Why is being able to fly a V/S approach supposed to be anything other than one of the most basic skills that a commercial pilot should have?

If you can't do a NP approach manually on the standby instruments on a rubbish night into a dodgy field, then go and practice please. I might be down the back one day and if you have to have a debate about this, then I'd rather know in advance so I can book with another carrier.

Seriously, how is this even being mentioned? Never have I been so glad of my first job being on a shonky old turboprob with naff all kit that forced you to learn the basic hand-flying skills that having read this thread could be missing in some people.

Irrespective of age that should be 10 out of 10!!

It's the swiss cheese model - yes they have had a good safety record (but with a few lucky escapes).

Experience (or not so much of it) is one of the holes in the model. That doesn't mean that (relatively) inexperienced Commanders are not "safe" - remember that RYR does a lot of sectors and, compared to other operators, said Commander will, pro rata, have done many more take offs and landings. They DO have a very robust SOP and training system.

However I see the convergence of quite a few factors (and this isn't only specific to RYR) such as reduction in handling skills due to increased use of automation, over reliance on training SOPs as opposed to understanding and original thought which is required when things are not "standard", repetitive duty days which stretch the limit combined with days off being used to position to/from base, etc etc.

It is these factors combined with reducing experience levels (in both left and right hand seats) which I see as a threat to safe operation.

16024/dannyilligia

Not allowed to practise V/S approaches on line? Not what the manual says.

Suggest you study your manuals

We do not do CDA approaches for any V/S NPA's. Nor do we

practice V/S NPA's at any of our bases.


Page 131 sop manual 7.1.6


;)

Wowsers. So are you allowed to fly manual NPA's to practice? Or do you have to wait for the sim time that you pay for to do that?

So whilst it's in the book, do you think it's a good idea?

go around flaps15,

In my opinion people should practice V/S approaches even if not operationally required if WX not a factor just like visual approaches should be flown "stick and rudder" and not monkey style like per FR sop's (flown LNAV-VNAV).
By the way new F/O's never get to fly a real visual during their training because the LNAV/VNAV visual is only demonstrated to them by the trainers and afterwards they are not allowed to fly it while inexperienced (500hrs); after becoming "experienced" by never trying a visual nor a x-wind landing with more than 15kts they can start flying LNAV/VNAV visuals and watch Captains landing in x-wind because if the wind is more than a few kts most Captains take over.
So after 3 years flying this way the F/O goes for his upgrade....

fastidious,
ah yes the SOP guidelines....so tell me do you select the 3 rings in the fix page on an ILS approach?I do....

It is easy to jump on the bandwagon. But to those lamenting over lack of experience I ask you, where is the data? What do you have that backs up your claims. Could we stick to the hard facts guys?

All pilot bodies are governed by the laws of averages. There are good pilots, average pilots and bad pilots. Hours flown does not tell all. It is an idle hope. But I for one would love to see actually incident statistics that take into account commander experience.

I can't help but wonder if we'd all be surprised at the outcome of such a survey.

ah yes the SOP guidelines....so tell me do you select the 3 rings in the fix page on an ILS approach?I do....

Not sure what to make of that. I do as it happens.
Even though I know the SOP manual pretty well I am not an SOP monkey. I have always felt SOP's are there for guidance. If the others guy wants to deviate slightly, providing its not dangerouse, I have no problem with that, as long as he makes it clear. I would never have a problem with my FO practising a V/S approach, however, I Would not take the p**s out of him for using the FPV. It's a useful tool, that's why they designed it.:rolleyes:

Any way back to the thread, the exodus....

Never made a piss of anyone, was just making a point regarding the over reliance on automation and sops and the subsequent loss of basic skills and common sense.
As far as the exodus is concerned most LTC at my base have applied to EK DEC and word has it the base TRE also applied; quite a few guys are also looking at QR since it seems to be in fashion lately since they say will take DEC on the new 787.

I occasionally fly with guys who break out in a cold sweat when I ask if they're ok for me to do a visual approach (the sweating starts before I mentioned the hand flown and raw data parts of my plan) to our home base on a cavok, no traffic day. I've had some very good reasons why we keep the automatics in that I had missed or forgotten (Airspace, CB drifting towards final approach track etc). But too often its feeble excuses from the same guys - "oooooow well it's been a long day" "I don't like paperwork" "...well...OFDM these days" or a small cumulus 20nm downwind of the field.

What an absolute embarrassment, we are professional pilots. Just because FR would rather you kept it in LNAV/VNAV at the risk of addling your brain flying a simple circuit on a nice day to an empty airfield, doesn't mean you should believe them - Nobody takes anything else they say seriously, why on earth wouldn't you believe that it's quite useful to be proficient at actually flying the plane... it seems preposterous this even needs discussing.

Most depressing is when LTCs spout this stuff, my last line check debrief consisted of the sage advice to climb to another level the exact instant it becomes the max in the FMC (complete with 10 minutes of gushing talk about how saving fuel gives him such personal satisfaction). This was followed by a lecture on how hand flying is distracting and uses valuable capacity. What kind of tosser cares more about 7kgs of fuel than about being able to fly the airplane should the need arise.

I hope it wasn't too arrogant of me to put that debriefing in the mental shredder upon vacating the crew room.

Burn down,

Maybe the Captain is not as confident in your abilities as you are.:= I have no issue with an FO, one who I know I can trust, disconnecting the auto pilot in the right conditions. I have seen one too many FO's disconnecting the AP and completely f***k it up. Flying the line is no place for show boating, especially in busy airspace. If you want your kicks flying go and hire a Cessna for the weekend.

I happily let them fly manually, try some raw data without F/D, fly a REAL visual without that monkey LNAV/VNAV stuff and definitely don't fly max ALT because I could not care less about fuel saving and prefer have a little margin in case of turbulence.
If I don't like what the F/O is doing I can give advise as we fly along and maybe he can learn something, if I still don't like what he does I can take over and as a last resort I can do a G/A because there is a "no blame policy".
At the end of the day the F/O and myself have had the opportunity to refresh our skills and maybe even improve them making us a more proficient crew if compared to those sop monkeys who are lost if you switch off the F/D on them.
And to those who bring up the "busy airspace" thing I remind you that, apart from literally a couple of airports, we fly to little !!!!e holes in the middle of nowhere while our DL or UA colleagues fly visuals into ORD.....

Personal satisfaction?


If that idiotic LTC wants personal satisfaction, give him permission to go use the forward toilet for a while.

This just exemplifies how things are going there..kids that know no better spouting the RYR mantra

Fastidious Bob.

I said:
You Said:
Then you said:
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but your SOP manual reference is a very good point, since the heading of the section you refer to is "Guidance". Words like that, along with "should", and "recommended", have a very different meaning to "must", "shall", "mandatory" etc and it is carefully written that way.
Whilst remembering that this is an "Exodus" thread, the dilution of experience is valid here, and the old fashioned skills that some of the guys here are trying to highlight, are very much an issue.
And on almost the same theme, with reference to the Lanzarote overrun, there were so many SOP violations there, that holding up the company manual, and saying "because of this, it couldn't happen here" is pointless. There is no company in the western world whose SOPs would allow an unstabilised approach to continue. And to say that a 3000 hour skipper would not have let it happen isn't really saying anything.

And before anyone gets the impression that I don't have lots of respect for anyone who jumps through the hoops with 3000 hours. I got my first jet command with 1700 hrs multi time. I then kept my head down, and refrained from telling everyone how good I was.

I agree with you, it's largely their bum on the line if the FO makes a meal out of it. But I was aiming that at the very small percentage of Captains who aren't confident in their own ability to do the most basic stuff so wouldn't dream of letting someone else have a pop. Maybe I didn't try hard to stress a considerant for traffic and any adverse conditions, I don't go trying to do this stuff into Gatwick so I can saunter off into the sunset with my aviators on feeling like Tom Cruise. I do it when appropriate because one day I might need that practice.

I could understand where it was coming from in that case but this guy was well into his 50's and had worked for all manner of operators in the past. I think some guys truly believe, with real zeal, that they need to go around policing the pilot population with their own SOPs and theories in order to prevent a catastrophe. :ugh:

fastidious bob,
you are right we do not to CDA v/s NPA.....we level off for the v/s NPA, according to the jeppy plates.at least thats as far as i can tell check. fcom np21.68

go around flaps15

Instead of gobbing off in a totally ill-informed manner and slagging off your fellow pilots I wonder would your time time be better spent with your head in the books? Here are your study topics:

1)What default value has FR entered into the FMC so that FR "MAX" is not quite MAX and therefore provides a reasonable margin, a margin more then most airlines?

2) What happens when you are a few thousand of your optimum and you enter severe turbulence (Hint, the ICAO definition is a clue here)? Can the aircraft still stall?

3) Please go back and learn about your systems especially TCAS. Your last sentence scares the crap out of me. The fact that there are people like you flying around me in the same airspace makes my blood run cold. This was also discussed in a company memo but since you don't seem to read the manuals you probably don't read any of those either?

Go around F15

You should really have a greater understanding of TCAS II before making silly comments on a public forum:rolleyes:

Here is a clue 8.3.6.2.2:D

Point taken. I didnt realise there was that much of a margin. I can not remember the last time I flew at Max flight level in the FMC but maybe it is just the skippers I fly with, they all insist on not flying anywhere near it.

Again we learn everyday.

I have looked and learned.:ok:

Please consider this , as a past FR pilot I was disturbed greatly by the company's rigid sop's to such an extent that the well trained fr pilot grows up unable to think outside the box. That is all very well if your emergency goes as per the book but god forbid if it doesn't . The sad truth is that the average FR fo with 3000 hrs right seat in the 73 in all honesty probably has only done 90 seconds hand flying for every 1 hour in the aeroplane how can that be right.

Last few pages on this thread are completely off topic, but regarding last comment, I'm sure the average FO in BA or EK hand flies more then RYR :ugh: