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.