Airbus legacy takeoff briefing confirmation

[sonicbum]

Folks,

As per Airbus 320f non tailored FCTM : "The TAKEOFF BRIEFING CONFIRMATION should only review any changes that may have
occurred since the full TAKEOFF BRIEFING done at the parking bay (e.g. change of SID, change in
runway conditions, etc.)." etc..

In my operator said briefing recently changed and includes an awful lot of talking, far than ideal during taxi out, especially with complex taxi layouts during peak times and has already induced more than a few taxi clearance non compliance due to the crew being distracted by the briefing. What's the procedure at Your place ? If You could just include whether it's EASA land operator or other.

Thanks !

[TheEdge]

EASA Land...take off briefing ? No changes, Confirmed. Period.

[pineteam]

Not EASA world. Only 4 items: Runway, SID, flaps setting and initial altitude. + any changes if applicable.

[FlightDetent]

AOC 0 - small EU legacy) same as the FCOM guidance at that time IIRC)
. RWY (MCDU F-PLN A)
. SID (dtto)
. GW (permanent data line on SD)
. FLAP/SLAT configuration (E/WD)
. SEL ALT (PFD)

AOC 0 - small EU legacy) after the FCOM change
. nil, only silent thought. SOP to brief only after clearance received at the gate, so changes if any would come usually after the confirmation moment. And then later everyone forgot what the flow was.

AOC 1, 2 EMEA regionals)
. nil, only silent thought. SOP not present beyond FCOM for this stage.

AOC 3, 4 - EU charter)
. nil, however instead:
. a requirement to read PFD "ALT - NAV blue, 1FD2, (alt) xxxx feet, climb NNNN blue. (I understand this was local CAA driven, to assure the ALT on ground x-check and put something to do and say ahead of the "FLIGHT INSTRUMENT C/L item" reasonable compromise.

AOC 5 - east of Delhi meridian) strong and trained SOP, but not written in the manuals - only FCOM references there which is not how they want us to operate
. either full old flow or
. literally, any changes from after the briefing to satisfy the book:
- weight (SD)
- flaps (EWD - not deployed by the briefing time)
- FOB (EWD)
- init ALT / HDG or NAV pre-selection (depends if clearance received after the briefing or not)
- present heading (PFD)

What is it that they want you to do?

[AerocatS2A]

Not EASA. “Climb, NAV, xx thousand blue, no changes to the brief” then in response to the checklist item “Briefing”, “Complete”.

[safelife]

Chinese HNA group airline:
Full pattern. Which would amount to:

MCDU: RW, SID, direction of first turn;
E/WD: Gross weight, flap setting, fuel on board,
Flex (or TOGA), and corresponding N1;
PFD: actual hdg, alt, complete FMA including 1FD2

All while the FO gives you a look like "just let me know when you're done there".

[Check Airman]

Previous operator had an abbreviated briefing by the PNF (FO) on the way to the runway. Current operator doesn't.

[sonicbum]

Thanks everybody for the precious feedback. We used to have a pretty short briefing confirmation as well till a few safety events triggered the (new obviously) flt ops management to include loads of chatting during taxi which in turn lead to multiple taxiway non compliances. We are trying to revert back to the previous procedures and tackling the root causes of the safety events instead, rather than adding patches here and there to make sure pilots repeat 3 times their clearance.

[RUMBEAR]

Sonicbum,

I hear what your saying about adding “patches” following an event rather than identifying a root cause! When poorly considered patches start adding up it creates all sorts of unintended consequences. Sometimes the obvious gets overlooked. I.e it’s possible for human error to occur using perfectly sound s.o.p’s. Changes is not always necessary.

[AerocatS2A]

Agreed. If incidents happen despite there being a procedure in place to prevent them, adding additional procedures is rarely helpful. Instead you need to identify why the existing procedure didn’t work. Is it being followed correctly? Is it practical? Are there distractions at the time procedure is typically done?

[FlightDetent]

Aviation is highly regulated and procedures are highly standardized, it is 2019, not 99 or 79. While we are not immune to repeating mistakes of the past any more than the previous generations, lack of guidance what to do is almost absolutely not the reason holes in cheese get created these days.

I dare to say the opposite is true. When an error of ommision is made, it is quite typical that a procedure was not followed due to a different one which perhaps mis-perceived as a priority. Time constraints then arrange the rest.

Adding another procedure after a mishap easily makes the situation worse.

[Chesty Morgan]

EASA Land...take off briefing ? No changes, Confirmed. Period.
If there are changes?

[FlightDetent]

Brief those?

[Skyjob]

AOC 1, EU LoCo: Briefing on changes only
AOC 2, EU private and charter: Briefing on changes only
AOC 3: EU LoCo (not same as AOC 1): full brief required during taxi

No need to say which one is the least favoured

[Check Airman]

AOC 1, EU LoCo: Briefing on changes only
AOC 2, EU private and charter: Briefing on changes only
AOC 3: EU LoCo (not same as AOC 1): full brief required during taxi

No need to say which one is the least favoured

It would be interesting to see how many people at AOC 3 are actually listening to the briefing vs. merely waiting for it to stop. That's something you could easily test in a simulator session.

[TheEdge]

If there are changes?
Obviously you brief them and apply changes whereas needed

[Chesty Morgan]

Obviously you brief them and apply changes whereas needed
So not "no changes, period." then.

[Skyjob]

It would be interesting to see how many people at AOC 3 are actually listening to the briefing vs. merely waiting for it to stop. That's something you could easily test in a simulator session.
100% agreed

[FlightDetent]

n.b. it was not a briefing, but a review of the key elements (why so many I do not know), to make sure what was briefed still applied. Plus, the PM is not the only one on a flight deck.