BA Split Approach and the 787
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Split Approach and the 787
How are BA going to justify the use of their Split Approach on their soon to be delivered 787 which comes with the non-optional Head Up Display?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there speaks a flat Earther.
Why would BA have to 'justify' any of their operating procedure to anyone?
Regarding the 'monitored approach', it is a system that is proven to work better than any other.
Why would BA have to 'justify' any of their operating procedure to anyone?
Regarding the 'monitored approach', it is a system that is proven to work better than any other.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Here we go. I was not going to start a thread on the merits or otherwise of the Split Approach.But...... ".
We called it a Split Approach as every Approach is Monitored - by the NHP. As for the idea that it is the idea that it is a system that is proven to work better than any other - says who? I will only ask why both major manufactures do not teach it on their conversion courses and why only one major airline uses it on every approach.
And as for me being a flat earther - I think not. We were not known as the FEW.
Any way back to my original question.
We called it a Split Approach as every Approach is Monitored - by the NHP. As for the idea that it is the idea that it is a system that is proven to work better than any other - says who? I will only ask why both major manufactures do not teach it on their conversion courses and why only one major airline uses it on every approach.
And as for me being a flat earther - I think not. We were not known as the FEW.
Any way back to my original question.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: far too low
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't work for BA, why do you care? FWIW my outfit does monitored approaches whenever the weather is poor and flight ops management swear blind it will increase the chances of seeing something at minima. BA just do it every approach.
Why would BA have to 'justify' any of their operating procedure to anyone?
BTW I know it' semantics but the term has definitely been "Monitored Approaches" in BA Longhaul for quite a while now, I believe "Split Approach" was once a shorthaul term, which probably explains Hobo's comments........
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW I know it' semantics but the term has definitely been "Monitored Approaches" in BA Longhaul for quite a while now, I believe "Split Approach" was once a shorthaul term, which probably explains Hobo's comments........
The term 'monitored approach' had two connotations, at least in the early days, ie the approach was monitored, and it was also 'the monitored approach to flying' ie the rational division of duties compared to the then Boeing standard 'one man band'.
IIRC the ‘shared monitored approach’ had its origins in Trident all weather operations and the then emerging two crew aircraft; the BAC 1-11 becoming Cat 3 capable.
There is a balanced view of some of the arguments for using the approach procedure in Eliminating "Cockpit-Caused" Accidents.
A problem with HUD is that for true monitoring there should be two HUDs or a system which allows cross checking or internal self-monitoring with a very high integrity level - as required for Cat 3. One of the issues is how to monitor the display guidance, and for manual flight, how accurate the PF is following the command. This can be achieved with separate monitoring of conventional instruments or via the FD, but again the FD integrity requirements and possible need for dissimilar computation and certification proof might involve prohibitive cost – particularly Cat 3B.
Most modern aircraft have flight guidance systems capable of Cat 3 thus the use of the existing autopilot is a much cheaper option (and lower training/currency cost).
Where HUD is available then it could be used to aid monitoring the autopilot guidance (the aircraft flight path), but this can be done with similar accuracy with conventional instruments, and again at lower cost (training). Some concepts explored a mixed autos/HUD operation; IIRC the A320 with HUD may have such capability but AFAIK it is not used to its full extent - hybrid system.
HUD could aid the head up pilot locate visual cues and the runway, but arguably due to ‘conservative’ minima, few landing decisions would depend on this, and for fail op, it may not be necessary – nice to have but not essential.
Retaining existing operating methods may have greater safety benefits from interoperability where pilots move between fleets, and by reinforcing conventional flight instrument monitoring skills.
BA should not need to justify this, particularly with their proven approach to safety and all weather operations.
There is a balanced view of some of the arguments for using the approach procedure in Eliminating "Cockpit-Caused" Accidents.
A problem with HUD is that for true monitoring there should be two HUDs or a system which allows cross checking or internal self-monitoring with a very high integrity level - as required for Cat 3. One of the issues is how to monitor the display guidance, and for manual flight, how accurate the PF is following the command. This can be achieved with separate monitoring of conventional instruments or via the FD, but again the FD integrity requirements and possible need for dissimilar computation and certification proof might involve prohibitive cost – particularly Cat 3B.
Most modern aircraft have flight guidance systems capable of Cat 3 thus the use of the existing autopilot is a much cheaper option (and lower training/currency cost).
Where HUD is available then it could be used to aid monitoring the autopilot guidance (the aircraft flight path), but this can be done with similar accuracy with conventional instruments, and again at lower cost (training). Some concepts explored a mixed autos/HUD operation; IIRC the A320 with HUD may have such capability but AFAIK it is not used to its full extent - hybrid system.
HUD could aid the head up pilot locate visual cues and the runway, but arguably due to ‘conservative’ minima, few landing decisions would depend on this, and for fail op, it may not be necessary – nice to have but not essential.
Retaining existing operating methods may have greater safety benefits from interoperability where pilots move between fleets, and by reinforcing conventional flight instrument monitoring skills.
BA should not need to justify this, particularly with their proven approach to safety and all weather operations.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure that I have flown on the B747-400 with Beerdrinker, so I can assure people that he is certainly not a troll!
His terminology may be wrong, but that is another matter.
His terminology may be wrong, but that is another matter.
Last edited by TopBunk; 31st Oct 2012 at 18:15.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks TB. No Hobo I am not a troll and flew and instructed on both types of approach in my time so I do know what I am talking about.
Alf, BEA were doing "Monitored Approaches" before the Trident. The philosophy was that the old fellows flying Elizabethans, DC3s, Viscounts etc were pretty good at hand visual flying so it was thought that it would be better if the co pilot flew down to minimums and the old fellow took over to land when visual. At the time (late 60s) BEA (although the first) were not the only people doing Autolands. BOAC managed to do them very well on the VC10 without using the "Monitored" approach. And regarding the article you quote, I do remember Steve. I am afraid I will disagree with you about balance as he was always very pro monitored approach, would not tolerate any opposition and took those views with him when he went to the FSF.
I think the best description of the "Monitored" approach was when the BOAC and BEA teams were at Palmdale and Mr Lockheed asked them to explain it to them. Before the BEA team could launch into their description the inestimable Hugh Dibley replied quickly " It is rather like w*****g - you know 99/ change hands." Mr Locheed was most amused - the BEA team were not.
For me the best argument against the approach is what I mentioned earlier. Neither of the two major manufacturers positively promote it and I have faith in what they say rather than what a few people in BA say. And no other major airline does it on every approach. Some airlines do it on bad weather approaches ( I suspect that the likes of Jet2 do it then because they were persuaded when ex BA proponents joined them on retirement from BA) but again other airlines who did do it (GO when it was the LCC of BA) stopped when they were taken over. (EasyJet did not pick it up when they took over GO)
Alf, BEA were doing "Monitored Approaches" before the Trident. The philosophy was that the old fellows flying Elizabethans, DC3s, Viscounts etc were pretty good at hand visual flying so it was thought that it would be better if the co pilot flew down to minimums and the old fellow took over to land when visual. At the time (late 60s) BEA (although the first) were not the only people doing Autolands. BOAC managed to do them very well on the VC10 without using the "Monitored" approach. And regarding the article you quote, I do remember Steve. I am afraid I will disagree with you about balance as he was always very pro monitored approach, would not tolerate any opposition and took those views with him when he went to the FSF.
I think the best description of the "Monitored" approach was when the BOAC and BEA teams were at Palmdale and Mr Lockheed asked them to explain it to them. Before the BEA team could launch into their description the inestimable Hugh Dibley replied quickly " It is rather like w*****g - you know 99/ change hands." Mr Locheed was most amused - the BEA team were not.
For me the best argument against the approach is what I mentioned earlier. Neither of the two major manufacturers positively promote it and I have faith in what they say rather than what a few people in BA say. And no other major airline does it on every approach. Some airlines do it on bad weather approaches ( I suspect that the likes of Jet2 do it then because they were persuaded when ex BA proponents joined them on retirement from BA) but again other airlines who did do it (GO when it was the LCC of BA) stopped when they were taken over. (EasyJet did not pick it up when they took over GO)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FE Hoppy
Can't you just stow it?
Or better still, deactivate and remove it.
Can't you just stow it?
Or better still, deactivate and remove it.
beerdrinker (#13) thanks. My history of the subject was based on all-weather ops, but I agree that the concept can be applied more generally or not.
One angle was that the ‘sharing’ of duties alleviated problems of the all-powerful Captain or P1 dominated operations, which were common post WW2; perhaps shared-monitoring was a forerunner of CRM.
Nowadays it could be argued that with recent technology based operations, particularly the bias towards automatic approach and landing in bad weather, that the sharing aspect is no longer required. Monitoring can be accomplished by both pilots; but have the manufacturers assumed too much - are both pilots sufficiently ‘experienced’.
With more recent problems from reduced/changed training and low experience levels, the acceptability of the P2 monitoring function is questionable. If so, then Steve Last’s views (link @ #9) are highly relevant and suggest that the monitoring function be conducted by the pilot with greater experience – a shared monitored approach.
The existence of HUD or not is irrelevant as in the 787 class of aircraft it is only another (different) instrument display. This may not infer any greater capability, vice some previous non Cat 3 aircraft now fitted with HUD.
The next ‘giant step’ in procedural change might only occur if HUD was available to both pilots and was certificated as the primary (only) flight instrument reference – like the C17. However, considering equipment cost, training, experience, etc, this is unlikely; at least until they are fitted in basic training aircraft.
One angle was that the ‘sharing’ of duties alleviated problems of the all-powerful Captain or P1 dominated operations, which were common post WW2; perhaps shared-monitoring was a forerunner of CRM.
Nowadays it could be argued that with recent technology based operations, particularly the bias towards automatic approach and landing in bad weather, that the sharing aspect is no longer required. Monitoring can be accomplished by both pilots; but have the manufacturers assumed too much - are both pilots sufficiently ‘experienced’.
With more recent problems from reduced/changed training and low experience levels, the acceptability of the P2 monitoring function is questionable. If so, then Steve Last’s views (link @ #9) are highly relevant and suggest that the monitoring function be conducted by the pilot with greater experience – a shared monitored approach.
The existence of HUD or not is irrelevant as in the 787 class of aircraft it is only another (different) instrument display. This may not infer any greater capability, vice some previous non Cat 3 aircraft now fitted with HUD.
The next ‘giant step’ in procedural change might only occur if HUD was available to both pilots and was certificated as the primary (only) flight instrument reference – like the C17. However, considering equipment cost, training, experience, etc, this is unlikely; at least until they are fitted in basic training aircraft.
Last edited by alf5071h; 1st Nov 2012 at 13:23.
Can't you just stow it?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by alf
and suggest that the monitoring function be conducted by the pilot with greater experience – a shared monitored approach.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or better still, deactivate and remove it.
As for the BA system, why does it matter how they chose to operate? If you fly for BA you do it their way, if you don't, you do it your airline's way. BA have no need to 'justify' anything; if they're happy and the CAA is happy then let them continue with something that has worked well for them for a fair few years. I can't see why the 787 and its HUDs will affect the price of fish. The same 'shared' approach can continue as is, you just look out the window for all information you need rather than down at the EFIS.
The only 'problem' with the BA system, which took a while to get used to, was having to hand over on a CAVOK day when you just wanted to 'slip the ship' onto the runway in immacculate style
As for the visuals, it was just you they were scared of...did you never read the writing on the walls of trap 2 in JBH 
HUD and approach procedures
FYI:
From FAA Docket Number FAA-2008-0370 (exemption from Approach Ban for FedEx a/c equipped with Head Up Display)
"The current FedEx flight crew procedures for approaches reflect the philosophy of maximizing safety through the use of monitored approach procedures for all low visibility approaches in conjunction with standardized callouts for all approach operations............ Based on these existing procedures and callouts for the FedEx MD-10/11 airplane, the integration of the HUD/EFVS will be seamless with minimal change."
FAA Docket Number FAA-2008-0370
From FAA Docket Number FAA-2008-0370 (exemption from Approach Ban for FedEx a/c equipped with Head Up Display)
"The current FedEx flight crew procedures for approaches reflect the philosophy of maximizing safety through the use of monitored approach procedures for all low visibility approaches in conjunction with standardized callouts for all approach operations............ Based on these existing procedures and callouts for the FedEx MD-10/11 airplane, the integration of the HUD/EFVS will be seamless with minimal change."
FAA Docket Number FAA-2008-0370
I used to do Cat 3B landings as a skipper on A310s and DC10s in BCAL in the 1980s, having flown the whole leg and the approach as PF. When we obtained our A320s in 1988 with Cat 3B (No DH) capability, we had just been taken over by BA.
This is my take on what the transition to monitored approach was like for us, and what the rest of BA was doing at that time:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8169437
"At the time BA took over BCAL, we were just introducing the A320 into service. We handful of crews - nearly all ex-BCAL for the first year or so - were generally resistant to the imposition of monitored approaches; knowing little about them and mostly not keen to learn. Fortunately, our fleet management was committed to making the A320 fleet the best in BA, and apparently all fleets would have to conform to them as a BA standard. We soon knuckled down, particularly when we moved up to LHR permanently after a summer of LGW ops.
"If the destination wx necessitated an autoland, the captain had to do the leg, but in other respects the leg-for-leg philosophy was retained. It's fairly unusual for two consecutive landings to be affected. Our handover of PF duties to the PNL usually took place not at TOC, but just before the PL (landing pilot) conducted his/her pre-descent briefing. If the PL became visual early on finals, (s)he could take over early - configuration changes and checklist permitting. If the wx was worse than Cat 1, the captain would handle the G/A or autoland, but otherwise role-reversal was complete. It all became second-nature.
"Up at LHR we gradually became aware that not only were the B747 fleets not conforming to the standard, but neither was the recalcitrant B737. I wonder what the situation is today, but any suggestion that the monitored-approach philosophy in BA might allow below-average captains to be propped up by their copilots simply doesn't make sense today."
Seems to me that even if the B787 HUD is on the L/H side only, it would be an excellent tool for the PNF-captain (and in BA it always is the captain below Cat 1) to look for the runway and monitor the instruments at the same time.
This is my take on what the transition to monitored approach was like for us, and what the rest of BA was doing at that time:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8169437
"At the time BA took over BCAL, we were just introducing the A320 into service. We handful of crews - nearly all ex-BCAL for the first year or so - were generally resistant to the imposition of monitored approaches; knowing little about them and mostly not keen to learn. Fortunately, our fleet management was committed to making the A320 fleet the best in BA, and apparently all fleets would have to conform to them as a BA standard. We soon knuckled down, particularly when we moved up to LHR permanently after a summer of LGW ops.
"If the destination wx necessitated an autoland, the captain had to do the leg, but in other respects the leg-for-leg philosophy was retained. It's fairly unusual for two consecutive landings to be affected. Our handover of PF duties to the PNL usually took place not at TOC, but just before the PL (landing pilot) conducted his/her pre-descent briefing. If the PL became visual early on finals, (s)he could take over early - configuration changes and checklist permitting. If the wx was worse than Cat 1, the captain would handle the G/A or autoland, but otherwise role-reversal was complete. It all became second-nature.
"Up at LHR we gradually became aware that not only were the B747 fleets not conforming to the standard, but neither was the recalcitrant B737. I wonder what the situation is today, but any suggestion that the monitored-approach philosophy in BA might allow below-average captains to be propped up by their copilots simply doesn't make sense today."
Seems to me that even if the B787 HUD is on the L/H side only, it would be an excellent tool for the PNF-captain (and in BA it always is the captain below Cat 1) to look for the runway and monitor the instruments at the same time.