Spesiellsporing

160 posts and we’re still solving the problem. Amazing

DownSideUp

In the 'pointy nose' community I came from, we were taught to double the feet remaining boards and multiply by 10 to come up with your 'no faster than' speed. In other words, 4 board equals 80 knots, 3 board equals 60 knots, etc, etc. Funny thing, still use it today.

Here's an example of the "board":

LJ Driver

Not sure who the “we” are you’re referring to here, literally anyone with half a brain, military or not, can figure this out in about 2 seconds.

There are certainly solid techniques from the 121 world that the military has adopted and also the other way around. Every mil guy, myself included, calls the distance remaining markers “boards”, and usually has a speed associated with the last 3, it’s a good technique that has kept me out of trouble for a long time.

Apparently there was a 737 that ran off the end of a 10,000 foot runway recently after finding himself pretty hot on rollout, perhaps this sh!tty military technique may have helped him not do that…?

AaayTrain

i learned something
thanks for sharing

Ice Bear

IAH 27 and Burbank aside, how often is everyone rolling to the end of the runway that this is even a thing?

SF highspeed is just fine.

JoePatroni

It works on the 777 too.

VforVendetta

Lots of bad habits and utterly stupid techniques out there I see often. Several bad ideas were used at the same time and the wrong conditions. The result is not at all surprising.

They're all ticking bombs waiting to cause an accident. "Brake to vacate" and don't interfere with the autobrake, let it do its job down to taxi speeds. If you don't know what brake to vacate means, do us all a favor and Google it. Counting boards? Seriously? Why not do a "Landing Performance Assessment", select the appropriate autobrake setting for the planned exit, and let the autobrake do its job? The 50's called and want their "techniques" back.

Stowing speedbrakes before vacating the runway? Disconnecting autobrakes before taxi speeds? Asking to roll to the end because why? You want a quicker taxi? On wet surface? Seriously? Using idle reverse on wet surface? All very dumb things to do.

If you need explanations on why these are very bad ideas, unnecessary things to do, you need some serious training before you're next to cause a repeat of this event.

Seriously, how are these bad habits and techniques not ripped out of people permanently in the training/standards system?

All of these things have already caused accidents before.

The Flight Crew Training Manual has a wealth of operating information. Do your operational knowledge and skill level a favor and read it. Google and download it. Don't stray from the FM. You're not smarter than the book.

Even some of the things FM says you may do are dumb ideas. For instance stowing speedbrakes early. The more weight is on the wheels, the more braking can be applied to the wheels before the antiskid has to release pressure to prevent lockup. Speedbrakes exert more pressure down on the wheels. You'd defeat braking efficiency by removing that downward pressure and lift kill on the wings by retracting them. Just don't do it thinking you're slick. You'll look really un-slick when you're off the runway with a snapped main gear, or worse.

These things must be taught in the classroom and in the sim. Well established in one's operation before first flight in the aircraft.

It's the system's fault, not the individual pilots that these wrong habits exist out there. Flight Crew Training Manual has a wealth of operational information which individual airlines leave out of their FM. I don't know about you but as a professional airline pilot I will read every bit of information the manufacturer of my aircraft has put out, never relying on only the minimum my airline has provided me. Do you want to be the master of the machine or spend 25+ years and XX,000+ hours and remain a minimal operator? Whatever you do, don't ever stray from the FM. Be more conservative than the FM allows, but never less. You are not smarter than the book, I can assure you of that. Don't ever learn from other people's bad habits via "monkey see monkey do". In this business if it isn't in writing, it doesn't exist. If it can't survive the "where does it say that?" question, it's BS. Read accident reports and learn from other people's mistakes.

More structured training and standardization is needed. I guess that's why FAA is jumping all over it now.

It's by no means a single airline issue. I've seen the operation of several others and its no better. In fact its more structured at UA than others I've seen.

I apologize for the rant. Rant over.

Grumble

First time on the internet?



Everything you’ve posted in this ranting, sniveling, wandering, disjointed, contradictory, literary diarrhea is completely counter to your underlined point. What you just did was admonish any and all techniques utilized to verify predicted performance, say utilizing techniques approved in the SOPs is dumb, just put blind faith in the system/numbers and essentially close your eyes and stop thinking. You literally wrote paragraphs on why things in the book are dumb, then went on later to say “you’re never smarter than the book”. (The front of every book says something to the effect of “this does not supersede airmanship and judgement”, so yeah there may be a time where you better be able to think outside the book). You ultimately go on to say that to be one “master of your machine” you must be a rote memorization robot, with no situational awareness, one technique, just one thing all the time every time which is completely contrary to how one masters their craft.

“We are all now dumber for having listened to this, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

TurquoiseLine

great, you spit out acars landing data, how can you tell if you’re decelerating quickly enough other than feel?

PNWFlyer

count the boards?