After landing checklist 320 silent or not

[Chiquitete]

Hello,can anyone tell me what is the official sop from Airbus regarding wether the after landing checklist is a challenge response one or a silent one.I find different opnions on the issue and would like to get it clarified.Thanks.

[compressor stall]

I wasn't aware that there was an after landing checklist.

Have a look on the back of your QRH, or refer PRO-NOR-SOP-21 P 3/4

[Dan Winterland]

I wasn't aware that there was an after landing checklist.


Have a look on the back of your QRH, or refer PRO-NOR-SOP-21 P 3/4


You can have a look in ours if you want - but you won't find one! Not all A320 operators use an after landing checklist and as the Airbus produced manuals are customer specific, they will reflect the company policy.

In response to the OP, in our company the PM does a scan silently without reference to a checklist.

[Fursty Ferret]

The before start, before take-off, and before landing checklists require responses because missed or incorrect items in the scan may have a (very!) negative effect on flight safety (think flaps in wrong config, wrong FCU alt set, autothrust in THR IDLE etc).

No one is going to die if the after landing scan is forgotten (rolling onto stand with the flaps down and the APU off is embarrassing, not dangerous) and although some airlines have after landing checklists, this is generally a hangover from their Boeing fleets.

[Dan Winterland]

The taxi after landing is a very high error phase and the after landing checklist is an extra non-essential threat. Anything on that list isn't essential as ferret mentions. Some of the things you would expect to see are covered in the shutdown checklist.

[compressor stall]

Anything on that list isn't essential as ferret mentions

If your marshaller wants to have children, he might think one of the items is essential…

[Nick 1]

"The PNF must announce "LANDING CHECKLIST COMPLETED", after reading and completing the checklist."

From ours FCTM.....

[vilas]

After landing checklist is there in Airbus SOP so obviously it hasn't come from Boeing and Airbus considers it necessary. It is always safer to follow manufacturer recommended procedures unless you have good reason not do so because of local conditions, etc. If a particular airline doesn't do it doesn't mean it is not necessary. However how it is executed differs. Some companies the CM2 in other PM does it and reads both sides and confirms.

[Fursty Ferret]

If your marshaller wants to have children, he might think one of the items is essential…

Weather radar is non-ionising radiation in a rapidly scanning beam. I believe Rockwell Collins tested the exposure directly in front of the antenna and found it somewhat less than the leakage from a typical microwave oven.

Weather radar = children with three heads is a myth.

[vilas]

Fursty Ferret
The latest revision (you can see the date) in cockpit preparation before power up Airbus has added weather radar power switch off. What do you think is the reason for this? It appears to me your belief is not shared by Airbus.
AIRCRAFT POWER UP


Ident.: PRO-NOR-SOP-04-A-NG00707




Applicable to: ALL


Ident.: PRO-NOR-SOP-04-A-00010165.0001001 / 03 MAR 14




ENG


ENG MASTERS 1,2......................................................... ...............................OFF


ENG MODE selector.................................................... .................................NORM


Ident.: PRO-NOR-SOP-04-A-00011188.0001001 / 03 MAR 14




*WEATHER RADAR


* Power supply sw ............................................................ ............................OFF


* WINDSHEAR sw ............................................................ .........................OFF


* GAIN knob ............................................................ ................................... AUTO/CAL


* MODE selector ............................................................ .............................AS RQRD

[Fursty Ferret]

vilas - I believe that this came about due to inconclusive evidence that it might be possible to damage the radar itself from close range reflections (ie, off a hangar wall or terminal building).

It is physically impossible to be injured by weather radar unless you manage to electrocute yourself or trap your hand in it.

The clue is in the name "non-ionising".

[compressor stall]

I recall being informed by someone attending the last AB safety conference that this change was due to an incident involving an engineer working on the front of the aircraft with the radar still in from the last flight.

I'll double check the source as I didn't ask further about it at the time.


And in several places Airbus makes specific reference to operating / testing wx radar away from people, including the following:

WARNING : MAKE SURE THAT:
-ALL PERSONS ARE MORE THAN 5 METERS (16.4FT) FROM THE ANTENNA.
-NO PERSON IS IN THE AREA MADE BY AN ARC OF 135⁰ ON EACH SIDE OF THE
AIRCRAFT CENTERLINE.

[vilas]

Fursty Ferret


Airbus flight operations briefing notes which gives information on use of weather radar states the following:


Note: Care should be taken when using radar on ground: Radar can cause damage to the human body.

Radar check must be performed away from people.

So till the official policy states what you say we need to respect this. Anyway this is usual sideway drift of the thread after landing C/L. If the manufacturer has recommended it means it is required. If one airline does it differently then it may be coming from a different aircraft that company used before. Those who follow the manufacturer should not copy others without reference to manufacturer.

[vilas]

Fursty
You may have a look at this.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Non-ionizing radiation is described as a series of energy waves composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields traveling at the speed of light. Non-ionizing radiation includes the spectrum of ultraviolet (UV), visible light, infrared (IR), microwave (MW), radio frequency (RF), and extremely low frequency (ELF). Lasers commonly operate in the UV, visible, and IR frequencies. Non-ionizing radiation is found in a wide range of occupational settings and can pose a considerable health risk to potentially exposed workers if not properly controlled.

[goeasy]

The after-landing checklist should be silent. As I belive Airbus originally defined it. Why should the taxiing pilot be diverted from the primary task, monitoring a non-safety related checklist.

The after-takeoff one similar. If you need a ckecklist to remind you to retract the gear, or flaps, then best you get yourself back on the ground, and hand in your licence.

Airlines who want everything read out, and cross checked are just introducing unnecessary distractions.

[Zippy Monster]

If the manufacturer has recommended it means it is required.

No it doesn't, it means it is recommended. Otherwise it would say it is required, or mandatory, or obligatory. Recommended does not mean required.

[Fursty Ferret]

My comment regarding non-ionising radiation being safe was specifically related to a previous post concerning genetic damage from weather radar. That still stands.

Of course lasers can burn, but their frequency (and therefore energy) is many orders of magnitude higher than microwave radiation. It's not really relevant and since the article you link to mentions ELF radiation as dangerous, it carries about as much scientific weight as a purple healing crystal.

Before flying I worked in a university environment with numerous radiation sources and took radiation safety extremely carefully. I imagine the reason Airbus suggest that you stay clear of the radar is two-fold - partly because the author is an engineer, not a physicist, and partly because of fear of litigation.

[TyroPicard]

goeasy..
If you need a ckecklist to remind you to retract the gear, or flaps,
You have completely missed the point of having and reading a checklist ..

[TyroPicard]

Chiquitete..

airbus SOP is challenge and response, read out loud.
Some airlines choose to get PM to read the checklist silently after completing the flow of actions.
Some others get PM to do the flow and don't bother with a checklist at all.

Just one of the areas of aviation where differing opinions are actually put into practice.

[oicur12.again]

I thought there was a holy grail of right and wrong WRT Airbus SOP's. But after flying the bus for 5 different airlines I now realize there is no such thing. Some do the checklist silently, some do it challenge and response and some do a PM scan only. Some dont do an after takeoff checklist either. I have seen some virtually silent cockpits result in fewer oversights than the one full of checking and responding.

The after landing checklist is the most distracting thing to happen in aviaition I sometimes find. The response to "radar/tcas" should be "dont care, we can check it at the gate but right now its raining, its dark, I am tired and theres sharp bits of aeroplane sticking out everywhere on the apron and I cant quite see our gate number"

Rant over.

Aviation = dumbass procedures.

[goeasy]

No it is you who missed the point.

If you complete the ATO checklist, and find the gear is still down... I wouldn't trust you with a QRH!

And I don't mean you personally.

[Rick777]

As for a checklist being a Boeing carry over, I don't think so. The Boeing 777 is the only specifically Boeing aircraft I am familiar with procedures for, but it does not have a checklist. There is an after landing procedure to be done silently by the PM. Given Boeing's attempts at standardization I would bet that other aircraft are the same. I do know the 787 has the same procedures.

[vilas]

There are only two agencies that make procedures first the manufacturer, second operator. One has to compulsorily follow company SOP. As far as merit of doing silently or loudly it depends on how you look at it. The first successful commercial jet B707 even all abnormal procedures were memory items. The industry moved away from it for good reasons. As far as Airbus is considered the CLs are not do lists. There is always a flow of actions which is partly or fully confirmed by a CL.