Cannot Fly 5 Hours With Manual Throttle?

[Ibra]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

however, the only requirement in the case of TAT failure is to avoid icing conditions

Are these "sensor icing conditions" (0C < TAT < 10C)? or "real icing conditions" where ice is found inside clouds and  wings? 

If the former, the engine de-ice is only used to protect engine probs in some  pressure or airflow corners, so that the FADECs computers are happy 

Are airliners pilots allowed to calculate temperature and judge what counts as "icing conditions" now? or they rely on sensors? 

Edited October 29 by Ibra

[AndreiC]

I'll say my piece in defense of these pilots, even though I never flew any jet of any kind so I have no idea of the limitations. But these pilots sounded awfully tired on their conversations with ATC, they blew through the localizer on their approach back to SFO, etc. I don't know how many hours they had been already on duty, waiting on the ground for some paperwork delay or who knows what. I know in principle fatigue is measured by how many hours since you last slept, but I think it would be fair to give them a break for deciding that the extra load of having to manage the non-working autothrottle + the very late departure is too much. 

Remember also that all the stories above about flying 14 hours over the Atlantic with many refuelings etc. are by young fighter pilot jocks. Maybe these pilots were closer to 60 years of age, who knows what family stresses there are in the background... I would not want to be first to judge without knowing the whole story. 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Ibra said:

Are these "sensor icing conditions" (0C < TAT < 10C)? or "real icing conditions" where ice is found inside clouds and  wings? 

If the former, the engine de-ice is only used to protect engine probs in some  pressure or airflow corners, so that the FADECs computers are happy 

Are airliners pilots allowed to calculate temperature and judge what counts as "icing conditions" now? or they rely on sensors? 

No engine anti-ice also protects the lip and inlet duct so ice does not come crashing off into the fan blades. The fan blades themselves are anti-iced by engine rpm.. A "no-ice dispatch" concerns itself only with forecast icing conditions which is visible moisture and temperatures near zero.

[GeeBee]

34 minutes ago, AndreiC said:

I'll say my piece in defense of these pilots, even though I never flew any jet of any kind so I have no idea of the limitations. But these pilots sounded awfully tired on their conversations with ATC, they blew through the localizer on their approach back to SFO, etc. I don't know how many hours they had been already on duty, waiting on the ground for some paperwork delay or who knows what. I know in principle fatigue is measured by how many hours since you last slept, but I think it would be fair to give them a break for deciding that the extra load of having to manage the non-working autothrottle + the very late departure is too much. 

Remember also that all the stories above about flying 14 hours over the Atlantic with many refuelings etc. are by young fighter pilot jocks. Maybe these pilots were closer to 60 years of age, who knows what family stresses there are in the background... I would not want to be first to judge without knowing the whole story. 

They had started their duty day in SFO after a proper rest period. They had plenty of rest (if they used the rest opportunity) and they both signed the dispatch release document which states their physical state including medical and rest was/is adequate. That is why the Duty pilot in dispatch was saying they really don't want to return saying they were not rested because they have indicted themselves with an admissions against their own interest. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I have very little real jet experience. A couple of hours in the right seat of a Citation mostly talking on the radio. But I do have about 50 hours in a 737-200 sim. It had a pitch and roll autopilot and a yaw damper. No autothrottles. It was a long time ago, but the first thing we would do after getting ready to depart was look up the EPR limits and setting the bug. We would check the EPR limits on approach in case we needed to go around. All other power settings were done from memory. I seem to recall we started approaches at 200 PPH/side. Getting the power right was half the fun...

[GeeBee]

22 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have very little real jet experience. A couple of hours in the right seat of a Citation mostly talking on the radio. But I do have about 50 hours in a 737-200 sim. It had a pitch and roll autopilot and a yaw damper. No autothrottles. It was a long time ago, but the first thing we would do after getting ready to depart was look up the EPR limits and setting the bug. We would check the EPR limits on approach in case we needed to go around. All other power settings were done from memory. I seem to recall we started approaches at 200 PPH/side. Getting the power right was half the fun...

That is basically how they would have to operate this airplane without a TAT probe.

[kortopates]

In ILS CAT1, my HSI shows “NO GS” and “NO LOC flag” as I cross the piano bars 

Something is not right you should have localizer signal on the runway and including as you taxi off up to 35 degrees off centerline.
You should have GS down to instrument landing zone abeam the GS antenna and vasi/papi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

That is basically how they would have to operate this airplane without a TAT probe.

Yea, looking up a number on a simple chart is a lot of work...

Would I be out of line saying that I got the feeling the captain didn't feel competent hand flying the plane? His copilot sounded more competent.

The hardest part would be the approach, and they had to do one without the autothrottles anyway. Climb cruise and descent are pretty easy.

[N201MKTurbo]

So, I'm an aviation geek and bring my Stratus and IPad along on airline flights. It is pretty easy to tell when the plane is being hand flown. I would say it is about 10% of the time. 

So all you airline pilots, what is your experience hand flying the plane? How often is it done? How often are approaches flown by hand? I realize with an Airbus you are never really hand flying it.

[GeeBee]

I used to hand fly to cruise and down regularly. I would turn everything off on the Airbus if I was hand flying. Too easy to get out of synch with the auto thrust if you don't. PNF's don't like it because it increases their workload, but it is good exercise for them.

 

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I used to hand fly to cruise and down regularly. I would turn everything off on the Airbus if I was hand flying. Too easy to get out of synch with the auto thrust if you don't. PNF's don't like it because it increases their workload, but it is good exercise for them.

 

Curious, if YOU are hand flying why does the PNF's workload increase?

[bradp]

I think half of the issue here is that there was a very public discussion on the a/g frequency … sometimes better part of valor if the CA decision had been made would be to save the discussion for once on the ground.  

[Andy95W]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Curious, if YOU are hand flying why does the PNF's workload increase?

Because he/she has one more thing to monitor.  Not a big deal, but still more.

I normally hand fly (Airbus) up to 12,000 or so.  Once or twice a month I turn off the auto thrust at top of descent all the way through landing.  On an easy visual approach to a fairly quiet airport it’s fun to turn everything off, but I won’t do that if it’s IFR or gusty or challenging conditions.  The people in the back paid for the safest operation we can provide, which means using the automation.

I don’t know the exact situation for the crew in question that started this whole discussion, but here’s a little insight to a possibility.  There’s a decent chance this crew were east coast guys, so their bodies and brains were on Eastern Time.  So they woke up in California probably around 0500 or 0600 local time (0800 EDT) and their report time at the airport was likely 1500 local.  That will put them at their destination around 2200 EDT.  But their flight gets delayed 3 hours, so their report time is now 1800- which is actually 2100 Eastern Time.  Their actual wheels up time is probably about an hour later, which will have them landing at 0300.  How alert do you expect to be at 3:00 in the morning?  And for guys who don’t regularly practice turning off the auto thrust, you’re looking at a very long fatiguing flight with 200 passengers on board.

[GeeBee]

10 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Curious, if YOU are hand flying why does the PNF's workload increase?

Because then the PNF has to handle the MCP (heading bug and altitude selector) as well as make the changes to the FMS (nav computer) on top of his other duties.

[GeeBee]

4 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Because he/she has one more thing to monitor.  Not a big deal, but still more.

I normally hand fly (Airbus) up to 12,000 or so.  Once or twice a month I turn off the auto thrust at top of descent all the way through landing.  On an easy visual approach to a fairly quiet airport it’s fun to turn everything off, but I won’t do that if it’s IFR or gusty or challenging conditions.  The people in the back paid for the safest operation we can provide, which means using the automation.

I don’t know the exact situation for the crew in question that started this whole discussion, but here’s a little insight to a possibility.  There’s a decent chance this crew were east coast guys, so their bodies and brains were on Eastern Time.  So they woke up in California probably around 0500 or 0600 local time (0800 EDT) and their report time at the airport was likely 1500 local.  That will put them at their destination around 2200 EDT.  But their flight gets delayed 3 hours, so their report time is now 1800- which is actually 2100 Eastern Time.  Their actual wheels up time is probably about an hour later, which will have them landing at 0300.  How alert do you expect to be at 3:00 in the morning?  And for guys who don’t regularly practice turning off the auto thrust, you’re looking at a very long fatiguing flight with 200 passengers on board.

Are you implying if you hand fly the airplane in other than require A/P circumstances it is less safe?

Two situations same error:

You are cleared to FL 360. You are hand flying. You begin level the airplane at 360, but note the F/D bar say "fly up". Then you note the MCP altitude actually says 380 (one bar segment on the display). 

You are cleared to FL360, airplane is on autopilot, PNF calls 1000' to go. As you approach 360 the airplane does not level off, you hit the red button on your stick, curse and then notice 380 in the MCP (1 bar segment). Before you can save it you go through FL363. ATC inquires because he just lost separation with FL370 traffic.

Both circumstances involved the same error and in fact the most common error (the difference between "6" and *8" on the MCP panel) and the most common error crews make, altitude bust. Which circumstance had the greater consequence if not trapped?

[GeeBee]

With respect to this particular situation, which was the greater threat? 

Continuing on having to manage the thrust manually and landing in VMC weather at JFK or landing the airplane at night at SFO 10% overweight on Rwy 28 with the missed approach performance issues that entails (Mt San Bruno). It is highly likely there could be some overheated brakes (maybe even brake fire) and tires, maybe even fuse plugs melting. Would continuing on be a safer course of action?

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Are you implying if you hand fly the airplane in other than require A/P circumstances it is less safe?

Two situations same error:

You are cleared to FL 360.

I specifically talked about an approach and landing in “IFR or gusty or challenging conditions.”  Can I hand-fly an Airbus on an ILS down to 200 and 1/2, with no Flight Director?  Yes.  Do I do it? NO.  And at midnight after a 12 hour duty day, I’m truly hoping you wouldn’t either if you had an autopilot available.

And for the original situation that started this whole thread- I absolutely agree that the less hazardous course of action was to fly to JFK.  My post’s intent was to give insight into real world considerations that actually happen to airline crews, even when they are legal to fly and have tried to get adequate rest.  Also, I specifically said “for guys who don’t regularly practice turning the auto thrust off”.  That is the important issue to me.  My airline encourages us to practice our skills in situations when it makes sense and doesn’t compromise safety.

[GeeBee]

39 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I specifically talked about an approach and landing in “IFR or gusty or challenging conditions.”  Can I hand-fly an Airbus on an ILS down to 200 and 1/2, with no Flight Director?  Yes.  Do I do it? NO.

You would be illegal to do it anyway. 

As for gusty conditions, I find manual thrust much safer and more comfortable. A/T can get behind the airplane real fast.

 

 

[Andy95W]

36 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

You would be illegal to do it anyway. 

???

200 and 1/2, standard CAT I ILS, our OPSPECs do not require autopilot or flight directors.  Definitely recommended, though.  Are Delta’s OPSPECs different?

[GeeBee]

Basic turbo jet minimums. 250' 3/4. FAA ops spec template C054.

[Andy95W]

A General Aviation forum about Mooneys is hardly an appropriate place to have this discussion.  So for any reader getting annoyed by this, I apologize.

——————-

OPSPEC C054:

b. Limitations on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes.
(1) A PIC of a turbojet airplane must not conduct an IAP when visibility conditions are
reported to be less than ¾ statute mile (sm) or RVR 4000 until that pilot has been specifically
qualified to use the Lower Landing Minimums (LLM).
(2) If the destination visibility conditions are forecast to be less than ¾ sm or RVR 4000, the
following conditions must be met:
(a) The destination runway length must be determined prior to takeoff to be at least
115 percent of the runway field length required by the provisions of § 121.195(b); and
(b) Precision instrument (all weather) runway markings or runway centerline (RCL)
lights must be operational on that runway unless authorized to conduct enhanced flight vision
system (EFVS) operations and use EFVS operational minimums.

———————

Nothing is mentioned here about the use of flight directors or autopilot.  However, you might be referencing C052, which allows a reduction in visibility from the ILS “standard” of 2400 RVR to 1800 RVR with runway centerline lights and markings and does require use of autopilot or flight directors under Part 121.  I specifically noted 200 and 1/2, not 1800 RVR.  And I said “1/2” instead of 2400 RVR simply because this is a GA forum where not everyone needs to know the subtle nuances you and I have to be familiar with.

——————-

Thank you for the discussion.  It’s good to review this stuff occasionally, and I generally find something I hadn’t noticed before!  And I’ll be sure to ask during my next Line Check.

 

[MikeOH]

@Andy95W

So, what is legally governing: Your company's OPSPECS, or the "FAA OPSPEC template"(GeeBee's term)?

[Andy95W]

The company’s OPSPECs are controlling, because those are the ones approved by the FAA for that company.  The template is what the FAA will consider approving if all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.

[GeeBee]

The company's opspecs are governing however, they cannot be more permissive than the FAA template. IOW, if an inspector issues ops specs more permissive than the template, "Lucy you got some splaining to do!" Obviously if you think about it, if airline A got a better deal than airline B that would be a competitive advantage and the howls would be heard all the way to 800 Independence Ave. 

[GeeBee]

3 hours ago, Andy95W said:

A General Aviation forum about Mooneys is hardly an appropriate place to have this discussion.  So for any reader getting annoyed by this, I apologize.

——————-

OPSPEC C054:

b. Limitations on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes.
(1) A PIC of a turbojet airplane must not conduct an IAP when visibility conditions are
reported to be less than ¾ statute mile (sm) or RVR 4000 until that pilot has been specifically
qualified to use the Lower Landing Minimums (LLM).
(2) If the destination visibility conditions are forecast to be less than ¾ sm or RVR 4000, the
following conditions must be met:
(a) The destination runway length must be determined prior to takeoff to be at least
115 percent of the runway field length required by the provisions of § 121.195(b); and
(b) Precision instrument (all weather) runway markings or runway centerline (RCL)
lights must be operational on that runway unless authorized to conduct enhanced flight vision
system (EFVS) operations and use EFVS operational minimums.

———————

Nothing is mentioned here about the use of flight directors or autopilot.  However, you might be referencing C052, which allows a reduction in visibility from the ILS “standard” of 2400 RVR to 1800 RVR with runway centerline lights and markings and does require use of autopilot or flight directors under Part 121.  I specifically noted 200 and 1/2, not 1800 RVR.  And I said “1/2” instead of 2400 RVR simply because this is a GA forum where not everyone needs to know the subtle nuances you and I have to be familiar with.

——————-

Thank you for the discussion.  It’s good to review this stuff occasionally, and I generally find something I hadn’t noticed before!  And I’ll be sure to ask during my next Line Check.

 

Actually it is because we run into some similar stuff in a Mooney. For instance, with an STEC 55x autopilot you can fly a CAT 1 approach but not to  200 and 1/2. It is 240 and 1/2 because the FAA approved minimum engaged altitude is 240'. To go to 200' you must disconnect the A/P and hand fly the last 40'. Makes sense right? But it is what it is.