Professional Pilots ??
I'm one of the more prolific posters on PPrune - it maintains my sanity to a large extent when beaten to death by management meetings, which are to an annoyingly large extent my lot these days.
On the other hand, I have a professional licence, and I have been paid to do a job of work in an aeroplane from time to time since about 1989. I've not worked outside of aerospace since 1988 (whether I've done much useful work inside it is a healthy debating point of-course
). For much of that time I've had professional pilots working for me, or alongside me.
Flying has never been my full time job, and the odds are that it never will be. For the years I've been flying, my hours are frankly pretty low.
But, I like to feel that I belong here, can contribute, and I certainly get much more than a hobbyists benefit (despite flying being also very much my hobby, as well as my job) and I'm sure that there are others like me.
Pprune is badly named. Firstly we have every flavour of aviation professional here, not just pilots. Secondly, it is vastly more than rumour. But it's a fantastic place to talk shop - albeit that you have to be cautious to try and understand where people are coming from in terms of their own qualifications and experience.
G
On the other hand, I have a professional licence, and I have been paid to do a job of work in an aeroplane from time to time since about 1989. I've not worked outside of aerospace since 1988 (whether I've done much useful work inside it is a healthy debating point of-course
). For much of that time I've had professional pilots working for me, or alongside me.Flying has never been my full time job, and the odds are that it never will be. For the years I've been flying, my hours are frankly pretty low.
But, I like to feel that I belong here, can contribute, and I certainly get much more than a hobbyists benefit (despite flying being also very much my hobby, as well as my job) and I'm sure that there are others like me.
Pprune is badly named. Firstly we have every flavour of aviation professional here, not just pilots. Secondly, it is vastly more than rumour. But it's a fantastic place to talk shop - albeit that you have to be cautious to try and understand where people are coming from in terms of their own qualifications and experience.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PJ2 !
Is it uncommon for NG pilots to fly the descent using LNAV and VNAV untill they capture the localizer and glideslope ?
Or would Level Change and MCP speed be more common ?
Is it uncommon for NG pilots to fly the descent using LNAV and VNAV untill they capture the localizer and glideslope ?
Or would Level Change and MCP speed be more common ?
I haven't flown the B737 series but the question applies to the Airbus type or any other design which incorporates versions of "LNAV-VNAV", (vice the usual descent methods).
The restriction on the use of LNAV/VNAV is usually other traffic and not any technical capability of using both to intercept the ILS, (or RNAV/GNSS) approach when so cleared. In complex terminals, the use of LNAV/VNAV to fly the SID or STAR reduces workload enormously but eternal vigilance is required to ensure routing, altitudes and speeds are flown as cleared. If an altitude or speed clearance is issued which is different than the SID/STAR, some form of intervention is obviously needed. For the Airbus series it would be Idle/Open Descent or Speed/Vertical Speed. For the B737 it would likely be FL CHG and a manual setting of the speed, (speed intervene, IIRC from the B767)
Because the bulk of traffic flies to common destinations, traffic/ATC requirements almost always require some form of intervention and so at some point in the STAR the autoflight will be used at one level below full LNAV/VNAV as described above. On the other hand, complex SIDs (Los Angeles, Frankfurt, London, Hong Kong, etc) are almost always flown using the aircraft's "LNAV/VNAV" capabilities.
You probably already have the Boeing B737-8xx FCOM but of course this doesn't describe management of the operational environment.
PJ2
The restriction on the use of LNAV/VNAV is usually other traffic and not any technical capability of using both to intercept the ILS, (or RNAV/GNSS) approach when so cleared. In complex terminals, the use of LNAV/VNAV to fly the SID or STAR reduces workload enormously but eternal vigilance is required to ensure routing, altitudes and speeds are flown as cleared. If an altitude or speed clearance is issued which is different than the SID/STAR, some form of intervention is obviously needed. For the Airbus series it would be Idle/Open Descent or Speed/Vertical Speed. For the B737 it would likely be FL CHG and a manual setting of the speed, (speed intervene, IIRC from the B767)
Because the bulk of traffic flies to common destinations, traffic/ATC requirements almost always require some form of intervention and so at some point in the STAR the autoflight will be used at one level below full LNAV/VNAV as described above. On the other hand, complex SIDs (Los Angeles, Frankfurt, London, Hong Kong, etc) are almost always flown using the aircraft's "LNAV/VNAV" capabilities.
You probably already have the Boeing B737-8xx FCOM but of course this doesn't describe management of the operational environment.
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 27th Nov 2011 at 19:57.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, standard operation for take off and SID's is of course LNAV/VNAV, LNAV is active from 50ft on and VNAV from roughly 400ft AGL.
Arrivals is a different matter. Usually we will get vectors at some point and from that point on VNAV becomes more of a nuisance than a help, basic modes work much better. But even if you get a clearance for a STAR and approach very far out and could fly in theory LNAV/VNAV until GS intercept it works better if you take VNAV out within the last few miles and use basic modes.
I tried it several times, even with all information filled in it will decelerate way too early, early enough to be fully configured at the FAF. In real life that is detrimental to traffic flow and actually not SOP nor recommended practice.
VNAV works fine during large parts of the descent, but within the TMA or latest during the last 10 NM prior FAF i prefer not to use it. Level change works well, but can induce too high descent rates when close to terrain, V/S is in many cases even better. A good pilot uses all tools available, which means of course all auto flight modes, and if he wants to, no auto flight modes at all.
I have to say i can't really measure up to many of the high post count guys here. Although i started flying at age 14 (earliest legal age back then in germany) it took me quite a while to start flying professionally, only do it for the last 11 years, and only on 737s. First the 300 and 500, since a few years back the 700 and 800. Due to my "other job" my flying is nowadays limited, i manage around 400 hours a year. In my opinion tech log is probably the most interesting part of PPRuNe with a pretty high density of professional posters, but as genghis mentioned many of them are not pilots, which is actually the interesting part since we pilots do get quite a few inputs from those professionals that usually know a lot more about certain parts of aircraft, flying and procedures. And of course many of us pilots do work in additional capacities within our airlines, be it training, performance or technical.
Arrivals is a different matter. Usually we will get vectors at some point and from that point on VNAV becomes more of a nuisance than a help, basic modes work much better. But even if you get a clearance for a STAR and approach very far out and could fly in theory LNAV/VNAV until GS intercept it works better if you take VNAV out within the last few miles and use basic modes.
I tried it several times, even with all information filled in it will decelerate way too early, early enough to be fully configured at the FAF. In real life that is detrimental to traffic flow and actually not SOP nor recommended practice.
VNAV works fine during large parts of the descent, but within the TMA or latest during the last 10 NM prior FAF i prefer not to use it. Level change works well, but can induce too high descent rates when close to terrain, V/S is in many cases even better. A good pilot uses all tools available, which means of course all auto flight modes, and if he wants to, no auto flight modes at all.
I have to say i can't really measure up to many of the high post count guys here. Although i started flying at age 14 (earliest legal age back then in germany) it took me quite a while to start flying professionally, only do it for the last 11 years, and only on 737s. First the 300 and 500, since a few years back the 700 and 800. Due to my "other job" my flying is nowadays limited, i manage around 400 hours a year. In my opinion tech log is probably the most interesting part of PPRuNe with a pretty high density of professional posters, but as genghis mentioned many of them are not pilots, which is actually the interesting part since we pilots do get quite a few inputs from those professionals that usually know a lot more about certain parts of aircraft, flying and procedures. And of course many of us pilots do work in additional capacities within our airlines, be it training, performance or technical.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks a lot guys. That info is very helpful and I have learned a few things too.
It is too easy for me when it comes to the sim because I can just not bother with any ATC so LNAV and VNAV do a great job but of course in real life that is much different.
Maybe I will try some on-line flying with ATC and get used to the challenges of doing things that way.
Thanks again.
Jason.
It is too easy for me when it comes to the sim because I can just not bother with any ATC so LNAV and VNAV do a great job but of course in real life that is much different.
Maybe I will try some on-line flying with ATC and get used to the challenges of doing things that way.
Thanks again.
Jason.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the best ways to acclimate yourself with ATC would be to download some of the ATC games now available, good for pilots of any level to help understand ATC's perspective.
Good luck, D.L.
Good luck, D.L.
And for a bit of extra realism, why not coerce a willing friend or relative to pop in from time to time, tap you on the shoulder and say things like "Captain, there's a woman in 26F having a panic attack".
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I demonstrate to new F/Os to the automatics the use of VNAV, and LNAV during instrument approaches. We discuss the track miles involved when tracking a radial outbound from a VOR, the turn inbound then the final track. In the part of the world I fly, we need to cross the IAP at 185kts. Thus the speed restriction if input on the Legs Page next to the IAP. The only drawback is that the speed bug will move to the selected flap speed. Thus at heavy weights, Flaps 2 may be required resulting in a speed less than 185 knots. As the motors are at idle and “ARMED” is annunciated in the FMAs you can control the speed with the trust levers. Remember that you will see messages in the scratch pad to the effect that frequency not tuned and course not set. At the time when the plane starts it’s turn inbound, you must remember to set Frequency, Course Selectors, and Heading Bug to the inbound course and Arm the Approach. A minor problem with VNAV is that the A/P will endeavor actions to intercept the G/S thus resulting in an increase in airspeed. This is not really an issue if one is on their game.
The same can be accomplished with accomplished with LNAV and Vertical speed too.
Either way works great lasts a long time.
The same can be accomplished with accomplished with LNAV and Vertical speed too.
Either way works great lasts a long time.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi captjns- what aircraft type are you talking about ? and when you say you track a radial outboand - that would be vor navigation, not lnav i think.
in general lnav is very nice being enroute since you do not have to care about things like wind changes and drifts. at approach - like written above- its of course pretty useless when being vectored , and thats mostly the case. on less dense airports you also often get the instruction " descend xxx feet, position yourself 10 miles final rw xx , report when established" . in other words- the atc controller is to lazy to vector you and the airspace around you is free.
on high density airports- frankfurt main e.g you can expect vectors, flying a STAR followed by the published standard ILS is more than rare , it would also take up to much time. and expect questions like " whats your minimum clean speed" ?- reduce as far as possible or keep high speed as long as possible when on approach.
similar at departure - you get a sid with your ifr clearance at startup, but you fly the sid mostly only partially. when clear of altitudes which may conflict with approaching traffic , they handle you over to enroute radar atc which will give you ( in most cases) a direct to an enroute fix and here we go- the sid is for you and atc history. so when cleared via atc to a higher altitude than published for departure its on dense airports a good idea to keep a good climb rate - you will be handled over more quickly .
enroute its sometimes nice to switch in hdg when there is a major course difference between two fixes on your route . leaving lnav engaged would result the ap flies exactly overhead the fix and then goes into a full 25 deg bank - doing it by hdg you can start the turn some seconds earlier and turning the knob slowly smoothens it out . on new track hit "direct to" ( the next fix) and kick in lnav again. the offset to the new fix doing this is that minimal that nobody says a word.
cheers !
in general lnav is very nice being enroute since you do not have to care about things like wind changes and drifts. at approach - like written above- its of course pretty useless when being vectored , and thats mostly the case. on less dense airports you also often get the instruction " descend xxx feet, position yourself 10 miles final rw xx , report when established" . in other words- the atc controller is to lazy to vector you and the airspace around you is free.
on high density airports- frankfurt main e.g you can expect vectors, flying a STAR followed by the published standard ILS is more than rare , it would also take up to much time. and expect questions like " whats your minimum clean speed" ?- reduce as far as possible or keep high speed as long as possible when on approach.
similar at departure - you get a sid with your ifr clearance at startup, but you fly the sid mostly only partially. when clear of altitudes which may conflict with approaching traffic , they handle you over to enroute radar atc which will give you ( in most cases) a direct to an enroute fix and here we go- the sid is for you and atc history. so when cleared via atc to a higher altitude than published for departure its on dense airports a good idea to keep a good climb rate - you will be handled over more quickly .
enroute its sometimes nice to switch in hdg when there is a major course difference between two fixes on your route . leaving lnav engaged would result the ap flies exactly overhead the fix and then goes into a full 25 deg bank - doing it by hdg you can start the turn some seconds earlier and turning the knob slowly smoothens it out . on new track hit "direct to" ( the next fix) and kick in lnav again. the offset to the new fix doing this is that minimal that nobody says a word.
cheers !
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in general lnav is very nice being enroute
The LNAV just follows instructions from the source, be it VOR or FMS.
enroute its sometimes nice to switch in hdg when there is a major course difference between two fixes on your route . leaving lnav engaged would result the ap flies exactly overhead the fix and then goes into a full 25 deg bank - doing it by hdg you can start the turn some seconds earlier and turning the knob slowly smoothens it out
Mutt
Last edited by mutt; 28th Nov 2011 at 20:21. Reason: Removed typo
The LNAV just follows instructions from the source, be it VOR, ILS or FMS.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ours just uses the ground based aids to calculate it's present position
But considering that all of this falls under the title of Lateral Navigation, isnt that what it's supposed to do?
Mutt
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@OK465: of course you are basicly right with the "be careful" . its not an approved procedure and there are situations ( departure e.g) where you should better not shortcut anything. thats why i mentioned doing this - when- enroute at cruise altitude, and only for smoothening the turn and of course not shortcutting several miles without a clearance . further you have to look at your next waypoint doing this "procedure" since it may happen the fms does not realize this shortcutted fix as passed and this may really mess things up ( thats why a "direct to" the next fix) . it may also be aircraft specific how smooth the system handles it when you do not touch anything.
mutt, i do not think you will have much luck trying to fly an ILS with just lnav engaged on the autopilot - hoping that it will follow the instructions "from the source" .
hitting the app button may help a lot when established on an ILS or on interception course to final.
In general we use it from departure to landing with the exception of radar headings 
The LNAV just follows instructions from the source, be it VOR, ILS or FMS.
The LNAV just follows instructions from the source, be it VOR, ILS or FMS.
hitting the app button may help a lot when established on an ILS or on interception course to final.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no problem mutt !
i found a pic where we are on the return leg from tunis which may help a little what LNAV stands for, what it does and what not, and what is illuminated on the autopilot when active.
the cheyenne III turboprop you see is not equipped with an fms, but with a GNS530 and an autopilot fully capable of flying lnav .
so...
you see on the autopilot panel upper left the following : flight director engaged, autpilot engaged, altitude hold ( the ap just captured alt hold from alt arm since we are in the moment of the pic just at top of climb in fl280- the vario even shows a slight climb rate and the aircraft is levelling off) AND nav coupled . simultany you see a fix on the gns display we are cleared to and the aircraft flying to it. the important thing on the display of the gns is the green "GPS" light bottom left on the display screen.
so : nav on the autopilot , gps mode on gns and a activated waypoint. on bigger aircraft the difference would be that the main position source is INS not gps and you insert the wypoint to a seperate fms- but the final situation is pretty the same.
i could now turn the heading knob where i want or tune in a vor i want- the autopilot will at this setup just follow the wapoint activated on the display. you see actually a vor tuned in ( you see it on the gns display , as well its DME on the dme gauge below the horizon-TUC vor, a course to the vor which is different to the course the autopilot holds- the autopilot is like said in lnav not interested in the vor or whatever radial to it.
thats the mighty lnav gents.
when i would want to fly to the tuned in vor i have two options ( beyond heading mode)
1) inserting the tuc vor as a waypoint and activating it. then on at the above written setup the ap would turn towards it.
2)kick off gps mode , tune the vor freq , center the HSI needle and let nav on autopilot. then the autopilot seeks for following a "real" tranmitted radial to the vor- in the first method the autopilot reckons the vor just as a waypoint and is completely uninterested in a radial or even tuning in the vor freq.
its improtant to say that when you really fly an radial from or to a vor you are not fly lnav but vor navigation.
this aircraft splits lnav and vor navigation in the setup of the gns ( like mentioned- for lnav the green "gps" light must lit !) , some aircrafts have two buttons on the autopilot : nav and lnav. with the one you seek a really tuned vor , with the other you fly an computed waypoint - inserted in the gns or an fms.
you see just one wypoint inserted, not the whole plan. well... the only reason is that we pilots are lazy and inserting 50 or more waypoints on this route ( flight DTTA-EDDC) just to see that atc directs you to something other and you inserted waypoints are pretty useless is a work what we save when smooth at level and everything is fine. in dense areas you of course insert more points and select a departure route. and we of course have the flight plan with all waypoints on hand.
thats how it looks in real life, i hope i could help a little.
best regards !
ps.: i was also to lazy to paint out the callsign, its not that secret for what company i am working
- but nevertheless -psssst 
i found a pic where we are on the return leg from tunis which may help a little what LNAV stands for, what it does and what not, and what is illuminated on the autopilot when active.
the cheyenne III turboprop you see is not equipped with an fms, but with a GNS530 and an autopilot fully capable of flying lnav .
so...
you see on the autopilot panel upper left the following : flight director engaged, autpilot engaged, altitude hold ( the ap just captured alt hold from alt arm since we are in the moment of the pic just at top of climb in fl280- the vario even shows a slight climb rate and the aircraft is levelling off) AND nav coupled . simultany you see a fix on the gns display we are cleared to and the aircraft flying to it. the important thing on the display of the gns is the green "GPS" light bottom left on the display screen.
so : nav on the autopilot , gps mode on gns and a activated waypoint. on bigger aircraft the difference would be that the main position source is INS not gps and you insert the wypoint to a seperate fms- but the final situation is pretty the same.
i could now turn the heading knob where i want or tune in a vor i want- the autopilot will at this setup just follow the wapoint activated on the display. you see actually a vor tuned in ( you see it on the gns display , as well its DME on the dme gauge below the horizon-TUC vor, a course to the vor which is different to the course the autopilot holds- the autopilot is like said in lnav not interested in the vor or whatever radial to it.
thats the mighty lnav gents.
when i would want to fly to the tuned in vor i have two options ( beyond heading mode)
1) inserting the tuc vor as a waypoint and activating it. then on at the above written setup the ap would turn towards it.
2)kick off gps mode , tune the vor freq , center the HSI needle and let nav on autopilot. then the autopilot seeks for following a "real" tranmitted radial to the vor- in the first method the autopilot reckons the vor just as a waypoint and is completely uninterested in a radial or even tuning in the vor freq.
its improtant to say that when you really fly an radial from or to a vor you are not fly lnav but vor navigation.
this aircraft splits lnav and vor navigation in the setup of the gns ( like mentioned- for lnav the green "gps" light must lit !) , some aircrafts have two buttons on the autopilot : nav and lnav. with the one you seek a really tuned vor , with the other you fly an computed waypoint - inserted in the gns or an fms.
you see just one wypoint inserted, not the whole plan. well... the only reason is that we pilots are lazy and inserting 50 or more waypoints on this route ( flight DTTA-EDDC) just to see that atc directs you to something other and you inserted waypoints are pretty useless is a work what we save when smooth at level and everything is fine. in dense areas you of course insert more points and select a departure route. and we of course have the flight plan with all waypoints on hand.
thats how it looks in real life, i hope i could help a little.
best regards !
ps.: i was also to lazy to paint out the callsign, its not that secret for what company i am working
- but nevertheless -psssst
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 'Direct To' may not put you on the track between the the two fixes involved at the time you 'execute' it. That would not necessarily be what you're cleared for.
Better than using A/P HDG, why not hand fly the FD in LNAV and get something worthwhile out of the exercise? Be smooth.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back on topic, does anyone have any idea of the % of real airline pilots on here ?
It's not a very tough question.
It's not a very tough question.
I can tell you this: PPRuNe members quick to bash a particular manufacturer (A v B) are very likely not flying for a living. The same applies for the overly sensitive folks who staunchly defend even mere wisps of criticism against their chosen brand of big aluminium tube maker.
As an aside, mechanics aka our ground engineers are completely excepted from the above general guide. Those guys learn their prejudices the hard way via frustration, sweat, headache, heartache, and/or bloody knuckles.