b737 fleet newsletter - contentz.mkt932.comcontentz.mkt932.com/lp/19805/176198/737 may newsletter...

In this issue…

Cool Cabins HUD AIII VNAV Path Follies Q & A As the summer approaches, I always sense a vibe that seems to develop. It has a tension to it - not good or bad, but when I contemplate it, I realize it has all the promise of summer; outdoor activities, warm nights, and family. But it also means lots of flying, tight schedules, busy airports and thunderstorms! Most of us jump right in knowing that we’ll be dealing with the seasonal challenges, on top of the expansion and training we’ve continued to absorb. Thank you in advance for what promises to be an epic summer flying season for the company. Please stay focused on our core

value of safe operations but always remember the customer and our brand strategy of being thoughtful, reliable, and innovative. With this in mind and as the temperatures rise, let’s help our customers by acknowledging, “Delta chooses to place customer comfort ahead of fuel savings in instances where external air sources are insufficient to keep the cabin comfortable”.

• Ramp testing has shown a 10 degree benefit over a 30 minute period by opening gasper vents, lowering shades and reducing lights

• External Air has limited capabilities; it can maintain temperature, not necessarily lower it.

• If you are operating gate external air and have an extensive hose length, you can expect 20 – 30 degree temperature gain in the hose.

• If you have an inoperative APU contact ramp while taxing inbound, your aircraft will be prioritized for cooling at the gate.

• Contact ramp or stations to report inoperative GSE equipment.

Captain Mike Spicuzza

Chief Line Check Pilot [email protected]

404-715-0337

This newsletter is published by the 737 Fleet and Pilot Standards Teams. It is intended to provide additional detail surrounding operational policies and procedures and aircraft technical information for the line pilots. The discussion of flight procedures herein is not intended to override or replace official guidance in the flight manuals. Where a conflict exists, the current flight manual governs. The opinions expressed are those of the Fleet Captain, Chief Line Check Pilot and/or the Fleet Technical Manager.

May 2015

B737

Fleet Newsletter

Captain Rich Kaynor Fleet Captain

Rich.Kaynor @delta.com 404-715-0333

737 Fleet Newsletter May 2015

More 737 specific technique on that in a moment… Contributors this month include Captains Wayde Kivette, Stoney Burke, Ken Gunderson, and Bob Stimpson. Keep the comments coming to help us make this newsletter a better product for you. Very Respectfully,

Mike

Cool Cabins Keeping our cabins (and cockpits) cool in the summer months is sometimes challenging. Along with the bullet points presented above, keep these 737 specific cabin cooling tips in mind: After arriving at a gate, first verify the FA’s have given the Hot Weather PA. Run the APU and keep both packs in AUTO until you have external air connected and flowing (you will hear the increase in airflow through the vent system.) Our APU is more fuel efficient (and airflow efficient) with both packs in AUTO – not with one! Once external air is flowing, turn off the packs and APU. When the forward cargo door is opened and the Recirc Fans are in AUTO, ambient air is mixed with conditioned air, diluting the conditioned air temperature delivered to the cabin. That’s why this note exists in the VOL1, p SP.2.1:

However, while the jet is being deplaned, we recommend keeping the Recircs in AUTO to deliver greater airflow while passengers are on board. Even though the temperature is diluted, with passengers on board, greater cabin airflow is more important to assuring comfort than lower temperature during deplaning. After the passengers have departed, turn the Recirc Fan switches OFF. This will allow the external air to reach the

cabin at its most efficient temperature. When the cabin begins emplaning passengers, consider turning the Reacirc Fans back on to provide higher airflow. It may be necessary to start the APU and use the packs well before we normally would (remember, passenger comfort before economy.) Also coordinate with Operations to pull the external air in this case. But let’s not forget about the cockpit. Help your fellow pilots by preparing the cockpit as well, by opening all eyelet vents, pulling the Foot Air and Windshield Air knobs, turning the Main Panel, Background, and AFDS rheostats OFF, all DU’s dimmed, and Lights Test switch to DIM. Don’t forget the isle stand and overhead Panel lights too. We can also use our window shades as much as practical.

of 15


To AIII, or not to AIII…that is the question

Okay, it’s not the AIII mode but it’s still a pretty cool picture, isn’t it? The HUD is an awesome display that enhances our situational awareness during line operations. PRI, IMC, VMC or AIII modes have their strengths and when used in the right situation provide a formidable weapon for attacking a given scenario. But can the selected mode be inappropriate for a given approach? Sure! The obvious example is selecting VMC during an IMC approach…without lateral and vertical ILS/VNAV/LNAV guidance information, the HUD does little to enhance our SA.

But what about the AIII mode? Surely it’s good for any ILS approach, right? Perhaps the following event will give us pause for consideration:

“I am a new captain on the 737 trying to get my 25 HUD AIII landings accomplished. We were flying into RSW with the vis reported at 2 miles, I briefed an AIII approach to RWY 6. We arrived at RSW with thunderstorms in the area and one over the field. ATC put us into holding on final approach course at 5000’.

“When we had about 8500 lbs. of gas remaining, an aircraft below us was cleared for the ILS to RWY 6 so we said we would like to go in also. On final and configured, tower reported HVY rain the last mile on final. Below 1000’ AGL, with the wipers on full we could barely see a momentary glimpse of approach lights with each swipe. On an AIII approach, the autopilot and autothrottles must be disconnected NLT 500’ AGL. So, at approximately 600’ AGL, I disconnected the autopilot. When I should have disconnected the autothrottles, I hit the TOGA switch instead. I lost my ILS guidance in the HUD and since I had no visual cues for the runway, I followed the GA guidance and performed a missed approach. Because of our low fuel status, we got vectors to FLL for an uneventful divert and landing.”

The reporting captain doesn’t mention whether or not he used the AIII mode on approach into FLL but we’re betting he did not after the experience he had in RSW!

Breaking it Down

While we applaud the captain’s desire to conduct the AIII training in order to self-certify 25 landings we cannot condone the decision to attempt an AIII approach given the conditions at the field. The 25 AIII approaches are to be conducted in VMC conditions, and the 2 miles visibility reported by RSW tower is pushing it.

of 15


Here’s the Airways Manual reference (from SUP-3OS.1.2):

NOTE: Non-Guidance modes do not count toward self-certification

But there is more to it than that. Gusty winds associated with convective activity are a prime factor in causing a “self-inflicted APP WARN.” More on that in a moment…

Indeed, the captain himself realized it in his Preventive Measures: “Once we saw that we were in a ‘real’ weather environment, I should have blown off the AIII training and just planned a CAT I ILS to an autoland or go-around with no need to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottles. That got us thinking…we do a pretty good job in Training and Standards teaching how to do a maneuver. But, sometimes we are somewhat lean on when it is appropriate to use a “tool” from our “toolbox,” such as the AIII mode. So, think of this article as an operational guide for using the AIII mode.

Back to School

The choice of using the AIII mode for an approach really boils down to asking the question, “what features do I have in AIII that I don’t have in any other HUD mode?” There are five operational features that distinguish the AIII mode. You may decide that using AIII is beneficial for a particular approach after considering the following features:

of 15


Flare Guidance - The AIII Flare Command (from Vol. 2, p 10.42.8)

Flare guidance is not available in PRI, IMC or VMC HUD modes. And flare guidance makes a lo-vis landing much easier for a captain when peripheral cues are diminished.

A Separate source of Guidance - The HUD Guidance Cue (from Vol. 2, p 10.42.7)

The HUD AIII guidance is generated by the HUD computer and is separate from the Flight Director guidance. It gives us a “warm and fuzzy” confidence flying down to 600 RVR when the HUD guidance and Flight Director guidance both agree!

Rollout Guidance (from Vol. 2, p 10.42.15)

The 737 autopilot does not track the localizer during rollout. So, this function helps the captain maintain runway centerline when visibility is reduced. Note that this feature is also available on a HUD

guided takeoff.

of 15


Runway Remaining (from Vol. 2, p 10.42.12)

The Runway Remaining feature is not available in any other HUD approach mode but is available for a HUD guided takeoff.

Approach Warning (from Vol. 2, p 10.42.17)

Uh oh! The dreaded APPROACH WARN!

We all should know that we must execute a missed approach if the APCH WARN or NO AIII with APCH WARN illuminates in IMC conditions. That’s bad right… but is it all bad? This bears further discussion.

The Approach Warn function is actually a good thing. Like the former Soviet Union, we’ve built it up to be a bigger threat than it actually is. In AIII, the HUD computer monitors required parameters inside the aircraft and outside. If a required tolerance is exceeded, it displays the warning. APCH WARN is only displayed below 500 AFE … it is not available the moment AIII is active. Essentially, the Approach Warning system is only working for you the last 35-40 seconds of a lo-vis approach. And that is where we really want to know if things are not going well and it keeps us in compliance with when to execute a missed approach.

The criteria are found in Vol 1, p. NOI.3.13.

If the AIII mode has been selected above 500’ and a required parameter is exceeded, what happens?

of 15


That’s right! NO AIII is displayed on the HUD and HUD annunciator panel.

If this scenario occurs on a lo-vis, autoland approach and the captain is monitoring AIII, do we have to go-around? Maybe not, if we can select another HUD mode before descending below 500’. It’s called Plan B.

Different story if the captain is hand flying the approach as it’s hard to land without descending below 500’. And it’s very difficult to obtain flare guidance without AIII mode. Okay, it’s impossible.

The Operational “When” to use AIII

Now we know the five significant features that AIII brings to the table: flare guidance, a separate guidance source, rollout guidance, runway remaining and APP WARN. When should we use AIII, then?

If you are analyzing an approach and decide that you would like to have one, or more, of the features on the list above consider the following before choosing to use AIII. We should also take a few precautions to avoid the chances of encountering a “false” APCH WARN. We can mitigate the threat of causing an unwarranted missed approach by considering two other factors.

Wind factors

First, what are the winds? You “old hats” on the airplane may remember the original equipment HGS 2350 and how susceptible it was to gusty winds triggering an APP WARN. Our HGS 4000, with its Kalman filtering, does a much better job in preventing nuisance APCH WARNs caused by wind gusts. Basically, the Kalman filter operates recursively on streams of noisy input data to produce a statistically optimal estimate of the underlying system state. Or something like that…

But the HGS 4000 is not perfect and does have its limitations.(from Vol 1, p L10.9)

of 15


So, if the winds exceed 15 knots of crosswind or are gusting significantly, using AIII mode may not be the best choice. You may be in danger of triggering a “false” APCH WARN and would have to execute a missed approach if IMC with the runway not in sight.

The reporting captain from our earlier ASAP discussion was most likely pushing his luck in selecting AIII mode while fighting the gusty winds

associated with the existing convective activity near the field. He was unknowingly setting himself up for a “self-inflicted” APP WARN in those conditions.

Are You Protected?

For a low visibility approach, that is. Have you ever practiced an AIII guided approach in visual conditions and experienced a “nuisance” APCH WARN because an aircraft taxied across your runway and “bent” the localizer. We have too!

We certainly don’t want that scenario happening to us when flying an AIII approach in IMC conditions! So, we must ensure that we are afforded the maximum protection afforded by ATC and no aircraft or vehicles are allowed to transit the ILS critical area.

From the Airway Manual, page SUP-3OS.1.2-3

of 15


To avoid triggering a “false” APCH WARN, it is a good technique to avoid conducting an AIII approach in IMC conditions unless the reported ceiling is at or below 200’ or the reported RVR is at or below 2000.

An Operational Example

Let’s say a 737 crew is operating into SLC during the fog season when ceilings and visibilities are rapidly changing up and down. On downwind, Approach Control reports RW 34L RVRs at 1800/1000/300 and calm winds. (Bonus question: is this a legal CAT III approach?)

Are there any features of AIII that the captain might find useful? Maybe rollout guidance in the last half of the runway as visibility is decreasing? Or how about runway remaining? Flare guidance is not necessary at 1800 RVR but it wouldn’t hurt, right? If the captain decides he wants these features then he needs to ask himself, “are the winds okay and am I protected for a low visibility approach?”

In our example, calm winds are no factor and we are protected because 1800 RVR is below 2000, the point where ATC will not allow intrusion into the ILS critical area. The captain would be making a prudent choice in selecting AIII for this approach.

Summing it Up

The HUD AIII mode is a capable arrow to have in one’s quiver. Should the captain be faced with a low visibility challenge and want one or more AIII features, he should consider using the AIII mode as long as the wind is not a factor and he is protected for a low visibility approach. It really is that simple.

New Article Archive Coming Soon

In response to many requests for some of the articles that are no longer available on the DeltaNet, our ‘Topics of Interest’ link on the 737 landing page will include articles from the past that are considered to be relevant Golden Oldies as well as our newer articles. While some of these older articles may contain details that may differ somewhat from today’s fix names and numbers - specific arrival and approach altitudes for example, they all have lessons that can be applied to our operations today.

A great example is an article written by SLC 73N Captain Ken Gunderson from January 2012. The lessons learned are just as applicable now as they were three and half years ago. And for the sharpshooters out there, we know that the RASKL 1 RNAV ARR at RDU no longer exists but the problems that the crew had on that day is still popping up on ASAP reports on other arrivals and at other airports…

VNAV Path Follies

ATC: “Delta 123, are you going to make that next crossing restriction?”

Delta 123: “Uhhhh, standby. I’ll get right back to you”

of 15


That is one call we NEVER want to hear from ATC, yet with increasing frequency, crew reports reflect problems at several airports. Let’s highlight several of these and then discuss the remedies.

RASKL 1 RNAV Arrival at RDU

So, the arrival is selected in the FMS the LEGS page showing “BUZZY….300/110A”, along with a corresponding runway. The aircraft is level at FL 200, and center says “Delta, descend to cross BUZZY at one-one thousand.” 3NM from BUZZY passing through 14,500’ ATC says, “Hey Delta, are you going to make that next crossing restriction?”

ATC is issuing clearances to cross BUZZY AT 11,000’ on the RASKL arrival; our FMS coding is 11,000A at BUZZY. This is a classic “bait and switch” – and we’re working with ATC to issue clearance instructions that match the charted arrival.

Who takes the rap when the mistake is made? You do! A flight plan remark was added last fall and updated last week to be even more direct:

RDU-I 01 RASKL ARR - EXPECT BUZZY AT 11000. MODIFY FMS TO AVOID

ALT DEVIATION./PER STIMPSON/FLTOPS/05JAN12MI

Back to the Basics - When flying any arrival, listen closely to the crossing clearance and ensure that the LEGS page is properly set up. 110A looks a lot like 110 – pay attention to the clearance!

Let’s take a look at the similar set-up on an arrival into La Guardia. Similar narrative … the KORRY 3 arrival is selected in the FMS….LEGS page showed

“RIDGY….300/270A.”

of 15


During the descent ATC clears Delta 737 to cross RIDGY at FL270. Passing thru FL320 a few miles prior to RIDGY, ATC asks, “Hey Delta, are you going to make FL270 as assigned?”

Our FMS is designed to fly the most economic path. With a hard altitude of FL240 at Smyrna VOR, the idle-power VNAV path would place the aircraft at approximately FL310 passing RIDGY – it works great when the clearance is to cross RIDGY at or above FL270. But when cleared to cross RIDGY at FL270, you have got to update the FMS!

Oh yeah, and this was one of the Flight Plan remarks:

LGA-I 03 KORRY ARR - EXPECT RIDGY AT 270. MODIFY FMS TO AVOID ALT

DEVIATION./PER BUEHLER/76CLCP/21DEC11MI

Back to the Basics – A flight plan remark goes a long way to alert pilots of an unusual (or pop-up) threat, but it can never take the place of two guys “listening up” and backing each other up.

The FMS can only do what it is programmed to do. When you get a clearance that differs from what’s published on the chart, it’s time to pay close attention. Have the PM do the typing, cross-check to verify, and fly the jet!

In our final VNAV-related example, we’ll look at how easy it is to “miss” a crossing restriction when combining an arrival with a published approach. This little gem has bitten several guys

NORDK3 RNAV Arrival KSLC

Notice the procedure has you proceed from NORDK to WEBER. After the runway

assignment is confirmed by SLC approach, you select the ILS 16L, WEBER transition, and close up the discontinuity on the legs page by placing the

WEBER/12000A from the approach on top of the WEBER/12000 on the

arrival.

By so doing you removed the hard altitude at WEBER and replaced it with an AT OR ABOVE altitude.

of 15


A mile from WEBER SLC Approach calls: “Hey Delta, are you going to make that next crossing

restriction?”

Amid the mounting panic you think … “Wasn’t there something in the paperwork about that WEBER crossing restriction?” You bet.

SLC-I 05

*FMS ALERT*IF FLYING NORDK ARVL AND WEBER TRANSITION FOR ILS

RWY 16L USE CAUTION TO ENSURE 12000FT CROSSING RESTRICTION AT

WEBER IS RETAINED./PER STIMPSON/ CLCP737/08JUL11MI

These are all real lessons, learned by our own pilots, where the common thread was a failure to verify the altitudes on the FMS LEGS page matched their ATC clearance. The automation policies in the FOM and VOL 1 are both very clear in defining the responsibility of BOTH PILOTS to verify FMS entries that result from changes in the ATC clearance.

Back to the Basics - Verify ALL of the altitude/speed constraints on the LEGS page prior to descent and, when a constraint is revised by ATC, verify its accuracy on the LEGS page.

We can’t pin all of these kinds of problems on the FAA. After all, ATC needs to retain the flexibility to cross aircraft at altitudes other than what is published, as frequently happens. A Flight Plan Remark may or may not be in place to alert the crew of ATC’s practice.

Bottom line…any time an ATC clearance is received, ensure the automation reflects that clearance and is properly programmed to fly as cleared.

Q&A

Question: I recently flew a rotation where twice we were not given the updated weather prior to the agent closing the cabin door. Once the agent claimed that there was no change to the weather so they didn’t get an update and the second time, the agent just closed the door and pulled the jetway. My question is … Can I leave without the Updated Weather if there is no change? Isn’t there something about the LATT that is on the updated weather?

of 15


Answer: The Updated Weather is a requirement prior to pushing the aircraft. This document is produced at the gate about 7 minutes prior to push … regardless of any changes, in the weather. Here is an example of what the Updated Weather looks like if there is no change to the weather.

This actual printout reflects that there was no change to the weather BUT also note that you are correct in that there is indeed information relating to the LATT for both pilots on this printout.

Among the things that we agree to when signing the Flight Dispatch Release Acknowledgement (FDRA) is an agreement to compute the LATT (FOM page 5.2.5). Note that at the bottom of the Updated Weather printout is a small worksheet to compute the LATT.

While the LATT is also on the flight plan that we have already received, this updated weather printout is the only place that the most recent times and worksheet are available to us in the cockpit. If there are EVER any concerns though, you can contact your dispatcher who has the most recent LATT for every crew member prominently displayed on the flight template.

Question: Why would SA ILS CAT 1 approach stipulate for Autoland that it MUST be monitored in AIII...while SA CAT 2/ILS CAT2 and ILS CAT 3 ONLY SUGGEST "Consider monitoring with HUD in AIII?” Answer: Although counter-intuitive, this is Ops Specs driven. Take a look at AM OPS-3OS.4.9 - the key is that ALL SA CAT I approaches must use HUD AIII - if you aren't AIII capable you can't fly an SA CAT I. It was determined that the HUD is the instrument which enhanced crew awareness to allow the lower SA minimums and a manual landing, if desired. On the other hand, all Delta crews can fly an SA CAT II. HUD AIII is not a requirement (AM OPS-3OS.4.9) as all CAT II’s require autoland (or manual AIII.)

Question: Recently came up about entering altitude restrictions in the FMS. Referencing Ops Manual Vol. 2 Pg 11.31.18. We could not enter an altitude restriction between two altitudes, (i.e. 220A240B) We kept getting an “invalid entry” msg on the scratchpad. Have we lost the capability to manually enter that type of restriction? We tried other combos but had no luck. Maybe I missed the memo.

of 15


Answer: You have found a lingering VOL 2 error! The capability for the crew to modify a crossing restriction was lost (some say it never existed!) some time ago and we will update the VOL 2 to reflect the limitation. As a side note, if an At or Above and At or Below restriction is coded in a procedure and somehow deleted, the restriction can be added again only by re-selecting the procedure.

And just when you thought you were comfortable…

Question: The crews flying 3720 tonight reported that when they selected VNAV, the speed command went to 220, they could not close the speed window and they had a scratchpad message of “ENTER EO CRZ SPD AND ALT” I told them to re-enter cruise speed and altitude on cruise page per VOL 2 11.60.15. This happened on two consecutive legs with two different crews. Do you have any thoughts on why this may be happening? Do you think this may be a software issue?

Answer: Somehow the VNAV engine failure condition got triggered. It can happen if you go above 60 knots with a throttle split. It would be interesting to see what city pairs the ship flew (perhaps a back taxi down a runway for opposite direction takeoff?) At any rate, the VNAV ENG OUT logic got triggered and needs to be reset. See Vol2 page 11.41.3 VNAV Takeoff-off Engine Out, second paragraph. Either select ALL ENGINES prompt or remove power from the jet to reset. This is a good reason never to advance a single throttle (or both for that matter) further than that necessary for thrust while taxiing; the Before Takeoff Checklist “Takeoff Warning” check notwithstanding. Question: “Descend Via What?!”

We have had increasing reports of confusion over intentions with “Descend Via” clearances across the nation that I have advanced as a growing concern. I solicited input from Captain Mark Bradley, Delta’s Industry Technical pilot, considering the increasing number of arrivals which are designed as Descend Via STARS. He and I used NorCal’s soon to be released SUUTR1 to KSMF (insert right) during our discussion.

Answer: Mark’s reply, in part, follows:

Procedure 1. Procedurally, ATC can issue a DV

clearance for only the STAR with no transitions, or the STAR with a transition.

2. If a pilot is cleared with the following clearance: “Delta 123 descend via the SUTTR1, runway 34 transition”:

of 15


a. I would do exactly as you describe. You are cleared to descend on the STAR all the way down to 3400 feet. It doesn’t matter if it is 34L or R, because the end altitude at both transition endpoints (FIPIN & ELMAC) is the same.

3. If a pilot is cleared with the following clearance: “Delta 123 descend via the SUTTR1, expect runway 34”:

a. You are cleared to descend on the arrival, but NOT cleared to DV the transition. “Expect” is issued so that pilots can plan for the runway ATC thinks you will be assigned. This gives a pilot the opportunity to load the FMC, but the pilot would set 9000 at MYNRR [the common waypoint] until he receives further clearance to fly a runway transition. The hope is that ATC will follow through and issue a clearance to fly the transition on the way down. Remember they are required to issue a transition NLT 10NM from the last common point on the chart, or else issue another clearance.

4. IF a pilot receives the following clearance: “Delta123 descend via the SUTTR1 arrival, runway 34” that is the same as “Delta123 descend via the SUTTR1 arrival, runway 34 transition”. DELTA DOES NOT LIKE THIS AND WANTS ATC TO USE “TRANSITION” IN THE LANGUAGE. But…. we are working on it.

5. The common waypoint is the last waypoint prior to any splits. In the case of the SUUTR, that would me MYNER. ATC must clear you for a runway transition no later than 10NM prior to MYNER.

Training 1. Air traffic controllers do not have recurrent training like airline pilots. Their training is

usually locally organized and varies. I am told that the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is going to institute a more formal and standardized training program.

2. Historically, Centers and TRACONS have operated almost as separate entities. Centers generally did not know the landing runways, so they did not clear aircraft to fly a runway transition. Centers viewed their task as to hand an aircraft off to approach in the right order and then let TRACON manage runway specifics. We are finally at the point where a Center controllers may issue a runway transition, or at least an “expect” runway. Keep in mind that this is not nation-wide yet. Hopefully the ATO will embrace this concept and find ways to share landing info to center controllers.

Pilots can ALWAYS ask for clarification. Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway) pilots need to be professional and respectful. Controllers should do the same! It takes time to work this out, and inevitably there are going to be questions. If a pilot is given grief that needs follow up, let the CPO or me know. We will provide that feedback to the FAA.

Thanks for all you do.

Mike

Captain Mike Spicuzza DAL 737NG I Chief Line Check Pilot w 404-715-0337 m 404-374-3670

of 15

b737 fleet newsletter - contentz.mkt932.comcontentz.mkt932.com/lp/19805/176198/737 may newsletter...

Documents