Automation / FMS use at your company

[bbwest]

Gents, I humbly request your help. I was hired at a part 91 operation several months ago to "help bring them procedurally into the current century". Old school guys who dont utilize 10% of the technology available in our 2 types of aircraft which both have Honeywell NZ 2000 FMS's.

In attempting to enhance our operation procedurally, I've proposed a few things that I'm fairly certain most solid operations do but would love some verification / input.

To give you a baseline of what I'm working with, when I got to this company they had all of the altitude callouts on the EGPWS turned off because "they didnt like them."

1) Do you routinely extend a centerline from the runway or a fix on an approach when in the terminal area?
2) Does the PF routinely work the FMS or is it primarily the PM's job?
3) If you were going into an airport like SDL at night with no approach would you utilize the FMS to extend a centerline and build a glideslope. Is it acceptable in your company to roll wings level from a 90 degree turn at night at a mile on final.........or even in the day for that matter?
4) Do you utilize challenge and response checklists?
5) Do you run the FMS in dual or intiated transfer if honeywell or have a method of verification prior to "executing" in other fms's?

Sincerest thanks

 

[BoilerUP]

1) Do you routinely extend a centerline from the runway or a fix on an approach when in the terminal area?

When put on a vector for final or cleared for a visual approach.

2) Does the PF routinely work the FMS or is it primarily the PM's job?

PF when the autopilot is engaged, PM when the PF is handflying.

3) If you were going into an airport like SDL at night with no approach would you utilize the FMS to extend a centerline and build a glideslope. Is it acceptable in your company to roll wings level from a 90 degree turn at night at a mile on final.........or even in the day for that matter?

Loading a visual approach to a runway in our FMS gives us a default 3° glideslope, which can be steepened or flattened as necessary. We always like to have an electronic VNAV slope available for situational awareness, even with VGSI present.

As far as rolling wings level from a base turn at night on a one mile final...probably wouldn't do that. During day VMC at an airport I'm familiar with? I don't necessarily see a problem with this although a turn that tight could come into conflict with a 500'AGL stabilized approach requirement.

4) Do you utilize challenge and response checklists?

Yes.

 

[SabreFlyR]

We operate much the same as Boiler does.

We use the EPWS call outs and also turn on the terrain display on the MFD when in the terminal area.

 

[FO4life]

1) Do you routinely extend a centerline from the runway or a fix on an approach when in the terminal area?

during vectors for an approach or visual, "Clean up Box"

2) Does the PF routinely work the FMS or is it primarily the PM's job

PF works Auto pilot unless PM is busy and needs help. PM works FMS

3) If you were going into an airport like SDL at night with no approach would you utilize the FMS to extend a centerline and build a glideslope. Is it acceptable in your company to roll wings level from a 90 degree turn at night at a mile on final.........or even in the day for that matter

YES

4) Do you utilize challenge and response checklists
YES

5) Do you run the FMS in dual or intiated transfer if honeywell or have a method of verification prior to "executing" in other fms's

SYNC ( proline 21 )

 

[ksu_aviator]

Automation is great and I use it routinely...but there must be some leeway to allow pilots to be pilots from time to time.

1) Do you routinely extend a centerline from the runway or a fix on an approach when in the terminal area?

Depends. If there is an operating localizer, I use that first, FMS second.

2) Does the PF routinely work the FMS or is it primarily the PM's job?

PNF as we call it, PM as you call it. It is the PF's job to monitor the aircraft...all other duties go to the other pilot.

3) If you were going into an airport like SDL at night with no approach would you utilize the FMS to extend a centerline and build a glideslope.

If there is time. I wouldn't obsess over it, but I'd definitely use it to my advantage if I can.

Is it acceptable in your company to roll wings level from a 90 degree turn at night at a mile on final.........or even in the day for that matter?

Absolutely.

4) Do you utilize challenge and response checklists?

Depends. After start, taxi, before takeoff and after landing are challenge response. The rest are completed by the PNF and then announced completed.

5) Do you run the FMS in dual or intiated transfer if honeywell or have a method of verification prior to "executing" in other fms's

I have ridden with crew's that confirm every flipping thing they do as if they are in an emergency checklist and it is overly redundant. We are a 2 pilot crew, not a pilot and an errand boy.

 

[2000Easyguy]

I have ridden with crew's that confirm every flipping thing they do as if they are in an emergency checklist and it is overly redundant. We are a 2 pilot crew, not a pilot and an errand boy.

Confirmation is a good thing in my book.

 

[bbwest]

Appreciate the input.

My thoughts on this. In part 91 ops we should be doing just about everything in the cockpit they way part 91 and 121 ops do it.

It amazes me the number of operations (part 91) that dont remotely adhere to advanced CRM principles or pay attention to how the best companies do things.

I have very few original thoughts in aviation. If the 121 and 135 guys do something a certain way yet you do it another.........I'd be highly skeptical.

Some answers to my own questions

1) A centerline should be extended from the runway or a fix on an approach EVERY time in the terminal area. Enhances SA and although most of us have never landed on the wrong runway, its a safeguard.
2) PF should rarely to never enter items in the FMS. PM does this - PF monitors and has a last chance to QA.
3) Most of the FMS's today have the capability to extend a centerline and even build a glideslope. Why would you ever go into any field without an approach- especially at NIGHT and not do this!! Why would you ever not give yourself a minimum 3 mile wings level final at night going into a field with no approach??
4) I have found that plenty of 91 operators do absolutely nothing challenge and response in the way of checklists. Guys miss things. Important things.....like arming TRs, spoilers etc.
5) I agree that everything in one fms should be in the other. But operating in dual ensures that right seat mistakes immediately become left seat mistakes. Intiated transfer provides a method of quality assurance - same as asking the guy in the left if he concurs with an entry before it is "executed" in other fms's.

Food for thought.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Appreciate the input.

My thoughts on this. In part 91 ops we should be doing just about everything in the cockpit they way part 91 and 121 ops do it.

It amazes me the number of operations (part 91) that dont remotely adhere to advanced CRM principles or pay attention to how the best companies do things.

I have very few original thoughts in aviation. If the 121 and 135 guys do something a certain way yet you do it another.........I'd be highly skeptical.

Some answers to my own questions

1) A centerline should be extended from the runway or a fix on an approach EVERY time in the terminal area. Enhances SA and although most of us have never landed on the wrong runway, its a safeguard.
2) PF should rarely to never enter items in the FMS. PM does this - PF monitors and has a last chance to QA.
3) Most of the FMS's today have the capability to extend a centerline and even build a glideslope. Why would you ever go into any field without an approach- especially at NIGHT and not do this!! Why would you ever not give yourself a minimum 3 mile wings level final at night going into a field with no approach??
4) I have found that plenty of 91 operators do absolutely nothing challenge and response in the way of checklists. Guys miss things. Important things.....like arming TRs, spoilers etc.
5) I agree that everything in one fms should be in the other. But operating in dual ensures that right seat mistakes immediately become left seat mistakes. Intiated transfer provides a method of quality assurance - same as asking the guy in the left if he concurs with an entry before it is "executed" in other fms's.

Food for thought.

Just remember that in a stiff wind, rigid trees break and flexible trees bend.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Common sense must apply.

I think I would smack some clown who couldn't read and do an after takeoff checklist by himself and let me now that the checklist is complete.......Dont stop and make me confirm the gear is up, go for it...I trust you...plus I dont have lights or an overspeed warning or red tape etc..so please, carry on.

It also depends on the aircraft and the operator - FSI Savannah loves Initiated Xfer vs Dual. I never had a problem with dual and you would have to be with a real idiot who couldn't handle it. There is NO additional assurance with initiated xfer as everyone says "send it over" without even looking anyhow (yes, you do...)

Also - more modern cockpits are getting away from the constant challenge/response roles anyhow, everything is integrated (EASy etc) - there is still some - taxi checks for configuration, ice use etc..but not many. Its a checklist, not a DO list.

I have seen attempts at cramming 121 procedures into a small Pt91 operation and they have been failures. 3-4 pilots should be able to create their own safe, efficient SOPs tailored to their operation. Excessive overkill checklist usage turns into a bonehead not looking outside and the crew taxiing into another plane or a snowbank, all while assuring some marginally important switch that never gets touched is still untouched. Surprise, same postion and no light on.

Adapt and learn. Nothing is concrete and you have a brain. The important thing is that all people in a department are on the same page.

 

[bbwest]

Agee w the common sense idea but not everything else.

Handling it is not the point. I think most all of us w a type can handle it. The reason you incorporate "best practices" is for the one time out of a thousand you make a mistake.

I know there are a thousand guys out there who turn off the automation, dont extend a centerline in the fms who never have and never will land on a wrong runway.......but then there is one good guy who makes the once in a lifetime/career mistake.

Being all on the same page is not the only important thing. You can all be on the same page and be WRONG.

Not incorporating 121 and 135 cockpit procedures because you dont have to as a parrt 91 operator is mostly excuses for continuing to do things the same way you learned as a 172 cfi and you dont want to change a thing.

Part 91 is the last bastion of cowboy ops. Many cockpits are food fights. Everyone on the fms, no/few actual procedures, one guys does it this way, other guys does it that way.

All survivable, not truly unsafe for the most part. But when you have dedicated, well paid smart people who have come up with procedures and best practices at 121 and 135 operators.........and you as a part 91 guy dont want to do it that way because you "like" your way.

What I "like" to do is irrelavant in the cockpit. What I "used" to do is irrelavant when offered a better more logical more scientific practice.

I would submit that if you fly a Challenger 604 and you are not doing things pretty darn close to the way flexjet does is............if you fly a Citation X and you are not doing it pretty darned close to the way NetJets does it.............. you are wrong.

 

[BoilerUP]

I would submit that if you fly a Challenger 604 and you are not doing things pretty darn close to the way flexjet does is............if you fly a Citation X and you are not doing it pretty darned close to the way NetJets does it.............. you are wrong.

Different doesn't necessarily mean "wrong".

There are dozens of ways to accomplish any given objective in this business and just because a particular large operator does it something one way doesn't necessarily mean its the "best practice" way of doing it for another operator.

Airline procedures are written for the lowest common denomination of pilot - the guy who barely squeaks past every training event. You can pair that pilot with any other pilot in the system and, in theory, using those procedures can get an airplane from Point A to B and back without safety being compromised.

Pilots who fly together all the time certainly can benefit from SOPs, but detailing every minutia of the operation isn't necessary and doesn't do anything to improve safety in that style of operation.

Yes, 91 is the "last bastion of the cowboy ops"...but as long as what we both do isn't unsafe or in left field, your procedure doesn't have to be my technique and my technique doesn't have to be your procedure and we can both operate our aircraft the way we see fit for our individual operation.

The least popular guy in every department is the one who shows up and starts trying to change things the way they are/were at __________ (insert name of air carrier here).

 

[spxdriver]

Not incorporating 121 and 135 cockpit procedures because you dont have to as a parrt 91 operator is mostly excuses for continuing to do things the same way you learned as a 172 cfi and you dont want to change a thing.

Some of the worst cockpit procedures that I've ever seen at companies have been at 135 outfits. I think that to come here and generalize that part 121 and 135 procedures are "better" than most part 91 operators procedures is improper.

Part 121 and 135 procedures need to be written to be able to be followed by a crew that has never flown together, and that didn't fly the airplane, nor know who flew the airplane in on the last leg.

I believe that to say that part 121 and 135 procedures need to be implemented in part 91 cockpits is missing a lot of key details. I believe that it is reasonable to say that procedures that work at a company that has sixty of the same type of aircraft, and two hundred pilots probably would not work at a company that has one airplane and somewhere between two and five pilots.

Part 91 is the last bastion of cowboy ops. Many cockpits are food fights. Everyone on the fms, no/few actual procedures, one guys does it this way, other guys does it that way.

I have flown with many people who have come from a number of part 91 operators. One thing that I have not seen is "everyone" on the FMS. It's either the PF or the PNF that manages the FMS, but not both. Usually it's the PNF when the PF doesn't have the autopilot on, and it's the PF when the autopilot is on.

As far as "one guy does it this way, another guy does it that way," as long as each way is safe, fairly standard, and the pilots are in the loop as to what's happening, who cares? Does it really matter if I tune the LOC in then set the front course, and you set the front course and THEN tune the LOC?

I would submit that if you fly a Challenger 604 and you are not doing things pretty darn close to the way flexjet does is............if you fly a Citation X and you are not doing it pretty darned close to the way NetJets does it.............. you are wrong.

I would submit that YOU are wrong.

I fly an aircraft that a fractional operates several of. I have had the opportunity to view their checklist, and it is about as unusable as any checklist that I've ever seen. It has so much redundancy that it would actually frustrate me so much to use that I likely would not check the items when it asks me to, because I just looked at that particular item five seconds before.

How many times do we really need to check the EICAS between after engine start and before takeoff, even though we are not moving any switches? Apparently, seven. Lights? We better check that after start, before taxi, during taxi, before takeoff, after takeoff, in the climb out of 10,000 ft, in the climb out of FL180, when we level off, when we start our descent, descending through FL180, descending through 10,000 ft, before landing, after landing, and before shutdown, according to this checklist. And that makes us safer, how?

In my opinion, checklists should be very brief and list the essential items only. Very often, I've seen pilots glance over checklist items and say something is "on" when it is "off" because they expect it to be so. On the other hand, I have not seen that happen near as often when the pilots use a flow and use the checklist as it's intended to be used, a CHECK-list, as opposed to a DO-list.

 

[Texx]

Gents, I humbly request your help. I was hired at a part 91 operation several months ago to "help bring them procedurally into the current century". Old school guys who dont utilize 10% of the technology available in our 2 types of aircraft which both have Honeywell NZ 2000 FMS's.

In attempting to enhance our operation procedurally, I've proposed a few things that I'm fairly certain most solid operations do but would love some verification / input.

To give you a baseline of what I'm working with, when I got to this company they had all of the altitude callouts on the EGPWS turned off because "they didnt like them."

1) Do you routinely extend a centerline from the runway or a fix on an approach when in the terminal area?
2) Does the PF routinely work the FMS or is it primarily the PM's job?
3) If you were going into an airport like SDL at night with no approach would you utilize the FMS to extend a centerline and build a glideslope. Is it acceptable in your company to roll wings level from a 90 degree turn at night at a mile on final.........or even in the day for that matter?
4) Do you utilize challenge and response checklists?
5) Do you run the FMS in dual or intiated transfer if honeywell or have a method of verification prior to "executing" in other fms's?

Sincerest thanks

Part 121 Sch Air Carrier...

1) Yes. Gives you a better heads up on vectors when your getting close to the LOC.
2) Below 10k, PM/PNF.
3) Set up the VIS app in FMS, use snowflake as a reference.
4) Yes and D/R.
5) Any changes to navigation on the FMS both pilots must verify prior to EXEC.

 

[abxflyr1]

Part 121 and 135 procedures need to be written to be able to be followed by a crew that has never flown together, and that didn't fly the airplane, nor know who flew the airplane in on the last leg.

True

I believe that to say that part 121 and 135 procedures need to be implemented in part 91 cockpits is missing a lot of key details. I believe that it is reasonable to say that procedures that work at a company that has sixty of the same type of aircraft, and two hundred pilots probably would not work at a company that has one airplane and somewhere between two and five pilots.

False

Policies and Procedures in aircraft operations do not have anything to do with the number of people/pilots at any operation. That is a pretty naive position to think that procedures are different for operators based on the number of pilots with various 'break-points'. An operator with 600 pilots should have different procedures than one of 4000 pilots or 8 pilots? ....NO. This of course is applicable to flight operations and more specifically flight deck/aircraft operations. Yes, it would be natural to have differences in policies regarding issues other than aircraft procedures.

Most 121/135 concepts are best practices when compared to 91, but certainly not all. Many part 91 operators must consider the difference in their specific operation and it may/can require different or enhanced procedures in some areas that differ from 121/135. Just as commercial ops can often seem more restrictive and overkill when compared to some 91's. Just be able to justify why you have a procedure that would be considered different from some version of a standard practice.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Part 91 is the last bastion of cowboy ops. Many cockpits are food fights. Everyone on the fms, no/few actual procedures, one guys does it this way, other guys does it that way.

No Part 91 operations I have flown with are anything like what you describe.

That would be like me saying...."many 121 airline cowboys always cross the threshold at 180kts at Burbank and Midways and kill people"

Just sounds pretty stupid huh?

 

[Count Dracula]

Professional Leadership has everything to do with whether the Part 91, 125, 135 or 121 operation operates their aircraft in a standardized or non-standardized way. An audit of their flight department can give you enough information whether or not you want to put your family on their aircrat. It has absolutely nothing to do with what part of the regulations they operate under.

 

[NCherches]

I would say a 91 crew with little SOP's but with awesome crew chemistry (especially if they have flown together years) is as good as a good as a well defined, structured crew who has just met for the first time but have learned the same set of procedures.

 

[bbwest]

Well I once thought that the so called "cowboys" did not exist either. Third corporate gig, first two were rock solid operations.

Current one,

- had the EGPWS altitude callouts disabled....because "I dont like them"
- NEVER loaded a runway for arrival during VMC in the fms, let alone extend a centerline
- refused to do challenge and response checklists
- had absolutely no clue how not only to extend off in the fms, but also no clue how to build a glideslope.
- turn off all automation as soon as they can see the field and will also call "field in sight" as soon as they see it - ie 30 miles at times
- FMS is run by the first guy who gets to it
- much much much more

Now if you are someone who thinks ANY of those things are acceptable............

Someone here said it correctly, if you are the guy trying to change things you are the most unpopular guy in the flight department.

It's somewhat incredible to me though when you introduce a best practice procedure, show the science behind it, show why 121 operators do it that way, that NetJets does it that way in the same type equipment.........."I dont care what Net Jets or the airlines do I like it this way"

Like has nothing to do with it. As I said last bastion of cowboy ops.....plenty posting in here. Simply unable to objectively look at things and ask if it's remotely possible if there may be a better, safer way

 

[Gulfstream 200]

........."I dont care what Net Jets or the airlines do I like it this way"

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.

 

[semperfido]

change takes time and patience