737 Jockeys what do you think?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a question... is there anyone that monitors their compass during landing roll to for directional control during landing? The PF controls the jet, while the NPF monitors speed and engine trends during decelaration.
I would love to see an actual FCOM that makes that statement "monitor compass for heading deviation during braking during landing roll", if it really exists.
I would love to see an actual FCOM that makes that statement "monitor compass for heading deviation during braking during landing roll", if it really exists.
For same reason, it was useful to have the localiser up on the PFD which gave us runway centre-line. At night, deep intermittent fog patches during the landing roll occasionally forced us heads down to the compass and localiser as well. Don't knock it. Certainly a useful exercise in the simulator and increases the confidence in basic handling skills which for many pilots seems to have been steadily eroded by automatics complacency
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
use of auto brakes will produce more favorable brake cooling than use of manual braking.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a go around in conditions where you need to rely on the compass would be more appropriate? We were talking about LANDING, I think. You mention taking off in blinding rain and needing to use the compass. Two things spring to mind;
1. The runway is contaminated. Did they measure the depth of water contamination and get you a braking action? I assume you then used contaminated figures for your take-off?
2. In rain that hard the visibility can drop below LVO minimum requirements for take-off, as you indeed point out.
In either of the scenarios you mention the usual guidance is to DELAY the take-off until such time as the weather is more favourable. Having to look at the compass to see what direction you are going during a take-off confirms to me that delaying would be a more appropriate course of action in an AIRLINE operation. Blind take-offs have no place in airline operations.
PP
1. The runway is contaminated. Did they measure the depth of water contamination and get you a braking action? I assume you then used contaminated figures for your take-off?
2. In rain that hard the visibility can drop below LVO minimum requirements for take-off, as you indeed point out.
In either of the scenarios you mention the usual guidance is to DELAY the take-off until such time as the weather is more favourable. Having to look at the compass to see what direction you are going during a take-off confirms to me that delaying would be a more appropriate course of action in an AIRLINE operation. Blind take-offs have no place in airline operations.
PP
I have to agree with 'Rainboe', the 747 is the only aircraft I have flown with brake temp indications. With manual brakes and no crosswind I lean on the left foot, with any crosswind it tends to come out on the upwind side. Has puzzled me for years and I don't walk with a limp. On the next FO landing I'll see if he favours right, this is quite facinating!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was common knowledge that using idle reverse only with brakes is more economical. Autobrake also allows earlier application of the brakes on landing, reducing the landing distance (more important on airplane larger that a 737 I suppose) Who didn't get the memo? 
bobrun, take care that your economic view does not cloud the more important safety view of braking – and brake for safety not for comfort. Habits are difficult to change, and the conditions in which change is necessary are not easily identifiable.
Not all autobrake systems give a quicker brake application than manual braking. Most auto systems ramp up to full braking to ensure good wheel spin-up, enabling correct anti skid functioning.
Neither does autobrake provide better stopping distance than correctly applied manual braking. Most ‘Max’ autobrake settings result in a deceleration below that achieved by full manual braking; where fitted the ‘RTO’ setting might equal manual braking, both in speed of application and stopping distance, and often eliminating mistaken human actions.
However, as runway conditions deteriorate, the difference between manual and auto is not as large and in some cases there is none.
The two effects above are described and shown diagrammatically in the ALAR tool Kit Briefings 8.4 — Braking Devices , 8.5 — Wet or Contaminated Runways .
Although some Boeing manuals indicate that Max autobrake provides the shortest stopping distance, the document which I have suggests that this only applies to wet / slippery operations.
Other references, i.e. 737 QRH page 22.1 clearly shows the advantage of max manual braking; note the that the distances are unfactored.
A potential pitfall of autobrake is that when braking in very wet conditions with reverse thrust, you may not get any body/foot-force feedback of the brake’s effectiveness as the majority of the braking effort comes from reverse until lower speeds. Thus the crew might not gain early warning if the runway is more slippery than expected and a higher level of braking should have been selected. The effect is shown in fig 3 ALAR 8.4 Braking Devices.
Also, note that wet landing performance probably does not assume reverse use, whereas contaminated / slippery performance does (JAR-OPS 1).
Not all autobrake systems give a quicker brake application than manual braking. Most auto systems ramp up to full braking to ensure good wheel spin-up, enabling correct anti skid functioning.
Neither does autobrake provide better stopping distance than correctly applied manual braking. Most ‘Max’ autobrake settings result in a deceleration below that achieved by full manual braking; where fitted the ‘RTO’ setting might equal manual braking, both in speed of application and stopping distance, and often eliminating mistaken human actions.
However, as runway conditions deteriorate, the difference between manual and auto is not as large and in some cases there is none.
The two effects above are described and shown diagrammatically in the ALAR tool Kit Briefings 8.4 — Braking Devices , 8.5 — Wet or Contaminated Runways .
Although some Boeing manuals indicate that Max autobrake provides the shortest stopping distance, the document which I have suggests that this only applies to wet / slippery operations.
Other references, i.e. 737 QRH page 22.1 clearly shows the advantage of max manual braking; note the that the distances are unfactored.
A potential pitfall of autobrake is that when braking in very wet conditions with reverse thrust, you may not get any body/foot-force feedback of the brake’s effectiveness as the majority of the braking effort comes from reverse until lower speeds. Thus the crew might not gain early warning if the runway is more slippery than expected and a higher level of braking should have been selected. The effect is shown in fig 3 ALAR 8.4 Braking Devices.
Also, note that wet landing performance probably does not assume reverse use, whereas contaminated / slippery performance does (JAR-OPS 1).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I never use less than 3 unless the exit is at the end of the runway. Autobrake 1 and 2 don't do an awful lot, last flight of the day - Max and idle detent.
I am told this is more cost effective - and there is no degredation of performance of safety.
With regards to manual braking, I always thought I could brake evenly however from a few comments perhaps not.
I am told this is more cost effective - and there is no degredation of performance of safety.
With regards to manual braking, I always thought I could brake evenly however from a few comments perhaps not.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NL
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Olendirk,
Sorry to tell, but your collegue seems to be a complete nitwit.
I do like your professional attitude.
What company do u fly for?
As for your planning: seems absolutely fine with me.
PS look in ur landing charts: no autobrake? add 200m...says it all i guess
Sorry to tell, but your collegue seems to be a complete nitwit.
I do like your professional attitude.
What company do u fly for?
As for your planning: seems absolutely fine with me.
PS look in ur landing charts: no autobrake? add 200m...says it all i guess
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having to look at the compass to see what direction you are going during a take-off confirms to me that delaying would be a more appropriate course of action in an AIRLINE operation. Blind take-offs have no place in airline operations
The problem has always been that the visibility through a rain affected windshield is what the pilot sees at that instant, and that may be far different to reported visibility on which to decide a take off or complete a landing. All forward visibility can be suddenly lost for a few seconds. When that happens, the last thing a pilot should be doing is to focus on the spot on the windscreen where he last saw the runway, in the blind hope a miracle will occur and the rain ceases as suddenly as it started. Good airmanship would dictate an instant glance at the heading/localiser and appropriate steering correction made to stay on centre-line.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Use autobrakes, unless light, vacating at end of runway etc. Autobrakes provide more efficient braking than pilot input, at least on the 737. Unless your company says otherwise. How much do they pay for brakes Vs fuel and engine maintanance?
2) Level segment? Why? CDAs are the way to go and will be mandated at more and more airports for noise and emissions.
"Makes you feel good and safe", well maybe you need to review the way you operate the aircraft. Maybe there are other "good and safe" and efficient ways of flying the aircraft. Your company does not seem to provide crews with much guidance on this.
Industry standard is moving towards green appraches, you should too. Having said that pilots in general don't like change. If it has worked for 20 years why change? And the argument is always safety, unfortunately, because that undermines our views when there are actual genuine safety issues.
2) Level segment? Why? CDAs are the way to go and will be mandated at more and more airports for noise and emissions.
"Makes you feel good and safe", well maybe you need to review the way you operate the aircraft. Maybe there are other "good and safe" and efficient ways of flying the aircraft. Your company does not seem to provide crews with much guidance on this.
Industry standard is moving towards green appraches, you should too. Having said that pilots in general don't like change. If it has worked for 20 years why change? And the argument is always safety, unfortunately, because that undermines our views when there are actual genuine safety issues.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However it is a good practice during LVOs (T/O and landings ) to have the PNF use the ILS frequency on compass rose to detect any deviations and guide PF in case a sudden loss of visibility(fog patches)then the runway heading is used as reference along with the loc from the pnf to keep centerline
PF: "Speak up my man I can't hear you because of noise of reverse (landing)
PNF: "For Christ's sake turn left -aw bugger it I mean right:
PF; "Make up your mind man - speak slowly now..which way should I turn.."
Aircraft departs side of runway and kills a million rabbits.
Moral of the story? If you are concerned about loss of vis on runway then its the PF that should have the localiser up - not the PNF. Better still BOTH pilots have the localiser up?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sops require the PNF to use the LOC and call for any deviation(slightly left/slighty right) PF calling correcting
How does the gallant PNF define "slightly left or slightly right" when advising the PF he is away from the runway centre line? Depending how far you are down the runway towards the localise aerials the amount of corrective action by the PF on the steering will change.
After all, if you have ever flown a military GCA in the old days you will have heard the GCA operator say "turn left/right (number of degrees) - not "you are left of centre line turn slightly right." In any case the last thing the PF wants is the PNF yakking away about heading corrections at the same time as other radio calls are heard to other aircraft and possibly blocking the calls by the PNF.
CRM is indeed a beautiful vague cosy word with many interpretations but surely it is within the realms of competency for a PF to scan his own compass or localiser needle to make a necessary correction. After all he doesn't need the PNF to help him scan an ASI needle in take off or landing.
Dearie me! - I really despair of pilots who seem to have lost their basic flying skills and are practically incapable of operating without a PNF prompting, hinting, cajoling, suggesting and generally doing the fly-by-mouth thing.
