This is in direct contradiction of the advice given in the B737NG FCTM that states: "The autothrottle ARM mode is normally not recommended because its function can be confusing. The primary feature the autothrottle ARM mode provides is minimum speed protection in the event the airplane slows to minimum maneuvering speed. Other features normally associated with the autothrottle, such as gust protection, are not provided" |
Always the center of discussion....
Well, I ran in the rat race for several decades....pretty much been around the block once or twice. And, I've seen guys like you come an go....nothing new.
Glad you have superior knowledge of airline operations and superior knowledge of how to operate your aircraft, as well. Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover are proud of you, no doubt. You see, for an airline to operate, they need an airline operating certificate. One of the requirements to obtain and retain an airline operating certificate (and there are many hoops to jump through) is to have an SOP. The SOP has to be approved by the authorities who grant the airline operating certificate. Now, the SOP....approved....has to be clear, taught to all, followed by all, and checked that all know and follow it. This is one of the requirements of the airline operating certificate. Whether or not individual pilots agree with the SOP is totally irrelevant. And, no one cares what you think. All that matters is that the airline operating certifcate stays in force, so the people at the top can fill their pockets with money. The SOP trumps any other procedure....including manufacturers suggested practices. Adherece to the SOP is mandatory and is paramount to maintaining the issued airline operating certificate. If you feel there need to be improvements to your company's SOP, you should voice your opinion to the appropriate authorities within your airline. Good luck....changes are few and slow to occur. (for many reasons) If you feel you can't live with the SOPs (You think they're stupid, crazy, etc.), you should leave....go to another airlines where the SOPs are 'better'....or, start your own airline. Yep, seen this before.... Fly safe, PantLoad |
Following on from Mutt's comments, it is accepted that limitations and regulations are prescriptive while remaining material is recommended.
One needs to have made due consideration of the OEM's recommended practices but there is no magic formula which says that an operator must operate strictly in accordance with the OEM's way of doing things. Indeed many operators over the years have made an art form of doing things differently according to their own perceptions which may vary according to who is in the chair from time to time. NTO is a traditional way of seeking OEM de facto concurrence with alternative ways of doing things .. |
I have to bow out now due to total confusion from alpa's para 1 - I wish I could understand what he/she is trying to say.
Originally Posted by cosmo
Further, I would be very interested if you can point me to the document that says that I am required to set full go-around thrust in my vastly overpowered aircraft. All the documents I have seen says that I must to meet the required gradient for the missed approach.
Originally Posted by cosmo
the stalling AoA may increase
A reminder that this topic has been done to death before here too. Comment from a UK TIRE on the regulatory aspects of manual g/a power would be useful. I guess the rules may have changed. |
BOAC,
The 737 has instant Vertical Speed. Which part in setting thrust to achieve a specific Vertical speed is difficult and requires superior airmanship? I found it easier to either apply full power to start the 'up' OR use the one-push A/T setting, knowing it would be achieved. * Edited previous post to say speed instead of AoA. |
Yes, good point...
Yes, good point. I misspelled 'adherence.'
Fly safe, PantLoad |
"8.0.2.3 A significant number of operating practices allow the discretion to the Commander to decide how the flight should be flown. These are characterised with the need to exercise sound judgement and prudent assessment and may be referred to as sound operating practises (included under the more general heading of airmanship during an earlier period). There has been a trend within the industry to refer to all operating activity under the heading of SOPs or a desire to specify all procedures within such a concept. Such broadening of the scope of SOPs diminishes the merit and value of the concept and hence the need to highlight this differentiation." |
This operation of A/T on App has been discussed at depth before. If memory serves me well (13 years ago) it is this way on B757/767. When I transferred to B733 many asked why we could not fly in 'SPD deselected'. These were old B757/767 pilots. Trouble was the C.P didn't understand the question. However, some had experimented on the line and found it worked just fine. I didn't so have no diect knowledge of it. You can disconnect at flare I supose. Anyway, said C.P asked Boeing. Answer, not recommended. However, from flying these types it seemed Boeing flight dept's don't talk to each other that much. Advancements in later design didn't seem to filter down to earlier types, when suitable. It seems B737 line pilots fall into 2 categories, but Boeing only 1.
Moving on: about manual flight = all on, all off. IMHO that is not always wise. On B733 the TCAS manoeuvre was A/P OFF and follow guidance. Now, the NG is disconnect A/T as well. When a Boeing pilot was asked that surely this introduced a safety (speed control) threat and was a retrograde step, the reply came that Boeing has adopted the philosophy of 'all on or all off all the time' The argument of having seen dangerous developments in the sim with bad speed control, absurd ROC's, forgetting to re-engage A/T after RA, etc. met with little appreciation. Why disconnect A/T if having a CLB RA above 25,000 and then forgetting to add enough thrust; or going full power at low level and hitting 3000fpm in a crowded TMA. DAFT. So, IMHO, Boeing doesn't always have the be all and end all opinion. They changed what was a safe action into a less safe one, so as to conform to a pedantic philosophy. I hear of one airline that teaches manual approaches with A/T engaged until stabalised in final config. I assume they asked Boeing? |
Why disconnect A/T if having a CLB RA above 25,000 and then forgetting to add enough thrust; or going full power at low level and hitting 3000fpm in a crowded TMA. DAFT. So, IMHO, Boeing doesn't always have the be all and end all opinion The current FCTM 737 Classic states: "RA maneuvers require only small pitch attitude changes which should be accomplished smoothly and without delay. Properly executed, the RA maneuver is mild and does not require large or abrupt control movements. Remember the passengers and flight attendants may not be all seated during this maneuver." |
Centaurus,
It is easy for Boeing to sit in an office and write this stuff. As has been seen many times it is the human behaviour, or perhaps misbehaviour, that contributes to most accidents. In that split second moment of panic, the PF, who might be quite inexperienced, (think rapidly expanding airlines, long range cruise pilots 1/2 asleep etc.) is not always going to react in the calm relaxed manner envisaged by those who wrote the manuals. When you think you are about to die people react in extremes and full back stick and full power is just such a reaction. Worse would be full back stick and no power. What has happened in real life is excessive nose down pitch with further proof that Newton's laws of motion are alive and well. People under stress do not always react the way the manual says they should. Removing one safety net does not IMHO seem the best way to go. Remember my basic point; it was changed from B737CL to B737NG and I cant understand why. It did not improve matters. |
Can't speak for Australia but in Europe an NTO is no longer needed, as long as a risk assessment has been carried out then this will suffice. As you certain of that, legally?? Any modification of procedures that form part of the AFM are part of the certification, and any change is, in legal terms, a change to the certification standards. In a recent much publicized incident in Australia, it transpired that the operator had made a unilateral change to an AFM published procedure, in this case a missed approach. When Airbus were approached for a retrospective "approval" of the change, the answer was (in effect) "No, you are bound by the AFM ( or equivalent) as part of the aircraft certification". Quite apart from the fact that few, if any, operators would have as much data as the original manufacturer to do an adequate risk assessment, this is an area where the legal issues are not well understood, including by regulatory authority staff. In Australia, the regulations are very clear, operators are required to comply with all provisions of the AFM. This provision is only over-ridden by the emergency authority of the pilot in command --- as affirmed by a superior court decision. Tootle pip!! |
AFM and Certification
Leadsled.
Any modification of procedures that form part of the AFM are part of the certification, and any change is, in legal terms, a change to the certification standards. The procedures in an AFM are not exclusive - they have never purported to cover everything (see FAR 25.1585(b) for a start) and they are not necessarily published as two-crew PF/PM procedures. If we were to follow your logic, an OEM NTO would be worthless unless also approved by the NAA which approved the original AFM - a somewhat mindless process to contemplate in any value-adding sense! When Airbus were approached for a retrospective "approval" of the change, the answer was (in effect) "No, you are bound by the AFM ( or equivalent) as part of the aircraft certification". Quite apart from the fact that few, if any, operators would have as much data as the original manufacturer to do an adequate risk assessment, this is an area where the legal issues are not well understood, including by regulatory authority staff. In Australia, the regulations are very clear, operators are required to comply with all provisions of the AFM. This provision is only over-ridden by the emergency authority of the pilot in command --- as affirmed by a superior court decision. But what I am really interested in is: ---as affirmed by a superior court decision. Stay Alive, |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.