Ryanair GPWS @ Bergerac
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 137
No, sadly plenty of your colleagues find it "normal", too. Sometimes I wonder whether you guys realise we can see you on the radar!
On a non-precision calling established a tiny bit earlier (ie as the turn starts) just frees up capacity for the whole descent / timing / monitoring stuff.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
On a non-precision calling established a tiny bit earlier (ie as the turn starts) just frees up capacity for the whole descent / timing / monitoring stuff.
UK airspace vertical division between Class D/G requires you to be cleared to descend on the ILSGP by Approach due to the possibility of uncontrolled VFR traffic below the platform altitude and within 10nm from the THR. In Europe the rules are different in Class C airspace where you may be cleared for the approach from the IAF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The sky
Posts: 273
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure.
A fact of life nowadays is that the volume of knowledge required to assimilate the airline SOPs and the complexity of the aircraft type rating tends to displace the basics in the pilot's personal database. (head)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kopavogur
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Icelanta
You are completely out of your mind to fail someone for calling established a bit early. It is a debriefing point, nothing more.
When I did my initial CAA IR ( many many years ago on a Piper Aztec ) , this would have been a re-fly for that segment , just like failing to call " check for ice ! " every 5 minutes . No questions asked . And then, apart from anything else , money alone ( re-booking the aircraft for another test ) meant it was not an option . Discipline .
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: SW1A 2AA
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
We had a TRE that seemed to be on a bit of a crusade in my outfit. Lots of sickness from candidates on their LPC/OPC days with this guy. Duly noted by management and the CAA FOI.
My two cents.
Last edited by Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP; 7th Jul 2020 at 21:05.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: everywhere
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
Thankfully in my outfit they are more focused on the big picture stuff rather than focusing on reasons to fail you.
Only half a speed-brake
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 3,722
Originally Posted by A320LGW
Thankfully in my outfit they are more focused on the big picture stuff rather than focusing on reasons to fail you.
Perhaps for the altitude bit? Brrr.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 49
Posts: 2,082
Originally Posted by Phantom Driver
Unfortunately , it sometimes needs a fail , rather than a debrief to concentrate minds .There are some areas in the profession where lazy practice is definitely not acceptable. Discipline is paramount .
To fail/retest a crew You must have observed an unacceptable reduction in safety level at any stage of the flight, and it must be observed and described in details, otherwise the crew will (rightfully) appeal.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 49
Posts: 2,082
Originally Posted by Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP
I'm just interested as a fellow TRE. PF flies the NDB within all the tolerances but the PM calls "established" at +/- 6 degrees. Whilst a repeat is at the discretion of the examiner, we are also encouraged by DOC24 to avoid nit picking. Personally, I wouldn't even mention it. It's trivia.
We had a TRE that seemed to be on a bit of a crusade in my outfit. Lots of sickness from candidates on their LPC/OPC days with this guy. Duly noted by management and the CAA FOI.
My two cents.
We had a TRE that seemed to be on a bit of a crusade in my outfit. Lots of sickness from candidates on their LPC/OPC days with this guy. Duly noted by management and the CAA FOI.
My two cents.
When conducting Initial TRE AOC during my career I have witnessed in many occasions a lack of knowledge on OM-D and EASA training bulletins and that is exactly the moment I understand they are not (yet) suitable for the position despite a total knowledge of FCOMS/OM-A and so on.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,921
I think the "established" point has two elements.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
It is not unknown to called established as the ILS pointer moves across, because if one has armed ILS capture, modern airliners will very rarely not capture, assuming correct speed and config for that phase of flight. And it helps ATC sequencing if they know you are within a gnat's crotchet of being there rather than them having to move planes around in the sequence. Would ATC agree?. I would say "becoming established" to indicate this. Likewise, if we were intercepting an NDB track, I might call established if I could see that the trend was reliable - we might be +- 6° but by the time I had finished the radio call, we would be within +- 5° for example.
The second point is being actually legally established for the purposes of descent, which must obviously be within the published limits, otherwise, CFIT or terrain issues could occur.
I am sure that most TREs would use their sensible discretion on this.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
It is not unknown to called established as the ILS pointer moves across, because if one has armed ILS capture, modern airliners will very rarely not capture, assuming correct speed and config for that phase of flight. And it helps ATC sequencing if they know you are within a gnat's crotchet of being there rather than them having to move planes around in the sequence. Would ATC agree?. I would say "becoming established" to indicate this. Likewise, if we were intercepting an NDB track, I might call established if I could see that the trend was reliable - we might be +- 6° but by the time I had finished the radio call, we would be within +- 5° for example.
The second point is being actually legally established for the purposes of descent, which must obviously be within the published limits, otherwise, CFIT or terrain issues could occur.
I am sure that most TREs would use their sensible discretion on this.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 72
Posts: 3,115
Originally Posted by Uplinker
I think the "established" point has two elements.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
.
From my long passed Approach days , "reporting established" for a Controller main function is that it automatically means the aircraft is on its own navigation .In a radar environment you stop vectoring it to intercept the LOC , and transfer it to TWR ( or keep it in LVP ) Responsibility for terrain is transferred to the pilot.
As to sequencing, In busy airports maybe , but we have better ways to sequence aircraft . As an aside in Bergerac they have 2 or 3 commercials ops per day only ..
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 633
Interesting discusssion, I would put completely the opposite emphahsis on my debrief to an LPC candidate; if you have been cleared for the approach (ILS or other), then all R/T calls are merely courtesy to help the controller keep his SA. They are totally secondary to the task of flying the correct profile and as such can wait until workload permits. Radar to the ILS this is usually as it happens, but in a procedural environment crews need to prioritise taking into accoutn their level of currency.
Particulalry relevant at the moment, I have done a lot more procedural stuff than normal recently as ATC units are short staffed. In addition to a sudden revivial in LPC/OPCs in the aircraft as we are unable to get crews to the sim. Interesting times!
Particulalry relevant at the moment, I have done a lot more procedural stuff than normal recently as ATC units are short staffed. In addition to a sudden revivial in LPC/OPCs in the aircraft as we are unable to get crews to the sim. Interesting times!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: everywhere
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
And hence the decline continues, by our own folk cherry picking which rules they like to be subjected to and which not.
Perhaps for the altitude bit? Brrr.
Perhaps for the altitude bit? Brrr.
Meanwhile the rest of us will keep flying practically. Not busting altitude limitations and maintaining big picture situation awareness at all times.
As a matter of interest I don't think I have ever called ATC as being 'established' until actually established on the LOC course (CDI needle centered is my mental cue) or fully established LOC and GS. I have no fears of failing for calling 'established' when 5.3 degrees off the inbound course because for me it isn't habit (whereas for you it would clearly lead to a climax)
Whoever said that people need to be failed to concentrate on something need to have a word with your selection department if that's the type of pilot being hired. I speak for every colleague I've been in the sim with when I say a notebook of the debrief is always kept and used for personal review. To suggest you need to fail someone for them to learn something is an insult to our profession and intelligence.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 115
Absolutely, but perhaps if this crew had been looking for the ADF pointer to line up with the FAT and used all this as the prompt for the callout, then they may have realised they were pointing in the wrong direction.
Only half a speed-brake
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 3,722
A320LGW You may want to read the post that you originally opposed again.
#92 Said "Unfortunately, sometimes" he may need to fail the crew for flying outside limits. Not that he habitually comes to the sim seeking the soft spots to stab them in the back.
#88 had spelt three points to retake the exercise:
- i) calling ATC with a report which is not true
- ii) continuing an approach outside the tracking limits in IMC
-iii) busting a hard altitude limit.
By your own words, i) and ii) are ridiculous and iii) is perhaps understandable. So spade was called.
Happy to see now that altitude keeping is actually the primary focus in your big picture, welcome to the team.
Here's my original message in different wording: Un-focusing from the minutae and as we frame the "big picture" is not risk-free. Once you zoom out even further, it becomes visible that in the long run some lines may get blurred beyond recognizable as we pardon the irrelevant slips over and over again with increasing tolerance. If this is allowed to happen systematically we're not only scoring own goals but bribing the referee to lose. Moreover, there's no lack of evidence that normal human nature puts us on a tilted pitch before the game opens.
#92 Said "Unfortunately, sometimes" he may need to fail the crew for flying outside limits. Not that he habitually comes to the sim seeking the soft spots to stab them in the back.
#88 had spelt three points to retake the exercise:
- i) calling ATC with a report which is not true
- ii) continuing an approach outside the tracking limits in IMC
-iii) busting a hard altitude limit.
By your own words, i) and ii) are ridiculous and iii) is perhaps understandable. So spade was called.
Happy to see now that altitude keeping is actually the primary focus in your big picture, welcome to the team.
Here's my original message in different wording: Un-focusing from the minutae and as we frame the "big picture" is not risk-free. Once you zoom out even further, it becomes visible that in the long run some lines may get blurred beyond recognizable as we pardon the irrelevant slips over and over again with increasing tolerance. If this is allowed to happen systematically we're not only scoring own goals but bribing the referee to lose. Moreover, there's no lack of evidence that normal human nature puts us on a tilted pitch before the game opens.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: everywhere
Posts: 218
I termed it 'ridiculous' to fail somebody for calling established if not exactly within 5 degrees, that is to say if somebody called at 5.2 degrees they would fail their LPC and need to repeat. I stand by this definition of the matter. Let's say there was another task that needed completing and the pilot decided they'd call established ASAP to tend to the other task (whilst being able to get a move on with ATC and switched to tower etc) rather than tend to it and forget the 'established' call entirely, what then? Flying is obviously not black and white and there is a lot more to be considered.
Regarding the altitude, you are playing semantics and you know well.
About your final paragraph, I do not disagree nor did I say we are to do away with SOPs in favour of simply flying from A to B hoping it goes well. I mean to say that once the operation is safe and SOPs are adhered to within reason then nitpicking serves the benefit of neither the pilots nor the safety of the operation. Where do we stop? somebody calling 'acceleration altitude' as they eye the altimeter pass 1,280' instead of the millisecond it displays 1,300'? This is the stuff I really dislike seeing and is a pain. What exactly do we learn from this type of stuff? I go to my LPC looking to learn as well as demonstrate competency. If you remove the learning aspect and replace it with nitpicking then we have well and truly lost it.
Regarding the altitude, you are playing semantics and you know well.
About your final paragraph, I do not disagree nor did I say we are to do away with SOPs in favour of simply flying from A to B hoping it goes well. I mean to say that once the operation is safe and SOPs are adhered to within reason then nitpicking serves the benefit of neither the pilots nor the safety of the operation. Where do we stop? somebody calling 'acceleration altitude' as they eye the altimeter pass 1,280' instead of the millisecond it displays 1,300'? This is the stuff I really dislike seeing and is a pain. What exactly do we learn from this type of stuff? I go to my LPC looking to learn as well as demonstrate competency. If you remove the learning aspect and replace it with nitpicking then we have well and truly lost it.
