7ER Newsletter April 2017 1 October 2015 April 2017 In this issue Avoiding Fueling-Related Delays (and Embarrassment) Inflight UV Exposure and You (Continued) Another CPDLC Save Upgraded FDPro Capability 2016 Year End FOQA Highlights (Part Two) Short Shots 7ER Fleet Newsletter Captain Chuck Todaro Chief Line Check Pilot [email protected]Captain Bill Thurber Chief Line Check Pilot [email protected]Captain Bob Buehler Fleet Captain [email protected]This newsletter is published by the Pilot Standards Teams. It is intended to provide additional detail surrounding operational policies and procedures and aircraft technical information for the line pilots. The discussion of flight procedures herein is not intended to override or replace official guidance in the flight manuals. Where a conflict exists, the current flight manual governs. The opinions expressed are those of the Fleet Captain, Chief Line Check Pilot and/or the Fleet Technical Manager.
This newsletter is published by the Pilot Standards Teams. It is intended to provide additional detail surrounding operational policies and procedures and aircraft technical information for the line pilots. The discussion of flight procedures herein is not intended to override or replace official guidance in the flight manuals. Where a conflict exists, the current flight manual governs. The opinions expressed are those of the Fleet Captain, Chief Line Check Pilot and/or the Fleet Technical Manager.
The following article is excerpted from a presentation at the March Flight Standards Base Meeting by ATL LLCP Capt. Larry “The Fuel Guy” Kershaw. Capt. Kershaw is the B757/767 expert on fuel and fueling issues.
How much fuel do you REALLY need?
According to Vol 1, Limitations, if the wing tanks are not full, center tank fuel may not exceed 2,000 (22,000 for the B767) pounds. If these limits are exceeded an AWABS computer lockout will occur, preventing delivery of a WDR.
During fueling, the fueling valves will close automatically when the pre-selected quantity is reached, or when the tank is full by volume, and a Volumetric Top Off (VTO) occurs. This may happen before the main tank gauges indicate full.
Why does this happen? It depends on what your definition of “full” is. Depending on the ship number our B757 wing tanks hold between 2,170 and 2,238 gallons of fuel. The B767-300ER wing tanks hold between 5,993 and 6,070 gallons. Fuel weight is determined by multiplying the number of gallons by the weight of each gallon. It is important to note that the weight of a gallon of jet fuel varies. This variation is caused by different fuel density. The factors causing differing fuel density go beyond the scope of this article. Just know that density varies.
When the weight of fuel in the tanks is calculated fuel densities of 6.3 to 6.9 are used. Using the most common B757 main tank capacity of 2,176 gallons and multiplying by a low-end fuel density of 6.3 yields a full tank fuel weight of 13,708 pounds. This same aircraft fueled at a different place and time, using a fuel density of 6.7 will show 14,579 pounds in a full tank. For Load Control to generate a WDR for this B757, assuming full main tanks are required, there must be at least 13,708 pounds showing. This is the minimum tolerance.
If a VTO occurs prior to “required full” wing tank the fueler needs to take some action. If the fueler has a hand-held device he/she can signal this is a VTO. The information will be relayed to Load Control Center (LCC) and the AWABs template can be processed as long as the wing tank fuel is within tolerance.
If the fueler is without a fueling hand-held device he/she should notify station operations of the VTO. The information will be relayed to Load Control Center (LCC) and the AWABs can be processed as long as the wing tank fuel is within tolerance.
Preflight Fuel Imbalance Problems
Before refueling an aircraft the fueler is required to record the fuel quantity and note any fuel imbalance that is out of tolerance. Tolerances are found in FOM 14.4.6. For our fleet the maximum wing-to-wing imbalance is 1500 lbs. If there is an imbalance the fueler should attempt to determine the cause, such as a running APU or a maintenance engine run. If the cause of the imbalance cannot be determined the fueler will make a CAUSE UNKNOWN annotation which will appear on the EFSR.
Crews may see fueler remarks on the EFSR such as those shown below. In the case of a CAUSE UNKNOWN annotation the fueler/ramp supervisor must first determine if the wing gauge is reading correctly. Typically, this is done by going to the flight deck and comparing the wing gauges and the flight deck gauges. The comparison of flight deck and wing fuel gauges IS the “ALTN METHOD” indicated by the message. Unfortunately, this is the same terminology that is used for “inoperative gauge refueling” procedures.
If the wing gauges and flight deck gauges agree there is nothing wrong with the fuel indicating system. “Normal” fueling is accomplished and an EFSR is sent with the “IMBAL
7ER Newsletter April 2017
3
CAUSE UNKN TANK QTY VERIFIED BY ALTN METHOD” in the remarks section. If the wing fuel and flight deck gauges do not agree, the stick method, as described in the FOM 14.4.7, would be accomplished, requiring a paper Fuel Service Record (FSR). Expect a change to the FOM language, clarifying required crew action for an unexplained imbalance.
Inflight UV Exposure and You (Continued)
In February’s article on the dangers of UV exposure on the flight deck we stated that the
UV-A component at altitude is only a few percentage points higher than that at sea level.
Boeing states that UV-A exposure through the windows is only slightly higher at high
altitude than at sea level and being outdoors at sea level, with no window glass at all, would
likely be more of a concern regarding UV-A exposure than exposure through a cockpit
window at cruising altitude.
Any UV-A exposure, however, still does carry some risk. According to the Skin Cancer
Foundation website, studies over the past two decades show that UV-A damages skin cells
in the basal layer of the epidermis and may contribute to the formation of some skin
cancers.
The Skin Cancer Foundation recommends those seeking to further protect themselves from
UV exposure should apply a broad spectrum (UV-A/UV-B) sunscreen with a sun protection
factor (SPF) of at least 15.
Quick Quiz #1
When are crews required to reference ODM landing distance or submit a Landing Performance Request (LPR)?
a) For B757-200, any time runway length is less than 7000’ b) For B767-300, any time runway length is less than 8000’ c) For B757-300, any time runway length is less than 8500’ d) All of the above e) Submitting a LPR is always optional
7ER Newsletter April 2017
4
Another CPDLC Save
A recent stuck mic event highlights the importance of CPDLC logons. The CPDLC auto transfer between Scottish and Maastricht failed, so the crew logged on manually. ATC was able to uplink CHECK STUCK MICROPHONE and the crew was able to regain VHF contact. During a review of this incident, it was also discovered that the CPDLC and controller boundary is incorrectly marked on the Jeppesen charts and Flite Deck Pro. It is in the process of being corrected.
Although there continues to be CPDLC auto transfer issues between London / Scottish and Maastricht, you are strongly encouraged to logon to Maastricht (EDYY) to facilitate air traffic control and enhance safety. As you can see from the recent numbers below, less than a third of our flights are logging on.
Emirates 76 %
Air Canada 66 %
Cathay Pacific 62 %
United 55%
Etihad 41 %
Delta 32 %
If CPDLC fails to transfer from Maastricht to Scottish, please make sure you manually logon to Scottish to enable an auto transfer to Shanwick. This is especially important in an RLatSM environment for Shanwick to verify your FANS functionality prior to oceanic entry.
Quick Quiz #2
What’s wrong with this picture? (Hint: There may be more than one thing)
7ER Newsletter April 2017
5
Upgraded FDPro Capability
Jeppesen Flight Deck Pro v8.5 adds several new features useful for flight planning and following. Among them is the ability to plot ETPs and mark ETP airports.
Select ETP and the ETP/ETOPS window opens. Simply type or paste the ETP airports and ETP coordinates in the required fields, then select DONE. Repeat for the next ETP and airport pair.
7ER Newsletter April 2017
6
2016 Year End FOQA Highlights (Part Two)
This is the continuation from March’s newsletter of calendar year 2016 trends detected under the FOQA program.
High Speed Taxi
“If everything seems under control, you’re just not going fast enough.” Mario Andretti
“You win some, you lose some, and you wreck some.” Dale Earnhardt
“Dad taught me everything I know. Unfortunately, he didn’t teach me everything he
knows.” Al Unser Jr.
These tongue-in-cheek quotes highlight an increasing concern to our operation, high taxi
speeds.
Guidance for taxi speeds is found in the FCTM 2.9. A short review of this section reminds us
that normal taxi speed is 20 knots adjusted for conditions. On straight taxi routes speeds of
up to 30 knots are permissible. On dry surfaces 10 knots for taxi angles greater than those
typically required for high speed runway turnoffs. So there it is: 30, 20 and 10.
FOQA data helps identify where we are experiencing threats or could be expected to
experience threats based on fleet specific data trends. Call it a tool for identifying where
the next “predictable surprise” might come from, borrowing language from the book “The
Challenger Launch Decision” by Diane Vaughan. A predictable surprise occurs when
deviations from standard organization practices occur regularly and with seemingly no ill
consequence…. until there is one. As deviations become increasingly common they become
the new “normal”. The previous out of tolerance low temperature launches that Challenger
had successfully completed, allowed (normalized) a design flaw to be ignored until the O-
ring seal on the starboard solid rocket booster failed 73 seconds into STS-51-L.
Throughout the airline we are concerned with a trend toward ever higher taxi speeds,
especially the taxi-in speeds (speed from runway turnoff to gate arrival). The predictable
surprise is that we will have to stop an aircraft very quickly for an event. It’s already
happened. The fleet has had instances this year of injuries to flight attendants following the
predictable surprise of ground traffic interfering with the aircraft taxi and the need for a
quick stop. Important to note the crews were not deviating from our taxi speed guidance,
the speeds were fairly low and yet we still had injured flight attendants. Have you had a
baggage tug fail to yield at a zipper crossing? Or a chock not set correctly after brake
release followed by a roll back and a quick brake reset? These events occurred this year.
Should a quick stop be needed at high taxi speed the injury potential escalates?
Less obvious to us are the yaw rates generated as taxi speeds increase. We can however
capture this data on most of the FOQA equipped planes. As taxi speeds increase the
potential for high lateral acceleration also increases. A high performance sports car might
corner at .80 lateral Gs or more. In the airplane world, we get excited when the lateral G
rate exceeds .30.
What we feel up front isn’t what the folks are experiencing in the back. Potentially
increasing the lateral G load is the use of the tiller at higher taxi speeds even when the
heading change is very slight. FCTM 2.10 has cautions regarding tiller use and speed.
7ER Newsletter April 2017
7
The predicable surprise resulting from a high lateral acceleration event might involve a
passenger who falls trying to bolt to the lavatory shortly after landing, all while being
chased by a flight attendant. We agree they should have remained seated, but they don’t.
Here are some quick numbers. The B757 accounts for 26.7% of the total high speed taxi
events at the airline, the highest proportion among all fleets. The 737 is next at 23%. 94%
of the events occur in VFR WX. The chart below highlights the percentages broken down by
the location. The most frequently occurring events - ATL, DEN, DTW, MCO and MSP.
Percent of flights taxiing faster than 30 knots.
There appears to be some level of correlation between speed and taxi distance, however,
MSP is shown as an airport with comparatively short taxi distances. Data indicates that our
next highest threat airports, in addition to the above, are LAS and SEA. Note the increasing
trend of over 40 KT. taxi speeds shown in the chart below.
7ER Newsletter April 2017
8
The percentage of flights taxiing faster than 40 KTS. is fairly small, but in an operation of
our size the actual number is significant. The chart below shows the actual number of
B757 flights and the percentage that operated over 30 KTS. Notice that we had seven
flights in 2016 taxing faster than 50 kts.
7ER Newsletter April 2017
9
So many of our safety metrics are going down nicely, this is one of the few that is not. How
might we mitigate this predictable surprise? The first way is simply awareness that we have
a problem. Best to be vigilant of our speed. The table below shows the average taxi
speeds.
First officers, you can aid your Captains in maintaining a prudent taxi speed by leaving your
screens on (ground speed display visible) until you’re parked at the gate. Please speak up if
the taxi speed exceeds 30 kts. Don’t be lured into a high speed taxi predictable surprise, 40
really is not the new 30!
Short Takeaways
• Proactively manage your airspeed in the terminal to avoid the ROD and late configuration
UA.
• FOQA data is often showing flaps 20 departures operating below V2 due to high initial
pitch attitude. Rarely is more than 12 degrees of pitch needed to fly a flaps 20
departure. Fly the flight director accurately but be suspicious of commands above 20
degrees. Confirm F/D pitch commands against the airspeed indicator.
• Updated visual approach guidance has migrated to Vol 1. NOI 3.23 note the differences
in day and night visuals, especially as it applies to altitude.
• FCTM 7.25 has revised guidance for RA compliance on parallel approaches. Note the
differences in day and night compliance requirements.
Thank you for your dedication and care to our flight attendants, ground personnel and our
passengers. We are safer today than yesterday, safer still tomorrow!
7ER Newsletter April 2017
10
Short Shots
New first flight of the day requirement coming soon - It will soon be a first flight of the day requirement to check the Airworthiness Certificate located on the flight deck door in order to verify the aircraft tail number for correctness.
New preflight procedure coming soon – Clearing the ATC LOG will soon be part of our preflight procedures. This log is supposed to clear 10 minutes after shutdown but because of a known anomaly, sometimes it doesn’t happen. An old message could pop up and a crew may inadvertently think it is current when it is not. This could result in the crew mistakenly loading routing from a previous flight.
Release brakes, NOT - Reference FOM ramp operations policy. Do not release the parking brake if the ramp is icy or during conditions where the winds, including gusts, will exceed 30 knots. We recently had an incident where a 757-300 was physically moved enough by strong winds in DTW that the off-loading of passengers had to be stopped. The nose wheel moved over 3 feet from its parked position!
Checklist boxed items - It is required to execute the black boxed items whenever you are given a runway or intersection change. This applies even though you have improved performance, i.e. planning on an intersection departure but getting full length on the same runway.
Easy on the power, Captain! - Excessive power while taxiing single engine is a current hot topic. Reference FCTM 2.6, “if greater than 80% N2 is required to start moving, ensure the area behind the aircraft is clear.” Also, consider all-engine taxi on uphill slopes, soft asphalt, in congested ramp areas, at high altitude airports, or when heavy weight.
Uncommanded turns, again – Occasionally a crew allows the 757/767 to wander off. This happens when a pilot inadvertently releases the aircraft from its leash by making flight path changes while in close proximity to a waypoint. Reference FB 16-04. We had a crew violation from NAT UK for inputting a lateral offset when very close to the oceanic entry point.
7ER Newsletter April 2017
11
Quick Quiz Answers
#1 d) All of the above (FCTM Approach and Missed Approach, Vol 1, NP)
#2 Two latches not latched
7ER Newsletter April 2017
12
Still thirsty for information? See Topics Of Interest. There you can find the latest trends and issues affecting our operation.
Some of you have asked, “What happened to Dr. Pangea?” Pangea has been incorporated into the 7ER Newsletter. Rest assured the doctor is alive and well.
![2018 Annual Meeting Poster Session Abstracts...7ER (MIKS [EW YWIH XS GSRXI\XYEPM^I XLI RYQIVMGEP GVMQI HEXE XS GLEVEGXIVM^I REVGSZMSPIRGI EW E XVERWREXMSREP ITMHIQMG ERH EREP]^I MX](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/60d71afa154cd377f96f9646/2018-annual-meeting-poster-session-abstracts-7er-miks-ew-ywih-xs-gsrxixyepmi.jpg)
