LUV "Culture and Philosophy"?

[Falconjet]

Anybody know how to use the ignore function? If so, please let me know because there are several trolls on the board now that I need to put in the ignore category.


Never mind, I found it.


Thanks, FJ

 

[AdlerDriver]

SWA dudes

A few questions with this Cat-3 HUD/Hand-flown approach....
1. Do you have the option to couple it up and auto-land or is it always required to be hand flown?
2. Do you train to Cat-2 monitored type approaches or Cat-3 auto-land for HUD failure type contingencies?
3. Do you use auto-throttles during the HUD type Cat-3 approach?

Thanks

 

[Helos2Galaxy]

Just my few cents aout hand flying the HGS system....

When I checked out on the 737-800 I got my token sim approach from the left seat using it. Without being the least bit proficient in it, in a 0/0 wx condition, got it down and stopped a few feet off centerline.

So, these Captains who use it daily up to 8x are quite a bit more proficient than I was on my token approach.

Although I do not agree with SWA's philosophy on not certifying the autopilots for Cat III, the hand flown HGS approaches to a 600 RVR is quite safe in the hands of a skilled pilot with a 10,000 hours.

 

[GuppyWN]

All CAT III HUD approaches are hand flown from the outer marker (or farther) in. If the weather is CAT I mins or higher we can use the autopilot to 50' below DH.

If the HUD fails on approach it's a go around. If the captain is off by more than 5 knots or 1 dot we get a red APPROACH WARNING light. If the runway is not in sight it's an immediate go around. If the copilot calls "go around" for any reason and it's not IMMEDIATELY executed the FO is required to take the aircraft around. This is in case of fixation or incapacitation of the flying pilot.

It's a beautiful thing and I've landed when I couldn't even taxi to the gate. I'm sure the UAL or Delta or whoever guys who use autoland love their system but the HUD is incredible for approaches. It's also wonderful for any other flying situation, especially at high altitude at heavy weights. It really is big picture flying.

Gup

 

[K-Mart]

All CAT III HUD approaches are hand flown from the outer marker (or farther) in. If the weather is CAT I mins or higher we can use the autopilot to 50' below DH.

If the HUD fails on approach it's a go around. If the captain is off by more than 5 knots or 1 dot we get a red APPROACH WARNING light. If the runway is not in sight it's an immediate go around. If the copilot calls "go around" for any reason and it's not IMMEDIATELY executed the FO is required to take the aircraft around. This is in case of fixation or incapacitation of the flying pilot.

It's a beautiful thing and I've landed when I couldn't even taxi to the gate. I'm sure the UAL or Delta or whoever guys who use autoland love their system but the HUD is incredible for approaches. It's also wonderful for any other flying situation, especially at high altitude at heavy weights. It really is big picture flying.

Gup

Yuk! Why would you click off the A/P at just above 150FT? Better to hand fly it and keep the hands warm. Then again you got the HUD which is a natural view point looking out ahead. Staring down at your instruments and then looking out to land sucks when the RVR is about 1800RVR or less. I would want to hand fly it OM inbound if the visibility was less than 2400 RVR. Just my thoughts. It will be interesting to see what the NTSB says. A lot to be learned, I am sure!!

 

[AdlerDriver]

Thanks for the info. What about my question about the auto-throttle?

I’m on airline cultures #3, so I’ve seen more than my share of stuff that makes me scratch my head. I’m definitely a fan of hand-flying whenever possible. Way too many guys out there get lazy and too reliant on automation.
As good as you say this HUD approach is (and I don’t doubt it), I can definitely say it’s nice to have the option of letting HAL give me a hand with a Cat-3 auto-land especially after a long day/night. Seems like the combination of both auto-pilot and HUD would be the best option. I am continually surprised at how various airlines manage to approach common aviation issues with such different procedures.

 

[canyonblue]

Anyone ever fly a Jetstream 32 down to 1800 RVR while eating a bowl of chili? If you can't hand fly a HUD approach, you really need to consider another line of work.

 

[CKJET]

I was talking to a SWA crew a while back about a SWA flight landing in MDW extremely fast. I think the captain said the date was early 05 or 04. He said that the aircraft almost ran off the runway. Any thruth to that? Touchdown around 170 knots. No bashing, just wondering.

Every landing at MDW almost goes off the runway!!

 

[FracCapt]

Anyone ever fly a Jetstream 32 down to 1800 RVR while eating a bowl of chili?

Depends....are we talking Hormel or Skyline?

 

[K-Mart]

Thanks for the info. What about my question about the auto-throttle?

I’m on airline cultures #3, so I’ve seen more than my share of stuff that makes me scratch my head. I’m definitely a fan of hand-flying whenever possible. Way too many guys out there get lazy and too reliant on automation.
As good as you say this HUD approach is (and I don’t doubt it), I can definitely say it’s nice to have the option of letting HAL give me a hand with a Cat-3 auto-land especially after a long day/night. Seems like the combination of both auto-pilot and HUD would be the best option. I am continually surprised at how various airlines manage to approach common aviation issues with such different procedures.

Makes a lot sense until the money part I guess. What is the cost to keep crews proficient CAT III or even II. I'm not sure but having both A/P and HUD option would seem costly. It all boils down to cost versus safety. The AF has opted not to buy terrain clearing systems for the Fighting Falcon:laugh: because the cost outweighs the probability of a crash. In a nut shell it is cheaper to have an airplane crash versus have the system. Then again most folks know that.

 

[AutoBus]

Uhhhh.... I wouldn't go so far as "class act" Holmes...

What's the SWA F/O callout for gate in sight / marshaller in position?


V1!!!

 

[scoreboard]

Thanks for the info. What about my question about the auto-throttle?

I’m on airline cultures #3, so I’ve seen more than my share of stuff that makes me scratch my head. I’m definitely a fan of hand-flying whenever possible. Way too many guys out there get lazy and too reliant on automation.
As good as you say this HUD approach is (and I don’t doubt it), I can definitely say it’s nice to have the option of letting HAL give me a hand with a Cat-3 auto-land especially after a long day/night. Seems like the combination of both auto-pilot and HUD would be the best option. I am continually surprised at how various airlines manage to approach common aviation issues with such different procedures.

We do not have auto throttles of any kind. HUD provides cue for gaining or loosing airspeed, pilot adjusts as required.
And again, no auto land, just the HUD, which I prefer to autoland, keeps your head in the game.

 

[dink]

For auto land you loose 1 of the two autopilots you can not shoot the CATIII approch right?

If our HUD craps out we can not shoot the catII approch. whats the diff? except our one HUD is much cheaper than keeping 2 autopilots certifed for CATIII.

During a HUD approach the FO cross checks with the steam guages if out of tollerance we go around.

The HUD is sooooooo intuitive its easy! i too have had my few token sim fo flown HUD approaches. Its a no brainer. keep the small circle within the large one, speed trend bar, power trend bar. Any private pilot could do it. It makes you look like the pilot you think you are. Relly cool piece of equipment. if it breaks we dont use it and goaroud. Dont need 2 of them.

All this compairing of airline safety records why? so we all have different cultures and training departments. Great! lets keep it that way. I for one dont want more rules shoved down my throat by the FAA trying to make every airline the same. Our system works and for that matter so do all the outher airlines! since the broken rudder in NY in nov 2001 how many people have been killed in an american registered 100 plus seat part 121 airline flight. ONLY ONE that i know of!!!! that was ours darn it. This is an incredible safety record! Im not 100% sure on these numbers but here goes. The US airlines carry 600millon pax a year on 6 millon flights. 2.4 billon people and 24 millon flights. ONE fatal in 4 years. WOW!

guys we are doing great. all of us!

 

[Afterprop]

OK, its too early for me right now, but how / where does one do the searches on the NTSB that Matt did. . . just want to do some research on my own.
Thanks in advance,
'Props

 

[Tejas-Jet]

The current industry standard flying into very low visibility conditions is accomplished by means of a “monitored approach” procedure which is an autopilot approach closely monitored by both pilots actively and equally and culminates in a autopilot landing or autopilot missed approach. However, Southwest uses a Head Up Display (HUD) instead. This is fine piece of equipment, but it is only on the captain’s side of the aircraft. The first officer does not have access to the same level of precise information as the captain and is therefore less able to identify a less than favorable approach and landing developing.

Have to disagree with the writer here.....SWA does have its own version of a "Montiored Approach" just as other airlines have their own versions of a "monitored approach". All are approved by each airlines FAA POI ( an FAA person assigned to oversee that particular airlines operation.)

First off, the writer states that a Monitored Approach culminates in an autopilot landing or autopilot missed approach....wrong !!! A "Monitored Approach" can also culminate in a hand flown ( with HUD) landing or hand flown ( with HUD) missed approach. Does not have to be flown with the autopilot.

The First Officer has the same information that the Captain sees on the HUD, except that it is in a different format. In addition, the F/O has the responsibility for making critical deviation callouts if they occur. Below 500' the system goes into a more precise mode that allows for an "Approach Warning" should the slightest deviation occur. If that happens, then a Missed Approach is initiated.

The F/O is never "less able to identify a less than favorable approach and landing developing."

The HUD system was pioneered by Alaska Airlines and the first hand-flown HUD CAT-III approach was in an Alaska Airlines B-727. Today all their 737's are HUD equipped, and, if I am not mistaken, most of the Horizon Airlines aircraft are also HUD equipped. Another airline that used the HUD was Morris Air, which was aquired by SWA in 1994. This is not a new phenomenon.

I have also, in my career, had the oppoetunity to have flown 737's that had all the "bells and whistles", auto-throttles and auto land systems. I've also flown 737's with the hand flown HUD and have found both to be just as safe as the other. I can do it either way, but I should add that I have fallen in love with the HUD. The HGS system is also less costly to buy and maintain than an auto-land system.

Clearly the writer, either has little or no experience with the HGS system or just doesn't understand how it all works.

Tejas

 

[Alcatraz]

3. Do you use auto-throttles during the HUD type Cat-3 approach?

Autothrottles are semipermanently deactivated at SWA, for many reasons. Personally I think the 737 autothrottles are too abrupt, and I can be smoother myself. From what I remember at another 737 operator, autoland won't work without autothrottles, so we HAVE to use the HUD for CatIIIA approaches.

I think we got our first HUDs from Morris, so perhaps we can thank Dave Neeleman for that capability! (but maybe I'm wrong)

The guys that comment on the safety issues with the HUD have obviously never flown with one... it's easy as heck to fly for the CA, and easy for the FO to monitor ("easy" is relative, I guess!).

Fly safe all, and sorry for bringing back a 24 hour old thread...

 

[eivieichn]

.........

 

[eivieichn]

This could be an indicator as to what may be coming of this accident investigation.



NTSB PRESS RELEASE
******************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 6, 2006
SB-06-19

********************************************

NTSB ACTING CHAIRMAN REITERATES THE IMPORTANCE OF
TRAINING IN AVIATION SAFETY


**********************************************


Washington, DC - National Transportation Safety Board Acting Chairman
Mark V. Rosenker yesterday emphasized the importance of airline industry
training.

"The safety of this industry is critical, and there is work to be
done," said Acting Chairman Rosenker, at the 2006 World and Regional
Airline Training Conference. "The government and industry must remain
vigilant of the importance of good training in accident prevention."

In his speech, he stated that there have been numerous tragic major
airline accidents throughout the years in which inadequate training in the
areas of operations and maintenance was causal or
contributory. Fortunately, major aviation accidents involving fatalities are
becoming a rare event in the United States, but there is still much work to
be done, both in this country and throughout the world.

Through its accident investigations, the Safety Board has become
more aware that we are in an age when aircraft are getting larger, aircraft
systems are getting more complex, and flight crews have been reduced by
one-third. A fundamental tenant of any training program must be to
ensure that flight crews master all normal, abnormal, and emergency
aspects of flight operations.

Rosenker noted that advances in technologies have created new
challenges. While advanced flight management systems training appears
to take a bigger slice out of minimum training requirements, teaching and
training basic airmanship skills must remain a core competency of the
training curriculum.

"We need to always seek ways to make the aviation industry safer,
whether through improvements in training curriculum or maintenance
training devices, and by embracing new technology in the aviation training
industry. The aviation industry is constantly pushing the envelope of
technology, and we must make sure that we update our training
requirements and approaches to keep up with the technology," Rosenker
said.

The full text of the speech is available on the NTSB website at:
www.ntsb.gov

Media Contact: Keith Holloway, (202) 314-6100