Life at Compass

Seggy said:
They don't know the 3:1 rule?
Click to expand...

Let me say it like this.

When I was at XJT, we had to do a pure visual approach in the sim. At the time, I thought that it was a terrible idea, and that it was a situation that'd almost never come up in the real world. How often do we do a pure visual approach, with no electronic guidance, and no PAPI or VASI?

It turns out, it happens.

In training for that approach in the sim, you had to come up with some way of factoring in the 3:1 rule, since the sim was going to give you an absolutely horrible visual reference for whether you were high or low. Because of that, we'd put the runway in the FMS to get the distance from the end of the runway, and you'd get the 3:1 values hammered into your head. At 1 mile you should be at 300', 2 miles, 600', etc. Eventually you stopped thinking about it and were able to quickly reference height to distance on that 3:1 ratio in the same way you read any other instrument.

With how good the VNAV is in the 175, and with the profile view being right there, showing you whether you're high or low, and then a trend vector showing you how changing the pitch of the aircraft affects your ability to go through a fix at the right altitude, I think that a lot of this more basic knowledge has been dropped by the wayside.

In my experience, not having to think about 3:1 ratios on the fly has resulted in guys not knowing whether they're high or low. I'd say the majority of new guys go and configure early in order to make sure that they're on altitude and speed when they hit the marker. And honestly? I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Dropping the gear, slowing the aircraft down, and making sure that you hit the marker altitude 3-4 miles early isn't going to get you in any trouble, it's just less efficient than going right through it while still decelerating. But some guys are really, really, really hesitant to drop the gear, slow the plane down, and get to where you need to be early. I don't know if it's because they think that they're less awesome if they do it that way, or if captains have ridiculed them for doing so, but the results aren't normally good.

Hence, you end up on the 7:1 ratio and end up trying again.
 
jtrain609 said:
Let me say it like this.

When I was at XJT, we had to do a pure visual approach in the sim. At the time, I thought that it was a terrible idea, and that it was a situation that'd almost never come up in the real world. How often do we do a pure visual approach, with no electronic guidance, and no PAPI or VASI?

It turns out, it happens.

In training for that approach in the sim, you had to come up with some way of factoring in the 3:1 rule, since the sim was going to give you an absolutely horrible visual reference for whether you were high or low. Because of that, we'd put the runway in the FMS to get the distance from the end of the runway, and you'd get the 3:1 values hammered into your head. At 1 mile you should be at 300', 2 miles, 600', etc. Eventually you stopped thinking about it and were able to quickly reference height to distance on that 3:1 ratio in the same way you read any other instrument.

With how good the VNAV is in the 175, and with the profile view being right there, showing you whether you're high or low, and then a trend vector showing you how changing the pitch of the aircraft affects your ability to go through a fix at the right altitude, I think that a lot of this more basic knowledge has been dropped by the wayside.

In my experience, not having to think about 3:1 ratios on the fly has resulted in guys not knowing whether they're high or low. I'd say the majority of new guys go and configure early in order to make sure that they're on altitude and speed when they hit the marker. And honestly? I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Dropping the gear, slowing the aircraft down, and making sure that you hit the marker altitude 3-4 miles early isn't going to get you in any trouble, it's just less efficient than going right through it while still decelerating. But some guys are really, really, really hesitant to drop the gear, slow the plane down, and get to where you need to be early. I don't know if it's because they think that they're less awesome if they do it that way, or if captains have ridiculed them for doing so, but the results aren't normally good.

Hence, you end up on the 7:1 ratio and end up trying again.
Click to expand...

The other week I may or may not have hopped back into a simulator for a certain jurassic era jet. First order of business, getting made fun of for forgetting that I have to actually use my throttle hand in air; followed by some some steep turns.

Then off to the the JFK Parkway Visual 13L.

No FMS, no GPS...
"Ok, lets see I'm 5 miles out I should be at..."
"Put the airport in the center of the windshield. Good. Keep it there"
 
jtrain609 said:
Unless you're on the SADDE and you're cut loose for a visual to 24R.

Me: "Alright, so we're at like 8 miles and 6,000' and we just got cleared for the visual. I can ask to go out a little further, what do you think?" as I reach for the gear handle.

FO: "Flaps 1."

Me: "You sure?"

FO: "Flaps 1."

Me: "Alright."

*2 minutes later*

Me: "1,000', unstable, go around."

FO: "I don't know what went wrong!"
Click to expand...

Usually because they were given SMO at 7000 and then descend to 3000 and when SOCAL asks for 180 they just leave it in FLCH...

OMG HOW ARE WE HIGH?!?
 
ClarkGriswold said:
When you're getting slam dunked at 210+ then they tell you to slow to 180 there is.
Click to expand...

What's the problem? You reduce your descent rate in order to get the speed down and the flaps out. Controllers want you descending at 3,000 FPM while decelerating? This isn't an EMB-145, it won't happen, and if that doesn't work with their sequencing then it's their mistake.
 
jtrain609 said:
What's the problem? You reduce your descent rate in order to get the speed down and the flaps out. Controllers want you descending at 3,000 FPM while decelerating? This isn't an EMB-145, it won't happen, and if that doesn't work with their sequencing then it's their mistake.
Click to expand...
You're right it is their mistake but it can be managed just fine if you take it out of FLCH, VS even 500 fpm helped alot, instead of leveling off while slowing and not realizing why you're high afterwards and they turn you inside the marker for the visual. Million ways to skin the cat but FLCH isn't ideal ALL the time.
 
Last edited:
SpiceWeasel said:
Just use the boards to slow. Oh wait, if you're at Flaps 2, Embraer thinks the boards are done for the day.
Click to expand...
i-am-le-tired.jpg
 
ClarkGriswold said:
You're right it is their mistake but it can be managed just fine if you take it out of FLCH, VS even 500 fpm helped alot, instead of leveling off while slowing and not realizing why you're high afterwards and they turn you inside the marker for the visual. Million ways to skin the cat but FLCH isn't ideal ALL the time.
Click to expand...

Where is the triple like button? I have flown with very experienced pilots where that was go-to vertical mode on all climbs and decents. Vertical speed / FPA, man. It's a beautiful thing.
 
PropSettin' said:
Where is the triple like button? I have flown with very experienced pilots where that was go-to vertical mode on all climbs and decents. Vertical speed / FPA, man. It's a beautiful thing.
Click to expand...

Do I understand you to say that experienced pilots always used FLCH, and you think that it's wrong?
 
I was one of the people who, initially, wanted to use FLCH when descending in the flight levels.

That comes from my time in the B300, which did not have autothrottles. Thus, FLCH was a good way to -- get this -- "change flight levels" because the airplane didn't automatically go to flight idle when a descent in FLCH was commanded.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
You're right it is their mistake but it can be managed just fine if you take it out of FLCH, VS even 500 fpm helped alot, instead of leveling off while slowing and not realizing why you're high afterwards and they turn you inside the marker for the visual. Million ways to skin the cat but FLCH isn't ideal ALL the time.
Click to expand...
Is this really that different than just slowing incrementally from 250 to 210 add flaps one, 210 to 180 add flaps 2? All the while being in FLCH? (Speed brake as necessary) As long as you don't whip it back quickly to 180 from 250 I feel like a shallow VS descent is accomplishing the same as pitching for airspeed with the throttles at idle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top