777 strikes approach lights on departure 9/15

[derg]

Finish him, @Nark. Cleared in hot! kidding.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I am serious. We have SOPs we have to follow, but not a checklist item. I am sure they are in place for reasons your Flight Ops team has! @MikeD your thoughts that a checklist is in place to change a runway for take off or landing?

Duuuude. Let it go.

 

[Nark]

I'm too close for missiles, switching to guns.

Alright, I'm giving myself a time out for that quote.

 

[DE727UPS]

"Honest question (to @Derg ): if you want me to stop going back and forth with Seggy, I can turn a new leaf."

Just put him on ignore. Makes this place way better.

 

[Roger Roger]

"Honest question (to @Derg ): if you want me to stop going back and forth with Seggy, I can turn a new leaf."

Just put him on ignore. Makes this place way better.

I unliked this post so I could like it a second time.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Ah. Thanks to this thread, I now realize why UA is good for late runway changes and DL usually isn't. Funny, because being SFO, it's usually United getting stuck and sometimes pissy about it. Interesting to see the operational differences like this. Maybe if the tower guys knew, they'd plan for Delta being unable to take late changes and plan accordingly. Good info as that actually is an issue with Delta having so many flights yet ATC seems to often expect them to switch at a moments notice. Knowledge is power.

 

[A Life Aloft]

Hockey = overrated

 

[ppragman]

Long thread is long.

There's a bunch of things I could hit with the props on both planes I fly and there wouldn't be an indication. Hell, the door could fly off and smack the props in the Metro and there would be no indication, other than the noise. It has happened here and the bent to hell props still made thrust and the engines ran normally. A crew that relies solely on indications and a QRH worries me. As much as of a GOM/SOP thumper that I am, you still have to use your brain to fly these things. Airplanes and their environment are too dynamic to have a policy/procedure for everything.

Maybe it's been mentioned, but did ATC tell them they struck the approach lights? If they did, and they still continued, then the crew was WAY BEYOND stupid (negligent actually) and shouldn't touch an airplane EVER again. If not, then I don't know what else there is to be argued about. Other than maybe relying on suspicion. I don't fly the 777, but a plane that long, I might have suspicions if my sightline was only 50 feet or less off the ground as I went by the threshold. In other words, whatever, we'll wait for the full report I guess.

How do you know a guy flies the metro? He'll tell you within the first three sentences.\

Oh, also, I totally agree with your point, just giving you a hard time.

 

[MikeD]

I am serious. We have SOPs we have to follow, but not a checklist item. I am sure they are in place for reasons your Flight Ops team has!

@MikeD your thoughts that a checklist is in place to change a runway for take off or landing?

In this case, it can go either way, depending on a few factors. And the main reason being that inputting a runway change when taxiing out or when inbound, isn't usually being accomplished during a critical phase of flight, ie- where one's attention is drawn to the reprogramming, when it needs to be elsewhere at that time: there's generally time to accomplish it. If taxiing out, you're still on a ramp area or a taxiway, and if approaching the field (depending on how close in the change is given) it may or may not be a rush trying to get it done.

That said, it's also dependent on how much actually has to be changed in the cockpit, to accomplish a runway change. FMS reprogramming, how much or many steps there are within? And was initially setting it up for the original runway, how complex was the checklist for that? How easy is it to make so-called fat finger errors? The actual reprogramming may not be something intuitive or may be a complex set of steps; and the actual work/steps to get it done could be different by airline, or even by aircraft type.

Dependent on all those items, would determine whether an SOP or an actual checklist to follow would be more efficient, while still being safe. Because setting up a box for new runway info, is a lot more than just confirming that you're taxiing onto a correct runway. An SOP could be standalone, or could just say "re-accomplish X checklist items for runway changes" (as Cptnchia refers to). IE- could be an SOP related to a checklist or directing you to a checklist, or an SOP by itself, or even a separate checklist by itself (this last one which would be odd, because it's just reprinting what already is done in setting up items for a runway....ie- a redundant checklist, it would be).

Six or 1/2 dozen when it comes to this, in my opinion. In terms of how quickly either an SOP or a checklist can be accomplished in making a runway change, as Chasen refers to, that's crew capability and workload dependent; one crew may be able to do it quick under a higher workload, another may take a bit to do it even under a lighter workload, and everything in between.

 

[IslandFlyer]

Let's not forget those that are flying multiple types...that can lead to erroneous inputs even when one has ample time.....

 

[Alchemy]

I still wonder if they really knew they were at an intersection and not the end. I understand they read back "Runway 9 at Tango 1", but in some places, like Hong Kong, they still read the taxiway intersection to you even if it's full length, such as "Runway 07R at K1 line and up and wait". To the best of my memory, they do it this way in the UAE and Qatar as well, although I can't say for certain as each region's ATC peculiarities begin to blend together over the years.

 

[IslandFlyer]

Good info...thanks!

 

[Blackhawk]

In this case, it can go either way, depending on a few factors. And the main reason being that inputting a runway change when taxiing out or when inbound, isn't usually being accomplished during a critical phase of flight, ie- where one's attention is drawn to the reprogramming, when it needs to be elsewhere at that time: there's generally time to accomplish it. If taxiing out, you're still on a ramp area or a taxiway, and if approaching the field (depending on how close in the change is given) it may or may not be a rush trying to get it done.

That said, it's also dependent on how much actually has to be changed in the cockpit, to accomplish a runway change. FMS reprogramming, how much or many steps there are within? And was initially setting it up for the original runway, how complex was the checklist for that? How easy is it to make so-called fat finger errors? The actual reprogramming may not be something intuitive or may be a complex set of steps; and the actual work/steps to get it done could be different by airline, or even by aircraft type.

Dependent on all those items, would determine whether an SOP or an actual checklist to follow would be more efficient, while still being safe. Because setting up a box for new runway info, is a lot more than just confirming that you're taxiing onto a correct runway. An SOP could be standalone, or could just say "re-accomplish X checklist items for runway changes" (as Cptnchia refers to). IE- could be an SOP related to a checklist or directing you to a checklist, or an SOP by itself, or even a separate checklist by itself (this last one which would be odd, because it's just reprinting what already is done in setting up items for a runway....ie- a redundant checklist, it would be).

Six or 1/2 dozen when it comes to this, in my opinion. In terms of how quickly either an SOP or a checklist can be accomplished in making a runway change, as Chasen refers to, that's crew capability and workload dependent; one crew may be able to do it quick under a higher workload, another may take a bit to do it even under a lighter workload, and everything in between.

I can only speak for my airline.
1. The FMS must be changed to reflect the runway change.
2. Our W&B/performance is done via ACARs. It is not unusual for pilots to send in more than one runway if this is a possibility so you have the data on hand. If ACARs is working getting new data for a change is not an issue. If you are in a blind spot or it decides that "it's that time of the month" getting new data can be a pain. In addition, if at an airport where an intersection departure is a possibility we will often plug in that intersection instead of (or in addition to), the full length. Since intersection data is more conservative it can be used for the full length.
3. Before we taxi we must do a performance brief. It includes the runway, flap setting, thrust setting, V-Speeds. Any time a runway changes (to include taking an intersection verses full length), we must stop and rebrief this. If we don't have the data we have to get it. If anything changed such as V-Speeds they have to be reset. Some newer airplanes take the V-Speeds from the FMS. We have to manually set ours.

 

[Cav]

In this case, it can go either way, depending on a few factors. And the main reason being that inputting a runway change when taxiing out or when inbound, isn't usually being accomplished during a critical phase of flight, ie- where one's attention is drawn to the reprogramming, when it needs to be elsewhere at that time: there's generally time to accomplish it. If taxiing out, you're still on a ramp area or a taxiway, and if approaching the field (depending on how close in the change is given) it may or may not be a rush trying to get it done.

That said, it's also dependent on how much actually has to be changed in the cockpit, to accomplish a runway change. FMS reprogramming, how much or many steps there are within? And was initially setting it up for the original runway, how complex was the checklist for that? How easy is it to make so-called fat finger errors? The actual reprogramming may not be something intuitive or may be a complex set of steps; and the actual work/steps to get it done could be different by airline, or even by aircraft type.

Dependent on all those items, would determine whether an SOP or an actual checklist to follow would be more efficient, while still being safe. Because setting up a box for new runway info, is a lot more than just confirming that you're taxiing onto a correct runway. An SOP could be standalone, or could just say "re-accomplish X checklist items for runway changes" (as Cptnchia refers to). IE- could be an SOP related to a checklist or directing you to a checklist, or an SOP by itself, or even a separate checklist by itself (this last one which would be odd, because it's just reprinting what already is done in setting up items for a runway....ie- a redundant checklist, it would be).

Six or 1/2 dozen when it comes to this, in my opinion. In terms of how quickly either an SOP or a checklist can be accomplished in making a runway change, as Chasen refers to, that's crew capability and workload dependent; one crew may be able to do it quick under a higher workload, another may take a bit to do it even under a lighter workload, and everything in between.

Runway changes have become a bigger deal than they once were because of the proliferation of runway dependent RNAV SIDs and arrivals. Mess them up and it really screws up your day. @Seggy it is my opinion that the checklist for runway change items was driven by their expanded use.

 

[derg]

Runway changes have become a bigger deal than they once were because of the proliferation of runway dependent RNAV SIDs and arrivals. Mess them up and it really screws up your day. @Seggy it is my opinion that the checklist for runway change items was driven by their expanded use.

That's what I was going to mention before I started drinking beer and developed alcoindifference last night.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I am advocating for the Delta-style "boxed items" for runway changes on the 175.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

That's what I was going to mention before I started drinking beer and developed alcoindifference last night.

Yeah, I've personally screwed this up at least one time, and filed said ASAP at least one time.

 

[Seggy]

Runway changes have become a bigger deal than they once were because of the proliferation of runway dependent RNAV SIDs and arrivals. Mess them up and it really screws up your day. @Seggy it is my opinion that the checklist for runway change items was driven by their expanded use.

I get that, thank you for sharing.

This is more for @MikeD with this philosophy, it would be appropriate to then have the runway verification a checklist item?

 

[Blackhawk]

Runway changes have become a bigger deal than they once were because of the proliferation of runway dependent RNAV SIDs and arrivals. Mess them up and it really screws up your day. @Seggy it is my opinion that the checklist for runway change items was driven by their expanded use.

The first week the ATL RNAV departures came out I was getting my CPT IOE. This was before a procedure was in place to confirm the first fix. We had a long taxi, followed by a runway change, followed by another long taxi. Took off, asked for NAV mode, autopilot on at 700' and... the airplane started going the wrong way. The check airman and I forgot to change the runway in the FMS.
Evidently we were not the only crew to do this as within a week they instituted a procedure where you had to confirm your first waypoint with tower.

 

[Snuggle]

We recently got a addition to our checklists for a departure runway change. I think it's a good thing as last minute changes tend to cause some confusion and some steps can be forgotten.