How do you read Airbus manuals?

[Turbavykas]

Hello,

Maybe this is a strange question but I am a bit lost. All manuals I have downloaded from internet like A320 FCTM or FCOM have repeating pages for different MSN or MODS. What drives me crazy is two or tree paragraphs where all the information is 99% the same with some minor change between the pages that it's almost impossible to spot!
Why they just don't add differences and the end of paragraph? Boeing manuals seems to much more easy to understand.
Those manuals have thousand of pages and airline has just couple of planes. If someone of you is flying for a bigger airline do you have manuals with 100.000 or more pages with every page repeated for particular MSN?

[Capt Scribble]

Yes! Unless you have a version on ipad or similar. Try looking for a filter that gives you just one MSN number. The frustrating thing with paper manuals is that when an aircraft changes on your fleet, the whole manual gets amended for the change of MSN number.

[PBY]

Welcome to the "Airbus philosophy". The French don't even know how to number pages. They number them often with letters. But unfortunately they have not realized there is only so many letters in alphabet as opposed to numbers. I have been on airbus for 8 years and the manuals are getting worse and worse. Many mistakes in them too. Yes in our company we have many MSN numbers, but it get easier if you use electronic FCOM. I also agree that Boeing manuals are much better and more common sense.
It is unfortunate. Airbus is a great aircraft. But the manuals and the training department is a different story. They should subcontract all that to the Americans (by the way I am from Europe).

[Jonty]

They are written by lawyers, for lawyers. They are not written for pilots.

As for Airbus training; its a problem. Thats why they keep crashing.

[lakerman]

That, jonty, is the stupidest remark I have seen on this thread. Stick to flying your wheelie bin, you do not need qualifications for that.

[Airmann]

Turbavykas, my company has a massive amount of difference among our fleet, to the extent that we have 4 or 5 variations for each section of the FCOM. The best way to read through them is to select one MSN/Tail-Number and use that aircraft as the "Default" version so to speak. Study that aircraft alone, don't worry about the rest.

Ask your company which aircraft you will be doing your sim on, i.e. which type and variation the sim is setup to replicate and then study that aircraft exclusively. When you get to line training study the difference between that aircraft and the aircraft you are going to fly. There is little chance that you are going to be able to study all the variations at the beginning of training, so chose one and stick with it.

[South Prince]

It is not a safe doing to have on board an aircraft a piece of manual ( QRH or whatsoever ) where abnormal and emergency procedures for different MSN's are contained in the same book , whether electronic or hard copy, it certainly contributes to confusion and an uncertain mind set is the last thing you want during an emergency situation.

[Agaricus bisporus]

It would certainly help if they were written in English and not the ungrammatical and therefore often downright incorrect or misleading badly-translated-from -French-into-americanese-ish.

Why can't the bloody frogs get an English speaker to proofread them before publishing gobbledygook?

[Jonty]

That, jonty, is the stupidest remark I have seen on this thread. Stick to flying your wheelie bin, you do not need qualifications for that.

To be fair we are only 8 posts in, so give it time.

However, having spent the last 8 years flying these things, I stand by my comments.

The manuals are terrible, and the training worse.

When I first came to these aircraft, after many years on Boeings, the first words out of the instructors mouth was: "you cannot stall these aircraft, they will look after you".

This utter rubbish was from an approved TRTO. That attitude, I believe, has lead to the deaths of a significant number of people.

[Airmann]

It is not a safe doing to have on board an aircraft a piece of manual ( QRH or whatsoever ) where abnormal and emergency procedures for different MSN's are contained in the same book , whether electronic or hard copy, it certainly contributes to confusion and an uncertain mind set is the last thing you want during an emergency situation.

On-board manuals are aircraft specific

[South Prince]

I can assure you that on board manuals are not MSN specific in many airlines; including majors.

[VH-Cheer Up]

On-board manuals are aircraft specific
I can assure you that on board manuals are not MSN specific in many airlines; including majors.

Well, I'm glad we were able to clear that up.

[Airmann]

In this modern day of LPCs they are. Select your Tail number and you won't have to go scrawling through sections that don't pertain to your aircraft.

QRHs are MSN specific or maybe it depends on the operator.

[CelticRambler]

It would certainly help if they were written in English and not the ungrammatical and therefore often downright incorrect or misleading badly-translated-from -French-into-americanese-ish.

Why can't the bloody frogs get an English speaker to proofread them before publishing gobbledygook?

That would require an admission that the standard of English as taught in schools and numerous sponsored programmes was less than perfect and may result in a loss of credibility. :eek:

If ever one of those "lost in translation" manuals results in you making an unplanned landing in central France, please beware of the crocodiles and galloping Louis X armchairs. The dead body on the lawn is benign, though.:8

[Natstrackalpha]

Let me get this straight. One guy says he dowloads stuff off the internet.
And then a whole bunch of pilots starts discussing it.

So, we don`t go to an airline and they feed you with the correct FCOMS and such . . .? You just go onto the internet and there is what you need to effectively operate the 320.

So, tell me you are all simmers or at least please give me the link for the FCOM downloads.

We ARE talking real world here? Maybe I should wake up.

Have I missed something here?

[TURIN]

Let me get this straight. One guy says he dowloads stuff off the internet.


I thought the same thing. :suspect:

Or is there an approved source of manuals to download? :confused:

[john_tullamarine]

Time for a comment.

(a) caveat - I don't have any background on the Airbus so I am only able to talk generically.

(b) document provenance is extremely important - the internet is a useful place .. but has a lot of garbage interspersed amongst the useful stuff .. are these manuals purported to be downloaded traceable back to the OEM or not ?

(c) copyright is a consideration of note. Take care lest the OEM smite thee via legal sanction. The OEMs charge a hefty price for manuals so there is a real risk that the OEM may pursue folk who do the wrong thing.

(d) most civil manuals cover a range of serials and it takes some care to sort the wheat from the chaff when using them. Just part of the routine workload in the Industry.

(e) tailoring a generic manual to specific serials is not difficult - just a matter of dollars

(f) avoiding confusion is why the militaries tend to prefer tailored manuals

[tubby linton]

I can think of one paragraph in an fcom from Airbus that is so badly written that it took a quite unpleasant incident to show that what had been written was very far from the truth.

[bcgallacher]

I can only hope that recent Airbus manuals have improved - from a maintenance engineers point of view the early manuals were the worst it has been my misfortune to work with. Both maintenance manuals and IPC were extremely difficult to comprehend - in some cases Airbus seemed to invent descriptive words as nobody knew what the hell they meant. It seemed to me that some terms were literal translations of the French but had no real meaning in English.

[ZFT]

Or is there an approved source of manuals to download?

Airbus World

[Airmann]

You guys really can't blame Airbus if your Fringlish isn't up to standard.

[USMCProbe]

I never used manufacturers manuals until about 5 years ago. Airbus FCOM is an abortion in the paper or PDF form. The "Airbus laptop" version is OK as you can input a single MSN and get only that MSN. FCOM alone is 4-5 books on the 320 in paper format. Boeing uses one, of the same size.

I still haven't used a straight Boeing Flight Manual, but my company just started using a straight Boeing QRH. Absolutely brilliant. I get an amber light, and within 5-6 seconds, I am on the correct page of the QRH every time. It is the best manual I have ever used in 25 years.

This is not Airbus vs Boeing. I have flown both, a lot. I like both. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Airbus FCOM is a huge weakness. A tablet version where you can input a single MSN would go a long way towards fixing this problem.

[Turbavykas]

Airbus FCOM is a huge weakness. A tablet version where you can input a single MSN would go a long way towards fixing this problem

But input MSN number solves only small part of the problem. It's also possible to skip pages in pdf. As I love to understand how things work and why it doesn't help. It would be nice to know what's the difference for some systems between 319 and 321 and reason ect. Now the only solution is compare multiple pages to find out that for A321 only difference is that some speed is computed +5 for A321

[Airmann]

Airbus FCOM is a huge weakness. A tablet version where you can input a single MSN would go a long way towards fixing this problem.

Already exists. It's essentially an iPad version of the LPC Browser

[cockney steve]

Why can't the bloody frogs get an English speaker to proofread them before publishing gobbledygook?

Does this "rascist" insult come from the very person who publicly decried me for using the term "septics" when referring to our Transatlantic Cousins,?

surely not! A.B. hoist by your own petard :D Stones, Glasshouses.

note: in cockney rhyming slang, "septic tank"= Yank = American
it is not, in normal use, derogatory, just as "wotcha, me old cocker" does not infer that the subject is a penis-waving pervert flasher.

Sorry for thread-derailment.

[USMCProbe]

I heard there was a tablet version of Airbus FCOM, but never saw it. I am back using company manuals, but we just switched to a straight Boeing QRH.

Airbus QRH was OK. I would rate it as just average. A bit of jumping around, especially doing the landing distance procedure.

An example of the Boeing QRH is the "Landing with one engine inoperative". A bit wordy, but the procedure is brilliant. Once you start it you never turn go anywhere else in any book. It even includes an Approach Descent checklist and Landing checklist, made for the single engine condition. Awesome.

[junebug172]

Anyone have access to the Lufthansa Tech Manuals?

[PT6A]

If your airline is not cheap and buys the LPC NG you will love the manuals.

We also have the browser function available at home via the crew portal (and thus can look at SN specific manuals)

[South Prince]

Airmann, .......there isn't only the airline/private owner you are working for with advanced tech, there is a whole different world out there. Having access to e-manuals from Aibus website it is not everyone's priviledge.

[junebug172]

http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/opdoc-workshopIV/12monteil.pdf

[Superpilot]

I think a lot of you guys who are singing the praises of Boeing manuals need to remind yourselves that the Boeings you flew 5 to 10 years ago were based largely on 60s and 70s technology.

You cannot expect the same quantity/detail of technical content between a 737 classic and an A320. The latter has over 200 computers and that's where the problem begins. Managing revisions of software and electronics is a much bigger pain in the arse.

I sympathise with Airbus, just a little.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Steve, as pointed out before if you can't tell the difference in offensive potential between calling someone a sewage pit and a small animal you're clearly severely socially challenged.

Thank you too for the rather patronising lesson on rhyming slang, I expect you thought I hadn't come across it before. How thoughtful...

[Natstrackalpha]

Airbus World

Goddit.

Oh I see, sorry. Yeh good link. Talking of for training purposes only, there were some cool (dependent on WAT/runway perf take off) charts, of HK for the A320. from Messrs AIRBUS. Can`t seem to find `em. Gave V1,Vr, V2 and a few others.

[Checkboard]

The manuals are terrible, and the training worse.

When I first came to these aircraft, after many years on Boeings, the first words out of the instructors mouth was: "you cannot stall these aircraft, they will look after you".

This utter rubbish was from an approved TRTO. That attitude, I believe, has lead to the deaths of a significant number of people.
I could have written that. My thoughts precisely.

If your airline is not cheap and buys the LPC NG you will love the manuals.
I can only think that this is your first jet type. The LPC makes an impossible situation bearable - but still not good. By selecting one MSN, you still don't get to see the differences, and each time you "read" the manual, the information is different. That makes it terribly difficult to form a mental picture of the aircraft systems, and a working knowledge of how systems can differ.

[PT6A]

Nope Aussie it is not....

I would not be too bothered about learning everything from the FCOM anyway, as it seriously dumbed down when you compare it to the maintenance manuals.

The LPC contains everything we need to know operationally, as another poster has said this is not 1960 technology and the relationships between all the systems is highly complex.... I think it would be beyond the scope of the type rating or manuals to actually fully explain this.

As such we have "dumbed down" operational information, containing the things we need to know... The LPC browser provides 3 levels of this information.