Who sets the altitude pre-selector?
10-21-2014, 03:48 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by CBreezy
Because the heading bug controls actual flight characteristics whereas, in most situations, the ALTO knob does not. Again, why not set your own flaps or lower your own gear?
10-21-2014, 03:56 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,906
Never seen it different either in the US or abroad.
PF works the knobs on the MCP.
PF manually flying... PM works the knobs on the MCP.
Works good... lasts a long time.
PF works the knobs on the MCP.
PF manually flying... PM works the knobs on the MCP.
Works good... lasts a long time.
10-21-2014, 04:10 PM
#15
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Pinnacle was the only odd-ball one I can remember that had the PM always set the altitude. The more I asked, the more it seemed to be a desk justification. Whoever controls the flight guidance panel should control the whole panel.
10-21-2014, 04:37 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,061
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
Because unlike the flaps, the altitude pre-selector does control the flight path of the aircraft. I just had a loss of separation because as the altitude captured, I looked at the approach plate and the PM got an airspeed assignment confused with a new altitude and caused the aircraft to dip below the assigned altitude. At the same time, a new controller climbed an aircraft too soon so we got an RA because we ended up going 100 feet below our altitude.
10-21-2014, 04:46 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by CBreezy
If the PM had been flying and set his own bugs, the result would have theoretically been the same.
It ended up being an ATC error from allowing the other guy to climb and they didn't even know we dipped below our altitude, but it got me thinking about the complications of sharing the FGCP.
10-21-2014, 04:52 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,061
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
I guess that is true.
It ended up being an ATC error from allowing the other guy to climb and they didn't even know we dipped below our altitude, but it got me thinking about the complications of sharing the FGCP.
It ended up being an ATC error from allowing the other guy to climb and they didn't even know we dipped below our altitude, but it got me thinking about the complications of sharing the FGCP.
10-21-2014, 05:45 PM
#19
2 days off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Embraer Systems Analyst
Posts: 1,853
They do PM because it's less likely for there to be a confusion or a mistake when both pilots are involved in the altitude setting. If you just verbally verify as PM, you might just go through the motion vs actually checking.
10-21-2014, 05:49 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: Piper passenger
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by CBreezy
The argument I would make is, if the autopilot is engaged and you feel that the PF should make all changes regarding flight, shouldn't you also be lobbying to set flaps and gear?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
