Fire warning light

[Autothrust Blue]

Now, I would more than likely return to my departure airport, simply because there would be no way for the engine to indicate a real fire (though, I flew 402s without fire loops and survived just fine*). 200-1/2 wouldn't change my decision; I can fly an ILS.

Yes, I forgot that part. Me too. In fact, the system is designed such that any instrument rated pilot may shoot any approach for which special authorization is not required successfully.

 

[Hacker15e]

To paraphrase MikeD, "who is the man, who can slam any jam...SHAQ...SHAQ!"

Well, to make the point more pointed, airmanship and judgment are characteristics that transcend particulars of specific airframes, companies, or even operating environments.

Don't get me wrong -- just like the company procedure JTrain references, my corner of the flying world also has procedures that have to be followed. In fact, in my current world, the procedures are called "technical orders", and are legally considered "orders" that military personnel are legally obligated to follow (and can face prosecution if aren't followed).

But my "company" also recognizes that checklists don't cover every situation, nor expect blind adherence to the technical orders without use of airmanship and judgment. We're taught a methodology of how to handle emergencies in which "taking the proper action" does not always mean "haul out the checklist and follow the steps as printed".

Regardless of all that, airmanship and judgment are characteristics that the pilot brings to his operating environment; he is not endowed it by that environment (although most certainly there are opportunities to develop and nurture it there). Checklists, procedures, FOMs, QRCs, and the like all have to be applied in flight through a pilot's prism of his airmanship and judgment. That airmanship and judgment is also portable, thus a pilot is just as able to use it on the weekend flying his Cub (where there isn't a 6-inch binder full of QRC and pages of FOM to guide him) as well as his 'day job' flying a commuter class airplane.

 

[USMCmech]

If we don't get them out, read them, and then do what it says, then we're not operating the way we're trained, and we're operating outside the bounds of what the FAA has signed off for the air carrier.

John, do you want to be a pilot or a lawyer?

Lawyers show up after the accident and spend weeks second guessing the pilot who has to make split second decisions. They operate in the fairy tale world of theory, while pilots work in the real world. If you are in the pointy end of an airplane, I suggest you leave law school on the ground.

As you can guess, I have little respect for the profession of law.

 

[jtrain609]

John, do you want to be a pilot or a lawyer?

Lawyers show up after the accident and spend weeks second guessing the pilot who has to make split second decisions. They operate in the fairy tale world of theory, while pilots work in the real world. If you are in the pointy end of an airplane, I suggest you leave law school on the ground.

As you can guess, I have little respect for the profession of law.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Ahhh, yet again we reach the point where it's necessary to point out that there's a lot more to professional aviation than flying commuter-class aircraft.

Come on Hacker...That was a cheap shot... The majors do it the same way.

The FAA NO LONGER wants crews memorizing emergency checklists. All they want memorized is an initial stabilizing action item. In a multi-crew environment one pilot is going to fly the plane and the other is going to be head down running the checklist. Some of the these checklist are quite long and highly detailed and can take a lot of time to run. There are a couple of checklists on the 727 that take two people the run and will take 10-20 minutes to complete depending where the problem is located and how much time has to be spent waiting and observing various indicators for change. Running an EP from memory will get you pink slipped in the airlines during a sim ride. Do it for real and not have something work out and the FAA can prove it say hi to a 91.113 violation and a 709 ride.






I understand why the fight pilots do it the way they do it. You may not have time to read the checklist, or have your hands full of damaged aircraft, or still being shot at so you have to have it memorized.

 

[Hacker15e]

Come on Hacker...That was a cheap shot... The majors do it the same way.

Not intended at all to be a cheap shot...the intent was exactly what was written. The use of the term "commuter" wasn't in any way a reference to the place where JTrain works (ergo, not talking about the type of airline), it WAS a reference to airplanes that haul people around, are certificated as "commuter class" aircraft, and operate under pt 121 rules. The majors, obviously, are also in this group.

Frequently on this site members will make sweeping statements about what "is" with respect to various subjects, yet said statements aren't necessarily true outside of commercial commuter flying operations. My intent was simply to remind that JTrain's statement...

then we're not operating the way we're trained, and we're operating outside the bounds of what the FAA has signed off for the air carrier.

...while it most certainly applies to the type of flying he's talking about, is NOT a universal statement that covers the entirety of the professional flying spectrum.

I am perfectly aware that the type of flying which comprises the majority of my experience (single-pilot, high performance military jet flying) is also not representative of all corners of the flying world, either. I do, however, highly value the core concepts of airmanship, judgment, decisionmaking, etc, that DO apply across the spectrum of flying types, and constantly try and understand what the "rest of the world" understands and believes to be true.

We are all raised with certain prejudices and view the world through a prism made up of our particular experiences. We tend to believe that the way we've been taught, or the lessons we've learned, or the way things are done in "our part" of the flying community is the right way. Often, we fail to realize that for most of us, our particular experiences only represent a very small portion of the overall flying community, and that there are many other ways, many other procedures, many other methods which are also just as valid as the ones you hold true, and which are only applicable in other areas and not in yours.

There are, however, some 'universal truths' that apply everywhere...and I was simply attempting to say that one of those universal truths is (as posted on the last page) that checklist adherence is never a substitute for airmanship and judgment.

 

[Hacker15e]

I understand why the fight pilots do it the way they do it. You may not have time to read the checklist, or have your hands full of damaged aircraft, or still being shot at so you have to have it memorized.

True statement...but I also have experience in a multi-pilot commuter class aircraft as well, and understand completely how and why those techniques and procedures work...and I still stand behind my previous belief.

I'm not advocating to disregard what the checklist says. I'm not advocating that it should all be memorized and one should never have to reference it.

 

[amorris311]

I'm not advocating to disregard what the checklist says. I'm not advocating that it should all be memorized and one should never have to reference it.

I agree that it is a balance and that it depends on the situation. I think it is safe to say that we have all done something that has not been SOP in order to accomplish something without compromising safety.

 

[jtrain609]

True statement...but I also have experience in a multi-pilot commuter class aircraft as well, and understand completely how and why those techniques and procedures work...and I still stand behind my previous belief.

I'm not advocating to disregard what the checklist says. I'm not advocating that it should all be memorized and one should never have to reference it.

Transport category, BTW. Commuter category is stuff like 1900's and Metro's.

 

[Hacker15e]

Transport category, BTW. Commuter category is stuff like 1900's and Metro's.

Noted, thanks.

 

[MikeD]

Transport category, BTW. Commuter category is stuff like 1900's and Metro's.

Regional riff-raff all, regardless.

 

[jtrain609]

Regional riff-raff all, regardless.

Piece of crap hacks, without a doubt, but let's be accurate about what kinda crap we're crapping on

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Not intended at all to be a cheap shot...the intent was exactly what was written. The use of the term "commuter" wasn't in any way a reference to the place where JTrain works (ergo, not talking about the type of airline), it WAS a reference to airplanes that haul people around, are certificated as "commuter class" aircraft, and operate under pt 121 rules. The majors, obviously, are also in this group.

Frequently on this site members will make sweeping statements about what "is" with respect to various subjects, yet said statements aren't necessarily true outside of commercial commuter flying operations. My intent was simply to remind that JTrain's statement...



...while it most certainly applies to the type of flying he's talking about, is NOT a universal statement that covers the entirety of the professional flying spectrum.

I am perfectly aware that the type of flying which comprises the majority of my experience (single-pilot, high performance military jet flying) is also not representative of all corners of the flying world, either. I do, however, highly value the core concepts of airmanship, judgment, decisionmaking, etc, that DO apply across the spectrum of flying types, and constantly try and understand what the "rest of the world" understands and believes to be true.

We are all raised with certain prejudices and view the world through a prism made up of our particular experiences. We tend to believe that the way we've been taught, or the lessons we've learned, or the way things are done in "our part" of the flying community is the right way. Often, we fail to realize that for most of us, our particular experiences only represent a very small portion of the overall flying community, and that there are many other ways, many other procedures, many other methods which are also just as valid as the ones you hold true, and which are only applicable in other areas and not in yours.

There are, however, some 'universal truths' that apply everywhere...and I was simply attempting to say that one of those universal truths is (as posted on the last page) that checklist adherence is never a substitute for airmanship and judgment.

I understand Hacker, the way your post read with "commuter class" reads like a slam to those of us that have been in the commuters and now major. as the commuters (aka regionals) have been viewed in a negative light in the last several years in regards to training and experience level of the pilots. Yes I am stereo typing the regionals.

I agree that a lot of us tend to believe our way is the best way but also a lot of us can see the reasoning why the military does it one way in fighters and different from regionals and majors. Back in my CFI days I worked with couple of fighter pilots that wanted to get checked out at our school for the 172 and 172RG. It was fun trying to getting them used to the speed or lack of and the way checklists are used in this side of flying. One guy we signed off in only a couple flights. The other guy we sent packing. I quite frankly don't know how he was still flying fighters with the attitude he had, his refusal to take any kind of instruction and had an ego that was gigantic. I guess he was one of the 10% of aholes that every place has.

What we all need to realize is that the way the airlines do something may not fit how the military does the same thing or it is done in smaller GA aircraft. I agree that no checklist or book can replace sound judgement, airmanship and decision making. Unfortunately, most of learn it the hard way.

 

[Hacker15e]

Back in my CFI days I worked with couple of fighter pilots that wanted to get checked out at our school for the 172 and 172RG. It was fun trying to getting them used to the speed or lack of and the way checklists are used in this side of flying. One guy we signed off in only a couple flights. The other guy we sent packing. I quite frankly don't know how he was still flying fighters with the attitude he had, his refusal to take any kind of instruction and had an ego that was gigantic. I guess he was one of the 10% of aholes that every place has.

One of the interesting things about military flying, and tactical flying in particular, is that the focus is on the "mission" portion of the flight. The stuff that happens in between the time we cross into bad guy territory, enter the MOA or range, and turn the MASTER ARM on. The things that we do starting at that point are what define us as tactical aviators, and that's consequently where we focus 99% of our effort and expertise.

Everything around that time of the flight -- starting, taking off, flying out to the MOA/range/battle lines, and then the reverse to go back and land after the mission -- is called "admin", or "admnistration". It's really considered the least important portion of the flight...although it's certainly important in it's own right, it never wins the war, shoots the MiG down, or bombs the evil dictator's mansion.

Unfortunately, this "admin" portion of the flight is what comprises 99% of civilian aviation. Most tactical guys don't really take pride in accomplishment of these portions of the flight; we don't sit back in the bar after the debrief and reflect on that awesome ILS down to 200 & 1/2. We don't care about touching the nosewheel down within an inch of centerline. The smoothness and efficiency of the enroute descent to the FAF is never debriefed (unless it's completely heinous). Our ability to set just the right fuel flow during cruise such that we saved time/saved fuel is not pondered.

The prestart/start/taxi/takeoff/climb/cruise/descent/before landing/after landing/engine shutdown checklists usually fall into that same category. Although it's highly important to perform these checklists correctly, it's just not feasible to have the checklist open, on your knee, and referenced for every step in order in sequence. It's significantly more logical to have the checklist memorized, and then to reference it quickly to review and ensure no items were omitted (think about performing that descent check while you're flying in formation, on the wing in the weather, preparing for an instrument approach -- you just don't have enough hands and enough eyeballs to do both).

So...what does this have to do with civil flying?

Most tactical guys (most of whom have very little interest in civil aviation anyway, but that's another story) don't internalize that they must shift gears into a different thought process when they are flying in the non-tactical world. Again, back to the point about biases and prejudices, there are many fighter dudes who think that "the way it's done in fighters" is the way it should be done everywhere, and try to apply that "this is only admin" sensibility to other types of flying. This is the thought process that leads to stories like you, and many other CFIs, have. I'm sure there are plenty of sim instructors at airlines who have similar stories about fighter guys going through initial training to fly <insert commercial aircraft here>.

I'm perfectly aware that the methodology and procedures that I use after climbing in to a F-15E are completely different than the ones I use after strapping in to the front end of a King Air, and both of those are different than the ones I'll use strapping into a Cessna 150 or 172. To me, the 'skill' is being able to adapt when learning, and then correctly apply the standards, methods, and procedures specific to that aircraft and that operating environment (so far as the 'monkey skills' go -- I bring the combined airmanship of all those different types of flying with me no matter which aircraft I'm in, AND continue to learn and adapt that airmanship based on new knowledge and experiences).

There are tons of people from my community who don't, unfortunately.

 

[MikeD]

To add to Hacker's comments; during flight briefs, the "admin" will usually be briefed first, both coming and going.....and it's kept brief as most of it can be labled "standard". That then leaves the rest of the brief time available for briefing the "meat" of the mission......the actual emplyoment we're going to be doing. That kind of gives a sense of where the aforementioned "admin" items fall in importance. As Hacker said, whereas a civil guy will be excited over the 200- 1/2 ILS he shot to a landing; to us, it's a trivial and miniscule annoyance we have to accomplish in order to return from having done our real job at the target area.

The only exception to this I've seen are USN tactical aviators, the ones Ive encountered in combat being more concerned about their carrier landing score than of their bombs on target.

 

[C-182 flyer]

The only exception to this I've seen are USN tactical aviators, the ones Ive encountered in combat being more concerned about their carrier landing score than of their bombs on target.

Because if you don't land on the boat, you don't get to eat!

Well put by both Hacker and MikeD. Most pilots just don't realize what is important in a tactical flight and what needs to be briefed/debriefed, if you are not good at the admin portion (ground ops, check in, take off, en route, tanking, RTB, instrument approach, overhead, etc), you better start looking for another job.

 

[MikeD]

Because if you don't land on the boat, you don't get to eat!

Ha! Agreed, now that its put in that context!

Well put by both Hacker and MikeD. Most pilots just don't realize what is important in a tactical flight and what needs to be briefed/debriefed, if you are not good at the admin portion (ground ops, check in, take off, en route, tanking, RTB, instrument approach, overhead, etc), you better start looking for another job.

As you know, there's just no time to waste on the benign admin stuff, so its kept to the bare minimum and standard where applicable. Like a formation flight, where the quality of the initial radio check-in sets the tone for whether the flight is going to be a clown-act or not, so does the execution of the no-brainer (as compared to the mission details) admin items.

 

[///AMG]

And as a RAG guy, it is a small victory every time I have a flight where the debrief includes "admin...I have nothing, tacadmin....I have nothing". At this point in life, that is a win for me, and doing well in the tactical portion of the flight is just gravy. I'm sure that changes later on though

 

[Bandit_Driver]

It is definately a different perspective you gave me about admin portion. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to portray all mil aviators as ego maniacs. The F16 guy I did my 737 type did a great job by the end and was a fast study. He went from not really getting the old school autopilot and flight director (dual cue and it doesn't talk to the autopilot) to being completely proficient 4 days later on the entire plane. He also wasn't afraid to ask for help either. We spent a lot time in the bar going over stuff since I already new the plane and had over 1000 hours using that autopilot / Flight director system and also had HUD experience so I could correlate between the different symbology on how info is presented. It was a fun time for both. The IP ribbed him though on his first v1 cut as the heading went away in the hurry and pointed out the rudder pedal thingy's on the floor....60 minutes later it was my turn to get ribbed as I completely forgot under wing engine airplanes pitch up rapidly during go arounds and I wasn't expecting...That was a fun ride for me...

From my reading, history and discovery channel I think the USN guys are so freaked by their landing scores because their wings are highly tied to it and can get ground in a hurry if you aren't safe. I also found amusing the anaolgy I heard about landing on a carrier. Put a stamp in the middle of the room then stick your tongue out, dive and lick it. A night landing is the same thing just turn all the lights of... I would love to be a pax for just one trap and cat shot. That has to be an aweseom ride...

 

[EDUC8-or]

If I have no other indications of a fire, can see the engine, and can see it's not on fire I would let it run and return to the field. If I couldn't get back into the departure airport I would consider what is suitable for the current situation, get the weather, and head there. As far as suitable is concerned we're probably going to need some sort of maintenance and it can't hurt if they have CFR available just in case. I would have a hard time continuing to my destination with a fire warning.

That being said, I fly one of those shiny RJ's and I can't see the engines on the airplane. I would level off at 1000' AGL, accelerate to VT, clean the airplane up, then begin a climb, and call for the QRH for an engine fire. I would ask for vectors back to the departure airport, if the weather is below CAT 1 minimums I would ask ATC to find me somewhere with good weather and point us in that direction while we work on putting out the fire. I don't care if it's just an indication, if the fire light is on I would hit the fire push and blow the bottle(s). The airplane will climb on one engine and they make airport specific engine out procedures for these situations. I wouldn't have any problem defending my decision if I blew a bottle into a perfectly good engine if I thought we were on fire.

I think there is a need for immediate action items, but have a bazillion seems unnecessary. In a crew environment there's no need to start grabbing levers and pushing buttons before you assess the situation, this can cause bad things to happen. We're not single pilot and don't have bad guys on our tail, so our workload is considerably lower. Just as you train specifically for single pilot military/91/135 ops we train to operate effectively using 2 crewmembers.