Airbus Procedures and callouts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check airman
When you observe silently there is also a possibility that you haven't seen when you say loud it is a confirmation that you have seen also brings the other guy in to see you are not just rattling out by habit. When under pressure a lot of things can be missed. Air Blue accident weather was bad and was a circling approach, the captain had 21000 hrs.
When you observe silently there is also a possibility that you haven't seen when you say loud it is a confirmation that you have seen also brings the other guy in to see you are not just rattling out by habit. When under pressure a lot of things can be missed. Air Blue accident weather was bad and was a circling approach, the captain had 21000 hrs.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: At home
Age: 42
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa was flying without reading the FMA until 2 or 3 years ago and they were fine like many other companies. If you fly Airbus for some time, you can even call FMA without actualy reading it.
Problem is not reading it or not. Problems start when the things are done automatically, no matter if you read it aloud
Problem is not reading it or not. Problems start when the things are done automatically, no matter if you read it aloud
I’ve flown the same aircraft with and without FMA calling. It can’t catch everything, in that if you have the wrong mode engaged somewhere but it hasn’t changed, it still might get missed. Overall, it can’t hurt too much (Disclaimer: as a LH pilot I don’t get as much as I would on multi-sector days. I give the FO 10 mode changes on the approach and then that’s it. 
)
Absolutely. How many times have you caught yourself saying what you expected to see and 99.9% of the time will see...? The human mind works in interesting ways, especially in situations like these.
)
Problem is not reading it or not. Problems start when the things are done automatically, no matter if you read it aloud
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mention rattling off FMA's out of habbit. Eventually, that gets drowned into the background noise, and you may not even be paying attention to what the other guy is saying.
To be clear, I think we all agree that it's absolutely imperative to read the FMA, but I just can't find any value in verbalising it. It doesn't help me in any way, and the other pilot has his own FMA, so it's not helping him either.
To be clear, I think we all agree that it's absolutely imperative to read the FMA, but I just can't find any value in verbalising it. It doesn't help me in any way, and the other pilot has his own FMA, so it's not helping him either.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check airman and Cak
Problem is not reading it or not. Problems start when the things are done automatically, no matter if you read it aloud
It is known as conditioned reflex. Airbus does not say FMA is a recall. You read the FMA as you see it. If you read aloud wrongly the PNF can correct it. Anything will work as long as you see the change happening on FMA, verbalisation is for confirmation by the other guy. Even if you didn't observe it at all nothing may happen to you but multiply that by number of pilots flying the airbus and something will happen and has happened. When repeatedly a way of operating gives rise to accidents/incidents it is a serious matter. A lot of thought and much more qualified people than line pilots make airplanes and procedures to fly them. A line pilot armed with only FCOM simply in no position to make changes to SOPs. The Flt Ops should consult with the manufacturer and only then make changes. If every pilot is allowed to bring in changes to SOP it will lead to anarchy. For a line pilot as Col Jessop says in A Few Good Men " We follow orders(SOP) or people die. it's that simple."
Problem is not reading it or not. Problems start when the things are done automatically, no matter if you read it aloud
It is known as conditioned reflex. Airbus does not say FMA is a recall. You read the FMA as you see it. If you read aloud wrongly the PNF can correct it. Anything will work as long as you see the change happening on FMA, verbalisation is for confirmation by the other guy. Even if you didn't observe it at all nothing may happen to you but multiply that by number of pilots flying the airbus and something will happen and has happened. When repeatedly a way of operating gives rise to accidents/incidents it is a serious matter. A lot of thought and much more qualified people than line pilots make airplanes and procedures to fly them. A line pilot armed with only FCOM simply in no position to make changes to SOPs. The Flt Ops should consult with the manufacturer and only then make changes. If every pilot is allowed to bring in changes to SOP it will lead to anarchy. For a line pilot as Col Jessop says in A Few Good Men " We follow orders(SOP) or people die. it's that simple."
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be clear, I think we all agree that it's absolutely imperative to read the FMA, but I just can't find any value in verbalising it. It doesn't help me in any way, and the other pilot has his own FMA, so it's not helping him either.
Only half a speed-brake
It would be interesting to know any details behind the case of DLH changing from silent to reading out loud (is that so?).
I was trained and until today operated in line with the OEM's procedures. During my 2 or three jumpseat rides in Lufthansa cockpit (fully approved i.a.w. all the books by the way) I was, however, rather impressed with the - then silent - way of doing things.
Vilas' comment about the inadequacy of FCOM, FCTM and one's personal experience as a basis for "improving" SOPs is words of gospel!
I was trained and until today operated in line with the OEM's procedures. During my 2 or three jumpseat rides in Lufthansa cockpit (fully approved i.a.w. all the books by the way) I was, however, rather impressed with the - then silent - way of doing things.
Vilas' comment about the inadequacy of FCOM, FCTM and one's personal experience as a basis for "improving" SOPs is words of gospel!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: At home
Age: 42
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ vilas
Conditioned reflex is much more obvious with PM response CHECKED. I bet that most pilots respond with CHECKED totaly automatically, unfortunately.
I am not saying that reading aloud FMA is not good or vice versa. There is no best practice. And I am sure that AIRBUS procedures makers are not the smartest guys in the world, as also BOEING or EMBRAER guys are not. Airbus just chose that philosophy.
And since Lufthansa switched to Airbus procedures, they put some of their guys into the Airbus' team for procedure design. As I ' ve been flying for years according Luftica rules, some modifications much closer to 'old' Luftica procedures are already visible. We will see what future brings.
But I can tell you that Luftica procedures were way more precise then the Airbus' procedures.
@FlightDetent
Regarding the change in procedures, some Lufthansa instructors told us that it has something to do with the insurance but probably somebody has some more accurate info
Conditioned reflex is much more obvious with PM response CHECKED. I bet that most pilots respond with CHECKED totaly automatically, unfortunately.
I am not saying that reading aloud FMA is not good or vice versa. There is no best practice. And I am sure that AIRBUS procedures makers are not the smartest guys in the world, as also BOEING or EMBRAER guys are not. Airbus just chose that philosophy.
And since Lufthansa switched to Airbus procedures, they put some of their guys into the Airbus' team for procedure design. As I ' ve been flying for years according Luftica rules, some modifications much closer to 'old' Luftica procedures are already visible. We will see what future brings.
But I can tell you that Luftica procedures were way more precise then the Airbus' procedures.
@FlightDetent
Regarding the change in procedures, some Lufthansa instructors told us that it has something to do with the insurance but probably somebody has some more accurate info
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
details behind the case of DLH changing from silent to reading out loud (is that so?).
A lot of thought and much more qualified people than line pilots make airplanes and procedures to fly them.
Now, each carrier has a slightly different operational culture and company philosophy, SOPs should represent those. Using SOPs that everyone, from the top down to the last cadet, thinks as stupid, makes them pretty bad as nobody really gives a rats ass how you follow them. Currently i follow the flight managements advice to simply fly every approach in every condition below FL200 as raw data, as it saves a ****load of nuisance calls.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cak
If you buy a car and you use it against the manufacturer's recommendation you have paid the cash so you can say hell with all that. Sure! but when there is a break down or an accident do you expect insurance company to bail you out? Airbus as a manufacturer will be happy from business point of view if you have your own procedures because it lets them off the hook. About lawyers writing procedures is a load of bull****. It's like a pilot writing as a constitutional expert. Can he?
If you buy a car and you use it against the manufacturer's recommendation you have paid the cash so you can say hell with all that. Sure! but when there is a break down or an accident do you expect insurance company to bail you out? Airbus as a manufacturer will be happy from business point of view if you have your own procedures because it lets them off the hook. About lawyers writing procedures is a load of bull****. It's like a pilot writing as a constitutional expert. Can he?
Last edited by vilas; 12th Jun 2016 at 18:42.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: At home
Age: 42
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ vilas
I am not saying that somebody should act against procedures. I am just saying that Airbus chose that principle and it's not neccessary the best one. If somebody has a team of people doing procedures based on some other philosophy, I cannot see why not.
I am not saying that somebody should act against procedures. I am just saying that Airbus chose that principle and it's not neccessary the best one. If somebody has a team of people doing procedures based on some other philosophy, I cannot see why not.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is the qualification of those people that is lacking in the manufacturer? Procedures are based on design philosophy of the aircraft.Nobody has access to that without consultation with the manufacturer.The incident of JetStar had it been an accident relatives of passengers would be justified in dragging the airline to a court of law.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus designs the aircraft, however, they do not operate them (except their fleet of Belugas). And even with the best reporting culture in each airline that operates them, and we all know that especially in Asia nearly no reports are filed, they have only second hand knowledge of its operation.
Interestingly enough, airbus never audited us, not even when we had vastly different SOPs (which had no negative influence on safety level). Unlike boeing, who audited us at least every two years, quite often more frequently. Apparently airbus is not really interested in getting first hand experience in normal line operation from their operators.
And in every accident relatives will drag the airline into court for every reason available. That is the reality they have to face anyway. Be it for a difference in SOPs, but usually for bad training and not following the SOPs that were in force and justified by the airline (which has to justify it, the OEM doesn't have any economical risk in that point) and approved by the authority. If a pilot isn't aware of the FMA he is a risk, no matter if he just (automatically) said "checked" or not.
There is one time where the FMA calls are a great help, and that is during initial training, both in flight school and during initial type rating. Later on they just become automated "nuisance" calls, which the aircraft could do by itself if they are that important.
Interestingly enough, airbus never audited us, not even when we had vastly different SOPs (which had no negative influence on safety level). Unlike boeing, who audited us at least every two years, quite often more frequently. Apparently airbus is not really interested in getting first hand experience in normal line operation from their operators.
And in every accident relatives will drag the airline into court for every reason available. That is the reality they have to face anyway. Be it for a difference in SOPs, but usually for bad training and not following the SOPs that were in force and justified by the airline (which has to justify it, the OEM doesn't have any economical risk in that point) and approved by the authority. If a pilot isn't aware of the FMA he is a risk, no matter if he just (automatically) said "checked" or not.
There is one time where the FMA calls are a great help, and that is during initial training, both in flight school and during initial type rating. Later on they just become automated "nuisance" calls, which the aircraft could do by itself if they are that important.
Rubbish:----it's called Airmanship from Professional Aviators, cross checking and monitoring to keep us ALL safe.
It's also to helps make sure BOTH Pilots are in the same loop going the same direction the same way...... Don't you want the PM awake, watching and keeping you safe? He might just save your butt one day.....in fact it sounds like it will happen soon enough.
Just do it and stop being so precious...
It's also to helps make sure BOTH Pilots are in the same loop going the same direction the same way...... Don't you want the PM awake, watching and keeping you safe? He might just save your butt one day.....in fact it sounds like it will happen soon enough.
Just do it and stop being so precious...
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Porirua
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMA is one of the most important things when flying Airbus FBW aircraft, that's why is also included in the "golden rules".
Reading FMA aloud accomplishes three things:
1. Forces you to actually read the FMA as opposed to just taking a glance over it.
2. You get two sensoric inputs: visual and audio (by listening to yourself speaking), so chances of getting the correct message to your brain are better.
3. It helps your PM to stay in the loop if he's temporarily heads down (reading a checklist, making MCDU entries, etc.).
Reading FMA aloud accomplishes three things:
1. Forces you to actually read the FMA as opposed to just taking a glance over it.
2. You get two sensoric inputs: visual and audio (by listening to yourself speaking), so chances of getting the correct message to your brain are better.
3. It helps your PM to stay in the loop if he's temporarily heads down (reading a checklist, making MCDU entries, etc.).
Last edited by Pakehaboy; 14th Jun 2016 at 10:59.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'd be interesting to see what would happen on a line flight if one guy called out flare at 600ft. Would the other person notice, or just reflexively say "check"?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely agree. In my mind, it actually goes against Airbus philosophy to make the calls. Think about the cockpit design. If everything works as it should, there are no indications- all lights, ECAM messages etc are off. The lack of an indication is good. Your attention is drawn to a positive indication, to alert you that something is amiss. The sudden positive indication gets your attention. It'd be much harder to spot a FAULT light if every button had an ON light illuminated all the time.
Same thing with callouts. Better to remain silent, and raise the alarm when something goes wrong, instead of making an announcement every time the airplane does as it's told.
Same thing with callouts. Better to remain silent, and raise the alarm when something goes wrong, instead of making an announcement every time the airplane does as it's told.
Hi Check Airman.
I have been flying Airbus for 11 years now, and before that, four different conventional (i.e. non computerised) turbo prop and jet aircraft types.
What I find with Airbus is that sometimes the procedures might seem superfluous, but then one dark and stormy night, something bad nearly happens and you go Ah, THAT is why we have to do that. For example; what does LAND (green) on the FMA tell you?
You say you are new to the Airbus, and my guess is that you have probably never seen anything go wrong with one. So your mindset is 'why call it, it is never wrong?'. Well, calling the FMA is for a number of reasons.
1. You are verbally confirming a mode change.
2. You are communicating with the other pilot. (who is supposed to then read his/her FMA and say 'checked' if it agrees)
3. The FMA is the output of the aircraft systems, and should confirm the input(s) that have been made.
4. Unless you read the FMA out loud and the other pilot reads theirs and says checked, how do either of you know that each FMA says the same thing?
5. You are also confirming that the other pilot is aware of what is going on and has not for example become fatigued or incapacitated.
Trust me, reading the FMA out loud is a very sensible thing to do. By NOT doing so you are
1. Ignoring Airbus SOPs
2. Not keeping the other pilot in the loop. Unless you read the FMA out loud, and the other pilot reads theirs and says checked, how does the other pilot know you have read it correctly. And how do you know the other pilot has read it?
3. Possibly not reading it yourself
4. Confirming the aircraft will do what you have asked it to do and confirming the selections you have made. (I still see some pilots look at the flap lever instead of the E/WD to confirm the flap setting).
One day, something might happen to you - or not happen that should have - and you will get that cold sweat feeling of 'bloody hell that could have ended badly', and you will realise why Airbus are flown the way they are. Don't assume - always check.
Don't resist the Airbus, fly with it. It is a wonderful machine.
PS beware of saying what you expect to see rather than what is displayed in front of you. The other day during a control check, the other guy said "full left" as I was holding full right rudder. I said "are you sure?" he said "yes full left" Then I pointed to the rudder position read out on the F/CTL page. He looked for a moment, confused, and eventually said "....Oh err sorry, full right."
I have been flying Airbus for 11 years now, and before that, four different conventional (i.e. non computerised) turbo prop and jet aircraft types.
What I find with Airbus is that sometimes the procedures might seem superfluous, but then one dark and stormy night, something bad nearly happens and you go Ah, THAT is why we have to do that. For example; what does LAND (green) on the FMA tell you?
You say you are new to the Airbus, and my guess is that you have probably never seen anything go wrong with one. So your mindset is 'why call it, it is never wrong?'. Well, calling the FMA is for a number of reasons.
1. You are verbally confirming a mode change.
2. You are communicating with the other pilot. (who is supposed to then read his/her FMA and say 'checked' if it agrees)
3. The FMA is the output of the aircraft systems, and should confirm the input(s) that have been made.
4. Unless you read the FMA out loud and the other pilot reads theirs and says checked, how do either of you know that each FMA says the same thing?
5. You are also confirming that the other pilot is aware of what is going on and has not for example become fatigued or incapacitated.
Trust me, reading the FMA out loud is a very sensible thing to do. By NOT doing so you are
1. Ignoring Airbus SOPs
2. Not keeping the other pilot in the loop. Unless you read the FMA out loud, and the other pilot reads theirs and says checked, how does the other pilot know you have read it correctly. And how do you know the other pilot has read it?
3. Possibly not reading it yourself
4. Confirming the aircraft will do what you have asked it to do and confirming the selections you have made. (I still see some pilots look at the flap lever instead of the E/WD to confirm the flap setting).
One day, something might happen to you - or not happen that should have - and you will get that cold sweat feeling of 'bloody hell that could have ended badly', and you will realise why Airbus are flown the way they are. Don't assume - always check.
Don't resist the Airbus, fly with it. It is a wonderful machine.
PS beware of saying what you expect to see rather than what is displayed in front of you. The other day during a control check, the other guy said "full left" as I was holding full right rudder. I said "are you sure?" he said "yes full left" Then I pointed to the rudder position read out on the F/CTL page. He looked for a moment, confused, and eventually said "....Oh err sorry, full right."
Last edited by Uplinker; 14th Jun 2016 at 12:57.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman and Pakehaboy
The only point you both are harping on is pilots calling without checking and that is as wrong as can get. It is not a call you read it, Check airman you are new to the bus and yet you are assigning the manufacturer recommendations, the evidence of accidents and opinions of experienced pilots to dust bin just because you are unnecessarily uncomfortable with some thing that is routinely done by thousands of pilots across the globe. If pilot can call FMA mechanically without actually reading it then this pilot will never check it doing silently. In the first case there is chance of other guy noticing the error but when done silently the other guy is not even in the loop. And a neophyte saying airbus procedure goes against airbus philosophy I don't find anything more ridiculous than that. You are not immune to committing mistake made by other experienced pilots. Flight control check you are supposed to check full up aileron with spoilers but since spoilers are not called the pilots failed to notice that spoilers were not moving and that caused the incident in Luft Hansa where maintenance had cross connected the wires and captains side stick banked the aircraft to opposite side. The co-pilot landed the plane.
The only point you both are harping on is pilots calling without checking and that is as wrong as can get. It is not a call you read it, Check airman you are new to the bus and yet you are assigning the manufacturer recommendations, the evidence of accidents and opinions of experienced pilots to dust bin just because you are unnecessarily uncomfortable with some thing that is routinely done by thousands of pilots across the globe. If pilot can call FMA mechanically without actually reading it then this pilot will never check it doing silently. In the first case there is chance of other guy noticing the error but when done silently the other guy is not even in the loop. And a neophyte saying airbus procedure goes against airbus philosophy I don't find anything more ridiculous than that. You are not immune to committing mistake made by other experienced pilots. Flight control check you are supposed to check full up aileron with spoilers but since spoilers are not called the pilots failed to notice that spoilers were not moving and that caused the incident in Luft Hansa where maintenance had cross connected the wires and captains side stick banked the aircraft to opposite side. The co-pilot landed the plane.