Multi Crew Pilot Licenses

ATN_Pilot said:
I came from flying BE-1900s prior to the CRJ, but I was asses and elbows during IOE on the visual approaches. Getting cleared to land abeam TDZ at 12,000 ft on downwind in MIA was easy in the 1900, because you just chop the power and the props become the biggest speed brakes you could ever hope for. The airplane practically drops straight out of the sky. A CRJ doesn't quite do the same thing. Something really slick like a 737NG is even worse. Until you get used to the energy management, you're asses and elbows. Most new RJ guys struggle for their first 2-300 hours before finally getting the hang of it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that planning in a jet takes some getting used to... Things happen quicker, and they are much harder to slow down and require some real mental planning that takes some time to get used to. But I don't agree with the other poster saying a visual approach is totally different in a jet. It's not, you're still looking outside and planning using visual references as you would with anything else.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Are you on the CJ3 like your profile says? Honestly I don't know crap about the plane I'm going into and I don't know crap about the CJ3. I've seen them use spoilers on the -900 but I'm just along for the ride. As long as we aren't upside down, surging the props, or screwing around with the power I don't pay it any attention. I'm definitely not corporate, just another airline smuck.
Click to expand...

Yes, I fly the CJ3. Let me be very clear, I'm not in any way saying that spoilers are not necessary in the air. Clearly they are, as most jets have them (and obviously they're very useful on the ground regardless of the aircraft). It's just that some (like the CJ) need them less for descents than other, heavier jets.
 
wrxpilot said:
Yes, I fly the CJ3. Let me be very clear, I'm not in any way saying that spoilers are not necessary. Clearly they are, as most jets have them. It's just that some (like the CJ) need them less than other, heavier jets.
Click to expand...

I just know that if I'm gonna be struggling for the first 2-300 hours in this jet thing I'm gonna be pretty disappointed in myself.
 
minitour said:
Wuss. :insane::yup:


Agreed. But in those situations, I don't consider it "cheating". Like ya said, probably a better word for it. It's all Gouda.:beer:

...there are some people that absolutely refuse to use them, however. I used to get in trouble for using them (on empty legs, no less)...but I've since been cut free, which is nice.

-mini
Click to expand...

Empty legs are a whole different matter!
 
jynxyjoe said:
Most guys you saw and talked to struggled? For 200-300 hours on top of that?!
Click to expand...

Yep. That seemed to be the average. Some guys were better, some worse, and it seemed completely random, without regard for their previous experience. I had one FO that had about 200 hours in the airplane and was a CFI at a popular university flight department prior to coming to PCL. We were cleared for the visual at 6,000 ft in DTW on downwind, probably about 45 degrees from the TDZ. He was an absolute mess, and never really got the airplane in enough of a descent when we turned base, despite my attempts to talk him down. We ended up incredibly high on about a 5 mile final, probably 40 knots fast. I had to take the controls, and I got him stable on the glidepath, fully configured by about 800 ft or so (500 ft was stabilized at Pinnacle), so I gave him the plane back because I didn't want to steal his landing. Within a few seconds, he got the thing all screwed up again, so I had to take the controls a second time and just barely got us stable by 500 ft. Needless to say, I had to do the landing.

That's an extreme example for a regular line captain (but pretty common for the IOE captains), but it gives you an idea of what a CRJ skipper has to deal with, even with FOs that have a couple hundred hours in type and plenty of CFI time. Never underestimate the ability of a newbie RJ FO to completely screw up a visual approach.
 
I'm late but I'll answer the question.

Visual approaches in 172s, Seminoles, and the ATR were a lot easier because due to the props you could basically make that plane do whatever you wanted it to do.

Visual approaches in jets need planning and energy management. There's really no set profile for them because ATC can clear for a visual from so many angles and everybody adds their own little flavor of technique to it. Some use spoilers to get down, some use flaps. Sometimes you're already on glidepath when they clear you, and sometimes you're sky-high and they clear you (KVPS anyone?)

And the jet due to the speed of the plane there is alot less margin for error. Like Todd said it is really easy to end up super high on final if you really don't know what you're doing. Also really easy to end of super low and cause a terrain warning. Especially at night

For me visual approaches are a numbers game. I just look at the MFD to see how far I am away from the airport I amd times that by 3 to get what altitude I should be at. This is really easy to do if you clean up the approach and stay in white needles and back up it up with the localizer and glideslope in blue. When I'm completely in green I tend to have to have to do a lot more thinking because some places the glideslope and localizer are just jumping all over the place and its really not reliable until you turn final. In some situations if you follow that glideslope before turning final you might end up extremely low.

Now while figuring out on how to get and stay on glide path you also have to consider how you will configure the aircraft. You don't want to hit the 5 mile fix to the runway at 250 knots clean as a whistle with the gear up. I plan for hitting the 5 mile fix at no more than 180 knts and flaps 8. Everything before that is up to your creativity depending on what flight situation you're in.

So to make a long story short, visual approaches in jets are harder because of the lack of a standard profile for them because there are so many different situations you can be in, and so many different ways to get it done, while bleeding off energy. A pilot has to become a master of his aircraft and energy management to create a beautiful approach.
 
Trip7 said:
I'm late but I'll answer the question.

Visual approaches in 172s, Seminoles, and the ATR were a lot easier because due to the props you could basically make that plane do whatever you wanted it to do.

Visual approaches in jets need planning and energy management. There's really no set profile for them because ATC can clear for a visual from so many angles and everybody adds their own little flavor of technique to it. Some use spoilers to get down, some use flaps. Sometimes you're already on glidepath when they clear you, and sometimes you're sky-high and they clear you (KVPS anyone?)

And the jet due to the speed of the plane there is alot less margin for error. Like Todd said it is really easy to end up super high on final if you really don't know what you're doing. Also really easy to end of super low and cause a terrain warning. Especially at night

For me visual approaches are a numbers game. I just look at the MFD to see how far I am away from the airport I amd times that by 3 to get what altitude I should be at. This is really easy to do if you clean up the approach and stay in white needles and back up it up with the localizer and glideslope in blue. When I'm completely in green I tend to have to have to do a lot more thinking because some places the glideslope and localizer are just jumping all over the place and its really not reliable until you turn final. In some situations if you follow that glideslope before turning final you might end up extremely low.

Now while figuring out on how to get and stay on glide path you also have to consider how you will configure the aircraft. You don't want to hit the 5 mile fix to the runway at 250 knots clean as a whistle with the gear up. I plan for hitting the 5 mile fix at no more than 180 knts and flaps 8. Everything before that is up to your creativity depending on what flight situation you're in.

So to make a long story short, visual approaches in jets are harder because of the lack of a standard profile for them because there are so many different situations you can be in, and so many different ways to get it done, while bleeding off energy. A pilot has to become a master of his aircraft and energy management to create a beautiful approach.
Click to expand...

So they are the same, just harder on energy management. You are always long winded.
 
jynxyjoe said:
So they are the same, just harder on energy management. You are always long winded.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. His big tip seems to be he uses the 3:1 rule, which is what I taught student pilots.

jynxjoe, I thought you'd also find it interesting that the leap from 172s to King Airs was much, much bigger for me than the leap from King Airs to Jets. I'm sure you'll have minimal difficulty in your transition, and will even find a lot of stuff easier.
 
wrxpilot said:
Yes, exactly. His big tip seems to be he uses the 3:1 rule, which is what I taught student pilots.

jynxjoe, I thought you'd also find it interesting that the leap from 172s to King Airs was much, much bigger for me than the leap from King Airs to Jets. I'm sure you'll have minimal difficulty in your transition, and will even find a lot of stuff easier.
Click to expand...

Going from the Navajo Chieftain to the Beech 1900 was an eye opener. Embarrassed myself flying that thing. The Saab is so much slower in many regards that I didn't have much transition to deal with. I'm gonna find out how spoiled I've become pretty soon (well 6 weeks or so, something like that, maybe 8).

I'd still like an answer to my question from Trip7. He talks about light twins and King Air's, I'd like to know how much time he has. He's become such a vocal role on this forum, I think it'd help a lot of us to understand what he's talking about sometimes if we knew his background. Though, I may just be forever and hopelessly floored by his opinions and comments.
 
Trip7 said:
Sometimes you're already on glidepath when they clear you, and sometimes you're sky-high and they clear you (KVPS anyone?)
Click to expand...

I love the LIT and CAK visual approaches. As soon as you're on with approach "you guys see the airport? Cleared visual".

It amazes me how many captains (and I'm sure F/O's too...I just don't fly with them) paint themselves into a corner by relying on the autopilot on a visual approach.

It obviously can be done, but to me its a lot easier just to disconnect and fly it yourself. But to each his own.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
It obviously can be done, but to me its a lot easier just to disconnect and fly it yourself. But to each his own.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, however, as much as we all don't want to admit it, 99% of the time, the autopilot flies a hell of a lot smoother than any of us. There are situations where you are cleared for a visual and there is just no way that button pushing is going to get you down, but a lot of times guys will just dump George 15 miles from the airport and then I have to sit there and watch them yank the airplane back and forth to keep the wings level for the next 5 minutes.

That said, you are right... there are guys who spend so much time trying to set up the AP to do what they want that by the time it gets going they are high and fast and then the approach just is ugly all around.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I love the LIT and CAK visual approaches. As soon as you're on with approach "you guys see the airport? Cleared visual".

It amazes me how many captains (and I'm sure F/O's too...I just don't fly with them) paint themselves into a corner by relying on the autopilot on a visual approach.

It obviously can be done, but to me its a lot easier just to disconnect and fly it yourself. But to each his own.
Click to expand...

Being bored and lazy I've become really good at doing visuals with the autopilot on white needles. The autopilot intercepts the final approach so smoothly on white needles I'm surprised they don't make us intercept in white needles before switching to green. With green needles and a lil bit of crosswind worse case scenario the autopilot will damn near come close to 27L final approach course when intercepting for 26R. I'm sure ATL ATC gets ticked off on windy days when PRMs are in effect....
 
Trip7 said:
Being bored and lazy I've become really good at doing visuals with the autopilot on white needles. The autopilot intercepts the final approach so smoothly on white needles I'm surprised they don't make us intercept in white needles before switching to green. With green needles and a lil bit of crosswind worse case scenario the autopilot will damn near come close to 27L final approach course when intercepting for 26R. I'm sure ATL ATC gets ticked off on windy days when PRMs are in effect....
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, watched the autopilot s turn its way down final on approach to CMH the other day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top