Automation / FMS use at your company

[bbwest]

I agree that there are many quality operations out there. I've worked at two, one as Safety Manager where we went through IS-BAO process and got certified. Loved my previous job. I actually love this one. I got recruited iby the new director to help them step up threir game - across the board - customer service, safety, stan. The list has gotten longer. Even after firing 3 of 10, there is still resistance and plenty of "old school". Painful to watch guys fly high quality equip like it was a Cessna 172.

Even more painful when despite presenting science, logic, best practices guys refuse to change because "that's the way we've always done it" or worse, "that's the way I like to do it"!!

I do appeciate debate. Sounds like you guys are at quality operations. Actually I'm at a high quality company.....just an evolving flight department that has been a good bit behind the times. Often begin to wonder if it's me. Maybe sometimes it is

 

[ksu_aviator]

G200 I owe you an apology. You are correct you didn't say NJ were screwed up. SPX's post is what I was confusing you with.

I dont want to offend many in the corporate world in which I now reside. I will say however that prior to 9/11, 95% of corporate guys were in the corporate world and not the airlines for a reason. It wasnt the pay or work schedule.

You know, I got out of the 121 world for a reason. Unions, pay and schedule. I'm a solid pilot, I could work for any airline. I choose to fly corporate for the pay, schedule, lack of commuting, no b.s. union rules and the ability to advance based on merit.

Most importantly, I enjoy the flexibility of small flight departments. You can be a trained monkey and do the "best practices" which are not always the best. Or you can fly the airplane for the situation you are in.

You may think that 121 is the golden goose or holly grail, but to me it is hell.

Be a pilot, not a monkey.

 

[bbwest]

Brother lets be clear, I am a corporate pilot because I choose to be, not have to be. I retired from the military and got hired at Delta, SWA, and FEDEX. Chose FEDEX and hated my life. Tired , worn out ALL the time. A corporate opportunity got presented to me and I've never looked back. Corporate flying is absolutely where I belong. I will never do the 2-3 am flying thing again - for any price, nor a scheduled airline for that matter. Works great for many of my friends but not me. Quality of life is far better, more tme off, paid very well based on merit not seniority. I'm here for the same reason as most everyone else in this forum.

That being said, back to my original point. I find that many of the old schoolers around are resistant to doing anything different than they did when they were a CFI in 172's. I see it routinely. Stabilized approaches are a concept for the book but not a requirement or even a goal. Techology use is often a joke.

Was at a Bombardier event where Tony Kern spoke. The topic was something like, "When good enough really isnt" His last book spells it out. I'm all over being flexible. BUT.....

I'll give you a great example. FMS overlay approaches vs. "dive and drive" method on non-precision approaches. Plenty of literature out there on why a constant ange (fms overlay) approach is preferable over the "dive-drive" method. In fact take a look at the first page or two of book 1 of your Jepps - spells it out perfectly. There is also some FAA literature on the same thing.

Meanwhile, I will bet you huge dollars that 50% of the guys in your department cant do this correctly.........if at all. Not a single one of 10 pilots in my current place could. I will tell you that even more than 50% of the FSI or CAE instructors have misconceptions. This is just one area where the part 91 world has not caught up with the 121 world.

Dont give me the "go back to the 121 world" stuff my brothers. I dont care if the Martians (from Mars) came up with it, if its the best way why isnt it our way??

 

[ksu_aviator]

Brother lets be clear, I am a corporate pilot because I choose to be, not have to be. I retired from the military and got hired at Delta, SWA, and FEDEX. Chose FEDEX and hated my life. Tired , worn out ALL the time. A corporate opportunity got presented to me and I've never looked back. Corporate flying is absolutely where I belong. I will never do the 2-3 am flying thing again - for any price, nor a scheduled airline for that matter. Works great for many of my friends but not me. Quality of life is far better, more tme off, paid very well based on merit not seniority. I'm here for the same reason as most everyone else in this forum.

Then why trash guys that chose to be corporate?

That being said, back to my original point. I find that many of the old schoolers around are resistant to doing anything different than they did when they were a CFI in 172's. I see it routinely. Stabilized approaches are a concept for the book but not a requirement or even a goal. Techology use is often a joke.

Was at a Bombardier event where Tony Kern spoke. The topic was something like, "When good enough really isnt" His last book spells it out. I'm all over being flexible. BUT.....

I'll give you a great example. FMS overlay approaches vs. "dive and drive" method on non-precision approaches. Plenty of literature out there on why a constant ange (fms overlay) approach is preferable over the "dive-drive" method. In fact take a look at the first page or two of book 1 of your Jepps - spells it out perfectly. There is also some FAA literature on the same thing.

Meanwhile, I will bet you huge dollars that 50% of the guys in your department cant do this correctly.........if at all. Not a single one of 10 pilots in my current place could. I will tell you that even more than 50% of the FSI or CAE instructors have misconceptions. This is just one area where the part 91 world has not caught up with the 121 world.

Dont give me the "go back to the 121 world" stuff my brothers. I dont care if the Martians (from Mars) came up with it, if its the best way why isnt it our way??

That is all well and good. But "best practices" aren't always best practices. Yes, it is preferable to use the FMS for many approaches. But what happens when the FMS quits and you have to do an NDB approach at night in weather at an unfamiliar airport? You need to be able to calculate your descent rate in your head to make your own pseudo glide slope. You need to be able to have that mental image of where you are. You need to be able to turn off the FMS and fly from point A to point B.

That is why I say you have to be flexible. You have to fly raw data on occasion so that when the FD takes a crap you know what to do. You have to be able to fly green source for the times when the FMS goes tits up. Saying "I will always do best practices" means you will not be proficient when you aren't in the best situation.

If you were in the back of an aircraft during a RAIM outage...who would you want up front? The guy that is used to flying raw data or that guy that just sh*t his pants because the FMS is out and he doesn't have a pseudo glide slope?

 

[BoilerUP]

I was taught to fly non-precision approaches the same way I fly ILS approaches by FSI...fully configured and at a constant rate of descent following an FMS glideslope or to the calculated VDP.

I was trained to dive-and-drive at Air Wisconsin.

 

[spxdriver]

I was taught to fly non-precision approaches the same way I fly ILS approaches by FSI...fully configured and at a constant rate of descent following an FMS glideslope or to the calculated VDP.

I was trained to dive-and-drive at Air Wisconsin.

LD can comment better than I can about this, but I don't think that the Embraer 135/145 even supports VNAV/pseudo glideslopes. Given that, it would be accurate to say that if they're not on an ILS, they're "diving and driving"

 

[ttflyer]

I'll give you a great example. FMS overlay approaches vs. "dive and drive" method on non-precision approaches....

....This is just one area where the part 91 world has not caught up with the 121 world.

I get your point, but is that really the best example? Delta is thinking about putting GPS in their DC-9s so they can get another 5 years out of them. Not every 121 airplane is a 777. I've always thought this was at least one area where corporate was way ahead of 121...

I would also say the odds of flying a "non-precision" approach in corporate world are many times higher than in the 121 world. Those guys could probably go months and not fly a single approach that wasn't an ILS or visual...

 

[ttflyer]

Dont give me the "go back to the 121 world" stuff my brothers. I dont care if the Martians (from Mars) came up with it, if its the best way why isnt it our way??

Because it is possible for there to be more than one "best" way. The problem with pilots is that they always think it's their way or the wrong way. There can be more than one "right" way. Be flexible...

 

[pilotjc]

ps-build an extended centerline for scottsdale rwy 21 and take a look about 6 miles out on that line...it is not a place you would want to be, low altitude, at night. Procedures and technology can bite, too.

Just like the Comair guys taking off on the wrong runway. Just like the Delta guys landing on a taxiway in Atlanta.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Just like the Comair guys taking off on the wrong runway. Just like the Delta guys landing on a taxiway in Atlanta.

Just like Global guys landing on the short runway at Westchester.

"Its for you"

Good to see you in on what is likely the dumbest pilot web board thread in a long time.

 

[murfdawg998]

Just like Global guys landing on the short runway at Westchester.

Didn't hear about that one! Wow

 

[pilotjc]

Just like Global guys landing on the short runway at Westchester.

"Its for you"

Good to see you in on what is likely the dumbest pilot web board thread in a long time.

Just like Falcon 7X guys landing on a snow covered downhill runway at Westchester! At night.

Glad to see you stirring the pot and having fun also.

You missed a good day on Saturday. It was good to see some of the guys.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Just like Falcon 7X guys landing on a snow covered downhill runway at Westchester! At night.

Glad to see you stirring the pot and having fun also.

You missed a good day on Saturday. It was good to see some of the guys.

I dont do the night trips, against my SOPs. Not approved. Downhill windy snow and ice with no TR's??...leave it to the old fellas, they got nothing to lose...:blush:

I heard it was a real good time, hope to catch up soon!

 

[bbwest]

You dont need to be in a 777 to do an FMS overlay approach. You can do it in almost any aircraft with an fms.

FMS goes out, shooting an ndb at night in bad wx?? Come on holmes, why didnt you add a meteor shower and a 4000' runway to your less than plausible example?

I could not agree more with the fact that we in the corporate world will see many more Non Precis Appchs than 121 guys. I will say again though, not my idea not my data. Read the 2 pages on it in Book 1 of the Jepps. Why do you think they went to all the trouble to add VNAV glideslope data to so many(nearly ALL) Non Precis Appchs in Jepps?

Way off track here. In the face of the personal attacks, I will reiterate, there is a best and safest way to do almost all we do in the cockpit. None of which was figured out by me. Meanwhile I have heard nothing to lead me to believe much different than what I thought when I started this which is pretty much summed up in double psych's post.

The best way, the most logical way, the way with some science behind it - thats my favorite way. What I "like" or "I've always done it that way" is for the less than professionals in this business.

 

[ttflyer]

The best way, the most logical way, the way with some science behind it - thats my favorite way. What I "like" or "I've always done it that way" is for the less than professionals in this business.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but if that were true, the airlines would not be allowed to have different procedures. They would all have exactly the same SOPs which would mandated by the FAA. But they don't. Airlines all have different SOPs approved by different POIs. Callouts, procedures and who does what when in the cockpit can very widely from carrier to carrier. There is certainly no consensus - logical, scientific or otherwise - on the "best" way to do everything in the cockpit... There are several things which we know are wrong, but that is very different from saying there is only one "right" way.

 

[matchthehatch]

Having experience with 121 operations at both regional and majors, part 91K and 135 operations, and currently corporate operations, I feel qualified to draw comparisons. I’ve seen 121 procedures that rely on the “more is better” mentality, which I believe to be unsafe. I’ve seen corporate departments whose pilots make up procedures as they go. There’s nothing safe about that. While one may not be better than the other in terms of safety and efficiency, I felt much safer at least having a set of standardized procedures. G200, if you’ve never seen poorly standardized operations at your present and previous departments, then you are very fortunate, and probably an exception rather than the norm in the corporate world.
To continue to utilize procedures just because “that’s the way we’ve always done it” is short-sighted and just plain lazy. While I believe that the adage “If it aint broke, don’t fix it” often holds true, part of our jobs as professional pilots is to constantly evaluate the procedures that we use and question their efficacy.
Bbwest, while I commend you for trying to make significant changes that obviously need to be made, it sounds like your problems are rooted in the personalities of your pilots. I happen to be very fortunate to work with pilots who genuinely care about improving our operations, are flexible enough to change when needed, humble enough to admit being wrong, and interested in doing things “the right way” for our department. I wish you the best.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Agree with Boiler's first post with the addition: Initiated Transfer. Doing so letss you check your inputs and allows a "do over" if you finger fire the box. It is only a couple extra button presses but worth it.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Hey G200... Embraer Lineage Captain? Glad to see you finally stepped up to a *real* airplane. (That title made me laugh, "Colonel.") Haha!

 

[ksu_aviator]

You dont need to be in a 777 to do an FMS overlay approach. You can do it in almost any aircraft with an fms.

Who ever said you did?

FMS goes out, shooting an ndb at night in bad wx?? Come on holmes, why didnt you add a meteor shower and a 4000' runway to your less than plausible example?

Because that isn't the way it happened for me. I was shooting the RNAV 33 into UVA when the unit went black. We continued to the NDB, did the procedure turn and shot the approach green source, at night near minimums. But I've also lost the FMS departing out of Eagle on an unforecast RAIM issue (too low to pick up enough VORs for reliable navigation) and I've had to abandon the FMS because the FO screwed it up. My point is, that that FMS is not some PFM box that you should program and rely on as if it will never fail. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that that box (that is probably still running Fortran) is so f'n smart that it will never lead you astray. All I'm saying is, don't be so naive and plan for the day when it will fail.

I could not agree more with the fact that we in the corporate world will see many more Non Precis Appchs than 121 guys. I will say again though, not my idea not my data. Read the 2 pages on it in Book 1 of the Jepps. Why do you think they went to all the trouble to add VNAV glideslope data to so many(nearly ALL) Non Precis Appchs in Jepps?

Way off track here. In the face of the personal attacks, I will reiterate, there is a best and safest way to do almost all we do in the cockpit. None of which was figured out by me. Meanwhile I have heard nothing to lead me to believe much different than what I thought when I started this which is pretty much summed up in double psych's post.

The best way, the most logical way, the way with some science behind it - thats my favorite way. What I "like" or "I've always done it that way" is for the less than professionals in this business.

Agreed. But...don't rely on automation to the point of incompetence. Fly some VFR VOR approaches. Track an NDB from time to time. Build a hold in your head. Plan your own descent. The mental acuity that you'll gain from being able to throw everything out the window and fly your basic six will make you look even smarter than you think you are.

 

[satpak77]

This is an age old argument, or discussion. "How much automation to use" etc.

Personally, I hand fly until above 2000 FT AGL and don't bring up GPS/FMS NAV until I am on the route/SID/etc per old fashioned analog nav. If it agrees, I bring it up.

My area is surrounded by mountains so I don't need any GPS or FMS hiccups while I fly the supposedly-correct departure per the box.

On the arrival, I usually rely more heavily on GPS/FMS NAV and will commonly back up VOR approaches, ILS waypoints, etc, with the GPS.

At all times, GPS nav is backed up with VOR freqs and enroute course is monitored by PNF via putting the USA Today down and checking the chart....

 

[NCherches]

My area is surrounded by mountains so I don't need any GPS or FMS hiccups while I fly the supposedly-correct departure per the box...

I would almost argue that you are much more likely to have a hiccup with VHF Navigation than with an GPS/FMS... although pilot's do screw up programming the FMS/GPS way more so than they do with the VHF stuff...

 

[satpak77]

I would almost argue that you are much more likely to have a hiccup with VHF Navigation than with an GPS/FMS... although pilot's do screw up programming the FMS/GPS way more so than they do with the VHF stuff...

While I agree it is possible, "more likely" I would respectfully take the side that analog nav is less likely. Or maybe I need to get smarter and/or trust more FMS programming (yes that is prob true).

 

[hotwing]

While it sounds like you work with clowns (if not exaggerated somewhat?)....you will get the same EXACT response from me if you start telling me what Netjets or your airline does/did.

Really, people dont care. If you liked it at your airline why did you leave? If Netjets intriques you - go fly a GV there for 85-100K instead of the normal 150-175K. Nobody cares.

FWIW - if I was so concerned I would really inquire about SOPs/Callouts/Standards etc in an interview. You can tell pretty quick if an operation tries to go by the book or if they are cowboys. Screen your employers, I sure would.

This honestly sounds like a personal problem, not a Pt 91 in general problem.

Good Luck.

Sorry, but you are WRONG! I left a fortune 5 flight operation and went to the airlines because of pilots like you... I was at a regional (Skywest) before I went to the G550/G450 Flacon 900EX / Falcon 50EX EMB145, B737 Corp. flight dept and so, with the 121 regional time, I knew how thingsw should have been and I could not handle this loose approach and lack of standardization and went back to the airlines, but onto a major... I was at one of the largest, and oldest flight departments too... It was CRAZY! This is NOT the way to fly large corporate jets... undstandardized and non procedural is NOT the way that the FAA or anyone else intends us to fly these planes... When I was getting my G550 type at KSAV FSI I had a retired Delta guy giving the training and I was flying with a part 91 only guy and the evaluator always commented how much better my CRM and related skills were as compared to the Part 91 only pilots... Sorry... You are WRONG!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Im being told I'm "WRONG!" on Flightinfo by a guy with Fox News in his profile and an avatar of Bill O'Reilly.

This is getting goddam good!

BTW --- I fly a GULFSTREAM, I'm a Senior International Training Captain, I do it MY way, I dont care about YOUR way (or your lame airlines) and NO we dont hire airline guys!!!!

PS -- my sim instructors always tell me I do better than the other guy too...SO THERE!!

 

[LegacyDriver]

G200!!!!!!!!!!!!rotflmao!

 

[LegacyDriver]

I do appeciate debate. Sounds like you guys are at quality operations. Actually I'm at a high quality company.....just an evolving flight department that has been a good bit behind the times. Often begin to wonder if it's me. Maybe sometimes it is

Don't admit you "don't know everything" on this board. That's like blood in the water for the sharks!!!!!! God forbid a pilot actually admit he isn't a god. Knowledge is power. Flightinfo is a good place to find it if you can sift wheat from chaff. Good luck.

 

[CA1900]

Don't admit you "don't know everything" on this board. That's like blood in the water for the sharks!!!!!! God forbid a pilot actually admit he isn't a god...

This was my last meeting with my chief pilot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE

 

[NCherches]

Not going to lie... I hated flying with those who were WAAAAAAY too into procedures although it's always hard to bash them for being over cautious....

I mean if you have a natural abilty, some common sense, and maybe some good training you might not need to run takeoff distance numbers when departing Salina, Kansas in a straight wing citaiton...

Call my a cowboy...the ladies do

 

[7on7Off]

I mean if you have a natural abilty, some common sense, and maybe some good training you might not need to run takeoff distance numbers when departing Salina, Kansas in a straight wing citaiton...

Call my a cowboy...the ladies do

And so the accident chain begins

 

[LegacyDriver]

and so the accident chain begins

Ha ha ha!