Sidesteping in a A320 (Max taxi speed and landing callout)

[pezetaroi]

Hi guys, I was wondering if your company has any written procedure regarding the FMGS active FPLN in a sidestep approach.

There is a bit of a controversy whether or not to activate the secondary flight plan when you are cleared for a sidestep approach and are aprox at 5 to 7nm from the runway.

I have donde several of this type in LAX, SFO and basically in MEX. The point is that even though both runways have the same missed appoach procedure, I think you should activate the SEC FLPN with the runway you are actually landing in. Nevertheless, there are several pilots who leave the active FLPN as it is, and simply continue the approach as a visual one.

What do have to say about this?

cheers:ok:

ps: also:
1) Is 30 kts still the maximum taxi speed, even though you are back taxiing on a active runway?
2) I understand the "CONTINUE" callout at minimums is a confirmation of the PF to the PNF that he is landing the aircraft. As visual approaches don't have a minimum, after the landing configuration, where should the callout "CONTINUE" be made? ( I recall when I flew the 727, there was a "LANDING" callout, which had to be made either at minumums or at 500 ft in case of visual landings)

[Slasher]

there are several pilots who leave the active FLPN as it is,
and simply continue the approach as a visual one.

Put me down as one of the "several". I can quite easily fly a
sidestep approach visually without the need for a FMC, and
even with the FD's off!

The point is that even though both runways have the same
missed appoach procedure, I think you should activate the
SEC FLPN with the runway you are actually landing in.

Why do you want to push buttons all the way down final
when your head should be either outside or monitoring
the instruments? If you've flown the 727 as you say, why
the sudden reliance on the FMGC gizmo? :confused:

[MadDog Driver]

Have we gotten to the place, where pilots sit head down reprogramming the thing at 1500-2000 ' for a sidestep. I am beginning to thing, that Airbus is leading this profession into a dangerous place.

Pezetaroi...please dont do that. Look out and land the thing. It's just an airplane.

Amen Slasher

[Bus Driver Man]

Have we gotten to the place, where pilots sit head down reprogramming the thing at 1500-2000 ' for a sidestep. I am beginning to thing, that Airbus is leading this profession into a dangerous place.I wonder what Airbus has to do with this.
Now I could be wrong here, but last time I've checked Boeing also has a FMS.
To activate a secondary flightplan you have to press two buttons. It takes a second or two. If a PNF is not able to perfom this simple task while the PF is flying visual, he shouldn't be in an airplane.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that you have to activate the SEC FPLN with the runway you're landing on, I'm just saying that it's a simple task.

I like to keep the correct go around routing (so the original approach and rwy) in the FMGS, regardless of which runway I'm landing on.

[pezetaroi]

The point is that, nothing will really happen if you just fly visually and land, but I do think, the FMGS should agree with the actual landing runway.

I wonder what would an insurance company would have to say if you happen to skid off the runway, and the FMGS has another runway in the database? Have you thought about that?

I know this topic is not that relevant, but as an Airbus pilot, and as the manufacturer is trying for us to "operate", every single procedure must be done as listed in the FCOM/FCTM etc.

The FCOM4 states that on visual approaches the landing runway should be inserted on the active flight plan, so what to do?

[411A]

Just telephoned the KPHX Tracon and asked...'IF a sidestep is required by the local controller, what IFR missed approach is expected to be flown, if necessary, and no further instructions are passed to the landing airplane?

The positive answer from the Tracon supervisor...' The missed approach procedure for the original instrument landing runway, not the sidestep visual runway assigned by the local controller'.


Might be different elsewhere, but, this is what we do, worldwide...like it or not.;)

So, I would respectfully suggest...land the friggin' airplane, and STOP pressing buttons in the last few hundred feet, agl.

Of course, I expect the 'younger set' just can't help themselves.:ugh:

[shortfuel]

My company has no specific instruction on that procedure.

As a general rule, it's better to have your actual landing rwy in your primary.
Having said that, side-step are usually 'offered' by TWR late on final.
Airmanship would suggest to keep both heads up and fly it visually as prescribed.

If you're just to side-step on a parallel rwy (within 30 deg), you're still covered with you GS mini function.

If you feel/need to change your rwy at this stage, 1000' could be a sensible limit for any mcdu input (as in LVP ops philosophy).

In theory, if you have to go-around without specific instruction, you must follow your instrument missed approach proc.
In real life, competent ATCO will clear any doubt beforehand by giving you on final specific instruction should you need to G/A.

For your other questions:
1) Yes, company proc...even for rwy backtrack...
2) "Continue" call is just a confirmation that we're not going around ;), 500' AAL...but again company proc.

[Meikleour]

pezetaroi (http://www.pprune.org/members/98310-pezetaroi): have you considered what the GPWS will be referenced to with respect to LOC and GS deviation as you fly the side-slip if you have the incorrect landing runway still active? So either switch the flight plans or inhibit the GPWS. What does your company SOPs have to say about that?

[Bus Driver Man]

The FCOM4 states that on visual approaches the landing runway should be inserted on the active flight plan, so what to do?

Where does it say that you should? All I can find is: "When flying visual, the pilot may select an appropriate STAR and RWY in use on the MCDU"
FCOM 4.05.70 p29
No reference for sidestep.

For a normal visual approach it makes sense that you select the landing RWY but don't make it too hard on yourself in case you have to do a go around without the correct routing in the box after a sidestep.
You are ofcourse free to have whatever you want to have in the FMGS.

[FatFlyer]

Hi,
While it would be nice to go back to the days of " looking out the window and flying the plane" when we were real pilots instead of button pushers, we are required by our company to have the landing runway set so the flight data people can check that the approach is stable. Checking that we are operating to sop and safely( as well as an insurance discount)
Not having it set would show us not on horizontal and vertical profile and provoke a call from the flight data police.
This is the modern way, big brother is watching.

[shortfuel]

have you considered what the GPWS will be referenced to with respect to LOC and GS deviation as you fly the side-slip if you have the incorrect landing runway still active? So either switch the flight plans or inhibit the GPWS.

You're kidding right? Switching off the entire GPWS in order to fly a visual approach?!

How about Bird On, FDs Off, LS p/b Off. More than enough. Chance to get a GPWS G/S is very remote...if you really want to inhibit it, just inhibit G/S function but not the entire GPWS system.


FatFlyer,

AFAIK, side-step is still a normal/routine visual approach. Having a call from FDM should not be an issue in that specific case. As long as you know what you are doing and have flown a stabilized approach, a normal FDM dpt would understand easily.
Modern aviation does not preclude from flying airplanes.
But I understand this is company policy...so....:ugh:

[Ndicho Moja]

How long does it take to change the runway in the MCDU? Four key strokes and about as many seconds.

[MadDog Driver]

I wonder what Airbus has to do with this

Well ok. Not the airplane then. But the way lots of Airbus pilots are taught to fly the Airbus then. Let's just say I spend a lot of time on jumpseats. You do spend more energy on those two little things in an Airbus, than most other people...and I think it's downright stupid to be sitting there programming at 1500 feet in VMC. What happened to flying the airplane. Something you just dont do enough of in an Airbus. Thats what I meant. You could of course, be the exception to the rule .

[Bus Driver Man]

You have a point. Although I think it's not only an Airbus problem. Lots of non-Airbus pilots are also taught to fly without actually flying the plane. But this is more of a company policy problem.
Luckily I work for a company where there's no restriction on manual flight, and although we only fly with FBW aircraft (A320), we fly manually and raw data very often with lot's of visual approaches.

I can only compare with the B737 from my experience in the sim during my MCC, and in my opinion the only difference in flying both aircraft manually is the auto-trim on Airbus.
Just trying to say that you can be a button pusher in any other plane as well, not only Airbus.

[Dan Winterland]

The positive answer from the Tracon supervisor...' The missed approach procedure for the original instrument landing runway, not the sidestep visual runway assigned by the local controller'.

Never knew that. Thanks 411. I would have flown the procedure for the new runway.



As for re-programming the MCDU in the Airbus, I do. It's just a few quick button presses and it gives you the advantages of auto-tuning the ILS for glideslope guidance.

[Slasher]

Just trying to say that you can be a button pusher in any other plane as well, not only Airbus.

True, but the younger Airbus set tend to treat the box like an
Adobe program instead of a tool. Point is, why the extra puter
button activity, four seconds or not, when its not necessary?
Wasted use of cockpit resource.

But sometimes I just sit there and watch the kids pushing
buttons like crazy inserting a simple missed approach on
a sudden change of runway that has the MA proc missing
from the Co database, while trying to juggle calls and
checklists. After they've completed it, they tend to get
chuffed when I say "Why did you go and do that? If you
had've asked me first, I would've said if a missed approach
become necessary I'll do it raw data......and btw you punched
in the holding pattern wrong."

Then I flick over to ROSE VOR..... http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_64.gif

BTW Dan W why do you need an ILS G/S on a visual
approach? PAPI's work fine, as does the Mk1 eyeball.

[pezetaroi]

Airbus has definitely taken the enchantment of “old school” flying from us, everything (almost) has to be done as they state in their manuals. I do agree it’s easier to complete it as a visual app, and pressing the G/S inhibit pb in order not to get an alarm going on. But it also takes 2 or 3 seconds to activate the SEC FLPN. The point is that since Airbus has nothing to say about how to complete a sidestep app, no other company (as I see) has ventured to apply a specific procedure.

Since almost every single maneuver in the A320 has to be done as they say, I wonder why haven’t they thought about this.

I personally activate the SEC FLPN and don’t have any problem if the PF doesn’t, just wanted to know different points of view… so thanks to everyone!

Ps: 411A, thanks for that call:ok:

[pezetaroi]

Bus Driver: Sorry, I meant FCOM3 3.03.20 p1, below visual circuit:

"The flight plan selected on the MCDU should include the selection of the landing runway"

[PantLoad]

Ha Ha Ha Ha .... Let me muddy the waters!!!!!

OK, if there is a published side-step maneuver (published on the IAP), then you would fly the MAP for that initial approach. 411A is correct.

The same logic would apply to a circling approach. So, for example, you're flying an ILS (LOC) to RWY 09, circle to RWY 27. There may be a published IAP for 27, but for whatever reason, you're doing RWY 9, circle to RWY 27. If you miss, you would fly the MAP for the IAP to RWY 9, not a RWY 27 IAP MAP.

To muddy the waters, IF there is no published side-step to a parallel runway on your IAP, you are, essentially, doing a visual approach. In that case, there is no published MAP. [Please see AIM 5-4-22.] "A Visual Approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reson, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued and appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower."

Ha Ha Ha Ha.....

Ain't this a great profession!!!!!


With regard to taxi speed....YES, there is a 30 kt max (Airbus) unless your company's SOP dictates otherwise. Doesn't matter if you are backtracking or what.....

With regard to callouts on visual approaches, what is your company's SOP? Does your company have a prescribed set of callouts for visual approaches? If not, so what!!!!!

With regard to pushing buttons at low altitudes, PLEASE don't do this! Concentrate on flying the airplane. The Airbus will land very nicely on the parallel runway without any pilot-FMGC intervention.

An exception would be when flying the Airbus-standard circling approach maneuver. Once you leave the final approach course, (as the FCTM says: when proceding to the downwind leg), activate secondary. The PNF (or "PM", depending on your company's vernacular) will activate the secondary flight plan, ensuring that the landing runway is not the "TO" waypoint.

Otherwise, the PF concentrates on accurately flying the aircraft; the other guy monitors....calls out deviations, etc.


Fly safe,

PantLoad

[Dan Winterland]

"The flight plan selected on the MCDU should include the selection of the landing runway"

That's because without a runway, the GS mini function will not be active. However, if you do land on a parrallel runway, you could assume that GS mini will still work.




Max 35 kts taxying in my company.

[Admiral346]

411, the PHX tracon might want you to fly the original missed.

But do not assume that this is a rule valid on all sidesteps everywhere!

At my base in MUC the RWYs are very far apart, and miss takes you either 90deg north or 90 deg south, depending on the RWY.

Now if you flew the miss to the N from the southern RWY, it would be very dangerous. You usually get the sidestep, because they have lots of departures waiting at the original RWY, and low traffic on the other one.

So, as just discussed on another thread, have a word with ATC when accepting the clearance for the swing about the missed app procedure at least.

Nic

[9.G]

A346 I seriously doubt you'll ever get a sidestep maneuver instruction in MUC at least I never did for the last decade. It must be authorized procedure and published in AIP, like in the US, no such thing in published for MUC and the RWYs are way farther then 1200 ft apart. Because sidestep maneuver is only authorized not farther then 1200 ft away from the initial RWY the missed approach flown is ought to be the one for the IAP cleared. :ok:

[PENKO]

Meikleour has a point.
Airbus uses the landing runway to get a lot of information, like the ILS frequency, the landing elevation for the pressurization system, the terrain clearance for the EGPWS, groundspeed MINI etc. Now you can correct me about the effect all this has on a typical landing, i.e. probably not so much. But this discussion has nothing to do with knowing how or not to fly a visual approach, but with making sure the aircraft and yourself agree with what is happening outside.

[Meikleour]

Shortfuel: Try counting to ten..........slowly. That might help you counter your hair trigger temperament!

I was merely referring to the GPWS G/S inhibit. This was standard procedure at the old Kai Tak off the IGS, was required at the old Incheon Airport and was even required for a period at AMS when the new runway was opened but before the terrain databuses caught up ( in this case full inhibit was required ) Please also check out the relative GS issues for 14 and 16 at ZRH although I believe the sidestep has been withdrawn from here.

I note that the original poster had no such problem understanding what I was alluding to! Only you it seems!

[shortfuel]

Let's count together then...:ok:

Cause I know you weren't referring to G/S gpws inhibit (I was)...you were simply saying that the OP should better do his rwy change OR inhibit the GPWS. That last recommendation out of any particular context is a bit surprising. By doing so you're getting rid of other precious gpws modes.
Now if you're trying to tell us that some rwy on some specific airports require gpws to be inhibited in our scenario, yes...but not as a general rule as you implied in your previous post.



The aircraft does take lots of info from the landing rwy inserted in the primary but in the case of side-step (both rwy axis within 30deg...otherwise I call it a circle-to-land not a side-step anymore):
- GS mini is still valid
- ILS freq...well you're about to fly a visual app, if you wanna stick to a LOC and G/S, don't accept the side-step in the first place
- Landing elev: rwy thresholds difference is normally within 50 to 100 feet, so again not a big deal here at all
-(E)GPWS...to be considered

[Bus Driver Man]

Airbus has definitely taken the enchantment of “old school” flying from us, everything (almost) has to be done as they state in their manuals.

I agree that if you take a look at the manuals the AC is designed to be flown with the AP most of the time. I guess that's the standard way of Airbus and maybe it has something to do with covering themself in case of an accident/incident.

E.g. In FCOM 4: In case of manual landing:
At DH: Disconnect AP (They don't write about the A/THR)

Can't remember the last time I disconnected at the minimum and landed with the A/THR. (Something I would do with ceiling and visibility close to minima ofcouse. Common sense.)

However, there is no restriction from Airbus regarding manual flight.
And it is possible that your company SOP differ from Airbus SOP. Company SOP has priority, regardless of what is written in the FCOM.
(E.g. Non precision approach:
Airbus: Vapp and landing config when intercepting final descent
My comp: Flaps 2 and 180kts at final descent
Big difference, but I prefer the second ;))

My point is that the FCOM is not the holy bible :)

[Capn Bloggs]

Can't remember the last time I disconnected at the minimum and landed with the A/THR. (Something I would do with ceiling and visibility close to minima ofcouse. Common sense.)

Who said disconnecting the AT was commonsense?

[Farrell]

Not exactly relevant but this thread brought to mind a discussion from a few years ago:

The Heathrow Shimmy (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/269408-heathrow-shimmy.html)

[Bus Driver Man]

Who said disconnecting the AT was commonsense?

I meant that it is common sense to fly with the AP and A/THR with ceiling and visibility close to minimum and that I still prefer to fly manual when the conditions permit it, regardless of whether or not an Airbus is meant to be flown auto according FCOM.

Although, we are deviating from the thread here.

[pezetaroi]

Pant:

No specific company SOPs, everything is done 100% airbus. Thanks for your comments!

[Meikleour]

Shortfuel: My postings were to draw peoples` attention to some of the less obvious aspects of this manoeuvre.

1) if the ILS is still being received for the original runway then, you MAY get a G/S warning from the GPWS depending on airfield geometry.
2) if the landing runway is not the same as the one in the active flight plan then you MAY get a EGPWS "TOO LOW TERRAIN" warning.

Both of the above can be avoided by changing the active landing runway.

If you chose to "just switch the F/Ds off and eyeball it" in the style of the best Hollywood airline captains then yes, you MAY get neither warning but also you MAY get either or both warnings!

All I am trying to say is that a bit of system knowledge may save you from a few surprises. If you feel that the above is complete bxllxcks then there is nothing more to be said, I feel. Airline flying is all about risk mitigation. What is least risky - PNF going `head down` for a few seconds at 1,500ft when visual or deciding whether to treat a GPWS warning when received at a lower height as spurious?

Please also note that in my previous posts I have never said exactly how I deal with this occurance.

[aterpster]

Admiral346:
411, the PHX tracon might want you to fly the original missed.
But do not assume that this is a rule valid on all sidesteps everywhere!
At my base in MUC the RWYs are very far apart, and miss takes you either 90deg north or 90 deg south, depending on the RWY.
Now if you flew the miss to the N from the southern RWY, it would be very dangerous. You usually get the sidestep, because they have lots of departures waiting at the original RWY, and low traffic on the other one.

I've never been to MUC, but based on the Jepp charts none of the ILS approaches at MUC have side-step minimums, nor do they have circle to land (CTL) minimums. So, if ATC clears you to "sidestep" to the parallel runway that sounds like it would be a visual approach.

As to the United States, 411 is absolutely right, as is the PHX TRACON controller. LAX does not have CTL minimums but it does have sidestep minimums to the adjacent, closely spaced parallel runway. The clearance, "Cleared for the ILS 24R, sidestep to land 24L" is nonetheless a clearance for the 24R ILS.

[shortfuel]

Meikleour,

This discussion is interesting and yes, system knowledge helps you avoid surprises.

AFAIK, if you're in ldg config at Vapp on a 320 (Vapp below 159 kts), almost impossible to get a TOO LOW TERRAIN. It has to do with Terrain Clearance Floor function of EGPW that takes into account the "Nearest rwy data" and not the one inserted in the primary + in lgd config at Vapp, Mode 4 of gpws is inhibited... Happy to stand corrected.

Flying visually and eye ball the runway should not be considered as the best Hollywood airline captains style (sic)...that is the basic of the basics, even on a jet.

I never said how I deal with the situation either ;)

Cheers

[9.G]

Having flown few sidesteps over in the US can't recall changing anything in the box, simply swing over to the other strip and land the bomber, all the technical particularities might be relevant to some extend but nothing seriously affecting safe outcome of the flight. One remark, in case of a missed approach it's better to have the IAP for the cleared RWY in the box since the missed approach procedure for the other one might differ from the cleared one. :ok:

[Meikleour]

Shortfuel: I like it when you say "it is almost impossible to get a TOO LOW TERRAIN warning" however that is exactly what I received years ago on short finals to the newly opened 18R(?) at AMS! The runway was in the MCDU database but presumably was not in the EGPWS one! Warning was triggered at about 300ft. IIRC. I am still of the opinion that a G/S warning is quite likely though on several of the sidestep airports that I can think of.

Cheers