Airbus SOP's

[Slopwith]

I know many airlines all insist they are using Airbus SOP's on their Airbus fleets yet there seems to be a big difference between carriers.

If anyone from Airbus reads this and can PM me a copy of actual Airbus SOP's for either A320 or A330 I would be grateful. I will supply my Name and position privately. I am just interested to see how far removed, if at all, we have come from original Airbus recommended SOP's.

In the nicest possible way, if you are not from Airbus but are sure your company is using standard Airbus SOP's please do not PM me as I really want it straight from "The Horses Mouth". I just would not be able to be certain that it really was Airbus unless it came from Airbus.

Thanking you in advance.

[compressor stall]

Your chances of getting it from Airbus are zip. There also have been significant changes lately so beware of the Airbus one online. Also give your company a chance to promulgate the new procedures...

If you post the procedure(s) in question here then those who run straight unadulterated airbus can comment or compare. Not what you want, but as good as you'll get.

[vilas]

Slopwith
your best chance is contact someone who has done type rating recently. He will have Sops of STD 1.8b.

[Winnerhofer]

Recovery procedure: DL: 2.5° / 82% THR
AF: 5° / 85° THR

[TyroPicard]

Slopwith
I would not recommend ploughing through and comparing two FCOM's .. you may end up not knowing either set of SOP's. As an SFI I train Airbus SOP's and other airlines and I always have to get the books out and study carefully.

It's your employer's train set - play with it the way they want.

[Superpilot]

Before airlines put into service their A320s they consult with Airbus who either invite over or send a rep that sits down with the big chief to produce a tailored version of documentation derived from the source documents for a particular fleet. As for SOP, I don’t think the FCOM is something the airline can re-write. For example, you will not find a custom SOP described in the Airbus Normal Procedures section of the FCOM – not for any airline. For this, Airbus will work with the airline to produce a customised FCTM or other documentation. Most don't bother. They simply rely on teaching airline SOP passing it off as Airbus SOP.

So in answer to your question, where can I find an Airbus SOP? In the NP section of the FCOM!

A question for you is how much has to change before you no longer consider your procedures to be Airbus SOP? If an airline chooses to add a couple of additional checklist items, are they no longer following Airbus SOP? Where do we draw the line?

An example of a big deviation from Airbus A3xx SOP is airlines that do not allow the FO to start engines/taxi the aircraft (for whatever reason) when the books clearly show PF/PNF actions regardless of phase of flight. Again, where do we draw the line?

[Slopwith]

Dear All,

Thank you for your replies. As professionals and an English speaker, I thought my post was quite straight forward:
If anyone from Airbus reads this and can PM me a copy of actual Airbus SOP's for either A320 or A330 I would be grateful.
I thought that was a fairly straight forward request yet even that, it seems, is open to interpretation.

Compressor Stall: You say "Your chances of getting it from Airbus are zip" yet then you say "beware of the Airbus one online"! Which is it? Is there a link to the Airbus website where one can see genuine Airbus SOP’s or are you refering to something like Smartcockpit or similar SOP’s online that are not from the Airbus website but are probably company specific? Why would I be interested in them or as you say beware? Further, my post was asking "if anyone from Airbus reads this". I was not asking for an address in Airbus from which to obtain them (though maybe that is the answer!). Further still, the whole point of asking for unadulterated Airbus SOP's was to see how far the "company promulgated procedures" differ from unadulterated Airbus. Exactly what am I supposed to be waiting for?

Vilas: Thank you for your suggestion. I should have worded my post as "Anyone from Airbus or anyone who has just done a non-company type rating with Airbus in Toulouse using unadulterated Airbus SOP’s, reads this and can PM me a copy of actual Airbus SOP's for either A320 or A330 I would be grateful".

Winnerhofer: Exactly my point!

TyroPicard: Firstly, do you know anything about me? Do you know if I too am an instructor or not? Do you know how many different sets of Airbus SOP's I have encountered, all different? Do you not understand the reason for my post?
Secondly, I am pretty sure (see above) that I was not asking for an opinion. I appreciate your sentiment but if you really feel the need to write a reply to my post, either PM with Airbus unadulterated SOP's as requested or say "Unfortunately, I too have many sets of Airbus SOP's as I am an SFI and train with many different Airlines. I therefore cannot vouch for which set of SOP's are unadulterated Airbus. Sorry I cannot help"!
“It’s your employers train set –play with it the way they want.” I am so tempted to say something rude to you. Again, I am not asking you for your opinion. One day you might be a TRI.

Superpilot: I feel you are contradicting yourself somewhat; "Produce a tailored version" and then “I don't think the FCOM is something the Airline can re-write". Well what is it to be? Yes they can put a custom SOP in the FCOM-PRO-NOR. That was the whole point of part of your reply regarding the rep from Airbus talking with the big Chief. We are surely all familiar with Airlines who have Boeing and Airbus fleets who try and make SOP's common? That is a classic example of moving away from the original “Un-adulterated” SOP's. You then say, "A question for you is how much has to change before you no longer consider your procedures to be Airbus SOP?" That comment again implies that airlines can and most of us know do, change SOP's thus bringing me back to the whole point of my post.

I have now wasted an hour of my time writing this reply. With one exception, that being Winnerhofer, you have all posted replies offering opinions. I know it is a Forum but I just asked for a copy of some SOP's nothing else. It staggers me that you are presumably all professional pilots and reminds me why I do not bother with PPrune very often.

[RunSick]

Wow. You must be a real pleasure to fly with...

[Winnerhofer]

Here's another signature QRH which only AC uses: ALFE
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08q0082/images/a08q0082_appendix_a.gif

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

Thanks for sharing this gem, Winnerhofer... :ugh:

[Superpilot]

"Produce a tailored version" for the specific fleet I said. I.e. paragraphs not applying to certain MSNs removed or added as may be the case and in the next sentence I should've mentioned FCOM Normal Procedures, not FCOM on it's own.

I'm hoping you could give an example of *something you feel* is your airlines' SOP and not Airbus' that made it into FCOM Normal Procedures?

[Winnerhofer]

http://www.pprune.org/8626941-post361.html

[compressor stall]

Wow. You must be a real pleasure to fly with...


Exactly...

[TyroPicard]

What RunSick said...

[Amadis of Gaul]

How do we know he flies anything with anybody, "pleasurably" or otherwise?

[No Fly Zone]

Don't hold your breath, especially below FL100. Good luck! If you get a response from AB, yo probably won't like it.:rolleyes: - or even understand it. And if it makes you feel any better, Boeing is no better for out-of-channel inquiries. As much as both might light to assist you, the primary concern is liability and the legal :mad: restrict direct communications to a few canned responses created by their respective PR departments. Real, functional, usable information simply will not flow. Sorry dude, but it ain't gonna happen.:eek: Don't waste your time.:ugh:

[Slopwith]

No fly Zone. I am sure your reply is closest as to why I would not be able to get a set of unadulterated SOPs-the lawyers. It was partly legal aspects that was prompting the requests. As superpilot was saying, there must be a point where you are on your own and while the management are congratulating themselves on creating a cluster**** of SOP's, if something goes wrong, Airbus will probably point a finger and say, "we did not tell you to do it like that"!
However I am not legal but I was just interested to see and compare, as I said, what Airbus where suggesting and what my company are actually doing since they are quite different to two others that I have used and from talking to others from other Airbus operators, different to theirs also. My understanding is that we have a 737 ised SOP's on our Airbus fleet.

Winnerhofer, thank you again! At least you seem to understand what I am getting at. I hope you are more fun to fly with than I apparently am!

[Winnerhofer]

My pleasure anytime! We agree!
Bottomline is why the hell can't carriers stick to the Goddamn original AFM??
This is why there's chaos and too many clever clogs who are are too clever by half.
From AFM to FCTM to FCOM to QRH!
Pointless tinkering!!!
No wonder everything gets mired in hypercomplexity.
Now here's a thelogical analogy as to why everything is destandardised:
It's called Inculturation i.e. the tail wagging the dog:
Matteo Ricci was an Italian Jesuit who lived in the second half of the 16th century, and who is known today for the way he communicated the Gospel in China.
Rather than preaching a foreign religion to the Chinese people, he established common ground with them by mastering their language and adopting their customs.
His methods became controversial among Jesuits and in the official Church but today Ricci’s legacy of inculturation is strong.
The importance of respecting the unique ways in which diverse cultures understand and express their spiritual experience, even while preaching a common core belief, is no longer disputed

[oicur12.again]

winnerhofer,

I notice your checklist refers to the "in range checklist".

i notice a lot of north american carriers do this. what exactly does "in range" mean and in range of what? when is this check done?

Also, does your above checklist imply a fuel policy of always landing > 7000kg fuel?

regards

[babotika]

I have experienced flying the A320-232 in 3 different airlines and the SOPs may have been from different planets.

None of the three approached the standard Airbus SOP which I originally trained to so I understand Slopwith's point however I'm not convinced Airbus "standard" is always better. Sorry, drifting into opinion zone now.

I have some old unaltered PDFs laying around from rev 37 (2006) if you PM me an e-mail address. They're old but may still be helpful?

[Denti]

It is interesting that enabling Layer 3 in the FlySmart APP shows the begin and end of company modifications to the FCOM/FCTM/QRH. That way it is easy to see where the company added or changed something to the original airbus text. That feature might be a company addition in itself, but it sure is a nice thing about the iPad app, no idea if it is shown in the paper version though.

[Winnerhofer]

In range is generally about 30-45 min out.
Time to send the required wheelchairs, unaccompanied minors and confirm or receive the gate assignment.
At DL, we don't have an In-range CHECK, but we do send an in range ACARS message.

[Amadis of Gaul]

I'm wondering WHY anyone would need "unadulterated" Airbus procedures. As a crewmember, I'm paid to fly the airplane the way my airline's manuals tell me to, and I really don't give much of a bleep how much they differ from the "unadulterated" stuff. It's not my problem.

[Winnerhofer]

You read it right, Sir.
Sometimes you can excel the brains at Airbus and your carrier à la BR:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/502079-a330-a340-ead-aoa-probes.html
Btw, this whole investigation was totally censored.

[drfaust]

I assume that every outfit uses the FCOM/FCTM/QRH/OMA/OMB combo. There are plenty of differences, which are specifically described in something like OM-B. Line experience shows that certain practices from AB are written to be legal, but don't take the realities of line flying and experience into account. This is where Airlines start to deviate somewhat to try and mitigate risks in certain areas that have proven noteworthy on the line. They are not major deviations, but definitely changes that make life more workable on the line.

If anyone would ask me to use the AB procedures only though, I would simply be forced to revert back to the FCOM as instructed during TQ training. The FCOM's seem to be written in a generic enough manner to be applicable. The differences shouldn't be that big from previous versions, the plane has been around for more than 20 years.

[Lucky Strike]

Workload expands to fill the time available....

[vilas]

drfaust
SOPs should not be changed as a knee jerk reaction to something or mere individual preference to another thing. Full impact of this change needs to be considered. There are at least two incidents in A320 which are attributable to wrong airline SOP. These airlines changed the GA procedure FMA call which after TOGA is first thing to do to only to be done after gear up. During GA on ILS approach the pilot pushed thrust levers short of TOGA so FDs remained in approach mode taking him down, +ve climb call obviously didn't come and they reached 10ft above RW then he ignored FDs pulled up to some altitude and followed FDs again to land up in same situation. This could have been a serious accident if there was another aircraft RW. So airlines are not that smart either. Airbus says if something doesn't fit well in your environment involve us. This is especially so for FBW.

[drfaust]

I would kind of hope that Airlines would not mess around with the SOP's too much. Especially not with important stuff, leave that bit Airbus standard. But for instance: we have an SOP saying that if we are approaching a cleared altitude it is required for us to select vertical speed so that we manage our climb or descent before we actually reach our altitude. This due to TCAS considerations. Airbus doesn't have it, but common sense does mandate it, especially in busy airspace. This is more the kind of thing I was getting at. There are many of these small practical and frankly safety increasing little bits and bobs that will make life on the line easier if you get in the habit of doing them.

What ticks me off personally is when Airlines start writing SOP's into the documentation just because one particular crew on one particular day screwed up somewhere and it had consequences. If something is not a chronic issue you shouldn't write SOP's for an event, just accept that people are humans and despite SOP's they will cock up somewhere. But this is getting off topic.

[Slopwith]

This is exactly part of my point. "Somebody screwed up! Quick, lets come up with a new SOP and re-invent flying an airplane along with the wheel at the same time."! I am not for a minute suggesting I will operate to unadulterated SOP's instead of company one's-yes it is their train set and I think to suggest I would do otherwise, is rather a stupid thing to say. I just want to see out of interest how far removed we have come.

First, we get what I call the "dog pissing on a tree syndrome", where every new manager has to come in and make his mark by changing something which is unlikely to be an improvement in T and C's!

Then we have what I call a "Chinese whispers" situation where there are lots of people around a table. Someone whispers a story to the person next to him round the table. That next person whispers the story to the next person and so on until we get back to the story teller. We find that the story whispered to the story teller is nothing like his original story.

This is how I see company SOP's evolving.

Then I am reminded of a story my Father told me about the Comet that went something like this, though hopefully there may be some reading this who actually know the story as they were there and can correct, embellish or repudiate as appropriate.
BEA had an SOP, although I am not sure formal SOP’s existed then(!?) so we will call it just a procedure, of selecting a certain RPM on the engines for the climb. Remember in those days they used actual numbers for N1 as opposed to a percentage. One day, a Rolls Royce engineer asks to sit on the jumpseat and is duly accommodated. During the climb, he notices the RPM that had been set and asks why they are using that particular setting. He is of course informed it is the value set by the company. He points out that this was within an RPM range specifically to be avoided as it was the maximum vibration band of the engines and BEA knew this. The procedure, I believe, was duly changed.
This is part of my point. Without a reference or Zero point, how do you know how many managers have pissed on the tree and how many others have they whispered to?
Vilas and drfaust, I suspect you may work for the same airline as me!
Drfaust, I am afraid I disagree with your comments that “Common sense does mandate it” with regard to selecting VS approaching a cleared altitude or level! Common sense to my mind says to be aware of what is going on around you with regards to TCAS. The designers of Airbus and Boeing did a very good job of designing their Autopilots. Most of these systems are looking ahead to predict a level off hence early ALT* on the Airbus with a high rate of climb or descent. By that time it is too late to use VS anyway.

Every time one touches the FCU it is a chance to introduce an error. After six thousand hours on Airbus, I could not tell you if I was blindfolded, which knob I was touching by its tactile feel. Also, I still have to stop and think about which way to turn the VS knob because it is not an intuitive thumbwheel like a Boeing or any other manufacturer come to that, bar Fokker. Yes maybe I am dumb and we already know I am no pleasure to fly with but the FCU is not intuitive. People may say that they get used to it. Getting used to something is not intuitive. Apple is intuitive. Anyway I digress.
Next, VS is the only mode you can fly away from a set altitude; Airbus considers Mode changes so significant that you have to announce the FMA. Thus with all these things against you why would you keep selecting VS if there is no traffic around?
Secondly, VS is a non protected mode. Unfortunately, unlike a Boeing where even with Auto thrust engaged you can pull back the levers in a climb or push them forwards in a descent (at least in FLCH) it is a slightly different matter on the Airbus. True you could pull back the levers from the climb détente in the climb but not much you can do in the descent other than AP and FD's off.
Then there are other ways of managing VS; what about just using different speeds in a pitch for speed mode (OPEN CLB or DES) without doing a mode change.
Finally, if your VS is already averaging around 1000’ a minute or less why would you mandate selecting vertical speed?
This should probably be another topic entirely where I would happily welcome opinion, especially, again, if anyone from Airbus or Boeing is reading this. What does Airbus or Boeing think of the procedure of selecting VS regardless of actual VS with say a 1000’ to go? I know, for legal reasons and other reasons, they cannot/will not comment (sound like Roy Mallard in People Like us!)

What would also be interesting, is to find out if Altitude busts have increased with this VS policy? Your TCAS events have gone down maybe but are your altitude busts now increasing?


Winnerhofer: I cannot believe that you have a QRH entry for something we(?) all know will almost certainly disappear a few moments later once outers have finished emptying and which will almost certainly happen below 10000'when you are getting busy! Hey ho. Their Train set as was pointed out earlier. How on earth did Airbus convince authorities that a flight engineer is not required? A340- 21 fuel pump switches!
I need to go and get a life, get off PPrune and work on my Fun to fly with factor! I did not expect so much discussion or to spend so much time discussing, from a simple request but thank you all.

[compressor stall]

It is my understanding that the incident that Vilas alludes to (or at least one extraordinary similar) was a product of more than just a knee jerk reaction to changing SOPs.

The airline was relatively new, and apparently had largely been set up by people who were from a major airline that went out of business a few years prior. That defunct airline had a reputation of reinventing the wheel. Apparently in the old airline they had completely rewritten the entire FCOM to the point it barely resembled anything by Airbus. I have been told several old stories of crews happily pulling A320 CBs to resolve ECAMs leading to near disaster at one point. This "we know better" culture seemed to manifest itself in the new airline with the old folk - resulting in moving those annoying non Boeing-like FMA callouts somewhere unobtrusive.

There are also legal systems in some countries that could cause the NAAs legal headaches if they have knowingly let an airline deviate from the manufacturer's SOPs and a disaster happens attributable to that change (like the aforementioned GA event).

Once the content of this thread grew some manners, it clearly shows no one differed from the concern of the OP regarding companies' deliberate variations to the manufacturer's SOPs.

As a side note, however, it must also be said that some of the manufacturers are less than fully proficient at telling Airlines of all of the changes. I found one the other day (admittedly small) that had crept in - and the new procedure was completely contrary to the specific advice received from the manufacturer on that very procedure about two years ago.

Finally, if your VS is already averaging around 1000’ a minute or less why would you mandate selecting vertical speed?

You wouldn't mandate the selection of VS. You'd expect the pilot on the day to use the most appropriate mode to achieve this. The 1000 foot ROC/ROD is mandated in AIPs in several countries so pilots are duty bound to comply. In any case focussing on this example is misleading as it's not really against the Airbus way. There are various modes for changing height and one would use the most appropriate one for the day.

There are other far more glaring examples that illustrate the Manufacturer SOP deviation much more clearly and with potentially significant consequences.