BA SOP's [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

moggie

6th March 2001, 14:47

Jagman - "Something about the PF using the PNF as his 'personal autopilot' is the way it was explained to me." But if the PNF is acting as personal autopilot, would he not be PF? In fact BA use "Handling Pilot" (HP) and "Non-Handling Pilot" (NHP).

To answer the original question, BA do it like this:

P1 (the pilot in charge of the sector) does all the management as well as taxying, doing the take-off, climb, cruise and landing. In between the P2 (the "co"-pilot) will fly the descent and approach. This is called the "monitored approach" and lets the P1 who will land the aeroplane get his eyes out of the windows early to pick up the visual references ASAP which saves that awkward transition from instruments to visual at a late stage.

As P1 runs the show, P2 does engine starts. The NHP reads checklists and does the R/T etc (just like almost everyone else).

During Take-off the HP (even if it´s the FO) gets to handle the thrust levers and make "Stop" calls is the situation merits.

A number of airlines use exactly the same procedures (easyJet for one) apart from the sole difference of not having the "monitored approach".

There´s a lot of Bulls**t talked about BA SOPs, mainly by people who don't fly for BA and know the SOP!!! I teach it every day so have a fair idea what it's about!

TEMP0+TSRAGR

6th March 2001, 17:44

Moggie : hello again !
Its the P1 who starts the engines AND also has the RT + ground coms. Its after the selection of flaps that the RT goes to the P2.

You fail to mention the senario on a STOP. The P1 closes the thrust levers then the P2 selects reverse. If it was the Capts. sector he would close the thrust levers, the f/o would select reverse and then below 70Kts the Capt. would take the throttles back again.

Thats 3 hand over of control's in a space of a few seconds during a critical manourve only practiced every 6 months in the SIM. Not to mention the runway used during the extra reaction time.

Tell me why its a good idea for the NHP to operate the reversers in BA sop's ??

Monitored approaches were great in the 'old days' when all we had was an NDM/VOR let down with a 400' minimum or if you were very lucky a CAT1 ILS to 200'...... YES works very well in that senario, BUT this is 2001 almost every approach I do is to a CAT3 ILS, if it was 'minimums' WX I would do an autoland.

I've done one minimums no-precision approach in the last 6 years ..... thats the exception, so why not have an SOP that reverts to monitored approach on that occasion ....???

Also, in the 'real world' its not the NHP who is your 'autopilot' ... he does his own thing on many occasions ..... often disconnecting everything becuase HE feel likes it and leaving me with a 'raw' aircraft in a busy TMA ...... or calling visual without asking me as the P1.

Streamline

6th March 2001, 18:39

BA sop were very current in Emirates, till he Boeing guy's told Ek that if they did not follow their advice they would give up their support.

Same reaction they got from Airbus.

Want more proof ?

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

SITMOFO

6th March 2001, 18:51

It always amuses me how much BA sop's are debated by those outside the airline. If you're in BA then you have operate with BA's sop's, if your not in BA then don't worry about it - and if it really concerns you don't apply to work for them, simple enough.
Oh and why would somebody call themselves speedbird 744 then enquire about BA sop's - worrying!

[This message has been edited by SITMOFO (edited 06 March 2001).]

StressFree

6th March 2001, 22:50

moggie,
I'm sorry old chap but youve let yourself down. Your talk of the P1 (pilot in charge of the sector) is crap, I've always thought the P1 was the captain regardless of who was handling. Also you go straight into HP, NHP, P1, Non-landing HP etc....... I've very recently done a 737NG course at Boeing, Seattle, they absolutely hate the way you disregard their intentions and go your own way. How come the vast majority of the world use one method and BA use another. I'm not saying that the majority are always right. Modern aircraft are getting simpler to fly so why complicate the matter by introducing your own procedures? Sorry if I sound aggressive but I just cannot see why the manufacturers procedures are ignored in favour of others.

------------------
'Keep the Stress Down'

Droopsnoot

6th March 2001, 23:47

I know this is a rumour network, but every now and again a few facts do help. Streamline's comments are sadly misinformed. Emirates'procedures were drawn up by their own pilots, working under a project pilot for each of the new fleets, 777 and A330-200. It became clear from a very early stage that a small airline needed to follow the manufacturer's recommended procedures, if only because the flood of amendments which accompany the first couple of years in service. Minor "cultural"changes were possible, and these were incorporated. There was never anything but co-operation and support from the manufacturers, whose follow up inspections of EK operations were very, very complimentary. Here endeth the facts.

EDDNR

7th March 2001, 04:55

Sorry TS - no manuals, still in my nappies in 1968, but felt well placed to comment after having my left ear bent by three hole polers for so long now!

Rod (nee AYLGR)

7x7

7th March 2001, 10:10

God, Carl, give the Emirates bashing a rest. They NEVER flew to BA SOPs. You might have, but the rest of the the company didn't.

Which might explain a few things.

The Zombie

7th March 2001, 20:15

Trident Sim

"The Zombie
Only those that flew it are allowed to take the mickey out of it! "

I have suffered long enough the 'T' word, but point taken !
I have seen one in a museum in Manchester !

whizzjet

8th March 2001, 02:04

Surely you mean the fire dump, Zombie!!

fcom

8th March 2001, 13:54

I seem to remember that there are 2 reasons why BA adopt these SOP's.The main one being to standardise across all fleets and the second is because of the 10 years plus one needs to remain in the R/H seat,therefore not wanting to be seen as a lowly co pilot and a radio operator on non handling sectors.
I always found it amusing when no flight level checks were made above FL200 and this was becuase the DC3 didnt fly this high so was omitted to keep all calls standard across the board.
The non handling pilot briefs the non flying pilot on how he/she would like the approach flown.The non flying pilot then flies the approach as briefed and will remain at the controls until DH visual when the controls are handed back to the non handling pilot who the makes the landing, who by now I presume becomes the non flying pilot, BUT WHOSE HANDLING IT? Anyway the flying pilot now asks the non handling pilot for full reverse but only if thats what he briefed for at TOD,otherwise he will have to ask for idle reverse which he will brief for on the rollout I presume.I think the purser taxis the A/C onto stand and the passenger in 3A does the after landing checklist.

flaps

8th March 2001, 15:14

Sorry Stressfree but I have to agree with Moggie.

P1 is the pilot whose sector it is, P2 the other. During the approach when P1 has handed control to P2, P1 is the NHP until he/she takes control again at decision altitude/height.

I think that when written down it might appear complex, but the teaching, implementation and use of the monitored approach method is actually quite simple. Plus it works very well indeed. Very few pilots who use it or who have used it complain about it. It seems to be those who've never tried it who have the most to say.

hereford united

8th March 2001, 15:28

I've flown the 737-400 both ways - Boeing style with AirUK (Leisure) and now with BA. I prefer the BA way - why ? Because on a good day you get some handling on every sector if you want it, and both of you are 100% involved in the sector (no room for man and boy). On a bad day (down to minima of any kind) nothing changes in terms of role. When going into a grotty eastern european airfield at night it is a real luxury to be able to peer out into the murk (with an occassional look in) and then take the aircraft having aquired good visual reference.
Very few people in BA dislike our SOP's, so let us get on with it - if you dont like them, dont join! As for Boeing's opinion, whilst I value it, they are a MANUFACTURER, not an airline, and not a regulator. (The CAA dont seem to mind BA stylie ops either)
Hope the above helps.
Best Regards

HU

Harry Wragg

8th March 2001, 15:39

I have experienced a number of SOP's, including BA's. I can honestly say that it makes no odds whatsoever. Some of the BA SOP's seem like a good idea, and others less so. There really is more than one way to skin a cat III landing.

Personally I find a monitored approach ideal for CAT II/III conditions, but less useful for CAT I and visual approaches. Just a personal opinion.

But generally speaking BA always do things differently, just look at the Trident, it was a good idea until the company got it's claws into the design! How much did it cost to have autopilot engagement paddles instead of the standard buttons on Boeing a/c?

When I discover the perfect way to operate a/c I will let everyone know.

Trident Sim

9th March 2001, 02:50

Harry Wragg

Yes, the Trident would undoubtedly have been a better aircraft if BEA hadn't improved it, but where are these "standard buttons" on the B747-100/200 ?

All the BA ones had the normal Boeing autopilot engagement levers that looked just ... er ... like ... er ... paddles :)

EDDNR

9th March 2001, 09:54

There has been talk to relax the monitored approach in good conditions. I've both ways in marginal wx and I prefer the BA way instead of scrabbling for a light or two at 200' into JFk on a wet Friday night.

Rod

SKYYACHT

9th March 2001, 19:54

Moggie,

Just out of interest, are you permanently based at Cranebank?

Tailwinds

crossfeedclosed

10th March 2001, 14:29

It doesn't matter what the procedures are as long as both pilots actually operate them properly. My problem is the idiot who thinks he knows better than the company and tries to get me to operate to HIS personal SOPs. One item that seems to be a sensible use of resources in marginal weather is the monitored approach. Didn't that originate in BA?

Streamline

11th March 2001, 03:54

Droopsnoot

Apparently, I was there before you.

7x7

It only just started.

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

M.Mouse

11th March 2001, 12:35

TEMPO + TSRAGR

You said '.....so why not have an SOP that reverts to monitored approach on that occasion....???'

This would introduce in effect TWO different type of approach procedures. I prefer one and having operated both BA's 'monitored approach' and other methods in a previous life I find the BA method works well and as has been said is less confusing to operate than to write down and explain!

Don't know about other operators but BA also try and standardise across fleets where possible. It certainly makes conversion courses a little less stressful (I've done three within BA).

There is a lot of misconception about BA SOP's but on the whole I think they are as valid as any others and can only be fairly questioned by those that operate to them.

Streamline

11th March 2001, 17:01

Droopsnoot you wrote:

Streamline's comments are sadly misinformed. Emirates procedures were drawn up by their own pilots, working under a project pilot for each of the new fleets, 777 and A330-200.
It became clear if only because the flood of amendments which accompany the first couple of years in service.
There was never anything but co-operation and support from the manufacturers, whose follow up inspections of EK operations were very, very complimentary.
Here endeth the facts.

You clearly admit that it had been different at a certain stage.
The fact is that some pilots visited the Boeing chalet at the Dubai air-show and discussed the items with the chief pilots. Their answer was very clearly the current SOP do not belong in a Boeing cockpit and that’s the end of it.

Another high ranked politically as well as in the EK structure TCE had the same remarks. I can not give his name but I will if it comes to it.

If things are any different now then that’s because a couple of F/O had stuck their neck out for it and that’s the facts in the right order my friend.

7x7 you wrote:

God, give the Emirates bashing a rest. They NEVER flew to BA SOP. You might have, but the rest of the company didn't.
Which might explain a few things.

I have a fax right in front of me from Boeing, addressed the BCTC at EK and myself.
It clearly states that Saudi Arabian Airlines wanted some SOP for their B 777 and that Boeing had advised them to contact EK as related to their new course material.
It may be worth to refresh your memory that I wrote that material myself and discussed it during a 5 hour meeting with the Boeing standards chief pilot.
Things do not change if someone does not take an initiative and put a bit of pressure from time to time.

You know 7x7 that reality is quite different and that I deserve much more credit than I got so far.
I was never out of line when on the flight deck.
Maybe my opinions were different then what was on paper (I was definitely not the only one) but I applied them to the letter getting a command recommendation on my first PPC.

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

[This message has been edited by Streamline (edited 11 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 12 March 2001).]

Droopsnoot

12th March 2001, 23:09

Streamline, I suggest you try taking a little more water with it!

Emirates has never followed BA's SOPs, admirable though they may be, nor has there been any criticism of EK procedures from either Boeing or Airbus.

Streamline

13th March 2001, 18:23

How can you posssibly know, who are you ?

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

moggie

14th March 2001, 17:24

TEMP0+TSRAGR
sorry but you are wrong - it is the P2 (Non Handling pilot) who starts the engines and the P1 (handling pilot) who manages the show including taxiing the aircraft and performing the take-off. There are only 2 handovers of control on a standard sector - 10 min before TOD and again at some point prior to landing (but no later than DA).

STRESSFREE - it isn't "CRAP" BA have the "Captain" who is in charge of the aeroplane (aircraft commander) and "P1" who runs the sector (operating piot).

To both of you: I know this to be the case as I teach the SOP to BA pilots! I also have a brother in the company - first hand knowledge. Not sure where you chaps get your info from.

Streamline

14th March 2001, 17:44

Some common sense,

One of the most important critical decision you are ever going to take is an aborted T/O.

The final decision/action on any important matter that is time critical is with the Captain, hence he should be in a position to do so.

All other situations are covered by the fact that the F/O should be able to fly.

Every set of SOP that respect these principles or OK.

And as a final remark, the less the differance in set up of the SOP between a normal and non-normal situation the more efficient the non-normal will be handeled.

When non-normals start to look like normal you are fully in control.

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

Secret Squirrel

2nd June 2001, 01:48

I'm sorry to drag this thread out again from the depths Pprune annals. However, it is of particular interest to me now that we at CFE are going to be initiated in the SOPs soon.

Unfortunately, I do not reside within the masses for whom there is a choice and so should be allowed a say. BA now pay my wages and if this is the way I am told to do it, this is the way I shall do it.

I shall reserve furhter judgement until such time as I have enough experience of our adopted SOPs. For now my only lament is that I shall not be allowed to hand fly raw data from Timba at 7,000' unless I am constantly visual with the airfield.

As far as I'm concerned this has seious implications in emergency situations where the difference between having a good scan and a shyte one could make the difference between getting down safely and not. Dunno, I could be wrong but I shall no doubt see for myself soon enough!

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

whats_it_doing_now?

2nd June 2001, 03:33

Somebody mentioned earlier about rejected take off and there being 3 changes of control. There's not actually, there is only one, from an FO handling a rejected take off, handing over to the captain at a safe taxi speed. The non handler at the time of the rto operates the thrust reverse once the handler has intitiated the rto by closing the thrust levers (on my fleet anyway). There's no calling of 'my thrust levers' or any of that, because everyone knows whose operating what and when. Like everyone else says who uses the sop's, they actually work fine. You can still do raw data approaches as well, I do them virtually every time into LHR, and the other guy takes the aircraft when he wants it, usually sometime between 1000R and 500R. Sounds crazy to some people I'm sure, but its pretty good when you get used to it. And if its your landing, you get to spend the whole of the approach adjusting your seat to perfection!

Cough

2nd June 2001, 12:16

And your shades - Remember - its never to dark to be cool!

CCCCcccccc......ough

Frederic

2nd June 2001, 13:50

Streamline, I bow for thee oh great one!

PSYCOBFH

2nd June 2001, 14:52

Secret Squirrel'

If you want to hand fly the aircraft, in raw data, from 7000' at TIMBA, or from any other point - then go for it. there is nothing in BA SOP's which discourages it.
the only caveat is that 1 flight director needs to be programmed if > 3000ft, and that is a CAA requirement.

cheers.

CRP5

2nd June 2001, 17:40

SS do not fear if you want to hand fly no FD or AT then you can, I can,t be bothered to go upstairs and get my flying manual but I think as someone has mentioned that 1 FD needs to be on with the FO making sensible selections on the MCP panel you as Capt hand flying will interpret ATC instructions and Fly the aircraft.

The other factor is that the ATIS must imply that you will be visual with the airfield at 1000 feet.

Thus a simple scenario, It is your FOs sector, he/she will takeoff fly the climb and the cruise, 10 mins (or thereabouts(1 min if its a MAN)) he/she will hand the aircraft over to you, at any time in the decent you can take the automatics out and fly.Now with prior agreement with your FO this can be all the way down to 400 baro at LGW(for example), then he/she will take over and land.I appreciate this may take some getting used to.

Another scenario, its your sector, you can brief the FO for the decent and handover.At any time during the approach if you are fully visual and will remain so then you can "take it early" so to speak and configure the aircraft for your own landing.

The BA manual does "encourage" manual flying when the weather conditions allow.

Basil

2nd June 2001, 18:02

Small point to note whether doing "the soft-shoe shuffle", "one man band", "single pilot IFR" or any combination/extrapolation thereoff http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif:
On any aircraft which has to have the FD fed with info in order to present sensible demands when flying with autopilot disconnected, the non-handling (at the time) pilot has the additional workload of data and mode selection in addition to RT.
This applies whether using the BA or any other system and may not be the safest way to operate the a/c in a busy terminal area.

CRP5

2nd June 2001, 19:33

Never ever presented problem so far!

Sleeve Wing

2nd June 2001, 20:45

The only time it presents a problem is if you happen to have worked for any length of time for someone else.
Then it can be most confusing - change for the sake of change.
I'm sure someone, once in high places, had the need to make a name for himself.

;) :rolleyes: ;)

airforcenone

3rd June 2001, 03:42

If BA SOPs were that bad, then surely the Campaign Against Aviation wouldn't have approved them.

Statistically, there is less chance of a go around due to no visual reference using the monitored approach.

We're not allowed to keep one set of flight directors on in the ***bus! They're both on or both off, just in case the 'aeroplane' decides to throw a wobbly.

MissChief

3rd June 2001, 13:52

As with most large corporations, BA have adopted the N.I.H. syndrome, which is now part of their corporate culture, and not just SOP's. "Not Invented Here" is simply a myopia to other companies' way of doing things, even in this extreme case where the a/c manufacturers have developed their SOP's in line with the a/c development.

Within BA, There are many other such NIH examples, but it is not really kind to label the company as Blindly Arrogant, so let's leave them to get on with it themselves.

BA must surely have considered the legal/litigation consequences of an accident occurring during their operations whilst following SOP's not standard or recommended by the maker of the a/c. ??

Positive Climb

3rd June 2001, 15:29

Everytime this tiresome topic rears its ugly head on these pages, I like to offer just one thought:

statistically speaking, a 'BA style' monitored approach is less likely to result in Controlled Flight into Terrain - regardless of weather conditions.

This is surely reason in its self to fly approaches in this way every single time.

As pilots, can anyone disagree with this logic ?

------------------
"After V1, we'll take the emergency into the air - You call 'Positive Climb' and I'll ask for the gear up. We'll climb away at V2 +15"

Secret Squirrel

4th June 2001, 18:04

Positive Climb:

Being largely unaware of the finer points of monitored approaches perhaps you'd like to explain to the uninitiated why it is any less likely to result in a CFIT. Do you perhaps, mistakenly, think that every other airline's non-handling-non-flying pilot sits and catches up with his/her embroidery whilst the descent and approach is flown?

I seem to remember a famous case study, which I'm sure BA bring up often in their CRM courses, of a jumbo going into Nairobi which touched down almost ten miles before the threshhold due to the QNH being mis-set and not picked up by either of the three crew! What I can't remember is the actual date of this ocurrence and so am willing to wear women's underwear and walk like a chicken for a week if it was pre-BA SOPs. No fatalities, admittedly.

Positive Climb

4th June 2001, 18:39

Secret squirrel,

This thread is discussing why B.A. chooses to operate in a different manner to the majority of other airlines. I merely drew attention to one of the more important reasons behind it. It is up to each individual to make up their own mind as to the merits of either method. My point was that there are good reasons why BA operates in this way and it is not done 'just to be different' as has been suggested on this thread.
As for the example you cited - I feel you have somewhat over-simplified it as there were several other more complex environmental factors involved in the chain of events leading to that incident.
No one here believes for a minute that flying an approach in a particular way will eliminate the risk of CFIT fully, but if this method has been proven to lessen the liklihood of it, then surely it has a proven worth ?

Regards,

------------------
"After V1, we'll take the emergency into the air - You call 'Positive Climb' and I'll ask for the gear up. We'll climb away at V2 +15"

Magnus Picus

4th June 2001, 20:37

CAT 1 only ILS at SVO in January RVR 800m Overcast at 60M. Helped us get in safely using monitored approach.
If none of you, who operate in the 'Non-BA Sphere', have ever looked up at '50 above' DH and not seen a sausage, looked back in ...errr.. it's now DH...look out...err ....LAND. Then you have to admit that on that occasion you probably operated the aircraft outside its limits.

BA SOP's rid the crew of that grey area and consequently can only promote a safer environment at that critical stage during the final approach.

At all other times it can seem unnecessary, but had we not had that SOP at SVO earlier this year we would have had an unscheduled nightstop in HEL.

direct chase

5th June 2001, 12:24

My My Magnus!! very eloquent

So is a SVO nighstop not Hell?
( or is it Hell in HEL )

CAT 2 on the ATP ( manual ldg) would have been impossible without the monitored approach !

cheers

Basil

5th June 2001, 12:47

SS,
There's a grain of truth in your understanding of the CFIT incident. The 'whole truth' (a difficult animal to find I'll admit) as related by BA contacts is:
1. The aircraft did not fly into the ground but was well on the way to doing so. No GPWS available at that time and when introduced was immediately referred to as the Game Park Warning System :)
2. It was a BOAC flight and they did not use the monitored approach SOP. The Mon App was a BEA SOP and became standard in the newly formed BA.

Although I'm not convinced that use of the monitored approach would reduce the incidence of CFIT incidents I feel that it is a useful final approach tool, particularly during a manual approach to low MDA or when flying a coupled approach to low DA.

Silvershadow

6th June 2001, 00:51

Positive Climb
"After V1, we'll take the emergency into the air - You call 'Positive Climb' and I'll ask for the gear up. We'll climb away at V2 +15"

Why V2 +15?
With an engine failure you climb at V2.
It's the only way to get the correct performance if you're Climb Limited.

The Flying Scotsman

6th June 2001, 01:40

Whilst I couldn't agree more with the sentiment of "who cares what BA do", I spent 2 years working for a low cost version of BA (which also meant low cost pay - but hey, there you go). For what it's worth, I found the BA SOPs at best odd if not downright bizarre. The idea of the RHS (but PF) doing all the good stuff is fine if he / she can taxy the aircraft (requires a tiller on the right) and if the Captain/PNF can remember what drills/calls he/she is supposed to make at the important times. It was bad enough trying to remember all that stuff - try training ex SQ/CX/GF/EK skippers to do it as I was sometimes tasked to do.

I've been out of that scene for over a year now but I still get funny looks from (PF) F/Os when I grab the reverse thrust during the landing roll. Naturally,when I explain that it was a bad habit learnt from the worlds favourite airline they are eternally grateful for my input :).

Cheers, Scottie.

BOAC

6th June 2001, 02:09

Go on, SS, do it anyway!

beaver eager

6th June 2001, 02:13

Good spot Silvershadow,

I've been wondering about the logic behind
Positive Climb's signature for ages, just haven't had the time to take him to task on it!

Never mind PC, here's a silly one of my own... :)

------------------
The humble line pilot, having covered its back so often, at last made the first step on the evolutionary ladder that was to eventually become... a tortoise!

Captain Airclues

6th June 2001, 02:38

SS

The game park incident was some twenty years before the 'change hands' SOP was introduced on the 747 'Classic'.
Could we please have a photo of the chicken walk (not sure about the womens clothing).

Airclues

Bobby Johnson

6th June 2001, 09:23

Whats all the fuss about, I flew the BA procedures for years on the 737. They are just different, now I fly a corporate BBJ and they are different just get on with it.
PS everyhting is easier in the corporate world, less chances of messing up.

packsonflite

6th June 2001, 10:51

I recall many years ago watching a BA Trident go around from about 200'at LHR in CAVOK weather. When the tower enquired about the reason for the GA, they were informed that it was the SOP if a GS flag appeared prior to touchdown. Whilst I can see the sense of that in full IMC and during an autoland, but when the vis was 30km plus and no cloud at all, then I'm a little less sure!

Mind you that was brought to you by the same airline that had a crew divert back to LHR on a shuttle flight to GLA, when the Capt discovered that his breakfast hadn't been loaded!!!

Positive Climb

6th June 2001, 13:38

Silver Shadow / Eager Beaver - what you say is not strictly true:

"if an engine failure occurs below V2, the target climb speed is V2. If an engine fails at an airspeed between V2 and V2 + 25, climb at the speed at which the failure occurred. If an engine failure occurs above V2 + 25, increase pitch attitude in order to reduce airspeed to V2 + 25"

" follow the SID unless an emergency turn procedure is published. Limit bank angle to 15 degrees unless speed is greater than V2 + 15"

source: 737 Flying Manual

Therefore, Silver Shadow it is incorrect to state that following an engine failure, V2 is the only acceptable airspeed to ensure climb performance as our performance data is based on a climb produced by V2 + 25.

However, not wishing to be pedantic, maybe this make you a little happier -

------------------
"After V1, we'll take the emergency into the air - You call 'Positive Climb' and I'll ask for the gear up. We'll climb away at a minimum of V2 and a maximum of V2 + 25"

M.Mouse

6th June 2001, 14:44

Flying Scotsman

A couple of points:

Virtually all BA aircraft have tillers both sides.

You said:

'if the Captain/PNF can remember what drills/calls he/she is supposed to make at the important times.'

I would suggest that it is no more difficult than remembering any other procedure of any other airline.

In 15 years in both long and short haul I have never had a problem in not handling my own reverse thrust. As an aside it is policy on certainly two fleets, and I would guess the rest as well, that we only use idle reverse unless more is appropriate.

How about another BA horror: First Officers are allowed to start engines - gasp!

My last company only captains were considered competent to handle engine start.

I have worked for other companies and done it their way and believe me every company is different depending who wrote the manuals.

Even with my limited intellect and memory I have not had a problem remembering an SOP.

Finally, why is there always such a fuss about BA SOPs. They are SOPs, they are rigidly observed by virtually everybody I have ever flown with in either seat, they work well and they are safe. What is the problem?

[This message has been edited by M.Mouse (edited 06 June 2001).]

Positive Climb

6th June 2001, 15:18

Well said M. Mouse -

Why is it that the only people who seem to have a problem with BA SOP's are those that don't fly for them.

Funny that.

------------------
"After V1, we'll take the emergency into the air - You call 'Positive Climb' and I'll ask for the gear up. We'll climb away at a minimum of V2 and a maximum of V2 + 25"

Pete Otube

6th June 2001, 18:47

Mouse, there is a problem for those of us in the industry who teach different SOP's to different airlines. I only have to explain Boeing SOP's once to a student, it takes about 2 minutes, and they never have any questions or confusions. When I have to teach BA SOP's (there are 3 other airlines in UK that use them), it takes at least half an hour with the use of specially designed checklists and I have to go over them several times. There is general confusion between P1 and P2, Captain and First Officer, handling and non-handling, pilot flying and pilot not flying, descent pilot and landing pilot and who the hell is doing what now.

In the final analysis, any SOP that is not universally appreciated and understood, or whose logic is suspect, is probably not a good SOP.

[This message has been edited by Pete Otube (edited 06 June 2001).]

Secret Squirrel

6th June 2001, 19:31

I had my fingers crossed, NUR NUR NUR NUR NUR!

Positive Climb:

Yes I know it was a lot more complicated; 6AM, long flight, difficult approach etc. I was merely challenging your claim that BA sops considerably reduce cfits.

Magnus:

Have experienced that selfsame thing but I had to go-around the first time. Fair enough, but firstly, how often does this actually happen? and secondly, to drop 20-30' on a precision approach below DA is not life threatening stuff. It just seems to me like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Anyway, it's inevitable for me so I will come to terms with it, just like any change in this industry. The only reason I resurrected this thread was to divine just how much of my beloved raw data flying I was going to have to do without, and it seems not too much.

Airbubba

6th June 2001, 19:38

>>BA SOPS clearly explained in this official document....
http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub/fun/bahandling.html <<

This "bulletin" has been widely circulated online for years. Is it legitimate or just another urban legend?

Wee Weasley Welshman

6th June 2001, 20:26

<Sticks head above parapet speaking as jet driver for 1st time>

I have just converted to my first commercial type and have done so to BA SOP's. I found them straightforward.

Perhaps its a case of having to unlearn previous methods that makes people resent or doubt the BA SOP methodology?

If I can handle it with no previous commerical or jet time then it can't be that hard, quirky or confusing...

WWW

BOAC

6th June 2001, 23:16

Sorry, Captain A, I think we should see the whole lot.

Lee Dingedge

6th June 2001, 23:23

Definitions:
There are three groups referred to in the Flying Manual:

1. Captain and First Officer
2. P1 and P2
3. Handling Pilot and Non-Handling Pilot

The first group basically refers to rank or in other words the seat occupied and cannot change.

The second group effectively defines the pilot who is ‘flying that leg’.

The third group depicts who is handling the a/c at the time.

It is therefore possible for the First Officer to be the P1 (his leg) during which time he will be both HP and NHP as required by the procedures. The same mixture also applies to the Captain; he will be P2 when giving the leg away to the F/O.
.

The Standard Leg:
The Flying Manual only refers to the Standard Captains leg when outlining SOP’s. The term ‘Role Reversal’ is used when it is the F/O’s leg.

Captain’s (P1 in this case) duties: F/O’s (P2) duties:

External + internal/cabin inspection Carries out the checks
Obtains the departure clearance from ATC Works out performance etc
Calls for ‘start and pushback’ as reqd Starts the engines
Talks to the ground engineer during the push

Once push and start completed

Capt calls ATC for taxi clearance
(Capt always does this because tiller only on LHS)
Capt calls for flap (done before moving off) Sets flap for takeoff
Commences taxi Does the checks+ R/T once moving

Once airborne duties as follows

Flies the a/c (HP) Normal P2 duties + R/T (NHP)
Landing Brief given 10 mins before TOD
Hands over control to F/O (Now HP) – flies descent & approach
Takes control and Lands a/c
(at approx 1000’ or when visual if later)

At end of the landing rollout

Capt takes control and steers a/c off runway F/O (now NHP) completes after landing procedures - starts APU - talks to ATC etc
Capt taxis onto stand F/O shuts down engines (this is always done by whoever started them)

If the Captain gives a leg away (leg and leg about normally) the F/O will become P1 and
carry out the duties as per the left hand column (Capt’s duties), apart from the taxi to/from
the runway. This is called role reversal in the FM.

Remember that the Captain is always the Capt but can be P1 or P2 plus HP or NHP as
appropriate.

Where a duty as indicated above is shown as Capt’s …….. it means that only the Captain
can perform this task and is usually because the tiller is only on one side.

Notes:

Although not mentioned above there is a fourth group of responsibilities aligned to those of
P1 and P2.

These are known as DFA (does f*** all) and DFE (does f***ing everything) !!!!

normal_nigel

7th June 2001, 01:16

Temp+TSG

You're wrong. The non handling pilot starts the engines. Th handling pilot does any r/t ground comms until flaps are set then whilt he taxis the NHP takes the r/t

NN

Lee Dingedge

7th June 2001, 01:32

abnormal n - get back in your box

TEMP0+TSRAGR

7th June 2001, 02:05

I thought this one had long since been laid to rest !

I opperated with 'conventional' SOP's for over 6 years, but now use BA's.

I found it no problem converting to them, but given the choice would prefer normal SOP's. Anyone I fly with who has ever used any other SOP's other than BA's always has 'things to say' about the way BA does things.

Its healthy to question an SOP so long as crews operate to their companies SOP.

My biggest gripe over BA's SOP's are the operation of the 'throttles and reverses' on an RTO. All trainers I speak to say that is the single most common missed item in the sim by the NHP.

I dont make the rules, I just play the game !

Positive Climb

7th June 2001, 18:45

Secret Squirrel,

" I was merely challenging your claim that BA sops considerably reduce cfits"

you still seem to be somewhat confused about what I am saying. This is not what I am claiming at all and in fact my point has nothing to with BA specifically.

I merely pointed out that it has been statistically proven that 'monitored approaches' (regardless of airline) are less likely to result in CFIT.

Therefore, based on this evidence, this is a major factor in why BA chooses to fly approaches in this way.

bunk exceeder

7th June 2001, 18:56

I'm on the 400 with BA, and while not delighted with the SOP's, I've got to say that without them, I would fly one approach to a landing per month. With them, I get maybe 3 or 4 ILS's per month to go with my landing. I can't help feeling though that the heavy/deep landing thing has something to do with taking over at 1000'. You're not in tune with it like you are when you fly the whole thing from TOD.

normal_nigel

7th June 2001, 19:26

Normal Nigel.

Your post lends nothing to this debate and I have deleted it.

Abuse and foul mouthings are not acceptable.
I would, therefore, strongly suggest you review your attitude before you press the submit button in any future debates or postings.

PPRuNe Pop
Administrator
[email protected])

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Pop (edited 07 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Pop (edited 07 June 2001).]

Pete Otube

7th June 2001, 19:33

Abnormal - give me an address and I'll email you Lee's staff number, (and mine 'cos it's the same).

[This message has been edited by Pete Otube (edited 07 June 2001).]

beaver eager

7th June 2001, 19:48

There's no need to descend into that kind of language NN. If you want to do so, go and play in Jet Blast.

I tried to edit your post but the system wouldn't let me, I guess because it's not my forum, but I'm sure someone else will come along and sort it out.

I get a feeling in my water that this thread might become a closed one pretty soon.

TEMP0+TSRAGR

7th June 2001, 20:36

I quite agree beaver eager -
normal_nigel - I find your tone extreemly offensive, we dont need that sort of language on a public forum, let alone the impression it gives 'joe public' of our airline. Thankfuly people like you are far and few between.

Sniff

7th June 2001, 20:43

Pprune Pop

Thanks.

Sniff.

PPRuNe Pop

7th June 2001, 20:44

I have dealt with the offensive post in question.

I would now hope that the debate can continue - in a fashion that will not require further admin intervention.

Enjoy.

whats_it_doing_now?

8th June 2001, 02:24

Well, it could, but it's been done to death. Please put this thread out of its misery and close it!!!

Streamline

8th June 2001, 03:57

Some common sense,

The final decision/action on any important matter that is time critical is with the Captain, hence he should be in a position to take that desicion,so hands on the thrust levers and to/GA switches.

Those situations are:

1. Abort
2. Go around or land in low visibility.

All other situations are covered by the fact that the F/O should be able to fly.

Every set of SOP that respect these principles is OK.

And as a final remark, the less the difference in set up of the SOP between handling a normal compared to a non-normal situation the more efficient the non-normal will be handled.

In other words, when non-normals start to look like normal you are fully in control.

In the end the final question will be "who took the descision compared to who is responsible"

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

[This message has been edited by Streamline (edited 07 June 2001).]

normal_nigel

9th June 2001, 18:12

otube/lee or whatver your name is. You may have a BA staff number but you ain't a pilot here unless you've joined in the last couple of months, so wind your neck in.

Kind Regards (is that better Mr Moderator??)

NN

Bourbon-on-the-rocks

10th June 2001, 12:34

I think you lost that one NN, suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and fall quietly on your sword.

Notso Fantastic

10th June 2001, 14:20

Mr. Moderators Sirs! This eternal discussion about BA SOPs is rather frustrating. BA is happy with them, BA crews are largely completely happy with them and are not forever trying to point out it is or is not the best way to operate. We know there is no answer. This thread is being used as a device to assault and insult BA's style of operation. I echo calls to close this thread down.....it is NOT RUMOURS & NEWS and is getting nowhere, and that explains the frustration resulting in posts that you dislike!

bobs61

10th June 2001, 22:49

An earlier posting in this thread suggested that BA permits f/o’s (and s/o’s ?) to make the decision to abandon a take-off. I cannot believe that this is the case. Could someone confirm or refute this?

Positive Climb

11th June 2001, 00:08

Bobs61,

I can confirm this - an F/O may call stop on any take-off (including one the Captain is handling) for:

1. any fire
2. an engine failure
3. the configuration warning

in addition, when handling the T/O, he may also call stop for:

4. a blocked runway
5. any serious handling difficulties

Why on earth does this shock you so much ?

------------------
"After V1, we'll take the emergency into the air - You call 'Positive Climb' and I'll ask for the gear up. We'll climb away at between V2 and V2 + 25"

behind_the_second_midland

11th June 2001, 00:36

bobs

at BA we employ and train co-pilots to a high enough standardfor them to have the ability to call stop. What do they do in your company, pay them to watch the captain f**k up and take off, crash and burn??

BTSM

Bellerophon

11th June 2001, 00:37

BA permits a F/O to call stop during the take off roll for any one of several clearly defined failures or malfunctions, some of which may depend on the aircraft speed.

If the F/O is also the handling pilot, they can call stop for a few other reasons as well. All other failures are decided upon by the Captain, who will make the stop/go decision.

We also let our F/Os hold the thrust levers on take off, taxy the aircraft, and make decisions about fuel, weather, alternates etc.

In our experience, training our F/Os to exactly the same standards as Captains, requiring them to maintain those same standards, whilst treating them as professional aviators and not just wheels and wireless specialists, seems to produce the desired result.

bobs61

11th June 2001, 23:11

Interesting info. By comparison, my employer permits the RHS occupant (regardless of rank or operating capacity) to abandon a take-off only where the LHS occupant is incapacitated. In practice this means that the f/o cannot normally make the decision to reject.

The rationale? Logical, really. The decision to stop is, save for the engine fire case, rarely clear cut. A large number of factors have to be evaluated and a decision made on the basis of experience. The f/o could have the experience and ability to make such an evaluation, but then again her or she may not. The RHS occupant could be a marginal, 250 hour wonder or someone who has just failed a command course due to poor decision-making ability.

The ops manual sums up the situation succinctly by stating that the final decision in all maters affecting the safety of the aircraft must be the Commander’s. Nuf said.

airforcenone

13th June 2001, 00:40

Maybe I'm cynical but surely a '250 hour wonder' is capable of calling 'stop' when an engine goes pop.

I have an hour or two more than that and would not be too keen on keeping quiet if a skipper was about to make a decision which had life altering consequences! If he's going to kill me, I want him to be damned sure I'm not happy with the idea.

Still, in my company I can always take control (never needed to yet!!).

[This message has been edited by airforcenone (edited 12 June 2001).]