Operational non-compliance involving a Boeing 777, VH-VPH, near Melbourne Airport
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of days back I heard a VAI 777 say that they couldn't accept the arrival via sheed & if they were assigned 34 they would require the full RNAV approach. Perhaps there has been a directive from management due to this incident.
The 777 should have no trouble flying this approach in LNAV/VNAV if it was selectable from the database.
The 777 should have no trouble flying this approach in LNAV/VNAV if it was selectable from the database.
The 777 should have no trouble flying this approach in LNAV/VNAV if it was selectable from the database.
I reckon it'll be a simple case of Automation Surprise. What is it with these 777 thingees on 34?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 23rd Aug 2013 at 23:14.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the thing I fly, should you want LNAV/VNAV path guidance to the RWY from SHEED, you just create a RWY extension and a 3deg path to the RWY. Link it up to the SHEED WPT and it works perfectly.
KISS.
Dunno about the tripler though.
KISS.
Dunno about the tripler though.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Age: 63
Posts: 14
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely. As long as you are fully configured at SHEED, and arrival is loaded in FMC with a 2.8 NM rwy extension and 3 deg path it works a treat every time in LNAV/VNAV with automatics in or out.
Operational non-compliance involving a Boeing 777, VH-VPH, near Melbourne Airport
Similar to Bloggs, the decision is 'black and white' for the Ejet. Visual approaches using the FMS navigation source for guidance are prohibited. The chart indicates clearly that it is a visual segment of the approach. At best HDG and FPA could do the trick but usually it's 'click click' back at LIZZI or NABBA!
Fly safe.
Fly safe.
Last edited by hoss; 25th Aug 2013 at 00:06.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly Boeings, but friends on the A320/330 say they would always manually fly the aircraft from SHEED for this approach.
You can create a linked approach using the FMS and AP, but one stuff up and it can turn into a mess pretty quickly.
I stand by what I said earlier, and believe this particular approach is better flown manually.
You can create a linked approach using the FMS and AP, but one stuff up and it can turn into a mess pretty quickly.
I stand by what I said earlier, and believe this particular approach is better flown manually.
Interesting thread, the core subject (the actual event) is now pretty much irrelevant as hand flying is what needs to be discussed here & for good reasons.
The 'sheed' arrival is or can be a real balls up. Working from EN over many years I/we used to often see that App looking like a real mess with one international heavy one day disappearing behind the hangers a LOT earlier than usual & I think it was a recorded event to.
Being a visual App from overhead 'sheed' I personally believe that hand flying is far more appropriate due a few factors. One being that any adjustments can be made instantly by hand where as making adjustments via the auto flt system takes just that few seconds longer as our own brain sees thru our eyes that some correction needs to be made so we reach for the appropriate button/knob etc make the adjustment then kinda wait to see if the A/P is doing what you expect it to do & often it doesn't as quick as you would have liked so then it's back to either further A/P corrections (inc ROD more for Eg) & again wait & see or turn it all off then make manual corrections whilst all the time the machine is eating up Trk miles & possibly not doing what you want it to in a timely manor.
Hand flying from the beginning removes a lot of ambiguity right there & then providing that the pilot is capable, that's the subjective part of all this.
Having modern Nav equip & knowing how to use it combined with timely hand flying means this App is a no brainer if yr ahead of the machine.
Most of us have flown turbo props with not to dissimilar App speeds (in the last segment) to some medium sized jets & that would have been 2nd nature to hand fly such an App yet have a jet under yr ass & the whole thing seems a lot harder!-)
Wmk2
The 'sheed' arrival is or can be a real balls up. Working from EN over many years I/we used to often see that App looking like a real mess with one international heavy one day disappearing behind the hangers a LOT earlier than usual & I think it was a recorded event to.
Being a visual App from overhead 'sheed' I personally believe that hand flying is far more appropriate due a few factors. One being that any adjustments can be made instantly by hand where as making adjustments via the auto flt system takes just that few seconds longer as our own brain sees thru our eyes that some correction needs to be made so we reach for the appropriate button/knob etc make the adjustment then kinda wait to see if the A/P is doing what you expect it to do & often it doesn't as quick as you would have liked so then it's back to either further A/P corrections (inc ROD more for Eg) & again wait & see or turn it all off then make manual corrections whilst all the time the machine is eating up Trk miles & possibly not doing what you want it to in a timely manor.
Hand flying from the beginning removes a lot of ambiguity right there & then providing that the pilot is capable, that's the subjective part of all this.
Having modern Nav equip & knowing how to use it combined with timely hand flying means this App is a no brainer if yr ahead of the machine.
Most of us have flown turbo props with not to dissimilar App speeds (in the last segment) to some medium sized jets & that would have been 2nd nature to hand fly such an App yet have a jet under yr ass & the whole thing seems a lot harder!-)
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 25th Aug 2013 at 01:15.
Most of us have flown turbo props with not to dissimilar App speeds (in the last segment) to some medium sized jets & that would have been 2nd nature to hand fly such an App yet have a jet under yr ass & the whole thing seems a lot harder!-)
Is the inference in your paragraph that there is something wrong with the jet pilot and that
Most of us have flown turbo props with not to dissimilar App speeds
Or is the inference that there must be some other factor than airspeed that makes the pilot who is competent in the turbo prop unable to replicate that in a jet?
'framer' you can read what you like into my posts that's yr prerogative but the key word here is competent (you used it yourself) or being confident in handling this App manually.
Wmk2
Wmk2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practicing using the automatics properly is just as important as practicing hand flying. It is often more challenging to use the automatics properly than to just "give up" and disconnect the autopilot.
If you "give up" every time using the automatics becomes difficult for you then you might need some more practice or training.
Some aircraft obviously have better automatics than others. But this thread is about a 777.
If you "give up" every time using the automatics becomes difficult for you then you might need some more practice or training.
Some aircraft obviously have better automatics than others. But this thread is about a 777.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMC incorrectly programmed, A/P did what it was meant to. Crew identified problem, disconnected and completed approach without incident.
Nothing to see here. Mistake get made, errors identified and managed.
Had the crew persisted with Automatics, then it may have become an issue. Had the crew not been competent to manually correct the problem, then it may have become and issue.
At VAI A/P is deemed as the most appropriate method of mitigating the effects of fatigue. In this instance it didn't work.
Nothing to see here. Mistake get made, errors identified and managed.
Had the crew persisted with Automatics, then it may have become an issue. Had the crew not been competent to manually correct the problem, then it may have become and issue.
At VAI A/P is deemed as the most appropriate method of mitigating the effects of fatigue. In this instance it didn't work.
'framer' you can read what you like into my posts that's yr prerogative but the key word here is competent (you used it yourself) or being confident in handling this App manually.
I've seen several chaps who had had commands on Dash 8's and Jetstreams for years unable to produce the same competency levels in a jet and therefore not make the check to line. The jet is not necessarily more difficult, just different and I wondered if you were suggesting otherwise. I guess I'll keep wondering.
Have a good one
A lot of discussion on appropriate levels of automation. Have a listen to this uni lecture recorded in 1997.
Children of Magenta - YouTube
A very wise perspective.
Children of Magenta - YouTube
A very wise perspective.
That vid which has been around a while ought to be mandatory watching for all pilots in 2day's modern Airliner.
What that guy was saying is pretty much what's in the body of a previous post of mine, hand fly the machine when it's not doing what you want it to or want it to be more effective in a instant sought of way.
'framer' I don't believe my post was making ref to a jet pilot being anything other than able to fly their machine it was more that is 'seemed' (the optimum word there I used) that flying a jet was harder than a turbo prop with similar speeds.
Basically put it's probably a mental thing when first on a jet that it flies faster & therefor must be harder as everything happens quicker which it does up top but down low near Ldg the only diff would be the energy behind the jet due weight. It's just a skill to be learnt like all things in life:-)
I went from small light twins to Lear's in the early days, Christ I reckon I was still on the threshold when the Capt flared at our destination but in the end it's all relevant especially the 4 hrs bit meaning 4 hrs in a C150 & 4 hrs in a Lear is still 4 hrs ya just go further!
Wmk2
What that guy was saying is pretty much what's in the body of a previous post of mine, hand fly the machine when it's not doing what you want it to or want it to be more effective in a instant sought of way.
'framer' I don't believe my post was making ref to a jet pilot being anything other than able to fly their machine it was more that is 'seemed' (the optimum word there I used) that flying a jet was harder than a turbo prop with similar speeds.
Basically put it's probably a mental thing when first on a jet that it flies faster & therefor must be harder as everything happens quicker which it does up top but down low near Ldg the only diff would be the energy behind the jet due weight. It's just a skill to be learnt like all things in life:-)
I went from small light twins to Lear's in the early days, Christ I reckon I was still on the threshold when the Capt flared at our destination but in the end it's all relevant especially the 4 hrs bit meaning 4 hrs in a C150 & 4 hrs in a Lear is still 4 hrs ya just go further!
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 25th Aug 2013 at 10:43.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMC incorrectly programmed, A/P did what it was meant to. Crew identified problem, disconnected and completed approach without incident.
Nothing to see here. Mistake get made, errors identified and managed.
Had the crew persisted with Automatics, then it may have become an issue. Had the crew not been competent to manually correct the problem, then it may have become and issue.
At VAI A/P is deemed as the most appropriate method of mitigating the effects of fatigue. In this instance it didn't work.
Nothing to see here. Mistake get made, errors identified and managed.
Had the crew persisted with Automatics, then it may have become an issue. Had the crew not been competent to manually correct the problem, then it may have become and issue.
At VAI A/P is deemed as the most appropriate method of mitigating the effects of fatigue. In this instance it didn't work.