independent perf calc EK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
independent perf calc EK
Mr. E D has issued an urgent FCI (flight crew instruction) requiring both pilots to perform performance calculations independently..fair enough but we all know why by now. Three FCI's have been issued today alone - the other day one reviewing the manual loadsheet procedures for any of us unfortunate enough to be scheduled to operate the 777 freighter version perhaps once in a few months and I wonder why a loadmaster isn't employed to handle this 'unusual' procedure for most of us..another accident waiting to happen? This airline has a serious problem with information overload; policy/procedures being changed almost daily all while we are inundated with videos about how to do a proper PA, uniform standards regarding chewing gum and hat wearing, and the list goes on. My perspective is perhaps too simple but it seems to me in light of the observations above I think I can spot the train wreck a mile away yet the focus of some people in 'charge' is tainted.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best advice, h n d, I think would be to delete this thread and keep this kind of company washing in our own back yard. The fact that you've either created a new ID or, (less likely), are a newcomer to this site, speaks for itself - you know yourself that this isn't the place to be posting such information.
My tuppence worth, for the little it is worth, is that, given the circumstances (even if they have never been officially announced), the amended procedures are more than reasonable and could be said to make eminent sense.
But we don't need to discuss that here.
My tuppence worth, for the little it is worth, is that, given the circumstances (even if they have never been officially announced), the amended procedures are more than reasonable and could be said to make eminent sense.
But we don't need to discuss that here.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Uranus
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
****e, utter ****e, why do some of you protect these practices?
Freight hauling should involve a loadmaster, anyone who says it shouldn't should stick to other ops.
Thats it - no argument.............
I sometimes despair at this 'profession', we'll become a joke if some of you get your way
****e, utter ****e, why do some of you protect these practices?
Freight hauling should involve a loadmaster, anyone who says it shouldn't should stick to other ops.
Thats it - no argument.............
I sometimes despair at this 'profession', we'll become a joke if some of you get your way
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley, if you are going to bash someone for starting a thread perhaps you should not offer up an opinion about the subject.
I think having two pilots do the figures will load up an already busy cockpit which will cause the pilots to make other equally critical mistakes.
The current procedure is fine, one just has to do it.
7
I think having two pilots do the figures will load up an already busy cockpit which will cause the pilots to make other equally critical mistakes.
The current procedure is fine, one just has to do it.
7
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: charleroi
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? May I ask where, where there is total anominity?
[/b]
[/b]
Was there that much wrong with yahooekallpilots? Maybe the odd serial poster like 'Call Me Captain' and that squeeky CRS guy brought it down. And Fuzzy. Take them out of it along with the occasional anonymous hoaxer such as No e-mails thanks and it worked well. Almost forgot to mention the senders of large and pointless attachments. All in all a great idea that was abused by a few of it's users.
I've noticed there's a hardcore trying to keep yahooallpilots going and a few non-swap requests coming through on swaps as well. If the 'usual suspects' mentioned above would confine their activities to the new website then yahoo could still work as a quick and effective information exchange. Although it would need a bit of re-subscribing.
Last edited by EGGW; 21st Apr 2009 at 05:21. Reason: E-mail address
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: malta
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
montencee, many thanks for calling me a HOAXER bla bla bla..... I never did send any post apart from the famous UNSUSCRIBE on yahooekallpilots anyway, so yes indeed I was out of your way your majesty. By the way, what was the title of the thread? too much toodle pips !!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: charleroi
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bigjetdriver? You know, I thought I made that up myself as a parody of the chest-puffing monikers used by the anonymous hoaxers and hijackers on yahoo. My apologies chuppy.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the topic, girls ....
Ok, so now we have to start both of the chubby Microsoft engines and do the calculations seperately. Coming together, we detect a discrepancy. What to do? The FCI is very quiet on this and I feel lost!
Do we have to redo the whole process, seperately again, over and over until we come up with the match???
Or do we have to come together and redo the calculation on one slowtop, to make sure we both put in the same values on the same runway, basically what a lot have successfully done up to now???
Until this mystery is solved, I guess we should refraim from taking off, as apparently we are too stupid to calculate stuff in the cockpit without the horses#!t from some nervous mismanagers.
Instead of producing ever newer jewels of your wisdom [not], dear managers, reread some of your awful directives that you've sprayed around lately and try to make some sort of connection.
Maybe, just maybe, tearing up most of that crap would be cheaper and the much faster solution to better concentration and safety on -line.
Ok, so now we have to start both of the chubby Microsoft engines and do the calculations seperately. Coming together, we detect a discrepancy. What to do? The FCI is very quiet on this and I feel lost!
Do we have to redo the whole process, seperately again, over and over until we come up with the match???
Or do we have to come together and redo the calculation on one slowtop, to make sure we both put in the same values on the same runway, basically what a lot have successfully done up to now???
Until this mystery is solved, I guess we should refraim from taking off, as apparently we are too stupid to calculate stuff in the cockpit without the horses#!t from some nervous mismanagers.
Instead of producing ever newer jewels of your wisdom [not], dear managers, reread some of your awful directives that you've sprayed around lately and try to make some sort of connection.
Maybe, just maybe, tearing up most of that crap would be cheaper and the much faster solution to better concentration and safety on -line.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Building Site
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This new procedure is complete overkill, a knee jerk reaction, as usual form our leaders..
On my 4 sectors since this procedure, twice a laptop slipped from our hands while swapping them and slammed on the pedestal. Luckily we didn't break anything, but I'm just waiting for the first one to go through MCDU3... won't take a month!
If the previous procedure was done as written down in the SOP's, it was failproof because of the green dot check. This new procedure just complicates things further and gives us even more things to do in the few precious minutes between when we finally get the ZFW and loadsheet, and when we close the doors. This will for sure lead to other areas of our predeparture checks receiving less attention then before.
Also, what happens when on the taxi and we get a runway change? DO we do the same process, thus set the parking braka and hold up all other traffic for 5 minutes so we can both individually prepare our laptops again?
MR8
On my 4 sectors since this procedure, twice a laptop slipped from our hands while swapping them and slammed on the pedestal. Luckily we didn't break anything, but I'm just waiting for the first one to go through MCDU3... won't take a month!
If the previous procedure was done as written down in the SOP's, it was failproof because of the green dot check. This new procedure just complicates things further and gives us even more things to do in the few precious minutes between when we finally get the ZFW and loadsheet, and when we close the doors. This will for sure lead to other areas of our predeparture checks receiving less attention then before.
Also, what happens when on the taxi and we get a runway change? DO we do the same process, thus set the parking braka and hold up all other traffic for 5 minutes so we can both individually prepare our laptops again?
MR8
Join Date: May 2005
Location: dubai
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real problem, is cockpit interruptions, especially at outstations where we are less familiar with the local operations. And quite often, we have to read thru the stack of Notams, Wx etc while sitting sitting in the cockpit. Now the CM1 has to take the time to fire up the laptop, hope it is charged up and working, and then repeat the calculations when his time would be better spent... managing THREATS or TRAPS to the flight.
I agree that doubling-up on the calculations should prevent an INPUT error in the laptop but a thorough check of the data should do that as well. But doubling up on the calculations does NOT prevent omitting something such as an MEL item or a runway length adjustment and the likelihood of omitting such an item increases as the workload increases.
While the CM2 is inputting the data and patiently awaiting the results, I pull out the runway chart to reference the runway length and lineup criteria, review the latest ATIS and double check the page in the aircraft computer to make sure we have entered the updated ZFW. Then I verify that the takeoff weight is close to what the OFP predicted. AND I can sit there and think about things such as a wet runway, MEL item or review a Notam relevant to the LPC/OPT.
By the time the CM2 hands me the computer I have hopefully considered every eventuality and the time is available to thoroughly review the data, line by line. We are taught to Manage things as a Captain, yet now this procedure makes the managing process more difficult.
How many times have you calculated takeoff figures for 2 different runways because there is a probability of a runway change? Are we supposed to double up those calculations too? And if the runway change occurs while taxiing, then what? It is fair to say, that a runway change is a HUGE trap, and this new procedure is not suitable for such an event.
This FCI is a kneejerk reaction that does not address the real issue; DISTRACTIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS IN THE FLIGHTDECK. Regardless of how thorough and conscientious a pilot is, distractions increase the likelihood he will overlook something important.
I agree that doubling-up on the calculations should prevent an INPUT error in the laptop but a thorough check of the data should do that as well. But doubling up on the calculations does NOT prevent omitting something such as an MEL item or a runway length adjustment and the likelihood of omitting such an item increases as the workload increases.
While the CM2 is inputting the data and patiently awaiting the results, I pull out the runway chart to reference the runway length and lineup criteria, review the latest ATIS and double check the page in the aircraft computer to make sure we have entered the updated ZFW. Then I verify that the takeoff weight is close to what the OFP predicted. AND I can sit there and think about things such as a wet runway, MEL item or review a Notam relevant to the LPC/OPT.
By the time the CM2 hands me the computer I have hopefully considered every eventuality and the time is available to thoroughly review the data, line by line. We are taught to Manage things as a Captain, yet now this procedure makes the managing process more difficult.
How many times have you calculated takeoff figures for 2 different runways because there is a probability of a runway change? Are we supposed to double up those calculations too? And if the runway change occurs while taxiing, then what? It is fair to say, that a runway change is a HUGE trap, and this new procedure is not suitable for such an event.
This FCI is a kneejerk reaction that does not address the real issue; DISTRACTIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS IN THE FLIGHTDECK. Regardless of how thorough and conscientious a pilot is, distractions increase the likelihood he will overlook something important.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignoring all else, prior to the coming of thr laptops for perfromance, we used to calculate the numbers from the books. Separately, and independantly: something we lost with automation..
back tom the future.
back tom the future.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: not in Dubai anymore
Age: 94
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why did they make the mistake? did ever ask anybody that question?
maybe they were fatigue, overworked, depressed or just unmotivated.
I think our beloved rocket scientists management pointing in the wrong direction, again.
maybe they were fatigue, overworked, depressed or just unmotivated.
I think our beloved rocket scientists management pointing in the wrong direction, again.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Begin of cockpit preparation:
FO gets the ATIS, then together put the values in the laptop with the dialogue method as per LS. This gives the max regulated, takes one minute inserting and checking together.
Later:
Receive the LS, together put the values in the laptop with the dialogue method. Then insert the values into the FMC with the usual dialogue method, crosscheck both insertions versus greendot or Vref.
Easy. I personally think that individual tasks for a common goal bear just as much risk as doing the task together from scratch to finish.
We do not need the rocket scientists from management with new procedures. They have proven too many times that they sc*ew up exponentially more than we do.
We need a calmer cockpit, better rest and better rostering.
FO gets the ATIS, then together put the values in the laptop with the dialogue method as per LS. This gives the max regulated, takes one minute inserting and checking together.
Later:
Receive the LS, together put the values in the laptop with the dialogue method. Then insert the values into the FMC with the usual dialogue method, crosscheck both insertions versus greendot or Vref.
Easy. I personally think that individual tasks for a common goal bear just as much risk as doing the task together from scratch to finish.
We do not need the rocket scientists from management with new procedures. They have proven too many times that they sc*ew up exponentially more than we do.
We need a calmer cockpit, better rest and better rostering.