jhayes_1780

I'm posting this in the Q&A thread, because I think it is a question that only a UA pilot can answer (and if it some sort of confidential union matter, its OK not to answer)

IIRC the UA pilots union still have a member on the UAL's board of directors, Correct?

Does that member have the same responsibilities as a "regular" Captain/FO (min/max hours per month, mandatory retirement, etc)?

I trust its an elected position by the MEC?

Does that member get BOD compensation on top of "regular pay" or union pay (as a committeeman/steward)?

LarryJ

When something is recommended it still allows flexibility to modify. The difference is that by not holding the brakes you slightly decrease the possibility to debris ingestion which, itself, is a very low probability event. We aren't expected to be robots. We are expected to use our experience and judgement.

I don't hold the brakes beyond the 40% spool-up because, in order; 1. it doesn't shorten your takeoff distance, 2. it is smoother when you release the brakes at a lower power setting, and 3. it is the recommended technique. I've never seen anyone who routinely holds the brakes longers.

Each UX carrier is a separate airline with their own procedures. I can't comment on each UX carriers procedures as I don't know anything about them other than what I observe when riding on them.

At UAL, we give the double-ding alert at about 10,000' (sometimes higher when landing at high elevation airports or when it's going to be bumpy on the arrival. i.e. 'not robots'). That tells the F/As to do their "Final" cabin preparation and take their jumpseats. They can hear and feel the flaps and gear extending and get a good feel for how much time they have left. If there's a problem, they can call us.

In my experience, that would be very rare. I'd guess it's more likely a call between the front and back F/As.

fezzington

I love when this thread becomes active!

As LarryJ says, the 10,000 foot chime is the indicator for FAs to start getting things ready. The lead FA is supposed to end their announcement with "FAs please prepare the cabin for arrival and be seated"

My first ever flight was with all brand new FAs (we graduated together) on a 737. None of us were paying attention, and it wasn't until the gear dropped down that one gal says "huh, we're kind of low"... queue the scrambling. Needless to say, we were much more attentive the next flight.

Yep. We call one another all the time to remind each other to stay seated (when that direction has been given) or to pass information that can't wait until after takeoff.

I have seen the call to the flight deck being made on some express carriers, so that may be their SOP, but it certainly is not on mainline.

threeoh

As a passenger, I've always assumed this was for two reasons:

(1) Landing is a busy time for the pilots, and just when they are extending gear and handling approach is not when they need to making extra announcements. Sure, pre-takeoff is busy too but it's on less of a strict timeline, when a delay of 10s to make an announcement is less likely to add to the pilot workload in a way that could affect safety of flight.

(2) Speaking of timeline, the approach and landing are very visible / audible to the flight attendants. Flaps, gears, and (unless very cloudy) the approach of terrain out the window usually makes it clear when you're going to land and how much time you have left. The timeline from double-ding to landing is both predictable and observable except in the rare case of a missed approach. The landing gear deploying kind of serves as a triple-ding warning bell.

Sitting in a taxi queue it's very hard to judge if you're 25 minutes away or 2 minutes away from the takeoff roll if you aren't listening to ATC and can't see out the front of the plane. So the announcement is more necessary.

Anyway that's my assumption/observation, happy to be corrected.

eng3

Thanks, great answers. And yes, I think UX may have the cockpit-FA call as I'm often sitting close enough to hear and there is no one else for the FA to be talking to. On mainline, now that I think of it, I do see them peaking out the window often while they are preparing the cabin. Must be hard at night when landing in a less populated area or over water but as you say, the landing gear is pretty obvious.

I often think of questions for this thread, but I'm usually sitting on an airplane at the time and by the time I come back to the forum, I've forgotten the question.

W/R to brand new FAs. I thought that for pilots, airlines tend to pair an inexperienced pilot with a very experienced one. That is not done with FA's? I would think that an airline would avoid putting a group of brand new FAs on the same flight with no one who is experienced. I would also think that someone who is experienced, gets into a routine where things become second nature (ie. hearing double ding or landing gear down)

LarryJ

I had an eventful trip recently that I thought would be worth sharing. I’m posting here as it’s mostly technical pilot stuff and that seemed to be a good fit for this thread.

First night of the trip was a Denver layover. Started on day two with a leg to a relatively small airport; the kind that might have been served only by regional aircraft a few years ago.

Strong, gusty crosswind for the takeoff so we used wind shear precautions which involve using max-thrust and a delayed rotation speed. That puts us in the best position possible if wind shear, or a microburst, is encountered just after liftoff. There was no convective activity, just a gusty crosswind, so a microburst was unlikely but the extra energy at liftoff would give us a more positive liftoff and ease the transition from going straight down the runway to flying in the quickly moving airmass. Everything worked at expected and off we went.

During the climb-out we received an ACARS message from Dispatch saying that there was a small, general aviation airplane disabled on the runway at our destination which would have the only runway we could use closed for an hour, or so, after our scheduled arrival. We didn’t have enough fuel for an hour-plus hold so they wanted us to return to Denver for more fuel and a short delay with the plan being to launch again to arrive about the time that the runway would be cleared. Never did find out exactly what happened but think it was just a landing airplane that had a flat tire and needed mechanics to help tow it off the runway. The Captain acknowledged the Dispatch message, called the F/As on the interphone to fill them in, then made an announcement to the passengers about the delay.

The return required us to turn around then fly past Denver on a downwind leg for the approach back to runway. In this configuration, they often use an RNAV RNP (Required Navigation Performance) approach which includes RF (Radius to Fix) legs to fly the curved path from the downwind to final. The 737 does these kinds of approaches very well. As long as we have it configured and on-speed at the right time it’ll nail the track and glidepath all the way around.

Shortly after we were established the approach, and just starting the RF (turning) leg, ATC had to break us off for traffic spacing. He gave us a heading and altitude to maintain and told us how to expect to rejoin the approach. This required a bit of fast typing and button pushing but nothing unusual. We modified the FMS flight plan so that it was prepared for the vectors-to-final that we were told to expect. We were quickly vectored back to the final and intercepted the approach.

The ceiling was dropping but we broke out just before minimums to see that the previous airplane hadn’t yet cleared the runway. As we saw him roll past another runway exit it became clear that he wouldn’t be able to clear the runway before we reached it, so we started the go-around. ATC got us right back around to the same RNAV RNP approach with the RF leg but, this time, we were able to fly the whole thing and land.

Denver got us refueled quickly and it wasn’t long before we were taxing back out for another departure. The winds were no longer gusty but more of a steady crosswind, but the ceiling and visibility were dropping. Not a problem, though. We deal with these conditions all the time.

It’s still my leg so off we go with me flying the takeoff. Just before rotation, the airplane pulls hard to the right and the Captain says, “Engine failure”. We were just past V1 which is the “takeoff decision speed” so we continue the takeoff. At that point it takes nearly full left-rudder to keep the airplane going straight down the runway. The Captain calls “Rotate”, and I start raising the nose. The rotation and liftoff are slower than normal but our pre-flight performance calculations insured that we’d have enough runway to safely complete the takeoff.

Before each takeoff we brief the procedure we’ll follow in the event of an engine failure. In this case, there was a special engine-out procedure for this runway due to the terrain around Denver. This requires us to fly the runway track until 6.0 nm south of the DEN VOR then turn left to a heading of 060 degrees. The climb and acceleration are slow, but steady.

At 400’ above field elevation I call for “Heading Select” and ask the Captain to track the centerline. He’ll adjust the heading bug to give me flight director commands to track the runway centerline.

At 800’ we level off and start accelerating. The flaps were set at 5 deg for takeoff so, once we’ve gained some airspeed, I call for Flaps 1. About this time we hit the 6.0 distance so the Captain turns the heading bug to 060 and I start the left turn. After some more accelerating I call for Flaps up. We continue to accelerate until we reach our clean maneuvering speed (based on weight) at which time I call “Set max continuous thrust, engine failure checklist”.

The engine failure checklist leads us through the procedure for securing the engine, or attempting to relight it if that’s possible, then adjusting various aircraft systems for single-engine flight. When complete, it refers us to the checklist for a single-engine landing.

During the single-engine landing checklist we configure the airplane for a single-engine landing by setting a Flaps-15 Vref (landing reference speed), starting the APU to replace the generator from the failed engine (up to now the generator on the operating engine was handling the full load), and configuring the bleed air so that the APU air is powering the pressurization, not the engine. This reducing the workload on the operating engine.
Visibility hasn’t gotten any better, so we elect to do the ILS approach instead of the RNAV. Once we’ve run the single-engine landing checklist down to the deferred items, the Captain finally has time to send a message to Dispatch, brief the F/As, and make a PA to the passengers. We brief the single-engine ILS approach and accomplish the descent checklist from the deferred items on the S/E landing checklist.

I had used the autopilot since the clean-up and acceleration was complete to help with the workload while we reconfigured the airplane and setup and briefed the approach. As ATC vectored us to join the localizer (final approach course), I disconnect the autopilot to hand-fly the approach and landing.

As you fly with an engine-out, you have to trim the rudder to compensate for the unbalance thrust. Each time you change the power setting of the operating engine you have to re-trim. Without re-trimming you’d have to hold constant rudder pressure which would become tiring fairly quickly. Once on the approach, configured, on-speed, and trimmed, however, the airplane is nice and balanced and quite manageable.

As we come down the glideslope we are configured with the gear down, flaps at 15, and airspeed at Vref+5. Visibility has dropped some more but is still above landing minimums. We’re landing on 17R, on the east side of the airport. Visibility readings on 16R, on the west side, have bottomed out and started improving.

The Captain calls “1000’”. I respond “Set missed approach altitude, cleared to land 17R”
The Captain calls “500’”. I respond “Stable” indicating that all parameters meet the stabilized approach criteria. If any didn’t, a missed approach would be required.
The Captain calls “approaching minimums” which indicates that we are 100’ above our decision altitude of 200’ above touchdown.
The Captain calls “minimums” but we don’t see the runway environment or approach lights so I start the missed approach procedure. I push the “TOGO” (Takeoff/Go-around) button on the thrust lever and call “Going around, Flaps 1, check thrust”, “Positive rate, gear up, set missed approach altitude”. At 400’ I’m back to the same profile that I described above for the climb and acceleration after the engine failure on takeoff.

As we complete the acceleration and clean up, the visibility for 17R has started increasing again, just as it had on 16R earlier. We are vectored back around for another ILS and, this time, we see the approach lights at about 300’, the “Approaching minimums” call, and I complete the single-engine landing.

I bring the airplane to a stop on the runway and, as you may have guessed by now, turned around to the simulator instructor to see what he has to say. He said that I had passed my checkride and we’d take a short break before the Captain takes his. The Captain’s checkride covers the same maneuvers as did mine with the addition of a high-speed rejected takeoff.

There was one additional thing that we both had to do which was a CAT III Autoland. This is for when the visibility is less than 1,800’. On runways that are so equipped, we can do an Autoland down to 600’ visibility. The recurrent training involves two CAT III approaches with one ending in a missed approach and the other in a landing. We include the alternate flaps 5 go-around procedure on the missed approach.

The alternate flaps 5 go-around procedure allows 737-900 flights to be dispatched to high-altitude airports at higher landing weights under certain conditions. On a normal go-around, flaps are initially retracted to flaps 15. On this alternate procedure you retract all the way to flaps 5 initially which improves the climb performance up to the acceleration altitude, normally 800’, and allows for landings at higher weights (more people, cargo, and fuel) when the landing weight would have been restricted by go-around climb performance. The hardest part of this procedure is remembering to call for “flaps 5”, instead of “flaps 15”, which is why we practice this on each trip to recurrent training.

We don’t do many autolands in the airplane (I think I’ve done four in the last five years) so it’s good practice. There are several differences, from a normal ILS, that must be briefed from the approach briefing guide which is included in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) in the airplane (and on our iPads). The most important items are that we set a decision height of 50’ on the radar altimeter (not the barometric), engage the second autopilot when cleared for the approach, monitor the Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA) for “FLARE” armed by 500’, have the flare capture in the flare, and disconnect the autopilot immediately after touchdown. There’s also a list of the items for which we’d execute a missed approach at each stage of the approach. This is all reviewed in the approach briefing.

As I said earlier, this was the second day of the “trip”. Each recurrent sim event is two days long. The first day is sim training and the second day is the “checkride”. The checkride day alternates between this event, called a Maneuvers Validation (MV), and a Line Oriented Evaluation (LOE). We go to “recurrent”, called Continuing Qualification, sim training every nine months. I did the CQT and CQMV this time so will do the CQTL and CQLOE in nine months. The LOE is conducted as though it were a line flight and the problems encountered are also more operationally oriented than aircraft oriented as is the MV.

On the first day, the CQT, we did a lot of single-engine practice, approach practice including RNAV, Localizer, and ILS approaches and go-arounds. Also, the windshear escape maneuver, terrain escape maneuver, TCAS resolution advisory compliance, and a number of system failures. This time we practiced several airspeed unreliable, AoA failure, and runaway trim procedures including a demo of manual trimming at excessively high airspeeds. Each sim period starts with a two-hour briefing, four hours in the simulator (with a short break in the middle), then a 30-minute debrief.

After the CQT we door emergency equipment and doors training. This involved operating all the emergency equipment, doors, exists, fire extinguishers, etc. There is also some recurrent security training.

The continuing qualification program also includes recurrent computer-based training that consists of three multiple-segment CBT courses which are accomplished one each trimester. We’re currently in the first trimester so the 1Q20 CBT course is current and must be completed by May 1. Starting May 2, the 2Q20 will be active, etc.

Some joke that us airline pilots flew for free. They paid us for enduring the training! As I head back home after training, it’s hard to argue with that!

wxguy

Thanks for posting this LarryJ! I used to instruct a module on weather in recurrent training for another airline (727-based), but heard about these "checkrides" from our FOs. I also flew many jumpseat rides on UA and experienced a few irregular operations. I was always impressed by the professionalism and calm, coordinated manner by which the UA pilots handled the events. One was an encounter with a dry microburst at Stapleton on the DC-10. Both the pilots and I learned from that one!

jgreen1024

First time I've seen one of these RNAV RNP approaches with the radius-to-fix - pretty interesting. RNAV equivalent of a DME arc kind of, except they can put the fix anywhere they want and not just at a radio transmitter. Your checkride sounds similar to my last flight review in a multi-engine plane, except that my engine failure happened at 400 feet AGL and was caused merely by an instructor pulling the throttle back to idle. The rest sounds similar, including the single-engine go-around, which was pretty exciting (a Seneca with only two people inside can actually produce a reasonable climb rate on a single engine when near the ground..)

Sadly, no autoland in any of the aircraft I fly.

The kind of training you describe is why I trust US airlines and never hesitate to get on board.

TomMM

Yes you had me hook, line and sinker. Started googleing for the ATC tapes......

Question: You get sim training every 9 months. Do you still need to meet the 90 day 3 takeoff/landings requirement for night flight? If so, does that ever become an issue if you are only scheduled to fly day trips?

UAL250

Great story! And you absolutely got me lol. I was looking for the Flyertalk thread or OMAAT post on this flight from hell.

Thanks for sharing.

mmayer

Had me all the way. Thank you for the continuing peeks behind the cockpit door!

xzh445

Nope... as TomMM said ... hook, line, sinker... get me a set of pliers please

What a great write up LarryJ. I am thinking the whole time - well.. a trip from hell,.. and all believable with the weather in DEN.
At the go-around, I am thinking.. man, I am glad these guys (gals )are that well trained.
Thanks for the insight..

Question - Opinion. APU re-light. Some carriers leave the APU Operational thru taxi/takeoff/10,000 feet. I am assuming that is no longer UA's practice. (fuel conservation)
Should/could the relight procedure be earlier in the sequence? It seems kind of late in the procedures described. I know the workload is heavy with an engine out, but it seems that the APU relight earlier in the the process would add that cushion for electrical/hydraulics,.
Tks.

goalie

Larry J-

Brilliant and not only av-geeky, but like others have posted, got me as well when you “stuck the landing” ^

PHLGovFlyer

Great writeup!

Curious if there have been any changes in the legacy 737 training for runaway trim and manual trimming at high airspeeds in light of the information coming from the 737Max crashes?

physioprof

Thanks for posting that LarryJ! Very interesting! Would be good for people who think airline pilots "don't do anything" and planes could just be flown by computers.