12 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Don't shoot the messenger guys. We only share information, not opinions or personal preferences.  If we are unfamiliar with procedures at different airlines or believe there may be a risk involved, many training departments have different decisions and procedures despite our preferences. 

 

As I mentioned, airlines can request different options from the manufacturer, some of which we have heard about and some we haven't. 

 

I had the same reaction/opinion when an unlatched door during takeoff run before V1 can trigger a Master warning and they expect an abort. I had to look on the FCOM vol I  and this is the breakdown of the scenario and their decision-making process:

 

• An unlatched door during the takeoff run and before V1 (decision speed) will trigger a Master Warning in the cockpit. This warning is a critical alert designed to get the crew's immediate attention.
• • Decompression in the cabin, causing oxygen deprivation and other physiological problems for passengers and crew.
  • Loss of control due to aerodynamic instability.
  • Damage to the aircraft structure from wind and flying debris.
•  

 

I think it depends on the speed though, thus mine and stearmans comments about low speed vs high speed. Boeing make this clear in their own 777 QRH  above 80 it’s fire/fire warning engine failure or unsafe unable to fly. 
 

Does your airline specifically advise pilots  to reject above 80 (high speed reject) on the 777 (and presumably 74 also) if you get a config doors warning? 

Obviously if you’re independently deciding that it means the aircraft is unsafe/unable to fly and a high speed reject is safer then that’s different. 
 

I wouldn’t reject for doors in the high speed phase though and it looks like Boeing don’t advise it either, on the 777 anyway. 

Edited May 21, 20242 yr by g-liner

3 hours ago, g-liner said:

I wouldn’t reject for doors in the high speed phase though and it looks like Boeing don’t advise it either, on the 777 anyway. 

Yes, that's correct. The decision to follow that procedure was based on the potential for debris to cause damage to the airplane, such as the fuselage, landing gear, flaps, engines, and flight control surfaces. It was determined that an abort up to and including V1 is safe, and there are no concerns about high or low-speed aborts based on computed data and aircraft certification. Despite our concerns and even with examples from our industry of what a high-speed reject implications (even before V1), we were told that this is what we have to teach and observe during sim training plus that that's their decision approved by authorities. The only thing that we can do is to emphasize that ultimately the PIC has the final decision.

Unfortunately, there are instances where unqualified or inexperienced people hold management positions and will not let it go. Being within 1 year before retiring I'm not gonna lose my pension over this, but I can emphasize that under emergency authority PIC can deviate from any procedures and rules in the interest of the safety of the flight. Needless to say, it didn't align with their opinion, and the 'inspector'. Believe me, sometimes I'm just waiting for my last flight, even though I know I'll regret it.

On 5/19/2024 at 11:21 PM, DD_Arthur said:

You’ve got that the wrong way round; it is useful for weather evasion. The problem is the weather doesn’t need to be evaded.

🤣

Great that they will implement WX Radar as it gives more immersion when simulating course deviations. 

Of course it would be great if weather would be  harsher in the red areas, but I’ve never really *had* to avoid those in home simulators when flying in tubeliners (that includes P3D + AS). 

45 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Of course it would be great if weather would be  harsher in the red areas

I wonder will the combination of the WX radar and Active Sky change that?

17 hours ago, LRBS said:

Yes, that's correct. The decision to follow that procedure was based on the potential for debris to cause damage to the airplane, such as the fuselage, landing gear, flaps, engines, and flight control surfaces. It was determined that an abort up to and including V1 is safe, and there are no concerns about high or low-speed aborts based on computed data and aircraft certification. Despite our concerns and even with examples from our industry of what a high-speed reject implications (even before V1), we were told that this is what we have to teach and observe during sim training plus that that's their decision approved by authorities. The only thing that we can do is to emphasize that ultimately the PIC has the final decision.

Unfortunately, there are instances where unqualified or inexperienced people hold management positions and will not let it go. Being within 1 year before retiring I'm not gonna lose my pension over this, but I can emphasize that under emergency authority PIC can deviate from any procedures and rules in the interest of the safety of the flight. Needless to say, it didn't align with their opinion, and the 'inspector'. Believe me, sometimes I'm just waiting for my last flight, even though I know I'll regret it.

I feel your pain, over the years I’ve seen all sorts of managers coming in and reinventing the wheel during my career or making change for changes sake. Luckily now we’ve gone full circle and back towards Boeing procedures and recommendations and life's far better imho. 
 

Apologies if my initial post seemed a bit opinionated, I was actually coming on to apologise and was pleased to see your reasonable reply. 

20 hours ago, LRBS said:

Unfortunately, there are instances where unqualified or inexperienced people hold management positions and will not let it go

 

2 hours ago, g-liner said:

over the years I’ve seen all sorts of managers coming in and reinventing the wheel during my career or making change for changes sake

Oh, so  true.

On 5/21/2024 at 9:06 AM, Stearmandriver said:

"fire, failure, fear or shear"

I like that one, I think I might start using that in the brief.

17 hours ago, GCBraun said:

Great that they will implement WX Radar as it gives more immersion when simulating course deviations. 

Of course it would be great if weather would be  harsher in the red areas, but I’ve never really *had* to avoid those in home simulators when flying in tubeliners (that includes P3D + AS). 

It‘s actually simulated in XP12.

24 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

It‘s actually simulated in XP12.

In XP12 my experience is that is quite frequently raining, but I've never had significant issues when flying into bad weather with big jets.

3 hours ago, GCBraun said:

In XP12 my experience is that is quite frequently raining, but I've never had significant issues when flying into bad weather with big jets.

That‘s weird. You will feel big turbulences and sometimes Autopilot-disconnects when flying into a CB for example.

Still nothing new and exciting about the Boeing 777? The two months release span are now over since two weeks.

At least we get a finished product and not a early acces which seems to be the standard nowadays with almost every product.

It is nice to have some software like Fenix and Pmdg where you don't have to load a new update every day and what actually works like it should be!

Edited May 29, 20242 yr by rob0203

3 hours ago, JetCat said:

Still nothing new and exciting about the Boeing 777? The two months release span are now over since two weeks.

Another RSR special of a well-done missed deadline served up as a main course with his word salad side dish. 

Edited May 29, 20242 yr by B777ER