Originally Posted by
tubby linton
I used to fly on the line with one of their test pilots
Yes, some test pilots have a double activity, however :
- I flew back home one Airbus test pilot who did not know much about real operation of the aircraft (I don't want to reveal the exact detail because it could identify him, but imagine something like the visual docking guidance system, if they don't have that at their test facility, he only knew it existed but didn't know if it worked well, if it was reliable, etc.. he had not much experience of it)
- Their lifestyle is so different than line pilots one that it seems they could easily forget or not realize the differences. If you fly a 350 almost every day and do several landings per day, you could easily forget that this activity is very different from landing the same 350 only one or two times per month, after one or two sleepless nights. They have areas of proficiency different from those of airline pilots. They probably don't practise regularly quick turnarounds with full passengers freight and catering... But perform much more and much more advanced manual flying.
- I'm not sure if they have much say in the procedures and checklists ? There is an entire flight operations and training standards department, whose director (at least when I used to work near there) was a purely office pilots who never flew on the line (at least never full time, having had jobs as top managers for smaller Airbus subsidiaries or other engineering organisations) and there is a large number of engineers who barely hold a PPL in this department.
I worked a few years at Airbus and my job, barely holding (at the time) a PPL, under the supervision of an engineer who never flew an airplane, was to make recommendations for airline, following some incidents. Pilots should have done this and that. And this guy at a few occasions that presented themselves contradicted the test pilot on the recommendations to make.
And, even better, when I joined my current airline, I asked some TRIs about some of the contradictions within airbus. I had a third answer !
You're on final at 100ft (IIRC), and you get VREF+13kts from a wind gust. You were with ATHR on and it was not able to maintain a correct speed.
Test pilot (and myself) said : just retard the throttle and control the speed up to touchdown (as you always do but with a larger movement of the thrust levers than usual) (follow """common sense""")
Engineer said : keep ATHR on even though it's commanding too much thrust and try to land like this ("""follow SOP""", because ATHR should work and because you should not disconnect ATHR below 1000ft)
TRI said : your final is unstable, just go around. ("Follow the airline operating manual A)
Airbus is not a unique entity with a unique voice. Maybe if some other guys had been there at the meeting about this line on the SOP, the line would have been different. Ask a question on techrequest, get two different answers from two different support engineers (depending on the case, I'm talking grey situations obviously)
In short, it's not a perfect company, even if they do their best, some things like ego fights, errors, changing considerations, can happen as in all human organizations. They don't know every little detail from anywhere, and probably can't provide for every possible particularity that your airline may have. If your organization has very good reasons to go against Airbus, I wouldn't be shocked if they implemented it. And they can even discuss it with Airbus beforehand ! For example, my airline approved the new SOPs but did not implement the new briefings.
Some examples of misunderstandings between me and airbus below :
Originally Posted by
Sergei.a320
From explanation document : "Basic pilot competency to be aware of energy of the aircraft.
Know the FMA and A/THR mode at all time.
Not specific to landing.
Desicion:
Line is deleted."
Thank you for the document
I found something that caught my attention :
Before takeoff, ATC... SET was deleted :
No risk identified if the SQUAWK is forgotten by the flight crew. The ATC will remind the crew in case the SQUAWK is forgotten.
I'm not so sure about that. If you takeoff without the squawk (happened to me once), it will trigger an ECAM just after takeoff. I'm not exactly sure but I remember it leads to TCAS inop (you don't have an active transponder, you don't have a TCAS)
If I'm correct, Airbus deemed necessary to check the TA/RA position before takeoff, so they should also check the squawk. Else, you are not protected by the TCAS during the takeoff and initial climb phases.
Response updated to remove "CONFIRMED". Rationale: Reflect the aural form pronounced in the cockpit (CONFIRMED is not pronounced in the cockpit)
Everybody at my outfit used to pronounce "confirmed" out loud.
: "AS RQRD" is considered as not enough specific. The new format of the answer will engage the PF in a more efficient check of the actual status of the ANTI ICE.
Conversely, I don't know anyone who responded "as required"
ADIRS OFF Deleted : Covered by the external horn
I don't know if anybody would know that a horn would sound, if you would hear it if you deboarded the plane from the jetway, and if someone heard it would he know what to do ?
Ask your colleague next time if they know what happens if you shut the aircraft down while forgetting the ADIRS..