PPRuNe Forums - Use of FL LVL CH versus TOGA for a B737 go around

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)

- - Use of FL LVL CH versus TOGA for a B737 go around (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/563671-use-fl-lvl-ch-versus-toga-b737-go-around.html)

I once used LVL CHG instead of TOGA flying a RNAV approach (with autopilot engaged) at 2000 feet established we were instructed to turn right 90 degrees and climb to 3000 feet, it went very smooth. However I wouldn't use that technique on an ILS or if at a lower altitude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centaurus (Post 10397393)

After disconnecting the AP why the blinding hurry to re-select the AP and FD when surely any competent pilot would go "Click Click" and simply hand fly? This would minimize the well known risk of mis-selection of multiple modes? That was the message behind that splendid Children of the Magenta Line briefing, still valid from over 20 years ago.

All well and good until you're with a newbie who's hanging off the elevators anyway. Sticking George in frees up some of their mental capacity allowing them to better monitor and or fly the MA correctly and safely.

Quote:

Which brings up the question who certified the "newbie" as competent to be a first officer on line flying when clearly he should be given more simulator training rather than be second in command of an aircraft he is not competent to fly. Captain's incapacitation comes to mind. Using "George" as an excuse to hide lack of flying ability is not the answer..

Well that'll be why there's a safety pilot on the jump seat for the first few sectors of line training.

And there's a big difference between the SIM and reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centaurus (Post 10397393)

I guess you haven’t flown a 737. All go arounds are manual unless you are conducting a dual autopilot approach to autoland, so I don’t see your point.

I don’t disagree that a competent pilot ought know how to hand fly all flight regimes safely.

But pressing TOGA resets the flight director for goaround, and apart from pitch guidance also provides LNAV goaround guidance to take you around those mountains from the RNP-AR approach you were just doing.

If you were doing an ILS you will still have to either press TOGA or reset NAV’s as described.

Hand flying simply because you don’t understand the automatics does not make you a competent pilot. In my experience, it tends to makes the situation worse. I can think of a couple of 737 fatalities to support this theory.

I don’t fly the 737 these days but do fly another Boeing type. Both of my previous airlines have come extremely close to crashing Boeing, aircraft on two engine go-arounds, probably closer than either airline has ever come to an accident. Both times with pilots with 10+ years on type. To me there are four reasons why this happened

1. The Boeing go-around automation is overly complex, especially when going around at anything other than minima.
2. The FCTM and FCOM are very vague about go-arounds and really only cater for going around at minimums. Given the number of go-around accidents and incidents on Boeing types, you would thing that Boeing, would be all over these issues.
3. Very little training on go-arounds by many airlines other than going around at minimums. Lots of talk about airmanship and hand flying but not much black and white guidance and simulator practice.
4. Very few go arounds flown in a year. My previous airline was doing about one, per airframe, per year.

So, to me it isn’t surprising that trainers, train all sorts of things, wires get crossed, pilots get confused, land off unstable approaches because they don’t know how to go-around and even crash off go-arounds. It’s all a big training issue. Going around does not seem to be a big issue on Airbus, types.

FWF

Much sense in what you say !

Quote:

Going around does not seem to be a big issue on Airbus, types.

Hull losses on G/A's (usually due to modal issues) albeit low are not far off Boeing stats, granted given the recency of some of the Boeing (almost exclusively 737) accidents/incidents it may not seem that way.