Airbus oldy now a 737 newby………help!
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Canuckland
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
punkalouver
On VNAV its done 300' below MAA. If V/S then it's 300' above MDA.
If you brief it beforehand, then it shouldn't be an issue. At my outfit almost every non precision approach is flown with VNAV. If V//S is used the point of setting the MAA is briefed with extra emphasis. Your concern is valid hence the extra emphasis.
On VNAV its done 300' below MAA. If V/S then it's 300' above MDA.
If you brief it beforehand, then it shouldn't be an issue. At my outfit almost every non precision approach is flown with VNAV. If V//S is used the point of setting the MAA is briefed with extra emphasis. Your concern is valid hence the extra emphasis.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yikes ! No access to the Boeing FCTM ?
There are many good reasons to abide by the Boeing FCTM , most obviously that is how they want you to operate the aircraft , but just as importantly it makes it much easier to stand in front of a Board of Inquiry if you scratch the paint and you have followed SOP’s.
Much harder to defend your position if you have used your own interpretation of how to operate the aircraft.
I made it a career goal to never go there.
There are many good reasons to abide by the Boeing FCTM , most obviously that is how they want you to operate the aircraft , but just as importantly it makes it much easier to stand in front of a Board of Inquiry if you scratch the paint and you have followed SOP’s.
Much harder to defend your position if you have used your own interpretation of how to operate the aircraft.
I made it a career goal to never go there.
AF,
Worked for a 73 mob in Oz that issued all flight crew with the Boeing suite of manuals; FCOM, FCTM, etc and now work in the US for a mob that issues their own company manuals that incorporate the Boeing manuals, with their own FAA approved content. It’s just not branded as the Boeing stuff. I’d be surprised if it’s any different at any other Boeing operator in the US.
Worked for a 73 mob in Oz that issued all flight crew with the Boeing suite of manuals; FCOM, FCTM, etc and now work in the US for a mob that issues their own company manuals that incorporate the Boeing manuals, with their own FAA approved content. It’s just not branded as the Boeing stuff. I’d be surprised if it’s any different at any other Boeing operator in the US.
Oicur,
Not sure why they do it this way and to be honest it’s a bit of a head scratcher. I’ve not come across or heard of any 73 operator that does this.
Not sure why they do it this way and to be honest it’s a bit of a head scratcher. I’ve not come across or heard of any 73 operator that does this.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No FCTM, no FCOM.
I've flown for two 737 operators and didn't know what those were until I got to a large international operator and they handed me the Boeing manuals in class.
When asked why we can't have access to the Boeing manuals:
"It's not that we don't want to you have them . . . it's just that we . . . [don't want you to have them]."
And when asked why we don't follow the Boeing manuals, it's usually along the lines of "for commonality."
That commonality seems to be with planes that we long since retired.
I've flown for two 737 operators and didn't know what those were until I got to a large international operator and they handed me the Boeing manuals in class.
When asked why we can't have access to the Boeing manuals:
"It's not that we don't want to you have them . . . it's just that we . . . [don't want you to have them]."
And when asked why we don't follow the Boeing manuals, it's usually along the lines of "for commonality."
That commonality seems to be with planes that we long since retired.
Vessbot
In what countries? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Genuinely curious!
In what countries? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Genuinely curious!
The US for one. With my current company I’ve been on the 73,75/76 and 77. All have their own “Flight Manual” issued by the company. I have the Boeing FCOM’s and FCTM for each type and the company stuff includes pretty much the same as the Boeing pubs. Just with additional company specific stuff.
As an aside, a friend of mine in the U.K. was transitioning from the 73 to the A320 and asked to see what was in our company manual for the bus. His comment was that he much preferred the company tailored manual over the Airbus provided manual.
As an aside, a friend of mine in the U.K. was transitioning from the 73 to the A320 and asked to see what was in our company manual for the bus. His comment was that he much preferred the company tailored manual over the Airbus provided manual.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oicur12.again
Training had a video on this a few years ago. I think it was SWA at MDW (not SWA1248) where the speedbrakes didn't auto-deploy almost turned into another SWA1248. That's where that big push to manually deploy comes from.
Training had a video on this a few years ago. I think it was SWA at MDW (not SWA1248) where the speedbrakes didn't auto-deploy almost turned into another SWA1248. That's where that big push to manually deploy comes from.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ImbracableCrunk
Pretty much exactly my experience when I asked my company why we don’t get Airbus manuals and use their SOP. At least the old company gave us the manufacturer’s manuals.
If you saw our manuals, you’d either laugh or cry.
With each revision, the square peg is forced deeper into the round hole.
Pretty much exactly my experience when I asked my company why we don’t get Airbus manuals and use their SOP. At least the old company gave us the manufacturer’s manuals.
If you saw our manuals, you’d either laugh or cry.
With each revision, the square peg is forced deeper into the round hole.
Thread Starter
And the only justification people provide for employing an early V1 call policy is it makes a reject safer. But they dont consider the other side of the equation.
RickNRoll
Well, the discussion on here has been interesting and very informative but not what I would categorize as scary.
But then we started doing single engine flying.
I genuinely feel I am missing something here. The Airbus has a very nice beta target that is razor accurate and guides your foot at all times when flying single engine. Turning, changing speed, easy peasy.
But the little white triangle at the top of the PFD on the 737, we are told, is to be ignored (I cant even find a reference to it in our lousy manuals).
So the single engine missed approach becomes an initial guess as to ho much rudder to apply, a brief pause while it wallows a little and settles down, an adjustment of the rudder to fine tune things followed another pause while …….
It all seems very Cessna like? In fact at least a Cessna has a skid ball that clues you in a little.
I would be interestd if any posters here have moved from the bus to the 737 and what their experience was like in this regard.
Another thing that interests me is our procedure of not calling changes to the FMA. Is this normal Boeing procedure? I have worked for many Airbus operators and most follow standard AI procedure of calling the FMA changes. I understand the arguments for and against however I feel when crew are required to call any FMA changes it forces a greater awareness of what is going on. My previous Airbus operation did not require this proedure and I suspect it was the reason behind poor mode awareness.
And finally, if anyone is still reading, what is the standard minimum height for autopilot engagement on the NG after takeoff?
Cheers all and thanks again
My initial type was with Boeing and the FMA’s weren’t SOP. Although at my current company the call out of FMA changes is now SOP. It does increase awareness but it can be a bit of a cluster f#ck if both pilots aren’t on the same page and one calls the FMA changes and the other thinks you’re calling for an MCP change. But to answer your question, Boeing leave it to the individual operator. AFAIK
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oicur12.again
We had an auto callout of V1 on our 737s. It started at roughly V1 -3 kts so that it was finished by V1. Never heard that on the A320 though, is it available there as well?
On the Boeing side i never saw the Boeing manuals, we had an OM B which did incorporated the FCOM and FCTM, adapted to company procedures until we did switch to Boeing. When i transitioned to the A320, in the same airline, it was the Airbus FCTM and FCOM, incorporating the company SOPs. The switch in documentation was a bigger issue than switching types. Now i fly in an airline that uses an OM B and the airbus manuals, although the FCOM does not contain any SOPs anymore.
We had an auto callout of V1 on our 737s. It started at roughly V1 -3 kts so that it was finished by V1. Never heard that on the A320 though, is it available there as well?
On the Boeing side i never saw the Boeing manuals, we had an OM B which did incorporated the FCOM and FCTM, adapted to company procedures until we did switch to Boeing. When i transitioned to the A320, in the same airline, it was the Airbus FCTM and FCOM, incorporating the company SOPs. The switch in documentation was a bigger issue than switching types. Now i fly in an airline that uses an OM B and the airbus manuals, although the FCOM does not contain any SOPs anymore.
I suspect the relatively recent trend of calling V1 a few knots early might be a result of us now having EFBs which can calculate and display the ASDA margin available in the event of an RTO. Many pilots were probably blissfully unaware before this, but being able to see there is only a few dozen, or even zero meter's margin on some runways makes some very nervous, despite the safeguards built in.
oicur12.again:
"It [B737] all seems very Cessna like?...........I would be interestd if any posters here have moved from the bus to the 737 and what their experience was like in this regard."
I flew several turboprops, then BAe146, then Airbus A320/A330. Then onto B737-300/400, then back to A330. I agree the B737 does seem quite basic and Cessna-like. Some pilots prefer that, but I much prefer the A320 family. I found the B737 a step backwards, with not-as-capable automatics, and a much more basic plane to fly. Did not enjoy my time on B737 at all.
People will probably howl at me but I can see that when starting out, Airbus probably purchased and flew a B737 and then asked themselves how can we improve this. The result was the A320 - a marvellous design. They redesigned the automation, resulting in much less confusing mode selection and annunciation. A really nice, clean, large, uncluttered cockpit and clean display suite - designed for two pilots rather than the pilot-and-assistant philosophy of the B737. Tillers on both sides. A mostly automatic overhead panel, The FBW and side-stick - and especially the static thrust levers - are hated by some, but when you understand how to use them it is easy and brilliant.
Tall landing legs, able to accommodate bigger engine fans. Triple ADIRS and triple AoA probes. FBW. Auto-trim. Attitude holding. Very reliable and capable autopilots and auto-thrust. Good integration of navigation with the automation. Three full hydraulic systems rather than two plus emergency back-up. Dual jacks on control surfaces with multiple redundant electronic control rather than cables running on pulleys. Larger cabins. Doors with automatic girt bar engagement that does not require physically reaching down and clipping the girt bar in and out of brackets on the floor.
Airbus also made lots of improvements, as you say, with things such as the beta target, which indicates minimum control-drag attitude in the event of OEI flying.
The B737 was popular with airlines, being a cheap, mostly electro-mechanical product instead of fully integrated electronic, but it is becoming limited now, witness the attempted crowbarring in of the MCAS system in an effort to fit larger engines. I vastly prefer the Airbus and personally believe that the A320 family is an order of magnitude improvement.
I hope Boeing get themselves sorted out and produce a proper 737 replacement.
oicur12.again:
"It [B737] all seems very Cessna like?...........I would be interestd if any posters here have moved from the bus to the 737 and what their experience was like in this regard."
I flew several turboprops, then BAe146, then Airbus A320/A330. Then onto B737-300/400, then back to A330. I agree the B737 does seem quite basic and Cessna-like. Some pilots prefer that, but I much prefer the A320 family. I found the B737 a step backwards, with not-as-capable automatics, and a much more basic plane to fly. Did not enjoy my time on B737 at all.
People will probably howl at me but I can see that when starting out, Airbus probably purchased and flew a B737 and then asked themselves how can we improve this. The result was the A320 - a marvellous design. They redesigned the automation, resulting in much less confusing mode selection and annunciation. A really nice, clean, large, uncluttered cockpit and clean display suite - designed for two pilots rather than the pilot-and-assistant philosophy of the B737. Tillers on both sides. A mostly automatic overhead panel, The FBW and side-stick - and especially the static thrust levers - are hated by some, but when you understand how to use them it is easy and brilliant.
Tall landing legs, able to accommodate bigger engine fans. Triple ADIRS and triple AoA probes. FBW. Auto-trim. Attitude holding. Very reliable and capable autopilots and auto-thrust. Good integration of navigation with the automation. Three full hydraulic systems rather than two plus emergency back-up. Dual jacks on control surfaces with multiple redundant electronic control rather than cables running on pulleys. Larger cabins. Doors with automatic girt bar engagement that does not require physically reaching down and clipping the girt bar in and out of brackets on the floor.
Airbus also made lots of improvements, as you say, with things such as the beta target, which indicates minimum control-drag attitude in the event of OEI flying.
The B737 was popular with airlines, being a cheap, mostly electro-mechanical product instead of fully integrated electronic, but it is becoming limited now, witness the attempted crowbarring in of the MCAS system in an effort to fit larger engines. I vastly prefer the Airbus and personally believe that the A320 family is an order of magnitude improvement.
I hope Boeing get themselves sorted out and produce a proper 737 replacement.
Last edited by Uplinker; 8th Nov 2021 at 14:57. Reason: Clarification owing to deletion of quote box.
Only half a speed-brake
... and with the info slowly leaked by oicur12.again, imagine what the said airline would have done to the procedures and flows if they ever laid hands on a 'bus.
The CL had a side-slip indicator, and centring that with rudder for level wings and zero ailerons was the training I got, nuances perhaps forgotten. The ball is a mandatory IFR instrument on all aeroplanes, Airbus got away from it by using electronic representation. If the NG has the same - why the hell not use it for OEI?
This so-far unnamed operator sounds like a bunch of bright minds who might insist on blanking the VNAV button, dis-allowing the use of auto-throttle, requiring round dials on NG to mimic TOS., and brutalize the anabolic MAX into operation with no differences training.
It's interesting to observe, whether or not it really transpires there are no technical answers for the OP's questions.
V1 audio: Our training was to announce early enough so as to finish the call by the time V1 is being passed. Worked well, around -3 kts. The present operator demands -5 kt which I find imprecise on the early side, but it is for commonality with the A330 automatic call. Still think it's off by 2 knots.
The CL had a side-slip indicator, and centring that with rudder for level wings and zero ailerons was the training I got, nuances perhaps forgotten. The ball is a mandatory IFR instrument on all aeroplanes, Airbus got away from it by using electronic representation. If the NG has the same - why the hell not use it for OEI?
This so-far unnamed operator sounds like a bunch of bright minds who might insist on blanking the VNAV button, dis-allowing the use of auto-throttle, requiring round dials on NG to mimic TOS., and brutalize the anabolic MAX into operation with no differences training.
It's interesting to observe, whether or not it really transpires there are no technical answers for the OP's questions.
V1 audio: Our training was to announce early enough so as to finish the call by the time V1 is being passed. Worked well, around -3 kts. The present operator demands -5 kt which I find imprecise on the early side, but it is for commonality with the A330 automatic call. Still think it's off by 2 knots.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oicur12again
The B737 is no more like a Cessna than a B747 or B767. They are all hydro-mechanical with an overlay of FCCs.
You have to fly them. I know some struggle with that idea.
You need to beg , borrow or steal a genuine Boeing FCTM . Its all in there. No mysteries.
Just remember FTFA.
Its really not that hard unless your brain has been completely fried by Airbus.
If you are really lucky you will have an NG with a HUD. Embrace it if you do. Best thing since sliced bread !
The B737 is no more like a Cessna than a B747 or B767. They are all hydro-mechanical with an overlay of FCCs.
You have to fly them. I know some struggle with that idea.
You need to beg , borrow or steal a genuine Boeing FCTM . Its all in there. No mysteries.
Just remember FTFA.
Its really not that hard unless your brain has been completely fried by Airbus.
If you are really lucky you will have an NG with a HUD. Embrace it if you do. Best thing since sliced bread !