I would be interested if some of the bizjet pilots on here could relate some of the operating procedures they use that could be relevant to pilots who don't fly for a living but who, for example, fly airways single pilot IFR.
The example (and it is JUST AN EXAMPLE) below is obviously designed for a two crew 'light jet' scenario.
There might be something of relevance to a conscientious, single crew pilot?
(PF = Pilot Flying PM = Pilot Monitoring)
Normal Take Off
PF - Sets 'Take Off' N1 power setting PM - Calls "Take off power set and matched" when both engines equalise at N1 take off power.
PM - calls "air speed alive" PF - calls "Checked"
PM - calls "80kts" PF - calls "cross checked" (and will abort if there is any significant mis compare)
PM - calls "V1" PF - removes hand from power levers and is committed to take off.
PM - calls "rotate" PF - rotates to target pitch attitude and 'syncs' flight director
PM - calls "positive rate" PF - will call for the gear to be raised and for the landing lights to be switched off
PM - calls "plus 25 and 400" (when speed is V2 + 25kts AND the aircraft is 400 feet above field elevation) PF - calls for flaps up
PF - calls "engage yaw damper" PM - engages yaw damper, confirms that it has engaged and calls "yaw damper engaged"
The PF will call for the 'After Take Off checks' and the departure will then be flown as briefed.
Aborting
In the event of a malfunction on the take off roll (BELOW V1) the PM will call the malfunction (by reference to the annunciator panel) and the Captain (regardless whether he is PF / PM) will call either continue or abort.
In the event of an aborted take off, the PM will deploy the 'ground flap', and advise ATC.
General
The PF will operate the power levers, flight guidance panel and the coupled FMS (if the aircraft is fitted with a second FMS the PM will operate that). The PM will work the radio and also the Altitude Selector knob - keeping his finger on the knob until the PF has confirmed that he believes the selected altitude / flight level is correct.
Landing
PM - calls "spoilers extended" when spoilers extended annunciator illuminates following PF's deployment of 'ground flap'.
PM - calls "through 80" when the aircraft has decelerated to a speed below 80kts.
Thanks. Interesting callouts. I tend to mentally run through some similar calls on takeoff (adapted for piston of course) but also:
When given a flight level - Standard altimeter set
At 10,000 ft - Cabin pressurising
When given an altitude - QNH set
on landing calling - stabilised at 500ft.
The calls Julian outlines are fairly standard throughout many models of light jets. I addition an important part of the procedure is the crew brief that is done before takeoff, including what the plan is in the event of malfunctions at various times, and also the departure routing.
Many of the scenarios in the standard calls and the briefing are because in a jet one would normally be continuing the takeoff in the event of an engine problem above V1, even if still on the ground at that point, although V1 and Vr are very close together on the types I have flown (Citations). Not an option in most smaller GA aircraft!
Many of the scenarios in the standard calls and the briefing are because in a jet one would normally be continuing the takeoff in the event of an engine problem above V1, even if still on the ground at that point, although V1 and Vr are very close together on the types I have flown (Citations). Not an option in most smaller GA aircraft!
Why not in smaller GA?
I think the only difference is that in a jet you have the "balanced runway" rule i.e. if you have a problem before V1 you can close the throttles and brake like hell and if you did the sums right it's supposed to stop before going off the runway.
You could do the same in piston GA but virtually nobody does it.
I suppose the runways are usually too short for it to be useful.
You could do the same in piston GA but virtually nobody does it.
V1 in piston aircraft does not make much sense. The most important thing about V1 is that passing that speed, you are committed to continue your takeoff. To emphasize this, at V1 the pilot removes his hands from the throttle levers so that he won't be able to abort the takeoff. Obviously, in a single engine aircraft (no matter if piston or turbine) this will not work. It will not get airborne with a failed or failing engine for long, so the whole concept becomes meaningless. On most piston twins (GA types at least, no idea about the larger ones like the DC3 for example) this is not going to work either, because they will not get airborne at all on one engine alone, or be very difficult to control and performing so marginally that a crash will be almost inevitable.
And regarding the original question about SOPs: In our company, I am involved in creating and revising the SOPs. Only last week we had a day-long meeting discussing very minor adjustments. It is a very delicate matter... SOPs are not a fixed thing or something that works for everybody, but they are both company and aircraft specific. 85 percent of the (/our) SOPs are about workload and task sharing and inter-crew communication in a multi-crew environment for various situations, both normal and abnormal.
So instead of writing about our SOPs (only 15% of which - at best! - may be applicable to single pilot operation) I would suggest that JasonC, the original poster, describes (in short words) how he operates his aeroplane now and where he sees areas that could be improved by introducing some standardisation. I think we could then offer some suggestions on how to formulate this as operting procedures.
Regards max
OK. Let me try to describe some of my personal procedures.
before calling ready:
Entering runway:
Climb
Enroute
Approach
And I agree on the v1 point. If I had an engine problem I would never takeoff regardless of runway remaining. I would continue for example with a vacuum failure however - it is not essential in my plane other than for deicing and pressurisation.
V1 in piston aircraft does not make much sense
Sure it doesn't in the engine failure sense, but the concept is still applicable to things other than engine failures.
For example, let's say that just before Vr I get a passenger going berserk. Am I going to close the throttle, PROB99 go off the end of the runway, smash the plane up, just because somebody panicked? No; I will get airborne, tell the passenger to shut up, and come back to land. Same with a burning smell in the cockpit, though in that case I would probably make a quick transmission and switch off the electrics in the climb.
This discussion is probably going to lead to airframe-specific checklists, which are really important but which are really rare in GA, where most people fly with generic checklists from the nearest pilot shop. A checklist needs to be customised for the systems actually installed.
For example, for the TB20, there is no checklist other than the near-useless pilot shop one. The checklist is presented in various fragments in various POH pages, so you need to make your own, suitably edited to suite the systems. I have two OAT probes and on departure check both against the ATIS temperature, for example.
For example, let's say that just before Vr I get a passenger going berserk. Am I going to close the throttle, PROB99 go off the end of the runway, smash the plane up, just because somebody panicked?
If it happens "just before V1" as you write, you can safely abort (if your V1 was calculated correctly) and you should abort!
At our FTO (where I mostly instruct ME/IR) our briefing is as follows:
Any malfunction before rotation: Abort
Engine failure after rotation with sufficient runway ahead (which is the case with almost any runway longer than 1500m for singles and light twins): Cut the power and land straight ahead
Engine failure after rotation and no sufficient runway: Perform single engine drills (single engine: look for a suitabe field and perform EFATO drills)
This concept works without the (in these cases) misleading V1!
And for Jason: Thanks for your quick reply, when I have a quiet moment, I will match your input with our SOPs!
I thought about the values of TOLD cards in GA cockpits. I noticed the usage on Guido Warneckes videos, which are quite interesting to watch for a non professional pilot.
On one of the templates I saw the field for the accelerate-stop distance, witch may be more useful in the SEP theatre, especially when normalized at the half-runway markings. Would help with a decision if one should continue or abort with a door popping open on the runway or stuff like that. And even if you don't need the actual value, you may benefit from having dealt with it prior take off.
I always found it quite remarkable, that the more professional the pilot is flying, the more emphasis is on procedures, whether they may be known by heart or by paper. It is observed, that minimum hour pilots often tend to ditch the checklists and proper procedures, as if they are considered a burden or nuisance. And yet, those minimum hour pilots are those, who'd need them most, I figure. But that may be exaggeration in my perception, since I deal with aviation safety quite a lot these days.
Safe flights!
