777 strikes approach lights on departure 9/15

[Autothrust Blue]

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.

Awkwardly, SFO does NOT do "RNAV to (TYDYE | SSTIK | MDBAY)" etc. as their departures are not (completely) runway dependent, except for the ones that are.

It should really be a good 'sanity check' they do there, as if I've loaded the SSTIK instead of the TRUKN or whatever because I'm a klutz, I would rather not find out when LNAV flashes in reverse magenta video.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

I've been at the top of the alley in DTW about to hear out to somewhere like MSP which would generally be the west complex, then ground gives us a runway change and a complex, non-standard taxi instruction to 21R including intersections, taxiing on runways, crossing a runway with a "pass behind A", "B will wait" your "sequence is behind C", "Contact ground at D" and you can just smell your copilots brain sizzle.

So now you have to both confirm you've heard the right thing, someone's head's in the FMS, sending for new performance data and re-inserting runways.

I'm "that guy" taxiing slowly or asking for somewhere to pull off and get caught up that you've complained about.

Lol! Yeah. BTDT. Except, I had no one's brain to smell. Single pilot 135 with an autopilot. The autopilot maintained Zen-like detachment from the situation.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Sometimes life without a box seems nice.

I rather liked having a "dumb" GPS, but there are some pretty amazing gee-whiz capabilities on the not-stupid 175 FMS.

IDK. Doing an RNAV departure off the ground makes life easier at many airports.

It's also funny when the ground tracks of those RNAV DPs, created at some large expense I am sure, precisely overlay how you flew the old "ground-based nav" departures.

 

[Nick]

I hate taxiing in DTW. One of the most asinine things I've seen in my career is being at 3N going to 21R. Call up on 121.8,"right on U, short U8, contact ground on 119.45."

That's like 50 yards of taxi requiring it's own frequency.

I also love that most captains find 9L approaching M the best time to have me fire up the other engine. "If you don't mind, I'd like to wait until we are on M."

Q: Why does DTW have four ground control frequencies?









A: In case three are stolen.

 

[Blackhawk]

I rather liked having a "dumb" GPS, but there are some pretty amazing gee-whiz capabilities on the not-stupid 175 FMS.

It's also funny when the ground tracks of those RNAV DPs, created at some large expense I am sure, precisely overlay how you flew the old "ground-based nav" departures.

1. No they don't. Especially places like ATL.
2. Cuts down on comma quite a bit when given the descend or climb via.
3. I can think of a number of mountainous airports that had high departure mins before RNAV departures came along.

 

[Seggy]

I already answered that in my original post Seggy. The two situations are completely different.

I don't know if you are being consistent here with some of your ideas in this thread compared to the other thread.

Confirming what runway you're pulling onto........ie- checking the HSI against the numbers painted on the asphalt in front of you.......is FAR less complex than inputting a runway change into an FMS, for the reasons I stated. And is being done at a critical phase flight of time where attention needs to be outside and written checklists complete, not inside.

Hence, why I don't think confirming what runway you're taxiing onto needs to be a checklist item.

Whereas inputting a runway change into an FMS or doing whatever is necessary to get that done, can be an SOP or a checklist, depending on what workload is required to accomplish it.

The bottom line is it boils down to knowing where you are. Confirming your runway on the HSI and number painted in front of you confirms where you are. So does properly reprogramming the FMS to properly sequence the departure. Airlines, with teams of folks have determined how they want both items handled for a reason.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

1. No they don't. Especially places like ATL.
2. Cuts down on comma quite a bit when given the descend or climb via.
3. I can think of a number of mountainous airports that had high departure mins before RNAV departures came along.

(1) They don't let me in that place.
(2) Indeed, although I've been given "comply with published restrictions" in a previous non-RNAV life.
(3) I haven't had the pleasure, although I can think of a few places we used to go where it was suspect without advanced RNAV.

 

[MikeD]

The bottom line is it boils down to knowing where you are. Confirming your runway on the HSI and number painted in front of you confirms where you are. So does properly reprogramming the FMS to properly sequence the departure. Airlines, with teams of folks have determined how they want both items handled for a reason.

I'm being fully consistent. I've already explained it. Whether an SOP or a checklist items, depends on a number of factors that I cited.

 

[mshunter]

Q: Why does DTW have four ground control frequencies?









A: In case three are stolen.

Ugh. Most convoluted mess I've ever had the displeasure of. I'd rather go to LGA.

 

[ASpilot2be]

IDK. Doing an RNAV departure off the ground makes life easier at many airports.

That does sound pretty amazing. But the number of those procedures is very slim in Alaska.

I rather liked having a "dumb" GPS, but there are some pretty amazing gee-whiz capabilities on the not-stupid 175 FMS.

It's also funny when the ground tracks of those RNAV DPs, created at some large expense I am sure, precisely overlay how you flew the old "ground-based nav" departures.

I think the biggest think I would like from a box is the ability to LPV. I do enjoy my "dumb" GPS a lot though.

 

[derg]

I think the big driver for us was also adding 10/28 in ATL, getting rid of the N/W and S/E departures and going with RNAV (N/W was the north complex, S/E was the south complex) and getting the numbers "On the roll" to keep our gate "latency" low and to prove to ACS that those all weren't "crew didn't read checklist/pilot delays".

Fix a problem, break what wasn't broke.

Fix what's broken, create a new problem.

Fix THAT problem, another problem manifests itself.

 

[Blackhawk]

That does sound pretty amazing. But the number of those procedures is very slim in Alaska.

I think the biggest think I would like from a box is the ability to LPV. I do enjoy my "dumb" GPS a lot though.

It's taking time, but I've seen some pop up in the Southwest US. Granted, not much IMC there but they do add a level of safety for night departures. On the flip side I know they are not as useful in other areas. I hardly ever get them out of LGA, for example, as the departures/arrivals there must mesh with the other airports JFK, EWR, HPN, TEB and to a lesser extent the outlying airports. I do think they would be useful in the NYC area, but it would take someone with knowledge of the big picture there and how winds at different airports affect the overall flows integrating all the different procedures. Not an easy task compared to someplace like Atlanta where the world revolves around Hartsfield.

 

[jtrain609]

I think the big driver for us was also adding 10/28 in ATL, getting rid of the N/W and S/E departures and going with RNAV (N/W was the north complex, S/E was the south complex) and getting the numbers "On the roll" to keep our gate "latency" low and to prove to ACS that those all weren't "crew didn't read checklist/pilot delays".

Fix a problem, break what wasn't broke.

Fix what's broken, create a new problem.

Fix THAT problem, another problem manifests itself.

Ever watch a captain read the takeoff data while on the roll and you're taxing behind them? Guys drift off the taxi line every time because they're distracted. 30 seconds later they're moving in a straight line again.

Not the best SOP decision from the guys in flight ops.

 

[typhoonpilot]

I now have verification from a Qatar Airways pilot that the selection in the OPT was something like 09R T1 in the runway list. The T1 meaning temporary for a change in the stopway, not intersection T1. That is a huge human factors mistake in the naming convention for that runway. It doesn't absolve the crew of all responsibility as they should have verified the runway length in the OPT after making that selection, but it certainly helps clarify why this happened.

Personally I would have used full length and I'm not sure why this crew did not. Perhaps that OPT selection also led them to believe that full length was not an option. Sounds strange, I know, but when crews are at unfamiliar airports those kinds of mistakes can happen.


Typhoonpilot

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I now have verification from a Qatar Airways pilot that the selection in the OPT was something like 09R T1 in the runway list. The T1 meaning temporary for a change in the stopway, not intersection T1. That is a huge human factors mistake in the naming convention for that runway. It doesn't absolve the crew of all responsibility as they should have verified the runway length in the OPT after making that selection, but it certainly helps clarify why this happened.

Personally I would have used full length and I'm not sure why this crew did not. Perhaps that OPT selection also led them to believe that full length was not an option. Sounds strange, I know, but when crews are at unfamiliar airports those kinds of mistakes can happen.

I can definitely see how that could happen. They really need to change that identifier in the takeoff data.

 

[derg]

I now have verification from a Qatar Airways pilot that the selection in the OPT was something like 09R T1 in the runway list. The T1 meaning temporary for a change in the stopway, not intersection T1. That is a huge human factors mistake in the naming convention for that runway. It doesn't absolve the crew of all responsibility as they should have verified the runway length in the OPT after making that selection, but it certainly helps clarify why this happened.

Personally I would have used full length and I'm not sure why this crew did not. Perhaps that OPT selection also led them to believe that full length was not an option. Sounds strange, I know, but when crews are at unfamiliar airports those kinds of mistakes can happen.


Typhoonpilot

That looks like an easy mistake to make.

 

[Blackhawk]

I never understood Southjet having the captain brief that while taxiing. I do prefer our method of having the FO do it.

 

[Cptnchia]

I never understood Southjet having the captain brief that while taxiing. I do prefer our method of having the FO do it.

One guy has to read it, one guy has to enter it. Or, the FO reads it and enters it, and then you have to stop and set the brake so the CA can read it and verify it. Conversely, on the augmented crews the relief FO reads it and the other FO enters it.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

One guy has to read it, one guy has to enter it. Or, the FO reads it and enters it, and then you have to stop and set the brake so the CA can read it and verify it. Conversely, on the augmented crews the relief FO reads it and the other FO enters it.

We don't really mandate how it's to be done. I print-and-read, and Captain enters, when we're standing still at the gate. On a change, I print, read, and enter, and then read off what I did once we're holding still.

I would prefer to mandate how it's done.

 

[derg]

We are print, select the uploaded takeoff data for the approrpriate runway and then both pilots review the printed information.