Approach Briefing

[airyana]

right, here's the chart, now please, brief me ...

just write it down the way you say it, what do you focus on and why ...

(here's the URL for the chart if you'ld rather open it in a new window)

http://www.flightsim.com/feature/atwcdk2/image039.jpg

http://www.flightsim.com/feature/atwcdk2/image039.jpg

[411A]

Hmmm, used that approach many times, in the past.
Normally, I toss it down on the center console, and say...any questions?

Works for me.:)

IE: When you deal with professionals, the wheel need not be reinvented on a daily basis.:D

Now, some may think that I'm being rather cavalier...keep in mind we don't have 300 hour wonders in the RHS, either.
And yes, it makes a difference.:rolleyes:

[skyeuropecapt]

D'rather fly with a 200 hour F/O than 411A:E

Now what in this approach isn't clear for the poster?
Different missed approach gradients?you should have a performance table in your Flight Crew Ops Manual (for Boeing it is in the PERFORMANCE DISPATCH section of FCOM1) which will give you Single Engine Flaps 15 Climb gradient for your Aircraft actual weight and ambient conditions.(in case an engine fail under the altitude of you minima and the runway is unfortunately blocked as well).
If you can not achieve a gradient higher than the one for the lower minima use the one for the higher.
In that case if you cant make 3perc..use the higher minima of standard 2.5%.
DME is not collocated with the ILS so PNF should have Ibiza VOR selected and PF ILS.
DME reads 0 at threshold .
Missed appr altitude is 3000 feet after an intial left turn towards the sea passing 2000feet.
Engine out procedure towards the sea:O

The Initial approach is straight forward.

[Bealzebub]

A briefing is not just about the approach plate. It is about the whole dynamic of how the briefer intends to conduct the approach and how that involves both or all flightdeck crewmembers in that process. It enables the main points to be highlighted in a manner that ensures that all parties understand and agree that the procedures are being interpreted correctly and it allows for any obvious errors or omissions to be questioned and corrected. In addition it allows for all of this to be modified for the variables that will be present on the day. Notam highlights for unserviceable equipment, lighting or temporary changes to promulgated procedures. Weather constraints and variables. Personal experience and observation factors. For example shear that may be present at the threshold of these types of runways very near the adjacent sea, (often present at IBZ). Similarly the missed approach initial instruction to climb straight ahead to 2000 ft, is because there is an island (not shown on the plate,) as well as the 525ft spot height, just to the South of the airport.

Although the brief should be succinct, it should still cover the main points and the variables on the day, as well as the primary actions likely to be undertaken if the approach needs to be discontinued. Using Ibiza as an example, most pilots will tell you that this approach is rarely flown from the Initial approach fix as published. A briefing would normally highlight the expected procedure as well as the published one.

In summary, no I can't give you a brief for this approach, as it would amount to nothing more than a template. The brief on any two days and with different crews might well vary to take all of the dynamic factors into account. Notwithstanding that, I would never throw the approach plate on the centre console with the statement "any questions?" A lovely bit of bravado, but a completely pointless attempt to satisy the rationale for the brief.

[DOVES]

Dear 411A
You know that other times I've had exactly Your same opinion. But his time let me dissent.
Don't You think that it is wise at very least that both Pilots at controls ascertain that they have the same chart with the same date, for the same airport, for the same Runway, for the same kind of approach, before each and every landing?
In a couple of Carrier I flew for it was mandatory to remember by heart at least minima and missed approach procedure

[The Real Slim Shady]

What about a look at the airspace classification from the ERC?

Minimum safe alts? Grid MORAs ? MEAs? Little point in throwing the chart on the centre console for the AAIB to find it blowing across the side of the mountain 60 miles out.

[airyana]

LEIB is just an example, but please try to be more specific regarding the bits you never skip, and chart 10-9 as well ....

do you always go over lighting, rwy width, landing beyond the GS etc . . .

I appreciate that every flight is different, but what I'm after is the habbits that people acquire with time.

share your experience, what are the points that you think must be reviewed and why ?

I am sure we'll discover a few interesting points ... :ok:

[411A]

Don't You think that it is wise at very least that both Pilots at controls ascertain that they have the same chart with the same date, for the same airport, for the same Runway, for the same kind of approach...

Yes, DOVES, I would agree, except....we have one chart for both pilots, and the Flight Engineer.
Therefore, comparing charts is not necessary in our operation.
Now, as for comments from another poster, such as...
D'rather fly with a 200 hour F/O than 411A leads me to conclude that the respective poster is truly...out to lunch.:rolleyes:

[Bealzebub]

I don't really understand where you are coming from on this airyana?

The brief covers all those points that the pilot flying it feels are relevant. If it is the second time in two days that the pilot has flown that approach with the same person, he may well refer back generally to the previous brief and only highlight the minima and tracking as well as any additions to the Vref that may be factored in because of the weather on the day. On the other hand there may be notam, traffic, operational or other factors that require a briefing change from one day to the next.

It is a fundamental mistake to assume that this is some sort of "parrot type" narration that needs to be judged from one persons performance to the next. A companys Standard Operational Procedures will lay down the skeleton of the points to be covered for a normal brief. It is up to the individual how much "meat" they want to put on those bones.

You appear to be soliciting various individual performances for the suggested benefit of discovery? Given the obvious and the variables, I am not sure why?

[Intruder]

This approach is actually quite a complex one if you're in a non-FMS airplane...

You have a VOR, ILS, and 2 NDBs you have to tune and follow. When do you tune which in what radio, if you have no dedicated ILS receivers? How do you transition from NDB to VOR or ILS if you have a separate RMI for the NDBs?

You have a Decision Height choice to be made. If you don't have a climb performance chart in your FCOM/FHB/QRH, how do you decide (weight, temp, actual weather, fuel?)? Then there is a "gotcha" in the Missed Approach Altitude that you might not catch on first glance.

If you have to fly the full approach (no vectors to final), you may have to do a procedure turn or a dogleg path. Then you find there is no DME definition of the OM or the MM, so you may be confused by DME readings vs distance to the runway...

And today I agree with skyeurocapt that 411A IS way too cavalier in his attitude. He obviously has forgotten that his FO may have been flying with Captains who vary quite a bit in their techniques and expectations for crew coordination...

[fireflybob]

The amount and content of the brief depends on the circumstances. For a locally based (in this case) IBZ crew who have flown together into IBZ, it might be appropriate to say "Standard Brief".

If the FO had just passed his line check on his first type and never been to IBZ before then more briefing would be required, for example.

That said it's more important, I feel, to highlight what is "different" rather than droning on about stuff that's standard.

I am not a huge fan of masses of mnemonics but I think START is quite good for approach briefings, S = STAR/Arrival Route, T= Terrain, A= Approach, R= Runway, T = Taxi Route.

[411A]

It is a fundamental mistake to assume that this is some sort of "parrot type" narration that needs to be judged from one persons performance to the next.

Very well said, Sir.
I have found that when these 'briefings' are done, parrot fashion....nobody listens, let alone actually pays attention.:rolleyes:

He obviously has forgotten that his FO may have been flying with Captains who vary quite a bit in their techniques and expectations for crew coordination...

Sorry, not forgotten, however, I generally fly with the same First Officer on a short/medium term contract....everyday.
Therefore, what works for one, many not for another...however, one need not be incorrect.:}

[DOVES]

Quote:
Yes, DOVES, I would agree, except....we have one chart for both pilots, and the Flight Engineer.
Therefore, comparing charts is not necessary in our operation.

And who keeps that chart handy for any need?

Pilot flying?
Pilot not flying?
Captain?
Flight engineer?

Regards
Romano

[411A]

And who keeps that chart handy for any need?

Pilot flying?
Pilot not flying?
Captain?
Flight engineer?


Flight Engineer...don't leave home without one.
It not only makes the job much easier, safer too.:ok:

[captjns]

OK guys... visual backed up by the ILS. Any questions? Good... lets land the jet and get some tapas and San Miguels:ok:.

But seriously folks... a full briefing of how the jet is going get from FLXXX to the stand whilst briefing the low altitude chart with reference to MORCAs and anticipated routing to the commencement of the STAR as well as routes to diversionary airports, Then the STAR itself with discussions relating to SLPs and Altitude restrictions. Then for the Approach itself in the normal format you have been trained by your company, pointing out special items such as minimum equipment required for the approach, and minimums based on your aircraft's performance, and special missed approach procedures and notes as may be appropriate. Last but not least the taxi in procedures so the entire crew can enjoy those tapas and San Miguels.


It takes some discipline to treat even your home airport as an unfamiliar airport when conducting the briefing.

I agree what 411A pointed out regarding the fact that the brief is a script and a non existent yes and nod is given by the NPF. To remedy this I pause after each phase of the descent/approach/landing/taxi briefing to confirm salient points with the NPF to ensure they are in the loop and not nodding for the sake of nodding just to get on with the program.

By the way... the same applies to departures procedures as well especially where a low initial level off altitude or quick heading change is required.

[DOVES]

Now I see
That's crew integration and crew coordination.
For decades, my colleagues and I, flying for one of the greatest intercontinental airline have fought such a behaviour in the cockpit.
I remember there were times when we co-pilots had a notebook on which were recorded foibles of each commander. Remember though that we were dealing with people who had fought the Second World War and from whom we shared a strong generation gap. Some of them came from fighters and had shot down many aircraft opponents. So that often when we arrived in New York with one of those guys there was always some air-traffic controller who recognized him "Is .... On board? "
" Yes! "
" Now I understand your behaviours. "

[DFC]

Never mind briefing. Lets start with just reading the chart correctly. Then we would not have;


DME is not collocated with the ILS so PNF should have Ibiza VOR selected and PF ILS.
DME reads 0 at threshold .



Does it? I estimate that the DME will read about 1.2nm at the threshold not allowing for slant range errors.

or


If you have to fly the full approach (no vectors to final), you may have to do a procedure turn or a dogleg path


There is no procedure turn published. The full procedure from the IBZ utilises a racetrack procedure.

or


Then you find there is no DME definition of the OM or the MM, so you may be confused by DME readings vs distance to the runway...



Well, I see from the chart that the DME will be aprox 5.6 at the LOM and 1.8 at the LMM (again ignoring slant range errors). However, do you need a DME as well as the marker audio and visual indications?

Clearly, briefing the procedure can be very important.

[MU3001A]

There is no procedure turn published. The full procedure from the IBZ utilises a racetrack procedure.The racetrack is the procedure turn.

Brief as follows:


X IBA d20 @4000'
descend to 2200' on IBA 053R/233Tr
IBA d16 L turn H196 to intercept LOC
G/S @ IBZ 1490'
DA 261' RVR 600m
MAP climb to 2000' H243
L turn to IBZ hold @3000', parallel entry

[slamer.]

I tend to think "less is more" when it comes to briefings. Include what you are comfortable with on the day. Your familiarty with the Aerodrome, crew, conditions and IAW your Comp SOP's will decide this.

I have always been of the understanding these Jepp charts are designed to be read left to right across the top box's and thats only what I verbalize in my briefs (although I dont say the ATC Freq's) terrain of course is the "big one" and dont forget the MAP. I usually say the electronic TCH although its probably not necessary.

Many still brief as per the old DC-8 days, but the more progressive operators have modernized briefs to suite an FMC environment. Chart (same and correct app), terrain, Wx and operational considerations (diff from normal) are good starting points. EFB's have further improved this.

PS; I watch out for the "fine print" there can be important points hidden there.

[cityfan]

Brief as follows:

X IBA d20 @4000'
descend to 2200' on IBA 053R/233Tr
IBA d16 L turn H196 to intercept LOC
G/S @ IBZ 1490'
DA 261' RVR 600m
MAP climb to 2000' H243
L turn to IBZ hold @3000', parallel entry

Sure, I would remember ALL of that! NOT!

The plate itself is laid out for you SO AS TO FACILITATE the briefing, which is why they were changed to look like this over the past few years.

Obviously, the information that is required by one's Op Specs are REQUIRED, unless the procedure has been flown earlier in the day, in which case, 411A's suggestion MIGHT suffice. Otherwise, some BASIC information is required to ensure BOTH crew members on on the same page (I know, I' ll get my coat!).

Anyway, without getting into the particulars of this specific approach, we all fly ILS approaches FOR A LIVING, so the NON-ROUTINE aspects of this particular approach (ESPECIALLY NOTAMS) would be of MOST PERTINENT VALUE to BOTH pilots before embarking on the final descent below sterile cockpit altitude.

:ok:

[MU3001A]

Sure, I would remember ALL of that! NOT!

Which is why that is what is written on the crib sheet on my yoke clip. An extract of the essentials unique to this approach, everything else is pretty much standard stuff.

[Intruder]

Never mind briefing. Lets start with just reading the chart correctly. Then we would not have;
. . .
If you have to fly the full approach (no vectors to final), you may have to do a procedure turn or a dogleg path
There is no procedure turn published. The full procedure from the IBZ utilises a racetrack procedure.
Say what?!?

The procedure turn from the IBZ NDB IAF is clearly depicted on the profile! How can you say there is no procedure turn published, then say there is a procedure turn that is a racetrack?!?

[CommandB]

A procedure turn and "racetrack" are two different things... look it up to avoid ambiguities in the f/d! :ok:

[MU3001A]

A procedure turn and "racetrack" are two different things

On that side of the pond maybe, not over here.

[flite idol]

Procedure turn vs procedure hold for coarse reversal.

[MU3001A]

Procedure turn vs procedure hold for coarse reversal.

Over here there a 3 types of PT. The standard procedure turn where pretty much anything goes, in order to effect a course reversal. Then two that must be flown exactly as depicted, the teardrop (now rarely used) and the holding pattern.

[9.G]

to dispel apprehensions there are two IAF therefore two possible approaches:

a straight in one from 20 DME depicted as IAF
race track on over IBZ NDB depicted as well as IAF. IT'S a RACETRACK

dependable on the IAF clearance one will have to fly the procedure accordingly.

Cheers.:ok:

[Checkboard]

Normally, I toss it down on the center console, and say...any questions?
Why have you not set the course bars yet? Oh - forgot? Have you mis-dialled that frequency - or did you intend that? I haven't been here before, how are we joining the approach? Vectors? The full racetrack procedure? If we are flying an arc, how do you intend to do that? Use a VOR, then change frequencies for the ILS? If we have to hold for traffic or weather, where will you do that? How much holding fuel do we have? At what point in time will you want to divert? And to where? If we get a windshear warning, will you immediately go-around, or will you assess the performance first? :rolleyes:

None of this is on the chart, 411A - it's why professionals brief. :hmm:

An example: (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19950427-0)

The pilot in command was a former airline pilot with 10,108 hours total flight experience, and 2,591 hours on the Westwind aircraft. The copilot had 3,747 hours total flight experience, most of which was conducted in helicopters. He had 80 hours of experience on the Westwind. The pilot in command was the handling pilot for the flight.

The Captain's Brief:
"We’ll go down to forty-three hundred to there and if you can wind in thirty-four fifty - and when we - when we get over there wind in twenty-seven eighty - that’ll be the minimum - we’ll see how it looks - for a giggle - ah - you can put the steps in now too if you wouldn’t mind - but you only need to put the steps in below the lowest safe."

The aircraft hit the ridge in clear air, and all three aboard (whom I knew) were killed.

[Jumbo Driver]

I would have thought the way this thread discussion has progressed itself illustrates the need for a concise professional briefing at top-of-descent, prior to starting the approach.

In my opinion, Bealzebub and fireflybob both have it about right.

I would like to think that 411A was being tongue-in-cheek when he made his first reply ... but maybe he wasn't ...

Ibiza LOC/ILS 24 is not a straightforward approach and, for example, at least some mention of which navaids are to be used to define which waypoints, the limits to be used and the go-around procedure would be both sensible and professional. Weather and terrain should also be ingredients to the brief. I am not in favour of verbose briefings but neither is it appropriate just to "... toss it down on the center console, and say...any questions?" That is just not a professional attitude in my book - and especially so if there is only one chart available, which is itself poor aviation practice for a multi-crew environment.


JD
:)

[john_tullamarine]

Those of use who have been playing in the sandpit for a while know that 411A

(a) has quite a bit of front seat experience behind him, and

(b) is VERY good at throwing a comment or two into a thread in a manner well calculated to stir up a vigorous discussion .. such as this one.

I would be very surprised if his earlier comment were not somewhat tongue in cheek.

[411A]

(b) is VERY good at throwing a comment or two into a thread in a manner well calculated to stir up a vigorous discussion .. such as this one.



Quite correct.

Especially, when I see this...
right, here's the chart, now please, brief me ...


Yes, we always do a brief discussion about the approach, well before top of descent (if possible), however....I have seen it time and again, both on line checks and in the simulator (especially the former) where there is a last minute runway change, or a different STAR announced at the last minute, or, once having been assured of radar vectors, then assigned a totally different procedure altogether etc....
that it is far better to actually be slightly more adaptable with ones planning, instead of going on and on and on (endlessly)...first I will do this, then I will do that)...and in the end, the crew does none of the original plan, changes thrown at them at the last minute, more shuffling of papers, missed ATC calles because...more briefings infinitum....IF a professional crew cannot both look at an approach chart, see the quite obvious, select navaids without having to verbalise every step....then I would suggest that they have no business in the pointy end.
200 hour wonders in the RHS excepted, with an experienced training Captain to guide the new First Officer accordingly.


Then we have...
Why have you not set the course bars yet? Oh - forgot? Have you mis-dialled that frequency - or did you intend that? I haven't been here before, how are we joining the approach? Vectors? The full racetrack procedure? If we are flying an arc, how do you intend to do that? Use a VOR, then change frequencies for the ILS? If we have to hold for traffic or weather, where will you do that? How much holding fuel do we have? At what point in time will you want to divert? And to where? If we get a windshear warning, will you immediately go-around, or will you assess the performance first?


This all comes as rather second nature to experienced crew (and that is all we hire in the first place) so....the respective poster I expect would simply not fit into our organisation...fortunately:)

In short, all this verbal chatter is, in many cases, totally unnecessary...after all, it is a brief....so keep it just that way...brief.
It is not an apollo moon landing.:rolleyes:

Oh yes, we don't call it a briefing, it is called in our outfit....crew co-ordination... an old TWA expression that has worked for me, quite successfully thank you very much, for more than thirty years.

In closing, Harry Truman said it best....'If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.

[inner]

I think it is a good question of the first poster. Somehow i think a briefing should be like the word itself: BRIEF!! Some charts are really complicated and when i do a whole briefing of the plate, i'm sometimes wondering if the guy next to me still knows after 5 min what i've said.

[zoigberg]

Kind of agree with the previous comment - Interesting that some of the posters here had misread the plate i.e. not as simple as it looks so it's worth a decent brief if you haven't been before. And then expect vectors for a straight in final.

Oh, and check that what's in your FMC actually coincides with what's on your plate! Too often missed.

[Checkboard]

This all comes as rather second nature to experienced crew
When you have flown for a decent amount of time, you will know that nothing can be relied on as "second nature". All of those questions arose from errors I have seen on the line over the last 20 years or so. :rolleyes:

[BOAC]

So, airvana - what would YOU pick out as important? Oh, and you have not told us the weather, which does affect the brief.

[411A]

When you have flown for a decent amount of time, you will know that nothing can be relied on as "second nature".

Have to disagree entirely.

This is the plate, same as is was last week. Any questions? No, good pre-decent checks please!

Yup, works good, lasts a long time.

Or... approaching JED, ATIS says 34C for landing.
Standard crew co-ordination for 34C, 'localizer ....., DA 226, missed approach....., standard calls.'

Now, having flown into JED since 1981, sometimes 34L is assigned at the last minute.
So, 'localizer....., DA 213, missed approach...., standard calls'.

Done.:ok:

Clearly this would not be sufficient for Checkboard...that's why he doesn't work for us, nor is it likely would he would be invited.:)

[Spooky 2]

Would you guys hold the posts for a minute, I need to go to the kitchen for some more pop corn!:D

[Checkboard]

... 411A I do notice that embarrassment is forcing your "second nature" brief to become more complex with each post. ;)

[411A]

Not 'embarrassment'...sometimes it's necessary to wake to other guy up.:}

[Flying Farmer]

Adverse-Bump stop acting like a total cock, have you flown into IBZ yet?

I have with one of the posters here and have to say we didnt say "standard brief" to each other!

The reason being, it was my first time into IBZ as opposed to LGW for the second time today and 12 times this week, no offence :}

[Phantom Driver]

What happened to the old principle of KISS-"Keep It Simple, Stupid"-? Over the years, the Jepp charts have become more and more cluttered, with "information duplication overload", unlike earlier charts which were much clearer, just like (dare I say it), Aerad. These days, it's hard to see the wood from the trees.

3.0% versus 2.8% missed approach climb gradient minima on those Ibiza charts? Who cares! How often are you landing at such a weight that this would have any significance? I am sure most of todays commercial jets would have no problem achieving these figures, except maybe after losing an engine on a heavywt/hot/high or terrain challenged departure and returning to land. But if the performance calcs (2.4%) allowed you to get airborne and climb out in that condition, the landing should be no problem where G/A is concerned, (unless you lose more donks, in which case it's not your day; bugging the appropriate Cat 1 minima could then be academic-280' instead of 249' on the baro?!. I'd be looking for somewhere else to go if conditions were that bad.)

If the relevant authorities are that concerned, then please publish gradients etc (and many do this) in 10-1P amongst all the other legal junk that we plough through at our leisure during cruise. Just like Notams, the important items are often buried away amongst all the out-of date stuff. Thank God for the sharp F/O's who are usually pretty good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

These days, too many of these procedures seem to be written by lawyers, not pilots. If you have the time or the inclination, have a look at the missed approach procedure for Runway 25R at Hong Kong; I call it-"The Go-Around from Hell". Does anyone actually attempt to fly it when the chips are down?!

[skyeuropecapt]

Missed approach on glide at DH,
Missed approach at MDA(G/S inop):600 feet about 3 mils..no level off and no dipping under passed the Visual descent point for a 3 degrees continued desent if visual passed IBA 3miles.

Was bit too quick saying DME read 0 at threshold,hence the need to look at the chart longer than a few seconds.... but slant range:cool:

NOTAMS,Lights (especially which side of the runway are the Vasi/papi in case of non precision approach)...

I am not experienced and I still listen to my Fos brief even if too long...they dont only try to brief you but also briefing themselves so let them be:-)

PEACE:E

[9.G]

Phantom Driver, as far as I can see it's 2,5 versus 3% to start with. You're absolutely right though it's somewhat academical and shouldn't be a problem in normal configuration which all procedures are designed for. Procedure design doesn't take EO conditions into account thus it's operators responsibility to assure performance requirements are met regardless of the configuration. That's the reason any reputable airline will nowadays have landing performance module on it's LPC and it's part of the approach briefing to calculate actual landing performance and go around. You brought up vivid memories about HKG with all it's crazy missed approaches. I believe on 07L the missed approach climb out gradient required is 7% or so till 4000ft clearly on the edge of SE capabilities of a twin, of course dependable on all the data implied.
That's the reason why EO procedures are flown in case of EO OPS instead of published go around where the performance isn't met. Another topic though.
But if the performance calcs (2.4%) allowed you to get airborne and climb out in that condition, the landing should be no problem where G/A is concerned, I'll allow my self to disagree with you on that for following reason TO performance EU OPS class A is finished at 1500 ft AAL unless stated otherwise in charts or notams. GO Around climb gradient is a constant value to be maintained till the obstacle clearance of 164 ft is obtained in the final segment which may be well above 1500 ft AAL.
Purely academical approach not that critical in IBZ on a sunny CAVOK day.
Cheers.:ok:

[low n' slow]

I'll give it a try.

Given that I'm cleared to the D20 IBA IAF flying my current type (Bambino Saab):
Formalia
ILS approach rwy 24, Ibiza, 11 dash 1, 28'th of sept 01
Frequency 109.5 with DME hold on IBA VOR 117.8
ADF set to 394 IBZ
Final Approach Track 243
Sector Altitude 2800

Tracks and navigation
Cross D20 IBA inbound on track 233 at 4000 feet or above, inside D20 lowest altitude is 2200 feet.
D 16 IBA, left turn to 196 to intercept the ILS, when established descend to 1900 feet. Pick up the glide at D6.9 IBA.

Altitudes and checks for the final approach
Check outer marker at 1490, minima 218 feet and 550 meters RVR.

Missed approach procedure
When going around, I'll call going around, flaps 7, set power, positive rate, gear up, LRN Nav, indicated airspeed. I'll continue straight ahead 2000 feet, left turn and join IBZ holding at 3000 feet.

Brief any use of non standard company procedures
High speed/low drag approach, noiseabadement

Open up to feedback and corrections
Any questions?

I think it's important to talk about how you intend to fly the approach, even though it at first glance may look very straight forward. On charts with a lot of intermediate altitudes during the arrival segment, it can often be confusing which altitude applies to which segment (look at the ENSN LLZ19 chart if you have access to it and you'll see what I mean). Therefore, it doesn't hurt to talk about the flightpath up the glideslope intercept so as to clear any questionmarks. It's a good way to spot errors before you make them.

Don't try and memorize all the formalia. This is just used to check that the navaids are set properly and that both have the same plate and edition. Put that energy on limiting factors such as altitudes, distances and turning directions.

If your company offers you several different procedures for you to use depending on the prevailing conditions, state which procedure you will use. Especially if they involve automatic configuration changes that are prompted by a sequence and not by the initiation of the handling pilot. In my case this would be the high speed/low drag approach that indicates that I as the flying pilot will call for condition levers to be set to max a opposed to them following automatically after the final flap setting.

And as stated by previous posters, with experience and especially experience related to that particular approach and airport, the briefing can be slightly compressed, offering more of your capacity to actually flying the aircraft and executing the approach as safely as possible. Remember that you cannot brief an aircraft to the stand, it has to be flown...

I hope this was any help.
/LnS

[411A]

What happened to the old principle of KISS-"Keep It Simple, Stupid"-?

It died and went to heaven when Airboos announced, ever so proudly....that everything must be verbally enunciated.
I watched early A300-600 guys do this nonsense, meanwhile, those of us on the L10 practised the...(mostly) silent FD routine.

IMO, more talking...less (proper) action.
IE: been known to happen....:}

Now, lets look at departures.
Some SIDs can be a tad complicated, and they require a 'brief' briefing...however, for the normal airlines standard procedures on takeoff...I normally announce...."standard company calls'.
Have everyone actually read the manual?
Yes, they have been doing these procedures for the last 10 years....at least.

KISS...a well known commodity, that works well, provided everyone is on the same page of music...and make no mistake, we most certainly ARE

[Sepp]

I must admit that it really makes me wonder, when some folks I fly with say "Sandard calls and drills" ... and then proceed to give me chapter and verse as to what that entails. On EVERY sector of a six trip day.

Either - or, *please*!

[DOVES]

Dear 'airyana' a good example of briefing is that one shown by 'low n 'slow'. By the way I want you to notice that on the top left of each Jeppesen map there is a small note written near the top: "Briefing Strip". This is exactly what that strip, together: I and my co-pilot, two of my students or examinees in the simulator or on-line, in the past, and now my IFR student pilots, with or without FMS, accessed and cross-controlled, integrated with relevant NOTAM, before each and every beginning of descent for the approach.
I, too, when I used to land in JED, BRU or NYC only, sometimes in Taipei, already knew each and every single map by heart, yet claimed that the Pilot Flying did the briefing for the landing.
And only in very rare cases accepted a change of runway at the last minute.
For other tricks like the missed approach gradient, the procedure turn, the racetrack, those are issues to be studied during the homework. Even today, before leaving for a series of instructional flights, after 44 years and 22000 hours flying (well say that I am a novice), among other things I Take a refresh at home of airports maps interesting to me.
I say again: only Minima and Go Around procedure have to be memorised (according to a major intercontinental Carrier I've been flying for).
Regards
DOVES

[Speedbird715]

This is how we learn it [Assuming good WX conditons + approach from the northeast with no racetrack procedure req'd]

"ILS Rwy 24 into Ibiza.

MSA 2800, highest terrain to the right of the approach track.

DME-20 IBA VOR at or above 4000, then after DME-16 a left turn to intercept the localizer or radar vectors onto final.

Glide slope intercept from 1900 feet at DME-7 from the VOR, 3° slope, final altitude 1500' at the OM, decision altitude 270' to cater for the worst-case climb gradient.

Missed Approach straight ahead to 2000 on heading 243, then a left turn direct to IBZ NDB, climbing 3000.

Nav Setup: I've got IBZ 109,5 / final approach course 243 for the ILS on NAV1, Ibiza VOR on NAV2. NDB 394 for the go-around.

Flap 30 landing, Autobrakes 3, approach speed 145.

Wind from the right at 10." [Any special items such as runway condition, WX, config, taxi procedures, fuel/divert situation etc etc amend here if required]

Final + Decision Altitude & MAP are by-heart items. Turned out quite similar to low'n slow's version. As a cade... eerm correction, soon-to-be 200-hour-wonder, I'm quite happy with that (I swear I didn't look :}

I find 411's opinion on briefings quite interesting and the experience on which that must be based admirable. However, even most 15.000 hour captains in our company would prefer a slightly longer briefing. It doesn't really hurt anyone to talk and establish/confirm a mind-set WITHOUT sounding like an aviation psychologist in a CRM lesson ;) That said, I've heard briefings like... "yeah well, there's the field, let's go and land on it". If it's the 6th leg on a CAVOK-day, a well-known 4000 meter runway with vectors to final and everyone on the flight deck is happy with that, why not?

[FullWings]

This is the 'funnest' thread in ages!

Ol' 411A is getting a bit of flak but I have to say I agree with much of what he's posted. Unless you're a test pilot about to take a new type for its first flight, there's very little need for long winded, statements-of-the-bleedin'-obvious recitation. Lots of information, most of it redundant.

"...10DME at 3,000' ... blah ... QDM and frequency ... blah ... 3 degree slope ... blah ... height of the outer marker is ... blah ..." *snore*. Yes, I can read an approach plate too. :rolleyes: Tell/ask me what's different about today that might cause a problem: density altitude? Tailwinds? Other traffic? Going visual? Windshear? MEL? Feeling tired? Etc. If there's a bit of novelty concerning the destination, then a bit of the "how" as well as the "what" can be useful and sometimes shows you're trying to do something inadvisable.

Why do we have briefings? Is it:

a) so we can tick all the items off in the checklist? Or,

b) that the entire crew is happy with plan 'A' and some of the less outlandish eventualities surrounding it?

[Caudillo]

Or, for those that give exceptionally long briefs for home and familiar airfields, all other things being equal:

c) For the CVR.

[low n' slow]

The most embarrasing thing that can happen is to be surprised when you come to a turn that you weren't prepared for.

The phrase "what is it doing now?" comes to mind.

Brief and just go thorugh what you plan to do so that the guy besides you can be spared from any surprises such as "what the :mad: are you doing?" or "where are you going?".

If you fly to the same place 3 times a day with the same guy, focus on the non standards. Look for CB's, small planes without mode C, fatigue, complacency or any other than normal master cautions :}

I fully agree with the KISS rule, but whenever I'm flying with someone I usually don't fly with, or have never flown with, I brief it in full, just to clear any questionmarks. It's a good indicator of the style in which you fly. After that first approach, both know what you aim for and how you like to execute your sectors. This helps as the day continues.

/LnS

[Big Pistons Forever]

411A

I have to say I am amazed a large jet aircraft operator is too cheap to provide approach charts for both pilots.

my 02 cents is if I am the PNF I want to know what flight path PF intends to fly. This could be as simple as "visual descent to join a 5 mile final for runway 09" any questions ? (For a clear and a million day to a familar airport) to a quite lengthly discussion (for a bad wx, unfamilar field, non radar, mountainous terrain approach).

I do think boiler plate descriptions of exactly what you are going to do at every phase of the appraoch and landing and possible overshoot, just get tuned out by the other guy. For eample; so your say you are going to raise the gear when you achieve positive rate..... Like there are other ways to operate the gear :hmm: The things you want to talk about are the Gotcha items in the approach so extra vigilance is applied at the appropriate times.

Always flying with the same crew is good in many ways. It can be real poetry in motion as the crew devlopes a rhythm where the flight proceeds in such a smooth and inevitable way it is like magic. but you do have to guard against complaicency and any deviation from what is happening vs what you thought was going to happen, needs to be challenged immediately.

[Phantom Driver]

Apart from KISS. don't you remember that old favourite?--

"Briefings should be like miniskirts-Long enough to cover the essentials and Short enough to keep you interested".

As already mentioned by others, when the crunch comes, you usually end up doing something different from what you planned/briefed anyway. Fact of life; not helped by those longwinded briefs that simply engender zzz's in all concerned.

Saudia (as an example) used to brief -"Chart 11-1-dated xxx-any comments?". As supposed professionals, that really should be enough, i.e we're all looking at the correct chart. If you're not a professional in your attitude to the job in hand, all the briefing in the world is not going to make much of a difference.

(p.s still standing by for comments on GA procedures for HKG 25R.)

(p.p.s- by the way, my comments refer purely to the approach chart. Of course, unusual circumstances that relate to weather etc deserve special comment. This is a natural part of our trade-AIRMANSHIP.

[DOVES]

d) To honor the memory of the pilots (not ignoring what they wanted to teach us with their error), and all the occupants of AA Flight 965 crashed in the BUGA 20/Dic/1995 due to:
1. The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation.
2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.
3. The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids.
4. Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an
excessive workload in a critical phase of the flight.
Regards
DOVES
Romano

[411A]

d) To honor the memory of the pilots (not ignoring what they wanted to teach us with their error), and all the occupants of AA Flight 965 crashed in the BUGA 20/Dic/1995 due to:

IF the respective pilots had continued with the original plan (instead of accepting an ill-advised last minute change, with concurrant FMS duff gen)...we wouldn't be reading about them...now.:rolleyes:

[BizJetJock]

Phantom Driver
I think I'm missing something. If that's the "go-around from hell" i'd hate to show you some difficult ones. Climb straight ahead to 3dme then turn right to the vor climbing to 4000'. By then you've had around 4 mins to clean up, talk to atc and read the next (not difficult) bit of the procedure. Not exactly beyond a professional crew i'd have thought.
As for the original question, the brief depends on the circumstances. Flying with someone i know to be experienced into somewhere we're both familiar with on a nice day - chuck the plate in the middle and "any questions" is about right. Line training a 200 hour newbie who's struggling, then I'd want the whole nine yards to be sure they actually can read the plate, then remind them which bits they need to remember and which bits they'll have time to read as they go along. Spouting lots of cr@p to satisfy some "standard" just shows that the guy who wrote the standard doesn't know what (s)he's on about. A lot of them about these days.:ugh:

[Intruder]

Our FHB and checklists give a list of the minimum information to be covered in the takeoff and approach briefings. Yours should, too. Adhere to those minimums, and add info as needed for the situation.

[Bealzebub]

When this question was first posed, I did wonder what was the point. Supplying an example of an approach brief would be fairly pointless, since it would be a personal embellishment of a template. If a thousand of us did it there would be a thousand variants. Most would contain the salient points, but all would omit the real world variables that change all of the time. So what?

One thing that has been highlighted by the thread, is some of the perceived value that different people apply to these briefings, and that is certainly interesting. The idea that presenting an approach plate to somebody in lieu of any briefing certainly causes a raised eyebrow in front of this screen. The briefing is supposed to be a verbal comunication that tells the other flight deck crew how that pilot is going to conduct that approach. Whatever is contained within that brief, it allows one additional layer of safety, in that any errors or misinterpretations, or personal observations can be accepted or queried.

I have had people brief me an approach that contained a complete misinterpretation of a plate. I have misread category minima, and missed important points, and used wrong or outdated charts, where the listening pilot or engineer picked up the error. That is the whole point. It almost doesn't matter what actually happens, or changes, or the style of presentation. What matters is that the crew are all being brought back into a focused loop where an opportunity to agree or question should afford some degree of additional safety. If you simply say "there is the plate, that is what I am doing." How does anybody else know that you haven't misunderstood something, or made an error in your own personal mental model?

The biggest danger is always one of complacency. Like some of you, I have sat there in a warm shirt sleeved environment, cocooned for over 3 decades listening to much of the same thing every day. It is sometimes very much easier to say rather than actually do, when it comes to avoiding complacency, or irritation over repetition. The problem is that this can be an insidious enemy, where routine, reliability, familiarity, experience and ego can all combine to make these briefings less effective than they should be, and clearly in some cases completely worthless.

A lot of people who flew into mountains, or the ground, or the sea had also flown safely and effectively for decades, until the fateful day. Knowing what somebody intends doing or how they interpret an approach can be very helpful before things start going wrong, and the rapid cascade of events and distractions makes it too late to revisit that particular element.

Maybe some of us need to remind ourselves that we are not as invulnerable as we have led ourselves to believe we are.

[Jumbo Driver]

Well said ... I concur absolutely.

JD
:)

[DOVES]

Bealzebub I love you!
What I meant was exactly that: in my cockpit there is not, there's never been, and won't never be any crew member who is sure that I am infallible. That is, if at any time somebody feels the need to go around because who is at that moment at controls, is not doing what he was expected to do, can and must do so (according to the Pilot Incapacitation Procedure). It's 'a bit' as the billiard player who declares what his shot will be. He is 'predictable' (and that's what we want), but he is also easily criticized when and if he don't do what he said.

Quote:
d) To honor the memory of the pilots (not ignoring what they wanted to teach us with their error), and all the occupants of AA Flight 965 crashed in the BUGA 20/Dic/1995 due to:
...
IF the respective pilots had continued with the original plan (instead of accepting an ill-advised last minute change, with concurrant FMS duff gen)...we wouldn't be reading about them...now. ...

Quote:
2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.

Quote:
And only in very rare cases accepted a change of runway at the last minute.
Regards
DOVES

[MU3001A]

411A: IF the respective pilots had continued with the original plan (instead of accepting an ill-advised last minute change, with concurrant FMS duff gen)...we wouldn't be reading about them...now.Odd that you should mention Cali. That accident would seem to be the poster child for not "tossing it down on the center console, and saying...any questions?"

[PEI_3721]

I wonder how many of the incidents discussed here (http://www.icao.int/fsix/_Library%5CTAWS%20Saves%20plus%20add.pdf) reviewed the chart with sufficient detail during the approach briefing.
Incident 1 - incorrect descent point.
Incident 2 - incorrect descent point, no check altitudes.
Incident 3 - incorrect descent point, no check altitudes, poor use of FMS.
Incident 4 - check distances, even when visual.
Incident 5 - incorrect descent point.
Incident 6 - incorrect descent point, wrong DME.
Incident 7 - failed to follow / check procedure.
Incident 8 - failed to follow / check procedure.

[FullWings]

PEI_3721, an interesting link, thank you.

Having read through all these incidents, it did seem to me that in most of the cases there were major flaws in the execution of the various procedures... Even if there had been mega-briefs, it'd have all gone to worms anyway. In fact, the authors of the paper thought the same:

All of the errors should have been detected with self or cross-crew monitoring. These require application of CRM skills involving communication for sharing mental models, crosschecking facts and understandings, and monitoring the situation that must include both the flight path and personal and crew understandings.

The approaches were all NP, sometimes a late change from an ILS. If you're going to agree on just one thing, I'd have thought the descent point would have been it...? Several of the approaches went below MDA without an adequate visual reference or any sort of altitude/distance checks - seems SOPs went out of the window.

[DOVES]

Phantom Driver
Quote:
Saudia (as an example) used to brief -"Chart 11-1-dated xxx-any comments?". As supposed professionals, that really should be enough, i.e we're all looking at the correct chart.

Yoy make a serious disservice to the professionalism, discipline and competence of the Saudia pilots (albeit they were coming from, in my time, some 56 different nations). From a review of my notes I find on thier SOP:

LANDING BRIEFING
Where possible, prior to commencing descent, and once the type of approach has been decided upon, all crewmembers shall review the information on the relevant Jeppesen Terminal Chart. The PNF will call out for the other crewmembers at least the following information:
The approach chart date, number, airport and type of approach.
The MEA and MSA.
The field elevation and touchdown zone elevation.
A point, selected by the PF for an "Altitude Check" for which a glideslope crossing height is published, in order to ensure when passing that point the proper functioning of ground and airborne approach aid components, altimeters and other flight instruments. This point should be higher than 1000 ft AGL. For a non-precision approach, the point selected should normally be the FAF.

For a CAT I approach:
the DA/DH and visibility requirement.
For a CAT II approach:
the Radio Altimeter (RA) and RVR requirement. Also for a CAT II approach, the CAT I DA/DH and associated visibility requirement given on the CAT I approach chart.
For a non-precision Approach:
The MDA, missed approach point and associated visibility requirement

The missed approach procedure.
Verification of barometric and radio altimeter bug settings.
The PF shall discuss any other significant aspects of the approach and landing that he considers necessary, e.g. terrain, weather, runway conditions, MEL/CDL, and in case of holding expected: MDF, fuel available; and radio set-up, etc. The expected taxiway route to the parking position will also be discussed.

And I do not think it's changed much in recent years.
Regards
DOVES

[Mach E Avelli]

If briefing time exceeds 1 minute, most of us have gone beyond the average person's attention span. Try this. Once the ATIS and STAR have been received, each pilot takes time out for self briefing from the charts, having first agreed on the chart numbers. We already know what country and state we are in and usually have a fair idea of which airport we are at; though sometimes this does need to be confirmed if there are two airports in the area sharing the same location name. So normally, we can spare the full title. Ditto standard stuff like 250 knots below 10,000 feet or loss of comms procedures. Anything 'standard' should not be read - it should already be known. Saves at least a minute of talk-fest.
After studying the charts, PM quizzes PF on essential stuff, such as inbound course, most limiting descent step, missed approach point and missed approach procedure. Where is the high terrain? Divert fuel?
Briefing done in 1 minute. Locked in to memory for 30 minutes. PM knows PF knows what to do. PF knows PM will be on his case.

[fireflybob]

It's an interesting topic. Many have commented on the content of an approach brief.

But maybe the question should be "What is the purpose/objective of an approach briefing?"

[Fredairstair]

Brief what's different on the day. That's it.

[DOVES]

fireflybob:
Presto said
The purpose of a briefing for the approach is to ascertain, well ahead of time that the whole crew will understand how you will conduct the approach and landing/go-around that day, for that airport's runway, with that operational conditions, with those weather, and the traffic expected.
The goal is simple: to correct or be corrected if necessary.
That's my two cents.
Regards
DOVES

[Airbus_a321]

..and always keep in mind: its called BRIEFing. the shorter the better. otherwise it would have been called "Approach LONGing".

even if you fly to a new airport we should have already done an airport familiarisation by ourselves at home, shouldn't we ?
So then just make a brief brief of the "highlights" and any changes you want to do on the expected approach, e.g like additional constraints etc.
"Standard Approach, as published! No changes! Any additional Questions?"

[A37575]

: When you deal with professionals, the wheel need not be reinvented on a daily basis.



I agree. - but the problem is the Court of Inquiry if something goes wrong. It doesn't have to be a fatal accident either. Perhaps an incident such as a near miss. Lawyers and prosecutors will quickly seize on the slightest infraction of SOP. Your company will drop you like a hot brick as well. A defence of "when you deal with professionals, the wheel need not be reinvented on a daily basis" would be manna from Heaven to a lawyer..

Unfortunately we live in a litigious society. Failure to mention any perceived pertinent factor will inevitably be the opening lawyers and the company are after. The CVR can save you or hang you.

[A37575]

PM quizzes PF on essential stuff, such as inbound course, most limiting descent step, missed approach point and missed approach procedure. Where is the high terrain? Divert fuel?


I may have misunderstood your post. If the PF has already briefed the PM on his intentions are you seriously having the PM coming back at him by saying "OK Skipper mate - are you ready for the hard questions? Wot's the ILS frequency? Wot's the inbound course? Where's the big rocks? Hang on there Skip - no cheating there, - don't look at the chart when I'm talking to you because you should already know the answers. If you don't then gimme the controls - my leg from here...":ok:

[Airbus Girl]

This thread is hilarious. There have been 71 posts. Yet no-one has just done a simple "say this" approach briefing for the plate in question!!!!

I feel really sorry for airyana if he is a new FO who is just asking how the airlines brief normally for the approach......:D

But I think airyana has given up as no-one has yet answered his question in a simple straightforward way!!! We all know that we would amend things depending on who we are flying with and whether we've just done the last 24 sectors with them into the same field etc.etc. but lets assume not. I don't know IBZ, having only been there a couple of times a long time ago but on first glance....

"I am looking at plate 11-1, 28 Sep 01 the Lctr ILS for runway 24. MSA is 2800ft based on the IBZ NDB. The approach is based on the IBZ 109.5 with a final course of 243 (and check both set up). Airport elevation is 23' with the threshold at 18' (good time to check the Airbus landing elevation figure). Transition alt is 6000'. Weather is XXX and tech status is XXX. The initial approach fix is based on the IBA at 20 miles and we need to be at or above 4000'. We will be expecting radar vectors....or.... course of 233 to 16dme, min 2200', then left turn onto track 196 to pick up the inbound course of 243. We expect to pick this up at 13.6d from the IBA. I will fly the approach with the automatics in initially. We should pick up the glide from 1500 ft at around 5.5d IBA (or more likely work back depending on what they normally clear you to start the approach from at Ibiza, at 1900' at 6.7d perhaps, or say 2200 ft at around 8d or whatever). The check altitudes are based on the IBA VOR. Its a standard 3 degree glide, with a minima of 218 ft, 550m (check its set up), with a go-around gradient of 3% which we can make on one engine. The gradient is due to a couple of obstructions either side of track so will make sure we stay on course. If we do go missed, I will apply TOGA power, call go-around flap, positive climb, gear up, then climb to 2000' on the heading - 243 - then a left turn back to IBZ NDB climbing to 3000 ft to hold. This is all in the box and so will be flown using managed nav. If we continue to landing I will use medium autobrake and idle reverse. I will be aiming to exit at (exit point). The runway length and slope is XXX. Fuel reserves - 1st alternate - weather and initial track. Any questions, anything to add, anything I've missed....."

[411A]

....We expect to pick this up at 13.6d from the IBA. I will fly the approach with the automatics in initially. We should pick up the glide from 1500 ft at around 5.5d IBA (or more likely work back depending on what they normally clear you to start the approach from at Ibiza, at 1900' at 6.7d perhaps, or say 2200 ft at around 8d or whatever). The check altitudes are based on the IBA VOR. Its a standard 3 degree glide, with a minima of 218 ft, 550m (check its set up), with a go-around gradient of 3% which we can make on one engine. The gradient is due to a couple of obstructions either side of track so will make sure we stay on course. If we do go missed, I will apply TOGA power, call go-around flap, positive climb, gear up, then climb to 2000' on the heading - 243 - then a left turn back to IBZ NDB climbing to 3000 ft to hold. This is all in the box and so will be flown using managed nav. If we continue to landing I will use medium autobrake and idle reverse. I will be aiming to exit at (exit point). The runway length and slope is XXX. Fuel reserves - 1st alternate - weather and initial track.

You really actually verbalise all this?
Now, some may think that I am 'too brief', yet the above is the opposite....much too long-winded, and if the First Officer mentioned all this, I would have serious doubts about his ability...:rolleyes:

Odd that you should mention Cali. That accident would seem to be the poster child for not "tossing it down on the center console, and saying...any questions?"

Negative, the 'briefing' wasn't the problem, not understanding the automatics and actually flying the airplane most certainly was.

[zoigberg]

Well I would say that Airbus girl has pretty much hit on what the 3 airlines I have worked for in Europe are looking for in a brief. You can get through that lot in just over a minute.

[Bealzebub]

This thread is hilarious. There have been 71 posts. Yet no-one has just done a simple "say this" approach briefing for the plate in question!!!!

Yes, but if you read those 71+ posts you will see why? Your example contains too many "XXX's" to be relevant other than as a template. The thread originator should have a grasp of the template already, from his own company procedures and acquired experience. The thread has evolved into a discussion on the usefulness and relevance of these briefings.

It wasn't that the point was missed, it was rather a case of what was the point? If the poster had asked for an example of your inflight PA to the passengers, it would have been much the same. There would have been as many different versions as there were people who replied.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I 'get' 411A and I know where he's coming from,...you've got to dispel your personal prejudices and actually hear wgat is being said,...we should look at ourselves before criticizing othersPA

[mephisto88]

(p.s still standing by for comments on GA procedures for HKG 25R.)


Mate, it really is a no drama event.
By the time the dunlops are out of the airstream, and you have given atc a hoy, (they watch you anyway), the tend to give you radar vectors to the South to slot into the radar pattern for another go. This is generally a much better low pucker factor option, than leaving you on the MAP track which was cleverly designed to take you over all the big lumpy bits of the New Territories.:ugh:
They only slight gotcha is the departing traffic off the parrallel runway 25L, but distance/performance means you normally out climb 'em with you going to your normal altitude and the departing traffic, if close, restricted to 3/4000'.

As for the thread topic, it was not that long ago that the company who pays me, required an epic of 'war and peace' proportions for both arrival AND! departure briefs.
Painfull to listen to, and even if you managed to stay awake for the many minutes it took for the PF to reguritate, was often missing the important bits. As a result, it was realised that it became ineffective, and a significantly shorter version was introduced. Personally, this is still too long, and borders on stating the bleedin' obvious.

Despite 411a trying to wind people up, (as if:}), I have to agree with him that 'less is better', and quite possibly, 'least is best', providing the briefing is kept to the few salient points and covers the threats that are likely to bite you in the ass.

[9.G]

I believe some of us are looking for the word CONCISE, aren't we? Legal aspects aren't to be neglected as well, however practical relevance saves our butts.
Cheers fellas :ok:

[Bad to the bones]

did you see the upper left corner of the chart???? "Briefing strip" normally in most airlines if 2.5 % or more gradient is required , or in case of missed approach after single engine and overweight landing, or high ambient temperatures the company has an alternate procedure for go around, normally is the ENGINE OUT SID.

so you follow the "Briefing strip " ,and then mention that for Go around you will follow the SPECIAL ENGINE OUT SID you can coordinate that with the app control ,in case of Go around, request what is stated in your ENG OUT SID.

I might be wrong ,but that is how we operate in all those apts

[bfisk]

For the purpose of this briefing, I have googled the latest METAR LEIB 311930Z 10006KT 050V140 CAVOK 27/22 Q1016 NOSIG=, and assuming no significant NOTAMs and arrival from the North East from FL300

Without further song and dance here's my brief

"If you're ready for it I'll brief the arrival and approach into Ibiza?"
"We will start descent with 90 miles to IBA, and expect vectors to the ILS, which is on plate 11-1 effective 4th of october 2001 [check that the other pilot has that chart] . The approach is based on localiser IBZ 109.5, final approach course is 243. Highest MORA on the way in is xxxx feet, MSA withn 25 miles of IBZ NDB is 2800 feet, no corrections. Intial approach altitude 1900 feet to glideslope, check glide at LOM 1500 feet. Continue to DA 218 feet baro, 3% missed approach is no problem today. We hope to see high intensity approach lighst with multiple crossbars and papi on left side, if not, we'll go around, climb straight ahead to 2000' feet, the left turn back to the locator and up to 3000' feet, parallell entry. The weather is all good, slight tailwind, if that should increase, we'll opt to circle to runway 06 in which case I'll rebrief the altitudes. The same goes if we have to enter the approach procedurally. No NOTAMs to affect us, fuel is plenty to hold for at least 30 minutes before going to [wherever], and no special company procedures. 100 knots across the threshold and after landing we'll turn off [left/right]. Questions, comments? Anything you would like to add? Anything dangerous we didn't talk about?"

[Phantom Driver]

Biz Jet Jock-
I think I'm missing something. If that's the "go-around from hell" i'd hate to show you some difficult ones. Climb straight ahead to 3dme then turn right to the vor climbing to 4000'. By then you've had around 4 mins to clean up, talk to atc and read the next (not difficult) bit of the procedure. Not exactly beyond a professional crew i'd have thought.

Oh really? Are you sure we are both looking at the same chart?! HKG-(Hong Kong) Runway 25R? Maybe not...,( which kind of highlights the reasoning behind this thread). Mephisto 88's comments are pertinent here (extract below).

Perhaps you fly to some of the more exotic destinations with special technique/knowledge/practice required, in which case fair enough, but I am sure you will agree it's not quite the same for the average long haul heavy jet operator who might visit such spots infrequently.

Doves-
Yoy make a serious disservice to the professionalism, discipline and competence of the Saudia pilots (albeit they were coming from, in my time, some 56 different nations). From a review of my notes I find on thier SOP:

My apologies; no disservice intended. However, the SOP's (as written in Vol A,B, etc) are exactly that and, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, do not have to be verbalised at length each and every time.
However,-

The PF shall discuss any other significant aspects of the approach and landing that he considers necessary


Absolutely! (but within limits; and therein lies the rub).

Mephisto 88-

Mate, it really is a no drama event.
By the time the dunlops are out of the airstream, and you have given atc a hoy, (they watch you anyway), the tend to give you radar vectors to the South to slot into the radar pattern for another go. This is generally a much better low pucker factor option, than leaving you on the MAP track which was cleverly designed to take you over all the big lumpy bits of the New Territories


Say no more! 'Nuff said. Seems to be the only sensible approach. Maybe the aces can fly that missed approach , as published, manually in raw data, perfectly (and it better be perfect with all those rocks around),on a nice sunny day, but how about when the chips are down, with possible mapshift and unfriendly weather; when I did a g/a on that runway a few weeks back due to a passing typhoon, I asked for, and got very nice radar vectors,thank you very much to HKG radar. I still maintain the published procedure was written by lawyers, not pilots.

9.G
Thank you for the performance clarifications. Specialist knowledge always much appreciated.

[MU3001A]

411A: Negative, the 'briefing' wasn't the problem, not understanding the automatics and actually flying the airplane most certainly was.Negative. If not for the terrain - not understanding the automatics and actually flying the airplane, would have been a little embarrassing but ultimately of little consequence. The crew are always responsible for terrain clearance, not ATC and had they been more situationaly aware of the surrounding terrain the crew would never have allowed that descending left turn while within the valley and below the level of the surrounding peaks. This counts double in a non radar environment such as the arrival into Cali. A comprehensive briefing of the descent and arrival would have highlighted the presence of the high terrain and the fact that all roads to CALI from the North pass 1st through TULUA VOR not ROZO.

Here's a little clue I can share. If you are ever unsure for whatever reason, where the magenta line is going to take you when plugging in a new waypoint. Put the nav in HDG mode on the original course before making the new waypoint active. That way you get to see a preview of where the nav want's to go and you can decide whether that looks right before committing yourself. Failing that, allways have the heading bug shadow your current course when in NAV mode and if the NAV takes you off in an unexpected direction when plugging in a new waypoint, simply enter HDG mode to resume the original course until you can sort it out.

Regards, no charge.

[MU3001A]

bfisk: For the purpose of this briefing, I have googled the latest METAR LEIB 311930Z 10006KT 050V140 CAVOK 27/22 Q1016 NOSIG=, and assuming no significant NOTAMs and arrival from the North East from FL300...

We hope to see high intensity approach lighst with multiple crossbars and papi on left side, if not, we'll go around, climb straight ahead to 2000' feet, the left turn back to the locator and up to 3000' feet, parallell entry..... Questions, comments? Anything you would like to add? Anything dangerous we didn't talk about?"... FO reply: So if we don't see high intensity approach lights with multiple crossbars and papi on left on this beautiful CAVOK day, then we will go around right?

Regards.

[bfisk]

Very good point indeed. I see how my actual wording puts me in a corner there. I guess old habits die hard... Thanks for poiting that out to me. That's CRM right there :ok:

[The Real Slim Shady]

MU3001A

10 out of 10, gold star, tick VG.

Happened just the other day: radar vector and cleared descend in to a cumulo granite.

[411A]

The crew are always responsible for terrain clearance, not ATC and had they been more situationaly aware of the surrounding terrain the crew would never have allowed that descending left turn while within the valley and below the level of the surrounding peaks.

Of course the crew is responsible, as it should be.
Approach briefing (or lack thereof) my foot....the respective crew simply did not follow the mandated procedure...no more, nor less.
That the crew accepted a last minute change, is no excuse.

[MU3001A]

Why didn't they follow the mandated procedure? Was it because they hadn't studied it or briefed it and were therefore unfamiliar with the procedure or the correct track to fly while descending into the valley and easily distracted by the offer of a straight-in landing? Which they had every right and responsibility to refuse by the way, if they felt they couldn't make the adjustment in the time remaining? Allowing the aircraft to complete that left turn was an unconscionable error for anyone sufficiently familiar with the procedure and aware of the nearby terrain.

[411A]

Allowing the aircraft to complete that left turn was an unconscionable error for anyone sufficiently familiar with the procedure and aware of the nearby terrain.

One also wonders why the specified NDB was not tuned/identified on the ADF?
Instead of looking at the magenta line going in the wrong direction.
Briefing had nothing to do with this accident...incorrect programming of the FMS, and a hurried rapid descent most certainly did.

[9.G]

The question of responsibility isn't always as easy as it might seem:
s DOC 8168 ICAO chapter responsibility

The pilot-in-command is responsible for the safety of the operation and the safety of the aeroplane and of all persons on board during flight time (Annex 6, 4.5.1). This includes responsibility for obstacle clearance, except when an IFR flight is being vectored by radar.

Note: When an IFR flight is being vectored by radar, air traffic control (ATC) may assign minimum radar vectoring altitudes which are below the minimum sector altitude. Minimum vectoring altitudes provide obstacle clearance at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot will resume own navigation. The pilot-in-command should closely monitor the aircraft’s position with reference to pilot-interpreted navigation aids to minimize the amount of radar navigation assistance required and to alleviate the consequences resulting from a radar failure. The pilot-in- command should also continuously monitor communications with ATC while being radar vectored, and should immediately climb the aircraft to the minimum sector altitude if ATC does not issue further instructions within a suitable interval, or if a communications failure occurs. That's the reason we have minimum radar vectoring charts nowadays which ironically can't be used for position determination but it gives us some idea of what ATC is up to.

However some states in their respective national regulations still hold PIC responsible for it. Be sure to have read national R&R before accepting it.

Beware as well bout the fact of resuming responsibility for terrain clearance once DIR to was accepted. Many times ATC offers one short cuts in mountainous areas like LIME on ORI 6 Q departure which basically can be accepted under the presumption of following: PIC is solely responsible for terrain clearance once accepted and a/c is either above MSA or contingency procedure for climb out has been established.

Cheerio:ok:

[Airbus Girl]

There seem to be a few discussions going on on here, but I am referring to the original IBZ briefing question and replies.

It seems many airlines have different briefing regimes, that or the pilots do. Personally, having been subjected to watching numerous accident report video replays and also reading numerous accident reports over the years, it seems that a good briefing can offset the chances of cocking up when you get there. Some people on here think its too thorough? Personally, I don't want to be briefing the go-around, missed approach and whether we're gonna be diverting at the point I call "go-around flap". Its kind of busy then, so why not mention the essentials at the outset? Much of the rest of the briefing is company standard for me I am afraid, we have to brief things like runway incursion points/ runway exits to be used, whether we're gonna be flying auto or manual (gives the other guy a heads up), and what we're gonna expect (RV or procedural). MSA needs flagging up as does whether I am planning on landing full flap or flap 3. As I brief I cross check that I've set it up properly in the box, by pointing to the relevant bit in the computer/ on the screen as I brief. This is useful for a cross check and means that generally (unless having a really bad day) I know I've got the thing set up as I expect it!! I brief the nav aids I'll use, and check them in the box at the same time.

Surely spending 5 minutes briefing well at a quiet time is better than coming down the approach, discovering that its procedural not vectored at the last minute, having a blocked runway causing a go-around, not knowing the missed approach, not having the nav aids set properly etc. just increases the chain of events that can easily lead to an incident or accident.

At work I find its better to be boring and safe than to have a flight that gets too exciting (and possibly unsafe).

No surprises.

[MU3001A]

411A: Briefing had nothing to do with this accident...incorrect programming of the FMS, and a hurried rapid descent most certainly did.If they had briefed the arrival/approach they would have realized that they already had the IAF for the VOR approach to RWY 19 - TULUA VOR programmed into the FMS and were flying direct to it at the time they accepted the offer of a straight in approach. Because they hadn't briefed any arrival/approach they were not situationally aware enough to realize this and confused the approach clearance they were given, leading the captain to select direct CALI VOR in the FMS, which action erased the TULUA waypoint. He then compounded the error by activating the wrong waypoint in the FMS thinking he was inserting ROZO, the FAF for the cleared approach. The aircraft responded by turning off the approach track toward the mountain peaks and the rest is history.

How long does it take to switch to HDG mode or disconnect the autopilot and take over manually and stop an inappropriate turn?

[411A]

How long does it take to switch to HDG mode or disconnect the autopilot and take over manually and stop an inappropriate turn?

Just a few seconds, certainly.
However, it would appear that (more than) a few pilots are so wrapped up with operating the FMS, common sense does not enter the picture.

[DOVES]

Hey out there. Is there any member of the Saudi cockpit crew able to confirm or oppose what Phantom Driver claims:

After
Doves-Quote:
Yoy make a serious disservice to the professionalism, discipline and competence of the Saudia pilots (albeit they were coming from, in my time, some 56 different nations). From a review of my notes I find on thier SOP:
He wrote:

”….My apologies; no disservice intended. However, the SOP's (as written in Vol A,B, etc) are exactly that and, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, do not have to be verbalised at length each and every time….”
Regards
DOVES

[StressFree]

411A,
You're right on the money, the OBSESSION with programming and using the FMS seems these days to lead some pilots to feel that they don't need to fly the actual aircraft and use their own judgement, as a 737 TRE I've seen this in the sim SO many times. Its been said before but maybe I need to say it again - whatever the 'kit' you've got in the flightdeck you're still a pilot and must fly the aeroplane and use your awareness and airmanship to ensure safety, you need to know where the terrain is, where the airfield is and where you are at all times. Theres nothing new here, its good old fashioned FLYING.............:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Bealzebub]

Yes I completely agree with that, although it is diverging from the subject of approach briefings to some extent. But so what! The FMC is an abacus. It is a tool for the pilot to employ, not be employed by. Where perhaps there is a similarity, it is that the programming of the FMC should largely be completed before either of the primary briefings take place. The rest of the time there should only be regular inputs as and when time and priorities permit.

Far too many people typing away furiously (or not as the case may be) when their priority should be a timely course/ speed/ or altitude change. Or heads down doing something unnecessary when their priority should be in flying the aircraft, or monitoring the pilot who actually is.

[spacecadet]

It depends on how familiar I was with the airport, who was sitting next to me, etc but Airbus Girls's briefing is similar to what I would use.

[airyana]

I appreciate that every flight is different, but what I'm after is the habbits that people acquire with time.

share your experience, what are the points that you think must be reviewed and why ?

I am sure we'll discover a few interesting points ... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


I certainly have discovered many interesting points, thank you. :D

I'm surprised that some people emphasize the KISS motto when they themselves havent applied it while answering my question ... :suspect:

[PappyJ]

Briefing for what everyone is already expecting, is a waste of vocal cords. Useful briefings will focus on what is not expected; in other words, the "What if's". Also important, don't confuse briefing, with Cross-checking!

I've almost fallen asleep during some briefings which included enough detail that I could have walked in my sleep to the layover hotel, but if a go-around in good weather due to traffic, etc, occurred, everyone would have been a$sholes and elbows figuring out where they were going and how they were getting there.

Keep the briefings Short, CONCISE and interactive. For example, if you really want to be sure that your PNF is going to select flaps 3/2 when you call "go around", don't simply "tell" him/her. Ask! ie, "... in the event of G/A, what will YOU do?" If you don't regularly do this, I promise you, you will get a dazed and confused look the first time you do. But, better confused now, then when you stuff the thrust on!

[jeff64]

"How long does it take to switch to HDG mode or disconnect the autopilot and take over manually and stop an inappropriate turn?"

From my memory, they don't even noticed the aircraft was deviating from the course...The were in the rush (3 hours delay for takeoff at miami), and when they noticed the GPWS call, they called TOGA, but forgot the spoilers out....No altitude gained, hit the hill only 20 meters from the top....

[TimeOnTarget]

Very good point PappyJ, thanks for making it. I like this INTERACTIVE technique because it gives you the chance to rehearse what you will do. I have never made a real go-around in the 744, and our skills degrade until the next simulator check when all hell breaks loose.

I really like to have my crew verify page number/date on the plate. This has avoided errors on several occasions particularly while flying in the military.