The perils of airline pilots flying heads down in fine weather!

[sheppey]

Report summary:
Cleared to conduct a visual approach to Melbourne Airport, the aircraft descended below the normal approach profile and entered the 500 ft vertical buffer at the base of the control area step, below the minimum safe altitude, though it remained in controlled airspace. This reduced separation with terrain and any aircraft operating outside controlled airspace.

During the descent, both flight crew had become pre-occupied with other tasks inside the flight deck, which had the effect of increasing their workload and distracting them from monitoring the aircraft’s flight path and altitude. About two minutes after commencing descent on the visual approach, the flight crew levelled the aircraft after realising that it appeared to be low on profile. A safety alert issued by air traffic control soon followed and, in response, the aircraft was climbed to intercept the recommended visual approach descent profile. The remainder of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft landed on runway 16 at Melbourne Airport.

This incident highlights the importance of monitoring an aircraft’s flight profile and altitude, especially during the high workload phases of flight.

Final Report: Flight path management and descent toward the lower limit of controlled airspace involving Airbus A320, VH-VND, on approach to Melbourne Airport, Victoria, on 11 February 2015

ATSB are improving. Only three years to produce an incident report saying an Australian A320 crew stuffed up a visual approach to Melbourne in fine weather:ok:

[Dark Knight]

Children of the Magenta Line.

With the advent of increased training to cope with the demand for flight crew; greater reliance upon automatic computerised flight; introduction of `Quotas' to fulfill flight crew numbers creating a need for greater influence by the Physiologists to cater for this, coupled with less exposure to manual flight or previous experinece; an increase in this type of incident can be expected.

[Signature]

To be fair, I doubt the ASIR was submitted anytime in 2015 or 2016...

[compressor stall]

I’m still trying to work out how it is that the conduct of a visual approach is a “high workload “ environment. (P6)

[Checklist Charlie]

Well "Stallie", if you have a job purely as a direct result of fitting into a quota as opposed to having the skill and experience then just about anything will fit into a "high workload" environment.

Many years ago I heard a wise Army Driving Instructor make the observation, "If you can't handle it, park it".

Methinks that may just apply to quotas and other Children of the Magenta.

CC

[swh]

I’m still trying to work out how it is that the conduct of a visual approach is a “high workload “ environment. (P6)

Getting in range of cell reception and lining up the tinder date

[compressor stall]

The primary tool for a visual approach is the window.

And the ATSB spends 28 pages of analyses of STARS, LOC, intercept, profile, charts for intercept angle to not overshoot loc by more than 1.5deg... I could go on.

They’re just as complicit.

The company ops man says visual, AP OFF, FD off, bird ON.

Maybe it needs to add “Look outside and pretend you’re back in a Cessna. “

I feel sympathy for this skipper. If he’s getting told off for showing something on the FMGC that’s - apparently- solely the realm of a training captain, he probably wasn’t permitted to talk the FO through the visual app. Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.

And I bet there was no “VS minus 1400set” from the PF. That should have got skip’s attention.

FMA FMA FMA

And SOP GA Alt visual is the instrument GA alt? Where’d that come from ? Not in my AIP

[4Greens]

The Quick Access Recorder (QAR) may have given a few clues.

[sunnySA]

Enough is enough, how many more before there is a CFIT north of YMML. Once an aircraft is assigned a visual approach then ALL ATC system monitoring for terrain is inhibited, that is, there is no alert generated.

[bazza stub]

When it comes to Melbourne is think the highest workloads come when they issue you a visual approach in the first place. And don’t think your “requirement” to conduct an instrument means anything to them either, unless you want endless vectoring, huffing and puffing, questions about your mental state and 30 minutes in the sun bin. Visual approaches are used WAY too liberally in Melbourne in conditions that are extremely marginal. It’ll only take an accident to have anything change though.

[A Squared]

Seems like if you had a DME tuned to a station on the airfield and you were looking at the distance and thinking about whether you were at a reasonable altitude for the distance, you wouldn't find yourself fully configured and less than 1200 ft above the airport elevation while still 9NM from the threshold. Is that not a thing anymore?

[John Citizen]

Now for all those experts who say it's no different to flying a Cessna, lets compare the difference:

Let's look at Cessna making a visual approach (operating in its usual environment -OCTA/ Class D zone (old GAAP zone):
- CTA steps are not a problem if you are coming from OCTA/remaining OCTA (you can just descend to circuit altitude as far out as you want, and descend shallow/fly level until ready for final approach)
- if descending within CTA (class c), then CTA steps are less likely a problem (because of slower speed)
- slower speeds/easier to slow down
- you can still descend normal profile and slow down easily
- gear is fixed (less things to worry about)
- only 1 flap speed, and usually no difficulty to slow down, even whilst descending
- there might only be 2 or 3 flap settings
- no formal checklist to complete (apart from maybe BUMPFISCH in your head, on downwind)
- very easy to slow down if a bit fast/high, just reduce further power (unlike a jet where the thrust might be idle and the speed brake not very effective)
- no need to correctly program the FMS (for correct waypoint sequencing, to give accurate track miles/VDEV info/FPLAN track for go around)
- no company speed limits or rate of descent limits (which makes it more challenging to descend sometimes/more things to think about)
- no ATC approach speed limits (230/185/160 etc)
- most important, no stable approach criteria:
- you don't have to be stablished on path by 1,000' with all the other criteria
- you don't have to fly and be established on 3 degree slope/on the PAPI
(to be on slope on the PAPI at 1,000, is to be within +/- 80' (narrow tolerance +/- 8%) at 3 miles from the threshold, good luck to anyone who can just eyeball that without ever looking down)
- you don't have to land within the zone (you can land short or long)
- you can approach as steep or as flat as you want
- you have more flexibility on your approach speed, the speed you fly, and how soon/late you are stabilized
- if you completely mess it up, you can even continue the approach with the engine at idle (there is no minimum thrust setting for approach)
- there is no FOQA to report you if you did something wrong (which means usually you still continue)
- OCTA, there is no one (ATC) watching you fly and to report your mistakes
- less workload, you don't need to set any bugs (or ask someone to do it for you) (heading/speed/VS/altitudes/FD)

If only a jet was this easy. (ready for incoming :p)

Btw...if this flight was a Cessna operating OCTA/entering a Class D zone from OCTA, then there would no incident/report to start with.

[maggot]

Ahh the well designed Aus CTA steps
:yuk:

[A Squared]

Now for all those experts who say it's no different to flying a Cessna, lets compare the difference:

Let's look at Cessna making a visual approach (operating in its usual environment -OCTA/ Class D zone (old GAAP zone):
- CTA steps are not a problem if you are coming from OCTA/remaining OCTA (you can just descend to circuit altitude as far out as you want, and descend shallow/fly level until ready for final approach)
- if descending within CTA (class c), then CTA steps are less likely a problem (because of slower speed)
- slower speeds/easier to slow down
- you can still descend normal profile and slow down easily
- gear is fixed (less things to worry about)
- only 1 flap speed, and usually no difficulty to slow down, even whilst descending
- there might only be 2 or 3 flap settings
- no formal checklist to complete (apart from maybe BUMPFISCH in your head, on downwind)
- very easy to slow down if a bit fast/high, just reduce further power (unlike a jet where the thrust might be idle and the speed brake not very effective)
- no need to correctly program the FMS (for correct waypoint sequencing, to give accurate track miles/VDEV info/FPLAN track for go around)
- no company speed limits or rate of descent limits (which makes it more challenging to descend sometimes/more things to think about)
- no ATC approach speed limits (230/185/160 etc)
- most important, no stable approach criteria:
- you don't have to be stablished on path by 1,000' with all the other criteria
- you don't have to fly and be established on 3 degree slope/on the PAPI
(to be on slope on the PAPI at 1,000, is to be within +/- 80' (narrow tolerance +/- 8%) at 3 miles from the threshold, good luck to anyone who can just eyeball that without ever looking down)
- you don't have to land within the zone (you can land short or long)
- you can approach as steep or as flat as you want
- you have more flexibility on your approach speed, the speed you fly, and how soon/late you are stabilized
- if you completely mess it up, you can even continue the approach with the engine at idle (there is no minimum thrust setting for approach)
- there is no FOQA to report you if you did something wrong (which means usually you still continue)
- OCTA, there is no one (ATC) watching you fly and to report your mistakes
- less workload, you don't need to set any bugs (or ask someone to do it for you) (heading/speed/VS/altitudes/FD)

If only a jet was this easy. (ready for incoming :p)

Btw...if this flight was a Cessna operating OCTA/entering a Class D zone from OCTA, then there would no incident/report to start with.

Roughly 97% of what you just typed is completely irrelevant to the actual incident at hand. I have to ask, did you even read what happened?

Oh, and for the record, the guy who made reference to Cessnas happens to fly an A319, so presuming to pontificate on the difference between flying Cessnas and Airbuses is...well ... presumptuous.

[John Citizen]

Roughly 97% of what you just typed is completely irrelevant to the actual incident at hand. I have to ask, did you even read what happened?

Someone said "fly it like a Cessna"

[A Squared]

Someone said "fly it like a Cessna"

Uh-huh, and you proceeded to spew out paragraphs of stuff whcih is completely irrelevant to the incident at hand, and completely missed the point he was making.

[John Citizen]

Uh-huh, and you proceeded to spew out paragraphs of stuff whcih is completely irrelevant to the incident at hand, and completely missed the point he was making.

Because to fly it like a Cessna (just look outside at the runway only and just fly towards it heads up) is not relevant (for all those reasons I mentioned).

Maybe that's why the ATSB didn't even mention it.

[bazza stub]

Are there any people in the ATSB who have flown anything bigger than a Cessna, or is a degree all that matters? Seen many serious reports go through to the keeper before, most of which would have the hackles of an airline pilot up.

[havick]

Because to fly it like a Cessna (just look outside at the runway only and just fly towards it heads up) is not relevant (for all those reasons I mentioned).

Maybe that's why the ATSB didn't even mention it.

Have you ever flown into KLGA?

Have a look at expressway visual RWY31.

Everyone from the little corporate jet upto a 737max/a321 looks out the window and flies it just like a little Cessna. Over the tanks, down the highway, around the ball park, over the hotel at 300 ish feet still in the turn onto short final. Into one of the busiest airports in the US for the amount of runways available.

[Capn Bloggs]

Have you ever flown into KLGA?
Here we goooo!! Yankee willy verse Ozzie willy!

Seems like if you had a DME tuned to a station on the airfield and you were looking at the distance and thinking about whether you were at a reasonable altitude for the distance, you wouldn't find yourself fully configured and less than 1200 ft above the airport elevation while still 9NM from the threshold. Is that not a thing anymore?
That is precisely why it's not like flying a Cessna.

[havick]

Here we goooo!! Yankee willy verse Ozzie willy!


That is precisely why it's not like flying a Cessna.

I’m an Aussie. The fact I pointed out a particular visual maneuver in the US is just the first one that came to mind.

Simply pointing out that isn’t a visual approach exactly that, visual?

For clarification I’m not nitpicking the incident that was originally posted if that’s the context you took, I didn't read the report. I’m just responding to John citizens post.

[haughtney1]

Havik, the expressway visual into LGA, just like the river visual into Regan and the Canasty into JFK are instrument approaches with a visual tracking segment, they aren’t unique to the US, but typically how they are flown differs a lot from operator to operator. In the case of incident mentioned, based on what the air circus astronauts go into print about....a visual approach can be commenced at the end of a STAR...seems counterintuitive to me...but it ain’t Cessna flying.

[Capn Bloggs]

Simply pointing out that isn’t a visual approach exactly that, visual?
Not for me it's not. Sure, there's no instrument approach BS but it is still very much instrument-guided, especially if the FMS plan now doesn't match the shortened track, along the lines of A-Squared's "Seems like if you had a DME tuned to a station on the airfield and you were looking at the distance and thinking about whether you were at a reasonable altitude for the distance".

Pilots can no longer think in 3D.

That ALT SEL policy for visual approaches needs to change too.

[havick]

Havik, the expressway visual into LGA, just like the river visual into Regan and the Canasty into JFK are instrument approaches with a visual tracking segment, they aren’t unique to the US, but typically how they are flown differs a lot from operator to operator. In the case of incident mentioned, based on what the air circus astronauts go into print about....a visual approach can be commenced at the end of a STAR...seems counterintuitive to me...but it ain’t Cessna flying.

I know it’s not unique it’s the first one that came to mind as it’s the last visual I did.

I guess that’s your opinion, personally I don’t find it any different to flying a cessna or a helicopter for that matter, maybe I’m doing it wrong. You make a good point, procedures/requirements vary from operator to operator.

[A Squared]

Because to fly it like a Cessna (just look outside at the runway only and just fly towards it heads up) is not relevant (for all those reasons I mentioned).

Maybe that's why the ATSB didn't even mention it.

Right, and again (you seem to have some difficulty grasping this) their woes began when they accepted the visual, approximately 10 nm out, within about 30 seconds of that point in time they were A: below normal profile, B: configured with gear down and at least the first increment of flaps, and C: Descending huckety-buck toward the floor of the CTA. So everything you typed about speed limits, the need to configure, the need to remain on profile, the difficulty of simultaneously descending and slowing, the challenge of configuring the airplane, structural speed limits, company speed limits, ATC speed limits, the difficulty of having to maintain a minimum thrust setting on descent, the need to be on profile at 1000 ft, the requirement to land in the touchdown zone; All of that has exactly zero relevance to the incident under discussion. This wasn't a case of being to high and too fast and being unable to get configured and on profile. It's actually the opposite problem, being far too low for where they were relative to the airport, and not suspecting it.

My assumption is that at the point they accepted the visual, that they had the airport in sight. According to the ATSB report they reported that the runway was in sight. Is that not true? If it *is* true, why did they lose SA due to being absorbed in programming the FMS to navigate them to a runway they could see? If it is *not* true, why did they say it was? Seems like if they *had* been looking at the runway, it would have occurred to someone that, hey, that runway is a long way away and it doesn't really *look* like we're high on profile, why are we rocketing downward at almost double our normal descent rate? Certainly if someone had been keeping an eye on the DME, they might have twigged that descending through 2600 ft above the airport, at -1400 ft/min. was maybe a little below profile for being 10 miles from the runway. Instead, they were diving to catch a descent-path indicator which was commanding them to be at 1800 ft above the airport, 9-10 nm away because it was programmed for something other than what they were doing.

[oicur12.again]

I am with John Citizen on this one, a visual approach in a largish jet is never as simple as looking out the window and flying it like a cessna. If only it was.

In my experience, visual approaches are more often mismanaged than instrument approaches by young guns and crusty old salts alike.

I have no data at all but i suspect more go arounds occur following screwed up visuals than ILSssss.

[pineteam]

Visual approach on jet is more challenging than on a Cessna for the simple reason we have very little margin for maneuvers and errors due to QAR... If only we could bank 60 degrees if required, sideslip if too high, be stabilized at 200 feet and land 1500 meters after the runway threshold like on a little piston aircraft doing bush style flying it would be very easy also! Lol. Saying that, visual approach on Airbus is pretty straight forward,relax and fun with A/Thr and the bird even with the damn QAR.
Always made me feel sorry for the guys flying for Emirates and denying visual approach for an ILS in Lusaka in a perfect cavok day. xD

[maggot]

I’m an Aussie. The fact I pointed out a particular visual maneuver in the US is just the first one that came to mind.

Simply pointing out that isn’t a visual approach exactly that, visual?

For clarification I’m not nitpicking the incident that was originally posted if that’s the context you took, I didn't read the report. I’m just responding to John citizens post.

Just look at the other end of the runway for a routinely flown visual joining very close in with a Vert offset. (LizziV)

It's easy, because you're prepared, set up for it and you've thought about it.

Accepting visuals involving track shortening when already close in is a different kettle of fish. A simple setup in the fmgc is my preference for a basic distance to go and DME is king but an approach starts before the IAF, same for a visual - you've gotta get yourself into the right spot first

[haughtney1]

Pineteam Always made me feel sorry for the guys flying for Emirates and denying visual approach for an ILS in Lusaka in a perfect cavok day. xD

Not all of us are cut from the scared of our own shadow cloth...besides the “recommended” consideration into Lusaka these days is the RNAV cos the localiser is rubbish :8:E
Did a visual last time I was there about 3 months ago :ok:

[werbil]

If only we could bank 60 degrees if required, sideslip if too high, be stabilized at 200 feet and land 1500 meters after the runway threshold like on a little piston aircraft doing bush style flying it would be very easy also! Any one that flys a Cessna like that would end up with tea and biscuits with the chief pilot without tea and biscuits. This thread reminds me of another - children of the magenta line.

[A Squared]

This thread remind me pig another

You posted that from your iphone, didn't you?

[neville_nobody]

Folks how about we have a read of the incident before we comment.

If people had read what happened they would realise they were stuffed around by ATC with multiple changes then got distracted by the changes.

Then you throw in all the other issues such as remaining in controlled airspace and company speed restrictions all whilst doing over 5 miles a minute makes it very different to flying a 152. To even suggest that shows a lack of understanding of the problems at hand.
An easy solution is to have visual STARS that deliver you in nice and close but so some reason in Australia we can't do that.

I think a time is coming in Australia when all these ' track via STAR cross fix at time X/250 knots followed by speed up /slow down/ max speed/ cancel speed restrictions cancel STAR track direct to final call the tower' is just going to be met with 'negative'.

[pineteam]

Any one that flys a Cessna like that would end up with tea and biscuits with the chief pilot without tea and biscuits. This thread reminds me of another - children of the magenta line.

Haha! Well, not in the small charters companies in some African countries. You are free to fly the way you want. That was the beauty of bush flying. Obviously, these kind of extreme maneuvers would be done when operating with no passagers on board and only on occasional times when we were pushing it. My point is you don’t need to worry how fast, or how much you bank, if you have flaps or not etc... Just land on the runway and done.
On the A320 our Sop states to be stabilized by 1000 feet AAL, max VAPP + 20 when passing 1000 feet AAL, max 7 degres of bank, and so much more restrictions you have to think about making it quite a challenge.
Remove that and it’s pretty much as easy as flying a Cessna. Even easier, as you are 2 in the cockpit. Quite nice when ATC is high work load. = )

[Capt Fathom]

Ahhh. The dreaded Visual Approach.

We have come a long way! :(

[Rated De]

Are there any people in the ATSB who have flown anything bigger than a Cessna, or is a degree all that matters? Seen many serious reports go through to the keeper before, most of which would have the hackles of an airline pilot up

Or more correctly known as regulatory capture...

[Daylight Robbery]

The primary tool for a visual approach is the window.


I don't know about that. The window is for spotting traffic/ wx and flying to a visual aiming point on final.

Hitting 10 nm to run at 3000-3300 agl F2 (F5) at 160 kt / Ref +40 is going to work every time. Unless you are in a position you can join downwind for that perfect cct we all get assessed on in the sim....

[Centaurus]

the difficulty of having to maintain a minimum thrust setting on descent

Is that a technical limitation only for an A320? if so what is the min N1 for descent? Certainly no N1 descent limitation in a 737 with CFM 56's.

[Capn Bloggs]

Ahh the well designed Aus CTA steps
Agree. I shake my head here when I hear an international getting held up on the CTA steps. About time CASA took account of the new-generation "gliders" and moved the steps out. And don't make them Class E!

[ANCIENT]

Wow , we sure know how to make a visual approach complicated. On the Airbus just get rid of the ILS in the FMGS and select the visual approach. You now have the centre line plus a 5 mile fix and surprise surprise a green dot commonly called the "yo-yo" giving a visual 3 degree slope to touch down, provided the to wpt is either the 5 nm fix or the threshold. How hard can we make it? by trying to get too fancy with the FMGS! Remember the KISS principle.

[oicur12.again]

"On the Airbus just get rid of the ILS in the FMGS and select the visual approach. You now have the centre line plus a 5 mile fix and surprise surprise a green dot commonly called the "yo-yo" giving a visual 3 degree slope to touch down, provided the to wpt is either the 5 nm fix or the threshold."

What you just described there is kinda like a visual approach but using lots of technology such as an FMC, an ND and a computer generated glideslope.

I will give any one here 100 bucks to come tearing into a field for a 90 degree base leg cleared for a visual approach from 30 miles out in a 330 with the ND turned down, the DME turned off and the "yo yo" (never heard it called that before???) taken away by magic without busting a CTA step, sink rate rules, stable criteria AND without dragging it in too much by just using the window.

Like in a cessna!

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Centaurus-
Is that a technical limitation only for an A320? if so what is the min N1 for descent?

It is 12 Inches at idle.

:ok:

[Oriana]

I think we should change the name of this sub forum from dunnunda to AUSTRONAUTS.

[maggot]

Only if keg is the mod

:}

[pineteam]

Centaurus-


It is 12 Inches at idle.

:ok:

We don’t have this limitation on our A320 fleet. We only IAE engines tho.

[GA Driver]

There is a minimum EPR/N1 but you never have to worry about it as FADEC takes care of the lot! It isn't even mentioned..... back to re-inventing a visual approach!

[ANCIENT]

Yeh that is proper flying. Look out the window. Just like havic advocates and I totally agree.
Too much heads down trying to use all the technology to do a basic task.

[morno]

I haven’t read the report, so don’t shoot me for not discussing facts to do with this incident, but, CTA containment while managing a descent in Australia is still the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever had to do in my flying career.

Why did Australia have to complicate the process and have these stupid steps (often not even based on radials etc.) instead of just a single area inside a certain radius of major airports like a lot of places overseas?

morno

[GA Driver]

Too much heads down trying to use all the technology to do a basic task.


I completely agree with your statement and the visual approach thoughts been put forward. Buuuut.....

Annoyingly, the 320 can go into NAV during a go around depending on the mod status, so if the box isn’t sequenced correctly (common on a VA) it can get ugly during a go around. So there is some necessity in heads down to set it up, or it’s a higher workload should you go around.

[ANCIENT]

GA Driver
Not sure why going to NAV in the go around is too much of a problem. In our Bus it means it is following the published missed approach track, just what is wanted. If ATC request something different, usually a heading, simple call for PM to pull heading and give it to you.
Off the visual it will be go around track, what you were doing at time of engagement of the mode.

[GA Driver]

Off the visual it will be go around track, what you were doing at time of engagement of the mode.
Thats why I said it depends on the mod status of the a/c. It used to do that and yours very well still may. There are also 'upgrades' (RNP modification) to automatically go to NAV for RNP missed approaches, its annoying because it will still engage NAV even if you're aren't conducting an RNP approach.
So if the box still has the sequence you were doing before you were shortened off the star, it will go right back to where the box left off, hence the need for the PM to go heads down.

Your statement of the PM to pull HDG still holds true, but I personally have received the 'frown of death' for not having the MCDU setup appropriate for the Missed.

[Captain Nomad]

So what is the 'published missed approach' after a visual approach? :E

[havick]

So what is the 'published missed approach' after a visual approach? :E

Exactly, that was going to be my question also.

[ANCIENT]

Go around from visual approach Australian AIP ENR 1.1-36
Runway track except in YSSY where it is stipulated to fly the published instrument miss procedure.
If not cleared for a a visual in VMC then you must follow the missed approach for the procedure being flown.

[GA Driver]

Agreed.
However on the occasions I’ve done it, (sheed approach 34 ML) or from 27 ILS, the instructions have always been rwy trk climb 4000

[havick]

Go around from visual approach Australian AIP ENR 1.1-36
Runway track except in YSSY where it is stipulated to fly the published instrument miss procedure.
If not cleared for a a visual in VMC then you must follow the missed approach for the procedure being flown.

Why is there so much anxed about going around from a visual approach when cleared for a visual approach in VMC in an Airbus when you’re only going to be flying a heading and climbing straight ahead awaiting tower instructions? Is it really that difficult as is being purported above to clean up the aircraft and fly a heading and performance?

I’ve not flown airbus only embraer, so I can’t quite seem to grasp the concept of how an Airbus is so different to flying a power and attitude like in any other aircraft?

[ANCIENT]

So.
Having been on the Airbus320/330 for 21 years and instructing on it for most of that time I realise that some operators can make it a difficult aircraft to fly and others just get on with flying.
Go back to the AIRBUS Golden Rules.
I often wonder why we in OZ have to complicate the flying, does it enhance the EGO?

[exeng]

Airbus = both heads in
Boeing = one head in

Regards
Exeng

[havick]

Airbus = both heads in
Boeing = one head in

Regards
Exeng

Can you explain why that’s necessary on a visual approach in vmc by day?

[exeng]

Can you explain why that’s necessary on a visual approach in vmc by day?


No I cannot. I only did 2 years on the A320 - but that was my general 'experience' of the operation overall.

I will give you one example that may illustrate the dilemma in a British airline:

A Captain I know failed his command check on B737 because he had a late visual swap to a parallel runway in VMC and insisted it was changed in the FMC.

In the same issue in an A320/etc it seems it is imperative that a pilot provides inputs to the FMGC.

Personally I believe that the visual swap to the parallel runway without reference to FMC or FMGC is the better option - always assuming of course that you have thoroughly briefed for all the go-around eventualities - or if you haven't get on to ATC fairly quickly.

Regards
Exeng

[ANCIENT]

Same cockpit discipline on both.
One head down one head up.

[morno]

PF should not be making FMGC entries below 10,000ft

[Arthur D]

Agree Morno, in fact, not from TOD.

Whether Airbus or Boeing, philosophy is the same.

Biggest difference in the Airbus is the GA. Whilst one click on TOGA gives you a sedate climb in a Boeing, the only option in the Airbus is to hang on and let your fingers do the walking... If you don’t get the box programmed, it can get even more interesting.

Now try that with a GA from 1000’ to circuit altitude.

[morno]

Yes, it can be interesting if it’s happening all of a sudden without the right **** in the box.

A go-around that isn’t close to the ground for me always starts by saying to the PM “ok, are you ready?”, and then once I’ve read the FMA it’s straight back to the climb detent.

morno

[GA Driver]

Not a ‘Toga Tap’ I hope! :=
That would be against everything sacred, common sense and everything taught..... (although I recall my training captain telling me how to do it) :E

[ANCIENT]

Check-out FCOM/PRO/NOR/SOP/20/A
This has been current since 30 Jun 15.
"If TOGA thrusts not required, set the thrust levers to TOGA detent then retard the thrust levers as required...etc"

[morno]

No, not a “TOGA tap”. It can’t be a TOGA tap if I’ve read the FMA and then got back to Climb, because it’s well and truely in the go-around phase by then.

[C441]

Some Airbus aircraft have "Soft GA" capability. Select TOGA and back to FLX/MCT. This provides a minimum 2000ft/min climb with all the other functions of a normal TOGA application.