Airbus oldy now a 737 newby………help!

[oicur12.again]

So a recent move has seen me jump from decades of bus flying to training up on the 737NG.

We are halfway through our sim training and I have some thoughts I would like to throw out in case any wiser heads would care to contribute.

1. When cleared for any VNAV path approach we set the MCP window to airfield elevation. This slightly complicates the missed approach as the PF must remember to ask for the missed approach altitude to be set once heading uphill like a cut cat! Is this a common procedure amongst 737 operators and is there a reason why we cant set the missed approach altitude once on final (I have not been permitted to try!)

2. I have never before seen takeoff performance catering to windshear including an increased VR speed as we have on the 737. I no longer have access to an Airbus FCOM but once upon a time it said “known or suspected” windshear we must “delay or divert”. And yet we are launching the 737 with known windshear! Am I missing something here? Is the Boeing windshear proof?

3. I realized today that the ND is a track up display and the rose below the PFD is a heading up display. Is this a customer arrangement and can it be changed by the crew? I find it awfully confusing to have different presentations.

Thanks in advance for any musings you may have,

cheers

[Denti]

3. That is pin programmable, so up to customer choice. I flew both on 737s with heading up and track up NDs.

1. To be fair, i flew last on 737s with IAN, in which case any non precision approach (except non-straight in approaches) would be flown with the ILS procedure using the APProach mode. However, we still had a few old aircraft without IAN, for those we did set the MDA in the MCP, and when around 500ft above MDA set it the MCP window to missed approach altitude. The reason given for setting MDA initially was that VNAV path can revert to LVL CHG due to minimum speed reversion with less than flaps 15 selected, which could result in a rapid descent, MDA assured at least not below that. Since my books are fairly old (now on the bus for the last 5 or 6 years), airplane behavior could have been changed since.

[FlyingStone]

1. This is a normal procedures for all aproaches and was common even before VNAV. The logic of VNAV won't let you descent below the MCP altitude (pretty smart), so by setting MDA (not airfield elevation, at least with standard Boeing procedures) in the MCP altitude window, you let VNAV transition to final approach logic and once you are 300ft or more below the platform altitude, you can wind it back up to missed approach altitude, and VNAV will continue descending on final approach.

As Denti points out, IAN exists, but it comes with a hefty price as a customer option and not many airlines take it up.

2. Boeing guidance is the same. If windshear is confirmed, then you should delay takeoff or discontinue the approach (FCOM SP 16 has some good stuff in it). However if windshear is only suspected, you can improve aircraft's performance by rotating at the performance-limited Vr (which can be up to 20kts higher than normal Vr), to give you better performance in case that you actually end up in a windshear.

3. Track up is a customer option, that can be only changed by the airline. Personally, I never look at the compass rose below the PFD, and track up is by far superior for most phases of flying, with the odd exception of transitioning to visual part of the landing with high crosswinds, where the runway on the ND will appear straight ahead rather that left/right.

[rudestuff]

The company VNAV procedure is to set airfield elevation in the MCP, and only set the go around altitude DURING the go around?? What else does the landing checklist miss out?

The altitude set in the MCP window is temporary, it just needs to be something lower than where you are - most operators pick MDA rounded down. You should never actually reach it. Once you're 300' below missed approach altitude you can reset the missed approach altitude and VNAV will ignore it.

[Banana Joe]

We set airfield elevation on the CL rounded down and MAA is set by the PM during GA; on the NG we set the MDA rounded up and when below 300' below MAA we set MAA altitude.
No one in their right mind will take off in known windshear conditions. But if you encounter it, you've got some margins.
Customer option.

Different ways to skin a cat.

[FlyingStone]

We set airfield elevation on the CL rounded down and MAA is set by the PM during GA; o

I'd love to see how that works with very low MAAs, such as 1500ft in BCN or 2000ft in the Netherlands.

[ImbracableCrunk]

If you're flying for a certain Seattle-based airline, they're still exorcising 737-200 and -400 artifacts from the manuals.

The MAP technique is antiquated and no longer necessary as the 737CL has been retired.

[Banana Joe]

FlyingStone

Well, it's been like this for decades where I work, so I guess it works.

[tdracer]

ImbracableCrunk

You need to use a little care with the term '737 Classic' - not everyone agrees on the definition. Some consider the 'classic' to be the 737-100/200 (tel:737-100/200) series. But at least around Boeing, the general definition of '737 Classic' is the 737-3/4/500, while the even older 737-100/200 (tel:737-100/200) are referred to as the '737 Jurassic'.

[hans brinker]

AFAIK a DAL based 737 operator sets 0000 in the window during an ILS, and doesn't set the MAA until after the GA......

[FlightDetent]

re 2) Airbus OEM also comes with a bit of obscure wording, suggesting to use TOGA for take-off with suspect WSHR.

[B2N2]

Well there’s windshear and there’s windshear.
Ominous CB is different from a ‘low level windshear advisory’ on the ATIS.
Anytime with gusting wind conditions you have windshear…technically.
20G30 with maybe a little rolling terrain or buildings causing mechanical turbulence.
I don’t remember the details of the 73 as I had to do a data dump for new type and I can only remember one set of everything.
I don’t see a problem with heading and track simultaneously.

[Alt Flieger]

Like to know where you are doing your training.
Never , ever , set 0000 in the MCP.
You are setting yourself up for disaster.
On a Vnav approach set minima rounded up. When on final set missed approach alt.
The approach logic will allow you to wind the altitude away without a nuisance AltAquire.
On ILS set minima then the missed approach alt. when G/S engaged.
The trick on the B737 is to avoid unwanted AltAquire.
But never , ever 0000 in the MCP.

[semmern]

A nice «cheat» with the compass rose on the PFD is that you can put the track line on the heading bug when on final, and you will pretty much be bang-on laterally the whole way down, without having to look over at the ND. As for the ND, I personally like track up much better there, but that of course depends entirely on personal preference :)

[Fursty Ferret]

The approach logic will allow you to wind the altitude away without a nuisance AltAquire.

Oh no it won't. Been there, done that (albeit in a 787, but VNAV behaves like it was programmed in the 1960s so I assume it's the same).

Set altitude increment to thousands, wind fast, then very carefully wind back down.

[Alt Flieger]

Yes it does.
I have flown many many RNP approaches
Are you sure you are on the last route segment when you wind the Alt. away?
It works just fine.

[hans brinker]

Alt Flieger

I don't work there (and fly AB), but as a jumpseater sat in the cockpit many times, and that is their procedure. Have always found it odd.

[RVF750]

Funny, with our lot, and I must admit to it myself, we wind it up rapidly with a flick and then down to the MAP, like it won't notice and snag on the way up or something. Comedy gold but it's a naturally cautious thing to do I guess. I can't think of something as stupid for an SOP as to wind MAP on during a high stress situation like a last minute go-around. Asking for trouble. really is.

[barrow]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1370x812/vnav_8045fda3b6bd85e993738544e8e719e6fa75c699.png
From our FCOM

[Banana Joe]

This is exactly the same in our Classic (-300/-400/-500) FCOM. The FCCs on the NG/MAX are different and allow the crew to select the MAA 300' below MAA or platform altitude if this is below MAA.

[Fursty Ferret]

Are you sure you are on the last route segment when you wind the Alt. away?

Yep. The missed approach altitude was, I think, 3000ft and we went to set it as we passed through about 2500ft from an MDA of ~540. As the ALT knob clicked through 2500 the aircraft went into VNAV ALT.

Stupid bloody thing. Fortunately the weather was great so we turned off the FDs and continued visually.

[Denti]

Thought the 787 had IAN as standard, which would do away with the need for VNAV on most approaches. Or is it a customer option there as well?

[ImbracableCrunk]

Alt Flieger

Never is a long time. Have you flown RNP in both 737CL and NG?

[FlightDetent]

Checked the old manuals, the company would set

MCP = MDA + 50' + Temp. correction

G/A target was dialled when passing 300 ft above the applicable minima.

[Alt Flieger]

ImbracableCrunk

I have flown thousands of hours in both but RNP only in the -800.
But in both our training department would have a fit if you set 00000.
If you are worried about Alt. Acq. select V/S first.
Flightdetent is correct.

[Banana Joe]

You have to set the runway threshold elevation rounded down for a VNAV flown approach on the Classic.

So never say never.

[Alt Flieger]

VNAV in a classic.
There’s your problem.
RNP in an -800NG not an issue. They are designed for it.
00000 in the MCP is a bad idea either way.
Certainly not a habit to teach a newbie like the OP.

[ImbracableCrunk]

You don't set MAP in the CL until you are going around [Edit: or 300 above mdah]. That's our point.

[Alt Flieger]

Nope.
I have 15,000 hours on Boeings including a type endorsement from Boeing in Seattle and never ever set MAA in the go-round.

[hans brinker]

I think I agree with you, but the worlds largest 737 operator does just that (and flies 737s about 15.000 hours per day, after flying it for 50 years....)

[FlyingStone]

Funny enough, albeit it's not the latest FCTM, but Boeing would disagree here:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1121x755/image_6ee49dc86c3decd2f0fd62b1ef730e5e5e6d3a9f.png

[Fursty Ferret]

IAN only works for straight-in approaches, so anything else LNAV/VNAV needed.

[FlightDetent]

Banana Joe

You say have to, our old manuals have different choice: MDA/DDA/DA instead.

Yes, for RNP VNAV on the -400. The graphics recently posted shows exactly the same.

What are we missing, I mean, you're the only one actually flying it, right? Where does this must come from?

[oicur12.again]

Boeing guidance is the same. If windshear is confirmed, then you should delay takeoff or discontinue the approach (FCOM SP 16 has some good stuff in it). However if windshear is only suspected, you can improve aircraft's performance by rotating at the performance-limited Vr (which can be up to 20kts higher than normal Vr), to give you better performance in case that you actually end up in a windshear.

Yes its an interesting dance that both manufacturers play and most airlines join in. “Windshear bad but just in case, here are some tricks that may help.” I guess during the conversion we are presently conducting my annoyance is with the negative training aspect of the windshear event, too much gung ho and not enough pause……

track up is a customer option, that can be only changed by the airline. Personally, I never look at the compass rose below the PFD, and track up is by far superior for most phases of flying, with the odd exception of transitioning to visual part of the landing with high crosswinds, where the runway on the ND will appear straight ahead rather that left/right.

I am rather agnostic about track up versus heading up and am trying to embrace the concept. Its just the transition that is causing the headache. A careers worth of muscle memory dropping my eyes from the PFD straight down to the track diamond to confirm its sitting on the Localiser dagger but the rose on the 737 does not indicate actual current track! Practice I guess.

The company VNAV procedure is to set airfield elevation in the MCP, and only set the go around altitude DURING the go around?? What else does the landing checklist miss out?

This is correct.

The altitude set in the MCP window is temporary, it just needs to be something lower than where you are - most operators pick MDA rounded down. You should never actually reach it. Once you're 300' below missed approach altitude you can reset the missed approach altitude and VNAV will ignore it.

That makes sense to me. Even at this early phase of flying the 737 I can see little value in setting the MCP to field elevation, its not offering any protection at all.

I'd love to see how that works with very low MAAs, such as 1500ft in BCN or 2000ft in the Netherlands.

Well this is the problem we are having. I have no doubt the missed approach will become more natural with time but at the moment, both myself and my sim buddy are struggling to get all the (uneccesary) calls out PLUS rememebring to ask for the missed approach altitude to be set particularly when all of our go arounds have been to a 2000’ level off along with setting GA thrust manually with an autopilot that kicks off when the TOGA buttons are pressed! Missed approach in this plane is not my favorite past time right now….

Thanks all for the feedback, very interesting discussion from some clearly experienced and thoughtful drivers.

There are some more questions I thought I would throw around.

Our procedure is to manually deploy the speedbrake on touchdown despite the fact that its armed. I have been constantly critiqued for not getting to it fast enough and letting it deploy automatically. I dont miss it on purpose, I am just not fast enough yet. However, it appears to deploy very quickly and I am unsure why we need to race our hand down to deploy it manually. Is there a history of auto failure on the speedbrake?


Not so much 737 related but more generic a question. Our procedure is to call V1 5 knots early to cater for the “delay in recognition”. I have crossed this bridge before on the Airbus in my previous airline where the same procedure was employed. My issue is two fold. Firstly, they will not pin the automation to auto call V1 because it cant be programmed to call 5 knots early. Second, the V1 calculation is designed to cater for the delay in recognition. I have raised this before on pprune and saw some interesting answers but its one that has me intrigued. Can the Boeing be programmed to auto call out V1?

Cheers all and thanks for taking the time.

[Banana Joe]

FlightDetent

I've done the type rating at an operator, currently flying at another operator and in both places this is the procedure for a VNAV flown approach. I guess both ways work. We actually set MAA 300ft above MDA if the approach is flown with V/S.

But I would not be surprised my operator may like to complicate things. Considering the country they're based in it would make sense:}

[ImbracableCrunk]

FlyingStone

Thanks for posting that. Our company won’t even let us have the FCTM. I stand corrected.

[ImbracableCrunk]

oicur12.again

The V1-5 has always bothered me. And they won’t tell you whether you remove your hand at actual V1 or the V1 call. I see a mix.

[FlyingStone]

Are you serious? You operate without a copy of FCTM?

[Vessbot]

It's somewhat common for the airline to publish its own version, paraphrased from the manufacturer's, with changes.

[punkalouver]

The question is, why do we have to wait until so late in the approach(300' above MDA) to set the missed approach altitude when there is increased risk of forgetting as one is getting close to minimums and getting more focused on acquiring visual contact with the runway.

[Banana Joe]

It's a question for Boeing. 60's technology.

[FalseGS]

punkalouver

On VNAV its done 300' below MAA. If V/S then it's 300' above MDA.

If you brief it beforehand, then it shouldn't be an issue. At my outfit almost every non precision approach is flown with VNAV. If V//S is used the point of setting the MAA is briefed with extra emphasis. Your concern is valid hence the extra emphasis.

[FlightDetent]

post #31 says VNAV approach, MDA+300. Just because it is the Classic and you are talking NG proc?

[ImbracableCrunk]

It's very annoying. Our Flight Ops team cherry picks certain sections from the FCTM and writes their own for others, errors included.

[Alt Flieger]

Yikes ! No access to the Boeing FCTM ?
There are many good reasons to abide by the Boeing FCTM , most obviously that is how they want you to operate the aircraft , but just as importantly it makes it much easier to stand in front of a Board of Inquiry if you scratch the paint and you have followed SOP’s.
Much harder to defend your position if you have used your own interpretation of how to operate the aircraft.
I made it a career goal to never go there.

[Kenny]

AF,

Worked for a 73 mob in Oz that issued all flight crew with the Boeing suite of manuals; FCOM, FCTM, etc and now work in the US for a mob that issues their own company manuals that incorporate the Boeing manuals, with their own FAA approved content. It’s just not branded as the Boeing stuff. I’d be surprised if it’s any different at any other Boeing operator in the US.

[Kenny]

Oicur,

Not sure why they do it this way and to be honest it’s a bit of a head scratcher. I’ve not come across or heard of any 73 operator that does this.

[ImbracableCrunk]

No FCTM, no FCOM.

I've flown for two 737 operators and didn't know what those were until I got to a large international operator and they handed me the Boeing manuals in class.

When asked why we can't have access to the Boeing manuals:

"It's not that we don't want to you have them . . . it's just that we . . . [don't want you to have them]."

And when asked why we don't follow the Boeing manuals, it's usually along the lines of "for commonality."

That commonality seems to be with planes that we long since retired.

[ScepticalOptomist]

Vessbot

In what countries? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Genuinely curious!

[Kenny]

The US for one. With my current company I’ve been on the 73,75/76 and 77. All have their own “Flight Manual” issued by the company. I have the Boeing FCOM’s and FCTM for each type and the company stuff includes pretty much the same as the Boeing pubs. Just with additional company specific stuff.

As an aside, a friend of mine in the U.K. was transitioning from the 73 to the A320 and asked to see what was in our company manual for the bus. His comment was that he much preferred the company tailored manual over the Airbus provided manual.

[ImbracableCrunk]

oicur12.again

Training had a video on this a few years ago. I think it was SWA at MDW (not SWA1248) where the speedbrakes didn't auto-deploy almost turned into another SWA1248. That's where that big push to manually deploy comes from.

[Alt Flieger]

Or , alternatively , the non-flying Pilot could call “ Speedbrake not up” if it doesn’t deploy.
Thats what my mob trains.

[Check Airman]

ImbracableCrunk

Pretty much exactly my experience when I asked my company why we don’t get Airbus manuals and use their SOP. At least the old company gave us the manufacturer’s manuals.

If you saw our manuals, you’d either laugh or cry.

With each revision, the square peg is forced deeper into the round hole.

[RickNRoll]

The comments in this thread are scaring me. The OP must be wondering what he has got himself into.

[oicur12.again]

oicur12.again

The V1-5 has always bothered me. And they won’t tell you whether you remove your hand at actual V1 or the V1 call. I see a mix.

When ever I bring it up in sim sessions I get the same answer, its only 5 knots so dont worry about it. But if its only 5 knots then why modify it from actual V1, you cant have it both ways.

And the only justification people provide for employing an early V1 call policy is it makes a reject safer. But they dont consider the other side of the equation.



That commonality seems to be with planes that we long since retired.

Yep, thats what we have too. Our procedures are basically old gen 300/400 stuff used on the NG

RickNRoll

Well, the discussion on here has been interesting and very informative but not what I would categorize as scary.

But then we started doing single engine flying.

I genuinely feel I am missing something here. The Airbus has a very nice beta target that is razor accurate and guides your foot at all times when flying single engine. Turning, changing speed, easy peasy.

But the little white triangle at the top of the PFD on the 737, we are told, is to be ignored (I cant even find a reference to it in our lousy manuals).

So the single engine missed approach becomes an initial guess as to ho much rudder to apply, a brief pause while it wallows a little and settles down, an adjustment of the rudder to fine tune things followed another pause while …….

It all seems very Cessna like? In fact at least a Cessna has a skid ball that clues you in a little.

I would be interestd if any posters here have moved from the bus to the 737 and what their experience was like in this regard.

Another thing that interests me is our procedure of not calling changes to the FMA. Is this normal Boeing procedure? I have worked for many Airbus operators and most follow standard AI procedure of calling the FMA changes. I understand the arguments for and against however I feel when crew are required to call any FMA changes it forces a greater awareness of what is going on. My previous Airbus operation did not require this proedure and I suspect it was the reason behind poor mode awareness.

And finally, if anyone is still reading, what is the standard minimum height for autopilot engagement on the NG after takeoff?

Cheers all and thanks again

[Kenny]

My initial type was with Boeing and the FMA’s weren’t SOP. Although at my current company the call out of FMA changes is now SOP. It does increase awareness but it can be a bit of a cluster f#ck if both pilots aren’t on the same page and one calls the FMA changes and the other thinks you’re calling for an MCP change. But to answer your question, Boeing leave it to the individual operator. AFAIK

[Denti]

oicur12.again

We had an auto callout of V1 on our 737s. It started at roughly V1 -3 kts so that it was finished by V1. Never heard that on the A320 though, is it available there as well?

On the Boeing side i never saw the Boeing manuals, we had an OM B which did incorporated the FCOM and FCTM, adapted to company procedures until we did switch to Boeing. When i transitioned to the A320, in the same airline, it was the Airbus FCTM and FCOM, incorporating the company SOPs. The switch in documentation was a bigger issue than switching types. Now i fly in an airline that uses an OM B and the airbus manuals, although the FCOM does not contain any SOPs anymore.

[Uplinker]

I suspect the relatively recent trend of calling V1 a few knots early might be a result of us now having EFBs which can calculate and display the ASDA margin available in the event of an RTO. Many pilots were probably blissfully unaware before this, but being able to see there is only a few dozen, or even zero meter's margin on some runways makes some very nervous, despite the safeguards built in.

oicur12.again:
"It [B737] all seems very Cessna like?...........I would be interestd if any posters here have moved from the bus to the 737 and what their experience was like in this regard."

I flew several turboprops, then BAe146, then Airbus A320/A330. Then onto B737-300/400, then back to A330. I agree the B737 does seem quite basic and Cessna-like. Some pilots prefer that, but I much prefer the A320 family. I found the B737 a step backwards, with not-as-capable automatics, and a much more basic plane to fly. Did not enjoy my time on B737 at all.

People will probably howl at me but I can see that when starting out, Airbus probably purchased and flew a B737 and then asked themselves how can we improve this. The result was the A320 - a marvellous design. They redesigned the automation, resulting in much less confusing mode selection and annunciation. A really nice, clean, large, uncluttered cockpit and clean display suite - designed for two pilots rather than the pilot-and-assistant philosophy of the B737. Tillers on both sides. A mostly automatic overhead panel, The FBW and side-stick - and especially the static thrust levers - are hated by some, but when you understand how to use them it is easy and brilliant.

Tall landing legs, able to accommodate bigger engine fans. Triple ADIRS and triple AoA probes. FBW. Auto-trim. Attitude holding. Very reliable and capable autopilots and auto-thrust. Good integration of navigation with the automation. Three full hydraulic systems rather than two plus emergency back-up. Dual jacks on control surfaces with multiple redundant electronic control rather than cables running on pulleys. Larger cabins. Doors with automatic girt bar engagement that does not require physically reaching down and clipping the girt bar in and out of brackets on the floor.

Airbus also made lots of improvements, as you say, with things such as the beta target, which indicates minimum control-drag attitude in the event of OEI flying.

The B737 was popular with airlines, being a cheap, mostly electro-mechanical product instead of fully integrated electronic, but it is becoming limited now, witness the attempted crowbarring in of the MCAS system in an effort to fit larger engines. I vastly prefer the Airbus and personally believe that the A320 family is an order of magnitude improvement.

I hope Boeing get themselves sorted out and produce a proper 737 replacement.

[FlightDetent]

... and with the info slowly leaked by oicur12.again, imagine what the said airline would have done to the procedures and flows if they ever laid hands on a 'bus.

The CL had a side-slip indicator, and centring that with rudder for level wings and zero ailerons was the training I got, nuances perhaps forgotten. The ball is a mandatory IFR instrument on all aeroplanes, Airbus got away from it by using electronic representation. If the NG has the same - why the hell not use it for OEI?

This so-far unnamed operator sounds like a bunch of bright minds who might insist on blanking the VNAV button, dis-allowing the use of auto-throttle, requiring round dials on NG to mimic TOS., and brutalize the anabolic MAX into operation with no differences training.

It's interesting to observe, whether or not it really transpires there are no technical answers for the OP's questions.

V1 audio: Our training was to announce early enough so as to finish the call by the time V1 is being passed. Worked well, around -3 kts. The present operator demands -5 kt which I find imprecise on the early side, but it is for commonality with the A330 automatic call. Still think it's off by 2 knots.

[Alt Flieger]

Oicur12again
The B737 is no more like a Cessna than a B747 or B767. They are all hydro-mechanical with an overlay of FCCs.
You have to fly them. I know some struggle with that idea.
You need to beg , borrow or steal a genuine Boeing FCTM . Its all in there. No mysteries.
Just remember FTFA.
Its really not that hard unless your brain has been completely fried by Airbus.
If you are really lucky you will have an NG with a HUD. Embrace it if you do. Best thing since sliced bread !

[oicur12.again]

We had an auto callout of V1 on our 737s. It started at roughly V1 -3 kts so that it was finished by V1. Never heard that on the A320 though, is it available there as well?

Pretty much standard fit on late build 320/330, at least the ones I have flown. I suspect many operators dont pin the auto callout for various reasons. Fear of change is a big one!

Doors with automatic girt bar engagement that does not require physically reaching down and clipping the girt bar in and out of brackets on the floor.

I must admit this is one of the more surprising things about the lack of progress made by Boeing when producing the 737.

This so-far unnamed operator sounds like a bunch of bright minds who might insist on blanking the VNAV button, dis-allowing the use of auto-throttle, requiring round dials on NG to mimic TOS., and brutalize the anabolic MAX into operation with no differences training

Mmmm, sounds like an accurate description of WN. No, we are not that bad but there is a definite distrust of automation and in several cases clearly the result of habits formed while operating older gen jets.

Its really not that hard unless your brain has been completely fried by Airbus.

If you are really lucky you will have an NG with a HUD. Embrace it if you do. Best thing since sliced bread !

We have completed our sim portion and I must say in the final session or two, we really started to act like Boeing pilots. I was a little concerned that I would not be able to adapt to the different thinking and hand flying skills required to make the change however it turns out it was all still there.

Intellectually I frown at the 737, its sad that a few large operators have been so instrumental in holding Boeing back from employing technology they clearly have (787,777)

BUT, I am very happy that I have made the change and I cant wait to fly it.

[oicur12.again]

Hi all,

I was wondering if any pilots out there expert in ETOPS could provide some guidance regarding ETOPS diversion policy.

My previous type listed several system failures that would preclude flight beyond the ETOPS entry point.

I have not found a similar list of systems in any of our Boeing manuals.

For example, a generator failure in flight does not require you to land at the nearest suitable airport. You can continue trucking along the country for the entire flight.

However, you cannot be dispatched with this same failure on an ETOPS flight. Its a pretty obvious example and I think we all know what to do in this particular circumstance.

But, for lesser systems that are not so obvious, does Boeing provide guidance as to whether proceeding into an ETOPS area should or should not occur?

Cheers in advance

[Roj approved]

G’day oicur,

EDTO (ETOPS) is a planning exercise in probability and risk management written specifically by your company and aircraft type.

So, pre flight, if you already have failures, ie: Generator U/S, then you are already at a reduced redundancy point. The same for the weather/aerodrome, any issues pre flight can count them out.

Once airborne in a serviceable aircraft, with good enough weather, and enough approach aids, the probability of a failure that requires a diversion, ie: Land ASAP/ Land at nearest suitable, is considered using all the data collected over the years of previous operations.

For example, you are approaching you ETOPS entry point, you lose a GEN, start the APU, and continue. The probability of losing another GEN is extremely low.

So from my time on the 787, if it’s “Land at Nearest Suitable” in RED, then it’s time to divert, if it’s in Amber, continue.

I hope that helps.

[Matey]

When I flew the 767 on ETOPS you could dispatch with a generator u/s ( engine driven or APU) with a reduction from 180 minutes to 120 minutes

[oicur12.again]

hi all,

I would like to throw another question to the experts.

Flap Maneuvering Speed according to my company manuals (completely bastardized and no FCTM provided) is based upon aircraft weight and I assume the weight is from the data entered into the FMC.

Therefore, incorrect data entry would result in incorrect Flap Maneuver Speeds displayed on the speed tape after takeoff?

Therefore, an incorrect data entry would be evidenced by a reduced margin between Flap Maneuver Speed and Minimum Maneuver Speed?

Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Possibly in the wrong forrest?

Cheers for now.

[Xhorst]

Both flap manoeuvring speed (1,5,15 etc) and minimum manoeuvring speed (amber band) are calculated by the FMC.

Therefore, an incorrect ZFW entry or a faulty fuel quantity input would cause both of these indications to be incorrect.

The stick shaker warning (red blocks) is not FMC generated - it comes from the SMYD unit using various sensory and configuration inputs, so it would still be correct.

[ScepticalOptomist]

Hi all,

I was wondering if any pilots out there expert in ETOPS could provide some guidance regarding ETOPS diversion policy.

My previous type listed several system failures that would preclude flight beyond the ETOPS entry point.

I have not found a similar list of systems in any of our Boeing manuals.

For example, a generator failure in flight does not require you to land at the nearest suitable airport. You can continue trucking along the country for the entire flight.

However, you cannot be dispatched with this same failure on an ETOPS flight. Its a pretty obvious example and I think we all know what to do in this particular circumstance.

But, for lesser systems that are not so obvious, does Boeing provide guidance as to whether proceeding into an ETOPS area should or should not occur?

Cheers in advance

Probably varies a little by type, however our company manuals state:

“any critical system failure precludes ETOPS operations and requires a diversion if within the ETOPS segment.

Critical system failure is:
- an engine failure
- only two AC power sources remaining
- hydraulic system failure that seriously restricts the operation of the aircraft.”

This has basically been the same across all twin jets I’ve flown with ETOPS capability.

Hope this helps!

[ImbracableCrunk]

Both flap manoeuvring speed (1,5,15 etc) and minimum manoeuvring speed (amber band) are calculated by the FMC.

Therefore, an incorrect ZFW entry or a faulty fuel quantity input would cause both of these indications to be incorrect.

The stick shaker warning (red blocks) is not FMC generated - it comes from the SMYD unit using various sensory and configuration inputs, so it would still be correct.

I believe Vmvr is a SMYD function, not an FMC function.

[oicur12.again]

Probably varies a little by type, however our company manuals state:

“any critical system failure precludes ETOPS operations and requires a diversion if within the ETOPS segment.

Critical system failure is:
- an engine failure
- only two AC power sources remaining
- hydraulic system failure that seriously restricts the operation of the aircraft.”

This has basically been the same across all twin jets I’ve flown with ETOPS capability.

Hope this helps!

Indeed, thanks for the input

[oicur12.again]

I believe Vmvr is a SMYD function, not an FMC function.

Yes I found a small reference in our manual that mentions this and is why I assume that an FMC data entry error will not effect Vmvr?

Cheers for any guidance