Narrative:

This report is being written to point out the difficulties obtaining performance numbers from our performance data message paperwork. The other day we had an aircraft swap for our flight and the new dispatch release had the correct ship number on the top half of the dispatch release; but the incorrect aircraft in the performance data header. Both aircraft are crjs and the dispatcher informed us the data is not aircraft specific. In ground school; however; we were told performance numbers are aircraft specific due to variations in engines or engine intermix; airframe differences and MEL/cdl items that affect performance. The dispatcher said as long as there was nothing listed in the remarks section of the performance data message for either aircraft the data was identical. The flight standards manual is ambiguous on this topic and many other performance data message topics. I think that the safest way to use the performance data message is to make it make each report aircraft specific. This incident brings to mind many other performance data message safety concerns I have seen when referencing these reports. 1. The flight standards manual states all turns in IMC must be made at 1000 ft. Above airport elevation; however; most crews continue to turn at 400 ft above airport elevation. Special single-engine departure procedures are written in a confusing manner. An example is a runway 13 departure from lga where the performance data message states that you are to fly runway heading if losing an engine before 400 ft AGL; if you lose an engine after 400 ft AGL you are to fly the standard instrument departure. It should simply say 'fly runway heading to 400 ft. Then follow the standard instrument departure track.' this causes confusion. 2. Thrust settings are always a source of frustration with the performance data message. The flight standards manual devotes only a couple of paragraphs to a procedure that takes several minutes to execute. When the aircraft is below sea level pressure altitude the flight management system will not post max continuous or climb thrust N1 settings for 10th stage bleeds open. This requires the flight crew to flip through the flight standards manual to determine these thrust numbers. Since most of our airports are along the east coast; flight crews spend a lot of time flipping through manuals to write numbers down on our thrust setting worksheet. Our max 'go around' thrust should be calculated 10th stage bleeds closed but most crews use the bleeds open number from the FMS; which is a full 1 percent lower N1 setting. The flight standards manual informs us to enter the max temp number into the FMS to get a reduced 'flex' number. If that number is not within 0.5 percent; and it never is; then we are to continue to punch in lower numbers to achieve a flex thrust. The new max temp must then be compared to the flat temp to make sure it remains at or above that setting. In recurrent ground school this year pilots were told this did not need to be done on the crj and this procedure was for fadec equipped airplanes. The crj does not have fadec so streamlining this in the flight standards manual would be helpful. Solution for flex settings: flight standards should publish an ops note explaining the procedure for determining thrust setting for the crj and describing the limitations of the FMS. This is long overdue. 3. Printing the performance data message is a problem. The performance data message does not format correctly when printed at most air carrier gate computers. When it finally does print in a readable format; the paper has no perforations and cannot be folded. Sometimes this roll of paper is more than 20 feet long and very hard to access. Safety is compromised when flight crews are given a 20-foot long wad of paper 5 minutes prior to departure filled with notams; weather and thrust settings all required for takeoff. Solution: upgrade code sharing airline computers for the performance data messageand get paper that can be folded for better cockpit organization. Or; do what most airlines do and install ACARS in all company aircraft. The time for ACARS has arrived and the lack of this piece of equipment compromises safety. All of these problems with the performance data message could be eliminated by requiring all company aircraft be equipped with ACARS. This 20-year-old technology is long overdue and our more complex dispatch releases; performance data messages and weight and balance forms beg for a more precise system like ACARS. Also; ACARS would greatly improve communications with dispatch when diverting due to weather or planning a divert. Company radio frequencies are often congested in the northeast and it makes a pilot wonder how easy it would be to communicate with the company in a real emergency. If we cannot get ACARS: 1. Talk to dispatchers and have them generate aircraft specific performance data messages due to all the performance variables that exist. 2. Publish an ops note explaining to crj flight crews how to properly calculate thrust settings for departure. Also; explain the limitations of the collins FMS as it relates to thrust settings. 3. Publish an operations note clarifying what the minimum altitude is for turns on departure; VMC and IMC. 4. Convert code sharing airlines' computers to make them performance data message friendly and use paper that is pilot friendly so it can be folded instead of rolled up or wadded up.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ First Officer addresses multiple shortcomings of his airline's communications structure including performance data documents and the lack of datalink equipment.

Narrative: This report is being written to point out the difficulties obtaining performance numbers from our performance data message paperwork. The other day we had an aircraft swap for our flight and the new dispatch release had the correct ship number on the top half of the dispatch release; but the incorrect aircraft in the performance data header. Both aircraft are CRJs and the Dispatcher informed us the data is NOT aircraft specific. In ground school; however; we were told performance numbers are aircraft specific due to variations in engines or engine intermix; airframe differences and MEL/CDL items that affect performance. The Dispatcher said as long as there was nothing listed in the remarks section of the performance data message for either aircraft the data was identical. The Flight Standards Manual is ambiguous on this topic and many other performance data message topics. I think that the safest way to use the performance data message is to make it make each report aircraft specific. This incident brings to mind many other performance data message safety concerns I have seen when referencing these reports. 1. The Flight Standards Manual states all turns in IMC must be made at 1000 FT. above airport elevation; however; most crews continue to turn at 400 FT above airport elevation. Special single-engine departure procedures are written in a confusing manner. An example is a Runway 13 departure from LGA where the performance data message states that you are to fly runway heading if losing an engine before 400 FT AGL; if you lose an engine after 400 FT AGL you are to fly the Standard Instrument Departure. It should simply say 'Fly runway heading to 400 FT. then follow the Standard Instrument Departure track.' This causes confusion. 2. Thrust Settings are always a source of frustration with the performance data message. The Flight Standards Manual devotes only a couple of paragraphs to a procedure that takes several minutes to execute. When the aircraft is below sea level pressure altitude the Flight Management System will not post Max Continuous or Climb Thrust N1 settings for 10th Stage Bleeds Open. This requires the flight crew to flip through the Flight Standards Manual to determine these thrust numbers. Since most of our airports are along the East Coast; flight crews spend a lot of time flipping through manuals to write numbers down on our thrust setting worksheet. Our max 'go around' thrust should be calculated 10th stage bleeds closed but most crews use the bleeds open number from the FMS; which is a full 1 percent lower N1 setting. The Flight Standards Manual informs us to enter the Max Temp number into the FMS to get a reduced 'flex' number. If that number is not within 0.5 percent; and it never is; then we are to continue to punch in lower numbers to achieve a flex thrust. The new Max Temp must then be compared to the Flat Temp to make sure it remains at or above that setting. In recurrent ground school this year pilots were told this did not need to be done on the CRJ and this procedure was for FADEC equipped airplanes. The CRJ does not have FADEC so streamlining this in the Flight Standards Manual would be helpful. Solution for Flex Settings: Flight Standards should publish an Ops Note explaining the procedure for determining thrust setting for the CRJ and describing the limitations of the FMS. This is long overdue. 3. Printing the performance data message is a problem. The performance data message does not format correctly when printed at most air carrier gate computers. When it finally does print in a readable format; the paper has no perforations and cannot be folded. Sometimes this roll of paper is more than 20 feet long and very hard to access. Safety is compromised when flight crews are given a 20-foot long wad of paper 5 minutes prior to departure filled with NOTAMs; Weather and Thrust Settings all required for takeoff. Solution: Upgrade code sharing airline computers for the performance data messageand get paper that can be folded for better cockpit organization. Or; do what most airlines do and install ACARS in all company aircraft. The time for ACARS has arrived and the lack of this piece of equipment compromises safety. All of these problems with the performance data message could be eliminated by requiring all company aircraft be equipped with ACARS. This 20-year-old technology is long overdue and our more complex dispatch releases; performance data messages and Weight and Balance forms beg for a more precise system like ACARS. Also; ACARS would greatly improve communications with dispatch when diverting due to weather or planning a divert. Company radio frequencies are often congested in the Northeast and it makes a pilot wonder how easy it would be to communicate with the company in a real emergency. If we cannot get ACARS: 1. Talk to Dispatchers and have them generate aircraft specific performance data messages due to all the performance variables that exist. 2. Publish an Ops Note explaining to CRJ flight crews how to properly calculate thrust settings for departure. Also; explain the limitations of the Collins FMS as it relates to thrust settings. 3. Publish an Operations Note clarifying what the minimum altitude is for turns on departure; VMC and IMC. 4. Convert code sharing airlines' computers to make them performance data message friendly and use paper that is pilot friendly so it can be folded instead of rolled up or wadded up.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.