 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier check airman reported pilots lack of understanding concerning the technical data and logic behind climb gradients.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1533889 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201804 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Check Pilot |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
This is to address the ongoing issue of proper incorporation of climb gradient considerations in [performance and weight and balance calculations] and our current checklist procedures. As a check airman; I have had this conversation many times over the last five years in the context of opc (optimum performance capability) or all engine performance; and now with [performance and weight and balance calculations]. The vast majority of discussions I've had on the subject have revealed a significant lack of understanding on the part of our pilot group concerning the technical data and logic behind climb gradients.over the last six weeks alone; I have worked with five captain upgrade crews in the simulator and two senior first officer's (first officers) soon to upgrade. In every case; the pilots did not understand how to properly brief or apply climb gradients to their flights. They were unsure of how to check for proper [climb] restrictions in the FMC after loading [performance and weight and balance calculations] data. I believe this lack of understanding merits significant training effort in the form of procedures-training publication material. Further; I believe it is important to modify our checklist procedures during the before push and departure plan checklists to verify correct [climb] settings have been set. I think we should modify the [performance and weight and balance] display screens to match the checklist flow.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Air Carrier Check Airman reported pilots lack of understanding concerning the technical data and logic behind climb gradients.
Narrative: This is to address the ongoing issue of proper incorporation of climb gradient considerations in [Performance and Weight and Balance Calculations] and our current checklist procedures. As a Check Airman; I have had this conversation many times over the last five years in the context of OPC (Optimum Performance Capability) or All Engine performance; and now with [Performance and Weight and Balance Calculations]. The vast majority of discussions I've had on the subject have revealed a significant lack of understanding on the part of our Pilot Group concerning the technical data and logic behind climb gradients.Over the last six weeks alone; I have worked with five Captain Upgrade Crews in the simulator and two senior FO's (First Officers) soon to upgrade. In every case; the Pilots DID NOT UNDERSTAND how to properly brief or apply climb gradients to their flights. They were unsure of how to check for proper [climb] restrictions in the FMC after loading [Performance and Weight and Balance Calculations] data. I believe this lack of understanding merits significant training effort in the form of Procedures-Training publication material. Further; I believe it is important to modify our checklist procedures during the Before Push and Departure Plan Checklists to verify correct [climb] settings have been set. I think we should modify the [Performance and Weight and Balance] display screens to match the checklist flow.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.