SOP after landing (Airbus OEM)
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
SOP after landing (Airbus OEM)
I struggle to embrace the not-so-recent change in Airbus after landing flows.
Initially I was trained with these:
OEM_afterLDG-2010.JPG
which worked beautifully.
Case study:
After landing at a complex unknown airfield, imagine a diversion into LVP conditions:
>> vacate and report "RWY vacated" to ATC
- PM extinguishes the lights and pulls the taxi/parking chart
- PF slows down to near stop not to hit anything
>> TWR instructs to contact GND frequency
- PM works the radio and looks outside to gain positional awareness
- PF pulls his charts into view
>> GND provides taxi instuctions
- PM points out the directions to PF
- PF identifies the signage and is ready to taxi
>>PF shuts the ground-spoilers
- PM goes head-down for his action flows.
The bolded items are steps of the original procedure. A neat, structured workflow.
How is this (recent) procedure supposed to work?
Initially I was trained with these:
OEM_afterLDG-2010.JPG
which worked beautifully.
Case study:
After landing at a complex unknown airfield, imagine a diversion into LVP conditions:
>> vacate and report "RWY vacated" to ATC
- PM extinguishes the lights and pulls the taxi/parking chart
- PF slows down to near stop not to hit anything
>> TWR instructs to contact GND frequency
- PM works the radio and looks outside to gain positional awareness
- PF pulls his charts into view
>> GND provides taxi instuctions
- PM points out the directions to PF
- PF identifies the signage and is ready to taxi
>>PF shuts the ground-spoilers
- PM goes head-down for his action flows.
The bolded items are steps of the original procedure. A neat, structured workflow.
How is this (recent) procedure supposed to work?
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: London
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Flightdetent,
Under standard Airbus SOP PF can ask PM to set the lights if required. In any event, the clean up can wait until both pilots are satisfied with the correct taxi routing.
So in LVP I would ask PM to set the lights so I don't have to go heads down in LVP conditions.
Under standard Airbus SOP PF can ask PM to set the lights if required. In any event, the clean up can wait until both pilots are satisfied with the correct taxi routing.
So in LVP I would ask PM to set the lights so I don't have to go heads down in LVP conditions.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That last image is how we do it too. PF vacates the runway and turns off the lights and stows spoilers. This should be done when deemed appropriate, i.e. If in an unfamiliar airport after vacating runway and stopped; if in LVP maybe after arriving at the respective pink spot. The stowing of the spoilers is the cue for the PM to start the flow
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
@applecrumble: the old procedure needed no adjustments for LVP. IIRC it has long been Airbus' philosophy that SOP-wise, LVP is no different to ILS. One I like very much because a) it tells me not to be lenient in normal ops and b) does not introduce additional, trained but rarely excercised, set of tasks to the job.
@Escape Path: what you explain is not the new sequence which I challenge. Spoilers now come first. I used to postpone the spoilers exactly like you say, after PM could show me where to go. If do the same with the new sequence, I end up at apron edge flashing like ET's mothership. Not much sleep lost over it but it does not taste like an improvement should.
@Check Airman: Not an operational one. More of "Quality of SOP themselves" discussion. I cannot and have not seen anyone consistently apply the new SOP without adjustments and/or personal interpretation, both devised on the spot to suit the scenario of the day. There was no need for any of this with the old book.
---
Maybe better suited in CRM and HF section, let the mods decide. If it ain't broke WHY did they fix it? I am curious to find out.
When I try to compare the two procedures, the newer loses 0:5. Or I am reading it wrong with insufficient understanding.
This is the old one in a different picture format:
Case study two - old style: You land and vacate MAN 05L on H, or LCA 22 to G, in the night.
- (step 1) PM kills the lights not to blind people on the ramp
> PM waits to speak with GMC who may be busy (MAN), or (in LCA) re-ask the taxi with TWR because instructions issued during landing were useless and even if he remembered you need a chart in hand to decode "CWLAL" from "CVLAL" and "CVLCL"; god forbid you try or even successfuly find where "A" is!
- PF, after learning/being shown where to go and when happy to continue
> (step 2) stows the spoilers thus triggers
> (step 3 ) the PM to go head down and clean up everything.
-- in comparison the new procedure -->
a) assigns an automated, single-man task (lights) to PF, who might be actively steering the aircraft at that point [0:1]. These I believe should be PMs to remove all possible workload from PF. The suggestion to delegate ad-hoc to PM makes it [0:1,5] as it is extra words/signal. And that signal comes in real life exactly when PM is on the radio getting transferred to GND [0:2]
b) A non-verbal command/communication to other pilot "I am ready, lets proceed" is removed: the spoilers no longer work in such way as they are now at the beginning of proc and you need to stow them it to get hands on STROBES and LD LT. [0:4] Essential HF topic here, we need to know where the other guy's mind is, without second guessing or being advised verbally.
c) It is now up to the PMs discipline and experience to prioritize comms with ATC and liaison with PF against his head-down flows. [0:5]. Proper SOPs should be smarter than that.
@Escape Path: what you explain is not the new sequence which I challenge. Spoilers now come first. I used to postpone the spoilers exactly like you say, after PM could show me where to go. If do the same with the new sequence, I end up at apron edge flashing like ET's mothership. Not much sleep lost over it but it does not taste like an improvement should.
@Check Airman: Not an operational one. More of "Quality of SOP themselves" discussion. I cannot and have not seen anyone consistently apply the new SOP without adjustments and/or personal interpretation, both devised on the spot to suit the scenario of the day. There was no need for any of this with the old book.
---
Maybe better suited in CRM and HF section, let the mods decide. If it ain't broke WHY did they fix it? I am curious to find out.
When I try to compare the two procedures, the newer loses 0:5. Or I am reading it wrong with insufficient understanding.
This is the old one in a different picture format:
Case study two - old style: You land and vacate MAN 05L on H, or LCA 22 to G, in the night.
- (step 1) PM kills the lights not to blind people on the ramp
> PM waits to speak with GMC who may be busy (MAN), or (in LCA) re-ask the taxi with TWR because instructions issued during landing were useless and even if he remembered you need a chart in hand to decode "CWLAL" from "CVLAL" and "CVLCL"; god forbid you try or even successfuly find where "A" is!
- PF, after learning/being shown where to go and when happy to continue
> (step 2) stows the spoilers thus triggers
> (step 3 ) the PM to go head down and clean up everything.
-- in comparison the new procedure -->
a) assigns an automated, single-man task (lights) to PF, who might be actively steering the aircraft at that point [0:1]. These I believe should be PMs to remove all possible workload from PF. The suggestion to delegate ad-hoc to PM makes it [0:1,5] as it is extra words/signal. And that signal comes in real life exactly when PM is on the radio getting transferred to GND [0:2]
b) A non-verbal command/communication to other pilot "I am ready, lets proceed" is removed: the spoilers no longer work in such way as they are now at the beginning of proc and you need to stow them it to get hands on STROBES and LD LT. [0:4] Essential HF topic here, we need to know where the other guy's mind is, without second guessing or being advised verbally.
c) It is now up to the PMs discipline and experience to prioritize comms with ATC and liaison with PF against his head-down flows. [0:5]. Proper SOPs should be smarter than that.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 24th Mar 2017 at 04:59.
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
Ok, one more try 
Could anybody suggest what are the benefits of the re-written procedure? I find it akward that what has been a poster child for the above (FAA AC 120-71A) now seems to be missing on all three key points.
Empirical evidence suggest it is my understanding which is wrong, what did I miss?
For starters, these are some ideas:
- spoilers are moved to the beginning to enable shutting them during roll-out, disarming the A/BRK this way
- lights follow "PF = lights" philosophy, which escapes me (especially PF=CM2) but as a rule, it has become more simple, albeit less functional.
- "I am ready --> you go head down" (see c above) trigger is removed
9. KEY FEATURES OF EFFECTIVE SOPs.
a. Many experts agree that implementation of any procedure as an SOP is most effective if:
(1) The procedure is appropriate to the situation.
(2) The procedure is practical to use.
(3) Crewmembers understand the reasons for the procedure.
a. Many experts agree that implementation of any procedure as an SOP is most effective if:
(1) The procedure is appropriate to the situation.
(2) The procedure is practical to use.
(3) Crewmembers understand the reasons for the procedure.
Empirical evidence suggest it is my understanding which is wrong, what did I miss?
For starters, these are some ideas:
- spoilers are moved to the beginning to enable shutting them during roll-out, disarming the A/BRK this way
- lights follow "PF = lights" philosophy, which escapes me (especially PF=CM2) but as a rule, it has become more simple, albeit less functional.
- "I am ready --> you go head down" (see c above) trigger is removed
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD
I meant PF turns off lights then stows spoilers, this is the cue for PM to start the flow. TBH, it does get a bit tricky at times when turning off the lights with the aircraft rolling. I usually just choose a moment when I feel the aircraft won't get away from me to turn the lights off, even if stopping is the only way I feel sure about that.
I don't think Airbus wants you to turn off auto brake that way. Our FCOM says it should be off by 20 (or was it 30?) kts to avoid jerks. Certainly you can take corners above this speed, but I've always turned it off via brake pedals
I meant PF turns off lights then stows spoilers, this is the cue for PM to start the flow. TBH, it does get a bit tricky at times when turning off the lights with the aircraft rolling. I usually just choose a moment when I feel the aircraft won't get away from me to turn the lights off, even if stopping is the only way I feel sure about that.
I don't think Airbus wants you to turn off auto brake that way. Our FCOM says it should be off by 20 (or was it 30?) kts to avoid jerks. Certainly you can take corners above this speed, but I've always turned it off via brake pedals
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
I meant PF turns off lights then stows spoilers
The new proc has a different sequence, however.
I usually just choose a moment
even if stopping is the only way I feel sure about that
Agreed about the A/BRK.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 5th Apr 2017 at 05:40.
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
20170320_075116000_iOS.jpg Standardization, they say. Is there maybe a presentation about this from one of their seminars?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kopavogur
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I struggle to embrace the not-so-recent change in Airbus after landing flows.
Initially I was trained with these:
Attachment 1977
which worked beautifully.
Case study:
After landing at a complex unknown airfield, imagine a diversion into LVP conditions:
>> vacate and report "RWY vacated" to ATC
- PM extinguishes the lights and pulls the taxi/parking chart
- PF slows down to near stop not to hit anything
>> TWR instructs to contact GND frequency
- PM works the radio and looks outside to gain positional awareness
- PF pulls his charts into view
>> GND provides taxi instuctions
- PM points out the directions to PF
- PF identifies the signage and is ready to taxi
>>PF shuts the ground-spoilers
- PM goes head-down for his action flows.
The bolded items are steps of the original procedure. A neat, structured workflow.
How is this (recent) procedure supposed to work?
Initially I was trained with these:
Attachment 1977
which worked beautifully.
Case study:
After landing at a complex unknown airfield, imagine a diversion into LVP conditions:
>> vacate and report "RWY vacated" to ATC
- PM extinguishes the lights and pulls the taxi/parking chart
- PF slows down to near stop not to hit anything
>> TWR instructs to contact GND frequency
- PM works the radio and looks outside to gain positional awareness
- PF pulls his charts into view
>> GND provides taxi instuctions
- PM points out the directions to PF
- PF identifies the signage and is ready to taxi
>>PF shuts the ground-spoilers
- PM goes head-down for his action flows.
The bolded items are steps of the original procedure. A neat, structured workflow.
How is this (recent) procedure supposed to work?
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
The head down flow takes no more than 3 seconds to accomplish. I do agree that if needed use all 4 eyes out until gate (flaps out and radar on, not start the APU... ), fortunately it never happens .
The question is on a different topic: the original procedure supported measured and organized workflow. The new one requires interpretation and airmanship. Where is the improvement / what did I miss? It's about SOP design or me being undertrained.
.The question is on a different topic: the original procedure supported measured and organized workflow. The new one requires interpretation and airmanship. Where is the improvement / what did I miss? It's about SOP design or me being undertrained.
