NTSB says Delta Pilot Error
The so-called "British Airways Flight Operations Department Notice" is a fabrication from the mid 1970s created by a BOAC pilot, who circulated it in a slightly different format as part of an unsuccessful campaign against the merger of BOAC, BEA and several other smaller carriers into British Airways. I have all the original files from that period.
Having flown for different airlines and experienced both approach methods, I would agree with most of the others that the monitored approach unloads the Landing Pilot and informs him/her at an earlier stage as to the likelihood of a landing or go-around. The other crew member will be locked on to the instruments and will perform a go-around if there is no clear communication or any ambiguity at minima.
As far as reverse thrust lever handling is concerned, giving control of the TRs to the PM enables the Landing Pilot to concentrate on steering and braking. The PM will monitor the Speedbrake/Spoiler and TR deployment, N1/EPR, and give the PF the amount of reverse required. He/she will also monitor autobrake disconnection and call the speeds. That list shows that the PF is relieved of quite a few duties and can look outside all of the time. The PF can also ask for 'reverse idle' or 'forward idle' if any steering difficulties arise. The same SOP is used for an RTO.
Having said all that, my understanding is that the BA A380 fleet is about to change the SOP and have the PF operate the TRs!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown for different airlines and experienced both approach methods, I would agree with most of the others that the monitored approach unloads the Landing Pilot and informs him/her at an earlier stage as to the likelihood of a landing or go-around. The other crew member will be locked on to the instruments and will perform a go-around if there is no clear communication or any ambiguity at minima.
As far as reverse thrust lever handling is concerned, giving control of the TRs to the PM enables the Landing Pilot to concentrate on steering and braking. The PM will monitor the Speedbrake/Spoiler and TR deployment, N1/EPR, and give the PF the amount of reverse required. He/she will also monitor autobrake disconnection and call the speeds. That list shows that the PF is relieved of quite a few duties and can look outside all of the time. The PF can also ask for 'reverse idle' or 'forward idle' if any steering difficulties arise. The same SOP is used for an RTO.
Having said all that, my understanding is that the BA A380 fleet is about to change the SOP and have the PF operate the TRs!
As far as reverse thrust lever handling is concerned, giving control of the TRs to the PM enables the Landing Pilot to concentrate on steering and braking. The PM will monitor the Speedbrake/Spoiler and TR deployment, N1/EPR, and give the PF the amount of reverse required. He/she will also monitor autobrake disconnection and call the speeds. That list shows that the PF is relieved of quite a few duties and can look outside all of the time. The PF can also ask for 'reverse idle' or 'forward idle' if any steering difficulties arise. The same SOP is used for an RTO.
Having said all that, my understanding is that the BA A380 fleet is about to change the SOP and have the PF operate the TRs!
As to the PM using the thrust reversers...
Does the PM also control thrust on approach?
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the benefit of a monitored approach in dodgy weather, but I think it'd be quite a pain in the rear to do every approach that way.
As to the PM using the thrust reversers...
Does the PM also control thrust on approach?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: scotland
Age: 65
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how often, if PF is selecting reverse, the reverse selection is "fumbled" because the PF "misses" the reverser levers because he is (hopefully) looking out the window.
Also on a type (like wot I fly), where reverse is available and normally used on all four engines, and, say, one reverser doesn't unlock, that certainly would be less of a distraction to the PF if the the PM is selecting reverse.
In my airline PM selects reverse.
Also on a type (like wot I fly), where reverse is available and normally used on all four engines, and, say, one reverser doesn't unlock, that certainly would be less of a distraction to the PF if the the PM is selecting reverse.
In my airline PM selects reverse.
I wonder how often, if PF is selecting reverse, the reverse selection is "fumbled" because the PF "misses" the reverser levers because he is (hopefully) looking out the window.
However do military fighter pilots cope with 200 ft decision heights when flying single seat jets....
Perhaps because they don't have any of this headshrinker horse$hit to worry about and are fully capable of 'going visual' after an IMC approach?
Perhaps because they don't have any of this headshrinker horse$hit to worry about and are fully capable of 'going visual' after an IMC approach?
Entirely different sort of operation however, as I said before: 'JDI!'
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a pain in the rear at all. Hand over control just before TOD, take over control either around 1000' when visual and all is stable or at minimums (if applicable). It's really very, very easy and takes just a few minutes to get used to. I much prefer it to the 'whole sector'-type flight that you're used to. Horses, courses etc etc.
No need to be facetious just because it's not the way you do things.
If managing thrust is so difficult during the rollout, it should follow that the PM should manage the thrust while in flight, so the PF can concentrate on doing other things. That seems to be the logical extension to that line of reasoning.
PS. You're absolutely right- the whole thing seems foreign to me, as I've never heard of that procedure before. From the outside, it seems like an unnecessarily complicated procedure.
I was FO on an aircraft following a very big merger.
We operated the monitored approach system. My captain came from a company where they did not.
C: "D'you mind if I fly my own approach?"
FO: (In warning tone) "Well, YOU'RE the Captain."
FO: (on short finals) "YOU'RE HIGH AND FAST ON A SHORT WET RUNWAY!"
Despite warning, Capt lands and bursts all maingear tyres. I thought we were going off the end.
Funny old thing; I never heard another word about it.
JFDI!
We operated the monitored approach system. My captain came from a company where they did not.
C: "D'you mind if I fly my own approach?"
FO: (In warning tone) "Well, YOU'RE the Captain."
FO: (on short finals) "YOU'RE HIGH AND FAST ON A SHORT WET RUNWAY!"
Despite warning, Capt lands and bursts all maingear tyres. I thought we were going off the end.
Funny old thing; I never heard another word about it.
JFDI!
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken, but if the CA does the approach until all is stable, when does a new FO (or CA) on type get to learn from his mistakes? Getting burned is part of the learning process, and if you get the plane handed to you on a silver platter, so to speak, when do you learn how NOT to set up for an approach, and how to fix it when you've done it incorrectly?
If managing thrust is so difficult during the rollout
However do military fighter pilots cope with 200 ft decision heights when flying single seat jets....
Perhaps because they don't have any of this headshrinker horse$hit to worry about and are fully capable of 'going visual' after an IMC approach?
Perhaps because they don't have any of this headshrinker horse$hit to worry about and are fully capable of 'going visual' after an IMC approach?
, I say!! 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally if the captain was PF on the first sector then the FO would do the approach for the captain's landing. On the next sector (all things being equal, weather etc) the FO would be the PF and the captain would do the approach for the FO's landing. The nice thing about this procedure is you get to have a 'play' on every sector and the FO's still get to practice all the things they'd practice in a non-'monitored' approach i.e. they still get to learn from their mistakes.
I wonder how often, if PF is selecting reverse, the reverse selection is "fumbled" because the PF "misses" the reverser levers because he is (hopefully) looking out the window.
Are you serious?
.Fortunately, no serious damage or injuries resulted, although I suspect there were some soiled undergarments
Originally Posted by TDRacer
I know of at least two 747 runway excursions when the pilot only grabbed three T/R levers, then managed to nudge the fourth throttle forward while working the T/R levers. Both resulted in the 747 doing basically a 270 deg spin as it left the runway
What does the manufacturer recommend re use of the reversers?
To the best of my knowledge, Boeing does not recommend someone other than the PF working the throttles. I know that whenever I've been on the flight deck for landing during flight testing, the PF always works the throttles and T/Rs.
I was just pointing out the concept of someone else doing it isn't completely crazy...
I was just pointing out the concept of someone else doing it isn't completely crazy...
Mistrust in Management
All quite easy really,
The PM selects reverse as soon as main wheel touch down. The PF then continues or cancels reverse if directional control becomes an issue.
The introduction of this SOP caused a few initial problems when I was flying for Big Airways, (like nobody selected reverse at all !!!) but then everybody settled down to it.
Observing from the car park adjacent to 26L at LGW it was always the Big Airways planes that had reverse selected before the 'others'.
Leaving Big I flew for two other operators who both insisted the PF pulled reverse. (one of these a large West African carrier). Handling a landing in a xwind on a wet and poorly drained runway meant I was a couple of seconds late with reverse.
The PM selects reverse as soon as main wheel touch down. The PF then continues or cancels reverse if directional control becomes an issue.
The introduction of this SOP caused a few initial problems when I was flying for Big Airways, (like nobody selected reverse at all !!!) but then everybody settled down to it.
Observing from the car park adjacent to 26L at LGW it was always the Big Airways planes that had reverse selected before the 'others'.
Leaving Big I flew for two other operators who both insisted the PF pulled reverse. (one of these a large West African carrier). Handling a landing in a xwind on a wet and poorly drained runway meant I was a couple of seconds late with reverse.
Mistrust in Management
And another thing!
I did not like the introduction of monitored approaches in Big. For low vis it was correct and was trained for every six months. For all ops - quite bonkers in my opinion. Good vis in howling winds and I fly the aircraft to about 500 ft where the F/O takes over to land - well it may not have the best possible outcome will it - some F/O's or Captains will do well and some won't.