Previewing flight plan modifications
-
While you are quite correct in flagging up your concerns I believe that in real life operations changes to the routing should be checked by both pilots before being executed. It's well worth bearing in mind that the implementation of FMC based navigation procedures was not entirely without incident. The relatively old, but still very relevant American Airways training video 'Children of the Magenta' is well worth watching on utube. This highlights many of the initial issues that occurred as a result of automation dependancy.
https://youtu.be/5ESJH1NLMLs?si=DPSHtmiJ9_8Zx99o -
Indeed, “Children of the Magenta” and their offspring “Fast Finger Freddie”.
-
I usually enter the arrival procedures during preflight already, so that I have accurate calculations. Therefore, sometimes I need to change the procedures inflight to the one actually used. Right now, I can only check the new procedures in the legs page without being able to see how it would be drawn before executing. Again, I don't now how the real unit works, but I would find it very surprising, if the ND does not draw any modifications like every other aircraft.
-
ITRW - It’s usual to wait to be told by ATC what the Transition and / STAR route will be. When there is more than a single runway (ie, Frankfurt has 3 parallel runways) the one you are using can be notified to you quite late.
It wasn’t too many years ago that we flew from beacon to beacon, often flew procedural approaches, used paper charts, operated as many as nine sector in day, day or night, single crew in all weathers, often without an autopilot. No ND display back then… Kids today … 😱.
-
I can't believe how difficult it is to find out, if the real plane draws flight plan modifications or not. I was hoping that a pilot who knows the RJ is reading here or that JF could ask one of their advisors. Too bad that there is no proper real manual available for this specific FMC, otherwise I would not need to ask these stupid questions.
Yes, I also come from a time were we jumped from radial to radial with no GPS on board. Good old times. Thanks for calling me a kid though, makes me feel young again.
-
‘Kid’ - writing about the younger generation of pilots.
No, the RJ (nor any other FMS I’ve used) draws an image on the ND prior to the entry becomes active.
If you want a manual you could buy it from Collins, but anyway, the RJs JF FMS does not fully replicate the real thing. Yes, I was an RJ pilot.
-
You are welcome. Yes, the RJ was enjoyable to operate. Personally, I had most fun with the earlier 146; a heavy -300 at 50*c could be interesting, or squeezing a heavy -300 on a hot summer day in the UK up to FL 310 (before RVSM restrictions) took some work!
BTW, have you, or do you use the facilities on the lower part of the EFIS control panels? N-AID, ARPT can be of use to give orientation when displayed on the ND. The ‘glass’ 146 aircraft also had the function available.
-
Yes, I use those. The EFIS is actually really powerful and gives a lot of situational awareness.
I also enjoy the 146, it is a lot of work and very rewarding. The only thing I don't really like is that you have to watch the speed like a hawk. If your N1 is a tiny bit to fast, the aircraft will go faster and faster. If it is a bit to slow, the aircraft will go slower and slower. I found that N1 increases with airspeed at a fixed throttle setting and thus there is no speed stability in the JF simulation. I'm using .65 in the -100 and -200 and .67 in the -300. There a a few topics about this here:
https://community.justflight.com/topic/6687/how-to-stabilize-kias
https://community.justflight.com/topic/6797/146-cruise-speed
I would really appreciate if you could share your experience in the real aircraft. -
I agree with the comments made by Mark and A Former User. I can add a little from the real aircraft perspective.
The altimeter system (unlike that of the RJ) is obviously more prone to variations of holding altitude with speed changes/temperature and power changes. The research aircraft at Cranfield has, as I understand it, undergone been modification to use the RJ sensors to allow RVSM operations- but I doubt that was cheap to do! I guess they can get up above 146 operating altitudes as it’s not carrying 112 pax.
146 type: Having captured (say) FL 280, the ability to maintain it varies with change of speed; slow down a few knots/M and it will descend slightly; increase speed and it will climb slightly. Speed changes may be the result of warmer/colder airmass and subsequent N1 increase or decrease, as well as fuel burn and a reduction in a/c mass. How much climb or descent? Some a/c were better than others, but typically 50’ to 80’ from required altitude. We had a form to fill in an advise the engineers if we thought it excessive. We would record parameters such as OAT (or was it TAT?), Fl, speed/mach, N1 and captured altitude and variance. They had a BAe doc to compare to and decided if it was acceptable or not.
To recapture the assigned FL, most pilots used the sync button. Very few used the pitch UP/DOWN on the rear of the centre console and ALT capture - it was so prone to under/overshoot.
I’m happy when I have the time to answer other 146/RJ questions if I can. But, we will fall out if you keep calling the thrust levers ‘throttles’. Cessna like to use ‘throttle’ for their jet - but BAe do not.😏