|
Originally Posted by Planespotta
(Post 1414391)
That being said, take a look at things from our perspective. "Descend via" clearances exist for ATC's convenience; not for that of pilots. In fact, they greatly increase pilot workload for those of us flying jets without autothrottles and no VNAV option for the AP. The next time someone checks in and neglects to use proper phraseology, just consider that they could be preoccupied with monitoring speed, altitude, and energy - manually (i.e. ensuring the thrust levers and vertical speed are physically adjusted to ensure compliance with the clearance) - all while making an ATC call and getting ready to brief/load an approach, run checklists, make the descent PA, possibly request deviations for weather, etc. "Boxcar Five Zero, One Seven thousand, descending One Four Thousand" "Boxcar Five Zero, One Seven thousand, descending via WHUPI arrival." Is the latter really that much harder than the former? :confused: If it was just one radio call, it would be no harder. If you consider that it can replace a dozen or more radio calls and acknowledgements, there's no comparison. The "descend via" REDUCES workload ... perhaps by orders of magnitude. By the way, get your approach building and briefing done before you start the descent. "... ensuring the thrust levers and vertical speed are physically adjusted to ensure compliance ..." Oh, the humanity. :eek: . They are very workload intensive. And it's impossible to brief/load the approach before descending when the approach starts 200+ miles from the airport and you can't pick up the ATIS yet. Having said all that, it gets my goat when guys don't use the proper phraseology, even with the increased workload... |
Originally Posted by Planespotta
(Post 1414391)
Let me preface this by saying that I respect ATC and appreciate all the hard work they do. You are absolutely correct, pilots should check in with "descending via" as a part of their transmission to remove any doubt.
That being said, take a look at things from our perspective. "Descend via" clearances exist for ATC's convenience; not for that of pilots. In fact, they greatly increase pilot workload for those of us flying jets without autothrottles and no VNAV option for the AP. The next time someone checks in and neglects to use proper phraseology, just consider that they could be preoccupied with monitoring speed, altitude, and energy - manually (i.e. ensuring the thrust levers and vertical speed are physically adjusted to ensure compliance with the clearance) - all while making an ATC call and getting ready to brief/load an approach, run checklists, make the descent PA, possibly request deviations for weather, etc. I've flown plenty of "descend via's" and they can be as busy as an instrument approach to minimums. The human brain is like an electrical system - when it gets overloaded, it load sheds the less important stuff. Proper phraseology takes a back seat to making sure we comply with altitude and speed restrictions - would you rather have it the other way? Give us a break man, nobody is perfect - ATC included! I will tell you most of us don't like the "descend via", but it actually has come down from all the major airlines forcing it on most of us. They want these "OPD" from cruise to save on fuel. We, (most facilites) have had to change the way we do business to accommodate these new procedures. In my opinion, I would much rather issue the altitudes and vector, because most of the time we still have to take you off the procedures anyway. I know and understand how busy they can be, I've flown equipment with no auto throttles, however I'm simply saying what is needed if you don't want me asking you a handful of questions to verify information. |
Originally Posted by STR8NLVL
(Post 1415175)
... resulting in the pilot having to manipulate the controls 60-80 times per minute! HINT: It's a DESCENT! Pull the throttles to idle, trim for an airspeed, and put your hands in your lap. When you approach an altitude constraint, add power to level off -- you're already trimmed for the airspeed. I fly approaches without autothrottles all the time, and I can't even imagine manipulating the controls 60-80 times per minute. If I even came close, I would be embarrassing myself and making everyone sick. Try a different argument -- that one doesn't pass the smell test. There ... I resisted the urge to respond with one word which would have been obliterated by the automatic language censor. ;) . |
Originally Posted by STR8NLVL
(Post 1415175)
Our FOQA team recently did a study and found these new STARs have more than tripled the pilot workload on the E145, resulting in the pilot having to manipulate the controls 60-80 times per minute!
They are very workload intensive. And it's impossible to brief/load the approach before descending when the approach starts 200+ miles from the airport and you can't pick up the ATIS yet. Assuming that the E145 has an autopilot to follow the arrival route, did that FOQA team really find that the throttles and autopilot pitch had to be manipulated more than once a second to fly an arrival?? Sounds like the Brazilian designers did not do their job very well. I'm sure that some of the math whizzes at your company could come up with some sort of gouge to make crossing restrictions easier. Heck, I flew a DC-8 for 14 years and it only had about a half of an autopilot and it sounds like it was easier to fly a star than your plane. We used 3 to 1 (with a few variables) for arrivals and it worked pretty well. On shorter flights like you do, the filed arrival is a good thing to plug into the box and, since the forecast weather can't be more than an hour or two old, the approach should be predictable as well. I know when I flew at the regionals, we got pretty used to the comings and goings at the airports we flew into, so while there are always exceptions, the arrival planning shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Better yet, keep sending our resumes and get yourself hired someplace that has better equipment!:D 8 |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1415451)
I'm almost speechless. Did you read what you wrote? Can you imagine manipulating the controls more than once per second? Are you arguing that flying a descent -- a DESCENT -- requires more than one control movement per second? And that the massive amount of manipulation is required because I have autothrottles and you don't? :rolleyes:
HINT: It's a DESCENT! Pull the throttles to idle, trim for an airspeed, and put your hands in your lap. When you approach an altitude constraint, add power to level off -- you're already trimmed for the airspeed. I fly approaches without autothrottles all the time, and I can't even imagine manipulating the controls 60-80 times per minute. If I even came close, I would be embarrassing myself and making everyone sick. Try a different argument -- that one doesn't pass the smell test. There ... I resisted the urge to respond with one word which would have been obliterated by the automatic language censor. ;) . |
I hardly ever fly an RNAV star as published as the controllers jack with you everytime. Yes, if they would leave you alone and you have VNAV/authothrottles it would be easy as pie...but when they start jacking with your speed especially it can become a goat rope if you dont have speed intervention and the crossing altitudes become much more difficult since the vnav put you on a path assuming your original speed...and now you have to slow down and get down at the same time.
|
Originally Posted by Knotcher
(Post 1415510)
I hardly ever fly an RNAV star as published as the controllers jack with you everytime. Yes, if they would leave you alone and you have VNAV/authothrottles it would be easy as pie...but when they start jacking with your speed especially it can become a goat rope if you dont have speed intervention and the crossing altitudes become much more difficult since the vnav put you on a path assuming your original speed...and now you have to slow down and get down at the same time.
|
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1414979)
The "descend via" REDUCES workload ... perhaps by orders of magnitude.
We fly OPDs (optimum profile descents) - one continuous descent from the top to the bottom of the arrival. So we can't just yank 'em to idle and trim for airspeed like you suggest, leveling off at each intermediate altitude and then starting down for the next. Not approved, or stable, and it adds more stuff for us to do. That being said, the CRJ is poorly-equipped for OPDs. Our only option is to fly the entire frikkin descent in vertical speed mode, constantly adjusting for our advisory VNAV glideslope, while playing with the throttles and boards to meet the speed restrictions. Things aren't all kittens and cupcakes over here in RJ land. If I had the automation, I'd rather get "descend-vias" too. I jump-seated to BOS a few months ago in an A320 and watched it fly an entire "descend via" without any crew input at all. But in an RJ I'll take instructions to go down and slow down. Much less drama.
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1414979)
I'm almost speechless....the massive amount of manipulation is required because I have autothrottles and you don't? :rolleyes:
Between spinning the VS knob, yanking the throttles, maybe the speed brakes, and syncing up N1 for each power setting, I'm surprised the number of control applications per minute isn't higher than 60-80. |
It shouldn't be rocket science....
Originally Posted by Planespotta
(Post 1415758)
TonyC what equipment are you on? Do you have autothrottles and an autopilot that can fly a VNAV profile? If so, then descend via DOES reduce workload by orders of magnitude, good for you. If not, I disagree.
We fly OPDs (optimum profile descents) - one continuous descent from the top to the bottom of the arrival. So we can't just yank 'em to idle and trim for airspeed like you suggest, leveling off at each intermediate altitude and then starting down for the next. Not approved, or stable, and it adds more stuff for us to do. That being said, the CRJ is poorly-equipped for OPDs. Our only option is to fly the entire frikkin descent in vertical speed mode, constantly adjusting for our advisory VNAV glideslope, while playing with the throttles and boards to meet the speed restrictions. Things aren't all kittens and cupcakes over here in RJ land. If I had the automation, I'd rather get "descend-vias" too. I jump-seated to BOS a few months ago in an A320 and watched it fly an entire "descend via" without any crew input at all. But in an RJ I'll take instructions to go down and slow down. Much less drama. You're almost speechless? Oh, the humanity!!!! Between spinning the VS knob, yanking the throttles, maybe the speed brakes, and syncing up N1 for each power setting, I'm surprised the number of control applications per minute isn't higher than 60-80. |
Originally Posted by STR8NLVL
(Post 1415175)
Clearly spoken from someone who doesn't fly a non-autothrottle jet. Our FOQA team recently did a study and found these new STARs have more than tripled the pilot workload on the E145, resulting in the pilot having to manipulate the controls 60-80 times per minute!
I'm nowhere near the best pilot out there, not even close. Doesn't matter if it's one of the new ODP's, or the old KORRY/DYLAN/PHLBO, whatever. 5000+ hrs in the WSCOD and I can't think of a time I was manipulating controls that frequently outside of maybe doing a SE approach on a PC/MV or the manual reversion in training, etc. Why do guys make flying the ODP's so hard? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:16 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands