Busted 121 initial
08-23-2023, 01:59 AM
#11
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
Curious; was this an RNAV and did it not give you a top fo descent because the FMC wasn't re-cruised? So long as you get the top of descent, or more specifically, so long as the VNAV is giving you a path, you should be good. For sim-ism, unless there's something funky going on, the only time you should need to re-cruise the FMC with an altitude is if you're not getting a top of descent, and thus a VNAV path. In that case, putting in your current or lower altitude (depending on where you are on the arrival or procedure) should be enough. All you're doing is telling the box and sim where you are, and it is more of a sim-sim; the box uses that to draw a line backward from the bottom of the approach to where you are, to create a top of descent. Protect altitudes with the MCP. With that, you are able to get a VNAV path and once you're on the path, the only thing you'll need to do thereafter with altitude setting changes is to insert the missed approach altitude once you're several hundred feet below that altitude (to prevent chasing it, leveling off).
You're absolutely right, though; go-arounds are free (unless you're out of fuel. Then they're expensive).
I'm curious how selecting the FAF altitude in the box caused a descent below that altitude prior to the FAF. Were you in VNAV Path, and then caused the FMC to recalculate, and lost Path? What was the FMA telling you?
Don't play "overachiever." If it's working, follow your procedure, don't change anything that doesn't need changing, or get creative. Remember the basic truth of all training: cooperate and graduate.
You're absolutely right, though; go-arounds are free (unless you're out of fuel. Then they're expensive).
I'm curious how selecting the FAF altitude in the box caused a descent below that altitude prior to the FAF. Were you in VNAV Path, and then caused the FMC to recalculate, and lost Path? What was the FMA telling you?
Don't play "overachiever." If it's working, follow your procedure, don't change anything that doesn't need changing, or get creative. Remember the basic truth of all training: cooperate and graduate.
08-23-2023, 08:12 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Position: Gear slinger
Posts: 2,899
Originally Posted by Twincezzna
Not let go I’m allowed to redo the type ride. Honestly I was a little weak on some cat3 approach stuff fumbling through the book longer than I should have been. Still made it through that portion but I suspect that’s where I started being looked carefully.
08-24-2023, 09:29 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by Twincezzna
Yeah I was not blindsided. it was a clear reason to bust. just adding in the reason I got low between a pilot colleague conversation. If I ever interview anywhere else I’ll leave that part out and own it.
Also I did try to protect the faf but selecting it into the cruise page and I thought that was being conservative. I wasn’t aware that I could not select a lower alt but it makes sense now. There was a gap in my training for this specific procedure because there is nowhere mentions this it’s just something we should all know when flying a sim. Moral of the story you can always go around and I f.ed up.
Also I did try to protect the faf but selecting it into the cruise page and I thought that was being conservative. I wasn’t aware that I could not select a lower alt but it makes sense now. There was a gap in my training for this specific procedure because there is nowhere mentions this it’s just something we should all know when flying a sim. Moral of the story you can always go around and I f.ed up.
You clearly don't understand VNAV or you wouldn't have tried to re-cruise the box on an approach, most likely in VNAV Path and in Descent mode. Get in the books and do what's necessary to gain a working knowledge of the system so you're not just repeating behavior without any real understanding of what the expected outcome of an action will be.
08-24-2023, 01:53 PM
#14
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
Certain simulators do exhibit that problem; the student may never climb above 5,000 during the entire exercise, with multiple approaches, but the FMC needs to be re-cruised in order to generate a top of descent for the subsequent approach. It sounds like the case with this simulator, something not found in the airplane, but which is occurring in the sim, with little explanation as to why it's being one. Accordingly, one could search the procedure in the FCOM or FCTM, and not find a reasonable explnation. Having to re-cruise the FMC lends to confusion in that case, especially if it's simply explained away as a "simism." The original poster described the sim instructors leaning over his shoulder and setting it in the box, perhaps to facilitate the procedure so the student won't get in the habit of learning a behavior that is only required in that simulator.
Regardless, if protecting the FAF, that's something that's done on the MCP. Other than a sim-only process of re-cruising the box to establish a TOD, then the only altitude inputs to the box might be making an altitude a hard altitude, as opposed to an above or below altitude. The instructor should explain, if there's confusion, and that's best handled both by doing classroom work, and perhaps stopping the sim to clarify, before continuing on a procedure. That shouldn't be coming up at a checkride, though; any confusion on the procedure should have surfaced and been handled well before arriving at a checkride. Definitely before the re-test. As noted before, however, despite any desire to "overachieve," don't add to the procedure or improvise. In the sim, it might result in a busted checkride. In the field, it might result in a busted airplane.
Regardless, if protecting the FAF, that's something that's done on the MCP. Other than a sim-only process of re-cruising the box to establish a TOD, then the only altitude inputs to the box might be making an altitude a hard altitude, as opposed to an above or below altitude. The instructor should explain, if there's confusion, and that's best handled both by doing classroom work, and perhaps stopping the sim to clarify, before continuing on a procedure. That shouldn't be coming up at a checkride, though; any confusion on the procedure should have surfaced and been handled well before arriving at a checkride. Definitely before the re-test. As noted before, however, despite any desire to "overachieve," don't add to the procedure or improvise. In the sim, it might result in a busted checkride. In the field, it might result in a busted airplane.
08-24-2023, 02:19 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Certain simulators do exhibit that problem; the student may never climb above 5,000 during the entire exercise, with multiple approaches, but the FMC needs to be re-cruised in order to generate a top of descent for the subsequent approach. It sounds like the case with this simulator, something not found in the airplane, but which is occurring in the sim, with little explanation as to why it's being one. Accordingly, one could search the procedure in the FCOM or FCTM, and not find a reasonable explnation. Having to re-cruise the FMC lends to confusion in that case, especially if it's simply explained away as a "simism." The original poster described the sim instructors leaning over his shoulder and setting it in the box, perhaps to facilitate the procedure so the student won't get in the habit of learning a behavior that is only required in that simulator.
Regardless, if protecting the FAF, that's something that's done on the MCP. Other than a sim-only process of re-cruising the box to establish a TOD, then the only altitude inputs to the box might be making an altitude a hard altitude, as opposed to an above or below altitude. The instructor should explain, if there's confusion, and that's best handled both by doing classroom work, and perhaps stopping the sim to clarify, before continuing on a procedure. That shouldn't be coming up at a checkride, though; any confusion on the procedure should have surfaced and been handled well before arriving at a checkride. Definitely before the re-test. As noted before, however, despite any desire to "overachieve," don't add to the procedure or improvise. In the sim, it might result in a busted checkride. In the field, it might result in a busted airplane.
Regardless, if protecting the FAF, that's something that's done on the MCP. Other than a sim-only process of re-cruising the box to establish a TOD, then the only altitude inputs to the box might be making an altitude a hard altitude, as opposed to an above or below altitude. The instructor should explain, if there's confusion, and that's best handled both by doing classroom work, and perhaps stopping the sim to clarify, before continuing on a procedure. That shouldn't be coming up at a checkride, though; any confusion on the procedure should have surfaced and been handled well before arriving at a checkride. Definitely before the re-test. As noted before, however, despite any desire to "overachieve," don't add to the procedure or improvise. In the sim, it might result in a busted checkride. In the field, it might result in a busted airplane.
I've flown a lot of non-precision approaches using VNAV and not once have I "protected" the FAF using the MCP in the last 15 years, at least. That was back in dive and drive days. Now FAF is protected by a large font altitude restriction in the FMS. In the "old days" we set mins in the MCP. Now, once cleared, established on the approach and protected by such large font FMS entries, the MCP is rolled down to TDZE rounded up. That allows a VNAV descent to mins that are treated like a DA, not an MDA. I can't imagine a modern 121 airline is currently teaching to protect the FAF using the MCP. But, maybe I'm wrong.
08-24-2023, 02:36 PM
#16
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Fair enough, JB. I can understand the "sim-ism" of having to re-cruise the box in certain circumstances. However, it's also a potential real-world task in the event of a MAP and re-attempt at another approach requiring VNAV. So, a clear understanding of the, why, when and how is required, regardless of the more common times it might be required in a training sim.
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I've flown a lot of non-precision approaches using VNAV and not once have I "protected" the FAF using the MCP in the last 15 years, at least. That was back in dive and drive days. Now FAF is protected by a large font altitude restriction in the FMS. In the "old days" we set mins in the MCP. Now, once cleared, established on the approach and protected by such large font FMS entries, the MCP is rolled down to TDZE rounded up. That allows a VNAV descent to mins that are treated like a DA, not an MDA. I can't imagine a modern 121 airline is currently teaching to protect the FAF using the MCP. But, maybe I'm wrong.
With regard to resetting the MCP to minimums rounded-up, there are also operators that set the next lowest even altitude below minimum, in the MCP (rounded down). It would certainly be important with such a technique, to understand what is being done, and why.
08-25-2023, 06:44 AM
#17
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,601
The OP stated early on his failure was related to a VOR approach. Later in the thread the responses relate to a RNAV procedures. It is never clear what type pf approach the OP was having an issue with. Understand that newer aircraft with FMS, the non GPS approaches (VOR, NDB, LOC) are overlay type, prone to a misunderstanding related to loading and executing/managing the FMC. If the OP has issues with understanding the correct way to execute any approach using a FMS, then by all means get those issues resolved before even attempting another training session, let alone a repeat check ride. I think the issue is more likely one of self confidence, ie; checkride itis. Its easy from the sidelines when (we) are not taking the ride, but you need to get out of your head and prepare enough that you have as much confidence in your self as you can. As others have alluded, this is not a career ender, nor a job killer, but you do need to do what it takes to regain your confidence. Good luck.
08-25-2023, 10:10 AM
#18
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,470
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Fair enough, JB. I can understand the "sim-ism" of having to re-cruise the box in certain circumstances. However, it's also a potential real-world task in the event of a MAP and re-attempt at another approach requiring VNAV. So, a clear understanding of the, why, when and how is required, regardless of the more common times it might be required in a training sim.
I've flown a lot of non-precision approaches using VNAV and not once have I "protected" the FAF using the MCP in the last 15 years, at least. That was back in dive and drive days. Now FAF is protected by a large font altitude restriction in the FMS. In the "old days" we set mins in the MCP. Now, once cleared, established on the approach and protected by such large font FMS entries, the MCP is rolled down to TDZE rounded up. That allows a VNAV descent to mins that are treated like a DA, not an MDA. I can't imagine a modern 121 airline is currently teaching to protect the FAF using the MCP. But, maybe I'm wrong.
I've flown a lot of non-precision approaches using VNAV and not once have I "protected" the FAF using the MCP in the last 15 years, at least. That was back in dive and drive days. Now FAF is protected by a large font altitude restriction in the FMS. In the "old days" we set mins in the MCP. Now, once cleared, established on the approach and protected by such large font FMS entries, the MCP is rolled down to TDZE rounded up. That allows a VNAV descent to mins that are treated like a DA, not an MDA. I can't imagine a modern 121 airline is currently teaching to protect the FAF using the MCP. But, maybe I'm wrong.
If you reach the missed approach altitude, there is no need to recruise the box as you recruised it by pressing TOGA. The only time that's required is if you get vectored off the missed, you never climb to the missed approach altitude, and then get vectored and you don't sequence the box correctly.
Setting mins to MCP does pretty much exactly the same as setting TDZE, as long as you set the missed approach altitude to your MCP after crossing FAF. VNAV will keep descending in approach logic even when MCP altitude is set to an altitude above you. The only difference in how it flies it is if you forget to set the missed approach altitude, it will then level off at mins (which is what you dont want assuming you have the runway in sight at that point).
08-27-2023, 11:34 AM
#19
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Twincezzna
So I busted my initial type ride on a Boeing for a 121 cargo airline and i,ve never felt worse in my life. Am I ********D?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
The start of my disapproval began on an VOR approach. Sometimes the sim would not arm a vertical path without having a cruise altitude set. Of my 8 sessions in training the instructors would come over to the FMC and have us check if the cruise page was empty. Usually they would just throw in random altitudes like 5,000 or 10,000 without any guidance on why they picked that number. There was never any explanation on this and it’s not in our SOPs (just a simism). Anyway, I was outside the faf and descending vnav feeling good and decided to check the cruise page. No cruise alt was set. We were descending perfectly fine but I felt like being an over achiever and asked my seat support to set a cruise alt. He asked what altitude, and I suggested 1400 which was the faf altitude. Well this descended me below my fix prior to the faf and as I watched it bust the altitude around 250 below I selected AP & AT off and tried to re-establish. I climb too high and got fast and examiner froze the sim. Boom check-ride over. He asked why tf I didn’t go around? He’s right I should have. Stupid mistake.
If I didn’t touch the darn cruise page I would have been all good. My fault for not going around though.
Now my question is how screwed am I? I wanted to fly freight for a few years but was not planning to make this my career airline. A legacy was my long term goal. My only other check ride of 10 checkrides was my CFII.
Does the reason for this failure signify I’m just a Sh***y decision maker in the cockpit? How many other pilots do you know at legacy’s with a 121 bust prior to getting hired?
I was able to go to a regional and become successful there, with my new airline's training department being top notch. I have an interview with SouthWest coming up and a few other LCC's. I've got a united flow in my back pocket.
TLDR; no its not the end of the world. Apply to other airlines.
See a similar post I made here:
I have 121 checkride failures, Can't move fwd
08-27-2023, 01:54 PM
#20
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Curious; was this an RNAV and did it not give you a top fo descent because the FMC wasn't re-cruised? So long as you get the top of descent, or more specifically, so long as the VNAV is giving you a path, you should be good. For sim-ism, unless there's something funky going on, the only time you should need to re-cruise the FMC with an altitude is if you're not getting a top of descent, and thus a VNAV path. In that case, putting in your current or lower altitude (depending on where you are on the arrival or procedure) should be enough. All you're doing is telling the box and sim where you are, and it is more of a sim-sim; the box uses that to draw a line backward from the bottom of the approach to where you are, to create a top of descent. Protect altitudes with the MCP. With that, you are able to get a VNAV path and once you're on the path, the only thing you'll need to do thereafter with altitude setting changes is to insert the missed approach altitude once you're several hundred feet below that altitude (to prevent chasing it, leveling off).
You're absolutely right, though; go-arounds are free (unless you're out of fuel. Then they're expensive).
I'm curious how selecting the FAF altitude in the box caused a descent below that altitude prior to the FAF. Were you in VNAV Path, and then caused the FMC to recalculate, and lost Path? What was the FMA telling you?
Don't play "overachiever." If it's working, follow your procedure, don't change anything that doesn't need changing, or get creative. Remember the basic truth of all training: cooperate and graduate.
You're absolutely right, though; go-arounds are free (unless you're out of fuel. Then they're expensive).
I'm curious how selecting the FAF altitude in the box caused a descent below that altitude prior to the FAF. Were you in VNAV Path, and then caused the FMC to recalculate, and lost Path? What was the FMA telling you?
Don't play "overachiever." If it's working, follow your procedure, don't change anything that doesn't need changing, or get creative. Remember the basic truth of all training: cooperate and graduate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
