival phase, the fact remains that through complacency they are none the less dead...as are most of their passengers. Gagets don't replace common sense, tense attention to the task at hand, or hillsides that come through windshields to crush one's skull. Even a highly capable airplane, a highly trained crew, and a known route, was no match for a big pile of rock and dirt.

They didn't miss the top by much, just by enough. One could say that if they were better equipped, they might have made it. One could say that if they were more situationally aware, they might have made it. One could say that if they'd stowed speed brakes and climbed a bit more, they might have made it. They were just shy on every count, and just shy put them
into the hill.

I think navigation then, is a very big issue when traveling cross country in a turbojet airplane. Even when one has state-of-the-art navigational computers, displays, and equipment on board.

Reading the weather as one goes is an important consideration; one can box one's self into an unpleasant place with few alternatives, if one isn't careful...particularly when traveling long distances to remote locations.

Along the same theme as staying tense, staying in touch with the airplane is important. One can easily get complacent about the airplane as it cruises level in autopilot, but we have only to look at an incident such as the 1985 China Airlines #006 B747SP control loss over the pacific to see the results. The crew was flying a long leg from Taipei to San Fransisco, when they lost control of the airplane over the ocean. The event resulted in a departure from controlled flight and a descent from 41,000' to 9,500'. The reason? Complacency, and being out of the loop while the autopilot flew the airplane. We can find a number of cases of crews who allowed the autopilot to run to a full trim extreme before disconnecting (due to fuel imbalance, control issues, ice, etc)...who then couldn't maintain control or had to fight for control.

Despite dandy radios and boxes, and superb autopilots, the biggest thing to watch for in cruise in a turbojet airplane is pilot complacency. The pilot continues to be the most dangerous element in the airplane. This isn't necessary, however, and it's the ability to continually focus on the mission at hand that makes him or her worth his weight in gold paperclips.

In a conversation a few days ago, a fellow crewmember commented to me that he has to have something to read or do enroute, because it challenges his mind. It keeps him spooled up, so to speak. During an approach in a turbojet airplane, we keep the engines spooled...in part because we need the thrust during a stable approach, but also in part because we need to engines spooled and ready if we have to execute a go-around or missed approach. Likewise, keeping our minds spooled is equally important, and that comes back to staying tense. Keeping the brain going using whatever method works best for each individual, in order to stay in tune with the airplane and the flight is crucial, in my opinion, to a safe and successful flight.

This doesn't mean one must lean forward and stare at the instrument displays until one's eyes burn holes in them (or they burn holes in one's eyes, whichever comes first). It does mean that one needs to remain mentally alert and focused such that one doesn't allow all one's fuel to drain out on one side before doing something, or one doesn't shut down the wrong engine while trying to get "back in the loop," or one doesn't commit a gross navigational error.

Recently during a recurrent ground school, we were given a list of recent GNE's (gross navigational errors) on the North Atlantic Tracks. These involved a litany of big names, internaitonal carriers, that were well equipped, and flown by professional, highly trained crews. The errors ranged from missed position reports (not that big a deal) to incorrect position reports (still not that big a deal), to being 60 nautical miles off (a very big deal) and having programmed in the wrong crossing coordinates (a big, big deal). This, with modern displays and systems, and nice FMC-equipped aircraft using the latest in navigational technology. Remember, garbage-in, garbage-flown, and the best of data is only as good as the fat fingers programming it into the box.

Dandy gizmo' are great, but are no replacement or safeguard against complacency and failure to stay tense (focus).

This isn't really that much different than the same requirements when flying a turboprop or piston airplane, but one can get into more trouble faster, farther, and in broader spots of the world, in a "jet."