Airbus 320 new SOPs [Archive]

Manual Pitch Trim

9th May 2022, 18:12

pineteam

10th May 2022, 04:25

We did not implement the new SOP yet but I agree some of these changes are unnecessary IMHO. But I have to say I’m looking forward to use the new shorter checklist! =)

Check Airman

10th May 2022, 06:44

We did not implement the new SOP yet but I agree some of these changes are unnecessary IMHO. But I have to say I’m looking forward to use the new shorter checklist! =)

My company doesn't use Airbus procedures, but I'd be interested to see your new shorter checklist.

Check Airman

10th May 2022, 06:49

It'd be interesting to go back to airbus SOP. At my company, whoever gets to the plane first aligns the IRS. Whoever gets hot/cold first starts the APU, and both pilots check the database.

Sergei.a320

10th May 2022, 07:12

pineteam

10th May 2022, 09:44

My company doesn't use Airbus procedures, but I'd be interested to see your new shorter checklist.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1480x2000/92ad0a11_a245_4004_8835_5a255ac88ba1_6b78677008f43dd5a6b6c52 d0621b0dc0c28fc88.jpeg

pineteam

10th May 2022, 10:02

We have been using new airbus SOPs, briefings and checklists since december 2021, everythings works well and more comfortable. Lots of things should now be discussed ,especially during preflight (prelim and cocpit prep parts). But they deleted After t/o climb checklist, imho very safety related one. I.e. l/g up should be checked;)

I’m happy about it actually. Let’s be honnest this aircraft is so well designed that you could fly it safely without any checklist if the crew were properly trained and were following SOP strictly. All the critical items are monitored and displayed on the memo, PFD and ND( WX radar& PWS). I mean for example the current landing check list in my outfit :
-CABIN CREW…AdvisedNot a big deal if not advised, gears down is their trigger.

-A/THR…. SPEED/OFF Lol.. Really? You don’t know the status of your A/THR??!

-Autobrake… As required Should have been briefed and set already during approach preparation. Also, when PM set gears down he should confirm the Autobrake status by SOP.

-BARO REF… SET (both) Ok this one is critical but already mentioned just before in the approach checklist…
- ECAM MEMO….Landing no blueThe only one I agree is kind of necessary on the landing checklist.

With the new checklist, a proper monitoring from both pilots is enough IMHO. We had cases of crew forgetting to retract the gears even so it was acknowledged “up” by the PF after PM read it on the checklist. Or another case they will do the checklist then realised the gears are still down and then retract above 220kt..
I’m happy they removed the after take off climb checklist. All we have to do is to train the pilots to add in their scan the landing gears indicators lights after selection of flaps zero.

compressor stall

10th May 2022, 10:19

IMHO a vast improvement.

there is always a reason why something was changed. More often than not a good or clever reason. Ask your training department. They should have the info.

T54A

10th May 2022, 10:34

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?

RogueOne

10th May 2022, 10:53

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?

Changes aren't necessarily about thinking you know more than the manufacturer, it could be about helping things flow better for crews or for maintenance reasons. All whilst having the OEM SOPs as a base to work from.

In making changes to SOPs many operators CAMO departments et al, will be talking to the manufacturer anyway.

Vessbot

10th May 2022, 15:29

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?
The OEM checklist may be well-designed, or it may be absolute trash that is literally unusable. Like, I remember King Air landing checklists that went all the way up through "Brakes.... APPLY" and things like that. How are you ever supposed to complete it? It wasn't made with any forethought as to when each item would be performed with respect to when the checklist could be completed, when is an OK time to be heads down looking at a piece of paper, etc. Someone just puked out a list of steps in operating the airplane and called it a "checklist" and that was that.

compressor stall

10th May 2022, 15:42

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?
A good lesson in why not to do it. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/793232/ao2007044.pdf

vilas

10th May 2022, 18:28

A good lesson in why not to do it. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/793232/ao2007044.pdf
This is very good example why line pilots shouldn't be making procedures. If they want to then must consult the OEM first.

Escape Path

11th May 2022, 00:49

Check Airman

11th May 2022, 01:06

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1480x2000/92ad0a11_a245_4004_8835_5a255ac88ba1_6b78677008f43dd5a6b6c52 d0621b0dc0c28fc88.jpeg
Thanks. Any idea why they removed ATHR from the landing checklist?

Sergei.a320

11th May 2022, 02:54

I’m happy about it actually. Let’s be honnest this aircraft is so well designed that you could fly it safely without any checklist if the crew were properly trained and were following SOP strictly. All the critical items are monitored and displayed on the memo, PFD and ND( WX radar& PWS). I mean for example the current landing check list in my outfit :
Not a big deal if not advised, gears down is their trigger.

Lol.. Really? You don’t know the status of your A/THR??!

Should have been briefed and set already during approach preparation. Also, when PM set gears down he should confirm the Autobrake status by SOP.

Ok this one is critical but already mentioned just before in the approach checklist…
The only one I agree is kind of necessary on the landing checklist.

With the new checklist, a proper monitoring from both pilots is enough IMHO. We had cases of crew forgetting to retract the gears even so it was acknowledged “up” by the PF after PM read it on the checklist. Or another case they will do the checklist then realised the gears are still down and then retract above 220kt..
I’m happy they removed the after take off climb checklist. All we have to do is to train the pilots to add in their scan the landing gears indicators lights after selection of flaps zero.
So when Airbus published SB that there would be changes to FCOM /FCTM/QRH/ CHECKLIST , there was an additional document with explanation of every change in checklist. There was a table with related risks of every item in C/L (ACFT damage, Human injure etc.) I have this one but I'm unable to attach it here. I think there all the answers to ur questions.

Sergei.a320

11th May 2022, 02:59

Thanks. Any idea why they removed ATHR from the landing checklist?
From explanation document : "Basic pilot competency to be aware of energy of the aircraft.
Know the FMA and A/THR mode at all time.
Not specific to landing.

Desicion:
Line is deleted."

Sergei.a320

11th May 2022, 03:06

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?
Most of all they don't change manufactures SOPs significantly, the try to do it more conservative... As an example our Company policy force us to check Flight controls before taxi and strictly doesnt recommend to do it if acft is moving...and reason of this was a couple of takeoffs without f.ctl check...

pineteam

11th May 2022, 03:13

So when Airbus published SB that there would be changes to FCOM /FCTM/QRH/ CHECKLIST , there was an additional document with explanation of every change in checklist. There was a table with related risks of every item in C/L (ACFT damage, Human injure etc.) I have this one but I'm unable to attach it here. I think there all the answers to ur questions.

Hi Sergei.

Interesting! Thanks. Any chance you can email me this document? If yes please PM me and I will give you my email. Cheers. =)

Escape Path

11th May 2022, 03:30

Hi Sergei.

Interesting! Thanks. Any change you can email me this document? If yes please PM me and I will give you my email. Cheers. =)

+1 on this one, if possible. Thanks!

Denti

11th May 2022, 07:06

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?

Because they are the ones actually operating it in their own unique environment. With their own unique pilot corps and its specific training and experience base and work/company culture.

That said, airbus makes it extremely expensive to run your own SOPs nowadays, which is why more and more operators use the OEM SOPs wether it fits or not.

FlyingStone

11th May 2022, 07:26

Denti hits the nail on the head, as always.

SOPs should be SMS-driven for that particular operator. Of course feedback from other operators through OEM is valuable, but not everyone is operating in the same environment, and that means that SOPs will and should differ.

What matters the most is that changes in SOPs are based on solid (SMS) data, carefully thought out, and the tested via sim and line trial before introduction. This kind of approach, even if it deviates from OEM SOPs is much better than OEM randomly changing half of SOP, because someone whose operation is completely different, thought it was better.

T54A

11th May 2022, 07:38

Because they are the ones actually operating it in their own unique environment. With their own unique pilot corps and its specific training and experience base and work/company culture.

That said, airbus makes it extremely expensive to run your own SOPs nowadays, which is why more and more operators use the OEM SOPs wether it fits or not.

That all sounds like legacy excuses from the 'Old Boys Club' in an airline. None of those things will improve safety. I've worked for an 80 year old legacy airline, I've seen this story before. The move from our hybrid SOP to the Airbus SOP was met with a massive resistance to change. In the end it was better. Very few airlines are as special and unique as they like to think. We all see cold weather ops, the odd typhoon, Cat II/II and maybe RNP-AR. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

FlightDetent

11th May 2022, 08:09

Comparison document attached. The usual viewer discretion and RoE apply.

FlightDetent

11th May 2022, 08:17

Denti hits the nail on the head, as always.

SOPs should be SMS-driven for that particular operator.Need to disagree in the case of the Airbus OEM SOP. Had ample chance to study various suggestions brought in by pilots from huge brand names and upon detailed scrutiny 95 % of ideas were discarded. Mostly for being overbearing and fixing what was not broken if you had been using the FCOM correctly. Another 4% of ideas were appreciated but not implemented, benefits not above the threshold to execute the change.

Definitely disagree about the cost of changing the SOP, does not take much to write your own copy of PRO-SUP in MS Word.

I understand that with other manufacturers the story might be different. Nevertheless, the main driver behind most of what I'd seen was a deep rooted conviction that 'we do it better' but without actual substance, just the belief.

Denti

11th May 2022, 09:09

Definitely disagree about the cost of changing the SOP, does not take much to write your own copy of PRO-SUP in MS Word.

That works only if you use solely paper documentation. As soon as you use the airbus sets of applications for an EFB it will be very costly indeed. In a previous airline i was, on the edge, involved in that issue and the cost to keep company SOPs in the documentation was in the millions a year for a fairly small airline with around 150 aircraft. And it was the only driver to switch to airbus OEM SOPs from our own ones that had been developed and refined together with airbus since they put the A320 in operation.

Again, they worked for us, but wouldn’t have worked for my current outfit where the average new captain has 3000 hours instead of 12.000, and where spend just a few weeks on training on a new FO instead of roughly half a year.

FlightDetent

11th May 2022, 09:49

That works only if you use solely paper documentation. As soon as you use the airbus sets of applications for an EFB it will be very costly indeed. Reassuringly not. Working with a 3rd operator who's done exactly that, detailed knowledge of at least another 2. The most rudimentary really run on MS-Word PDFs and Dropbox.

Not disputing your path was optimal for the era, fleet (mixed manufacturers is a headache) and local CAA, just that the options exist. Your OM-B (elements) does not have to be inside Airbus FlySmart, although not everyone can start with a clean slate. Striking a good deal with Airbus is unfortunately only available to those buying new aircraft, true.

Manual Pitch Trim

11th May 2022, 13:35

interesting that 95% of line pilot suggestions were ignored, usually its the “ office pilots” doing these changes.

Why reinvent the wheel. T
Really if Airbus knew some of these changes improved safety why didnt they make the changes 10 years ago ?
Or some of the changes to integrate with the A321NEO??

Thanks. Glad some happy line pilots, like the changes.

There were some German operators that used to operate a silent cockpit, right ? That worked right ?, interesting

Is Easyjet applying the new Airbus SOPs?

Some changes look like a employment and $ justification at Airbus

( Remember the “ Set standard” improvement from PULL STD 🤣)
Related to A380 standardization (?) ( Airbus cross type standard changes?)

Check Airman

11th May 2022, 16:04

Comparison document attached. The usual viewer discretion and RoE apply.

Thanks FD. I’ve never seen that document. I wish my airline would publish the same.

CVividasku

11th May 2022, 17:34

We did not implement the new SOP yet but I agree some of these changes are unnecessary IMHO. But I have to say I’m looking forward to use the new shorter checklist! =)
The checklists are shorter but there is the "T.O. speeds & Thrust" that is much longer in the before start phase.
Since we're supposed to ask for pushback before doing the checklist, it leads to 30-40s delay between the approval and the pushback.

We have been using new airbus SOPs, briefings and checklists since december 2021, everythings works well and more comfortable. Lots of things should now be discussed ,especially during preflight (prelim and cocpit prep parts). But they deleted After t/o climb checklist, imho very safety related one. I.e. l/g up should be checked;)
For normal flight I don't think there is a necessity to check the gear. At worst, you will notice it no later than 4000ft when accelerating towards 250kts (the red band will be visible at 280kts)
For abnormal flight, people will have to think about it no later than before reading the status.
I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?
The guys who made the machine do not operate it. They can aggregate their customers' experience but still don't operate it themselves.

tubby linton

11th May 2022, 17:48

The guys who made the machine do not operate it. They can aggregate their customers' experience but still don't operate it themselves.
I used to fly on the line with one of their test pilots

Vessbot

11th May 2022, 18:31

I used to fly on the line with one of their test pilots
Did he feel that there was a good reason to require that 30-40 seconds worth of stuff be done after getting a push back clearance but before pushing back?

CVividasku

11th May 2022, 18:37

I used to fly on the line with one of their test pilots
Yes, some test pilots have a double activity, however :
- I flew back home one Airbus test pilot who did not know much about real operation of the aircraft (I don't want to reveal the exact detail because it could identify him, but imagine something like the visual docking guidance system, if they don't have that at their test facility, he only knew it existed but didn't know if it worked well, if it was reliable, etc.. he had not much experience of it)
- Their lifestyle is so different than line pilots one that it seems they could easily forget or not realize the differences. If you fly a 350 almost every day and do several landings per day, you could easily forget that this activity is very different from landing the same 350 only one or two times per month, after one or two sleepless nights. They have areas of proficiency different from those of airline pilots. They probably don't practise regularly quick turnarounds with full passengers freight and catering... But perform much more and much more advanced manual flying.
- I'm not sure if they have much say in the procedures and checklists ? There is an entire flight operations and training standards department, whose director (at least when I used to work near there) was a purely office pilots who never flew on the line (at least never full time, having had jobs as top managers for smaller Airbus subsidiaries or other engineering organisations) and there is a large number of engineers who barely hold a PPL in this department.
I worked a few years at Airbus and my job, barely holding (at the time) a PPL, under the supervision of an engineer who never flew an airplane, was to make recommendations for airline, following some incidents. Pilots should have done this and that. And this guy at a few occasions that presented themselves contradicted the test pilot on the recommendations to make.

And, even better, when I joined my current airline, I asked some TRIs about some of the contradictions within airbus. I had a third answer !

You're on final at 100ft (IIRC), and you get VREF+13kts from a wind gust. You were with ATHR on and it was not able to maintain a correct speed.
Test pilot (and myself) said : just retard the throttle and control the speed up to touchdown (as you always do but with a larger movement of the thrust levers than usual) (follow """common sense""")
Engineer said : keep ATHR on even though it's commanding too much thrust and try to land like this ("""follow SOP""", because ATHR should work and because you should not disconnect ATHR below 1000ft)
TRI said : your final is unstable, just go around. ("Follow the airline operating manual A)

Airbus is not a unique entity with a unique voice. Maybe if some other guys had been there at the meeting about this line on the SOP, the line would have been different. Ask a question on techrequest, get two different answers from two different support engineers (depending on the case, I'm talking grey situations obviously)

In short, it's not a perfect company, even if they do their best, some things like ego fights, errors, changing considerations, can happen as in all human organizations. They don't know every little detail from anywhere, and probably can't provide for every possible particularity that your airline may have. If your organization has very good reasons to go against Airbus, I wouldn't be shocked if they implemented it. And they can even discuss it with Airbus beforehand ! For example, my airline approved the new SOPs but did not implement the new briefings.

Some examples of misunderstandings between me and airbus below :
From explanation document : "Basic pilot competency to be aware of energy of the aircraft.
Know the FMA and A/THR mode at all time.
Not specific to landing.

Desicion:
Line is deleted."
Thank you for the document
I found something that caught my attention :
Before takeoff, ATC... SET was deleted :
No risk identified if the SQUAWK is forgotten by the flight crew. The ATC will remind the crew in case the SQUAWK is forgotten.
I'm not so sure about that. If you takeoff without the squawk (happened to me once), it will trigger an ECAM just after takeoff. I'm not exactly sure but I remember it leads to TCAS inop (you don't have an active transponder, you don't have a TCAS)
If I'm correct, Airbus deemed necessary to check the TA/RA position before takeoff, so they should also check the squawk. Else, you are not protected by the TCAS during the takeoff and initial climb phases.

Response updated to remove "CONFIRMED". Rationale: Reflect the aural form pronounced in the cockpit (CONFIRMED is not pronounced in the cockpit)
Everybody at my outfit used to pronounce "confirmed" out loud.
: "AS RQRD" is considered as not enough specific. The new format of the answer will engage the PF in a more efficient check of the actual status of the ANTI ICE.
Conversely, I don't know anyone who responded "as required"
ADIRS OFF Deleted : Covered by the external horn
I don't know if anybody would know that a horn would sound, if you would hear it if you deboarded the plane from the jetway, and if someone heard it would he know what to do ?
Ask your colleague next time if they know what happens if you shut the aircraft down while forgetting the ADIRS..

Check Airman

12th May 2022, 04:35

There are indeed a few curious choices. Heaven forbid you should set off on your flight without your beacon on...or leave for the day without first turning the wing lights off...

Jonty

12th May 2022, 06:40

I tend to agree with Check Airman, most of the changes are to non critical systems.

Couple of things about Cvivi’s post. The ADIRS horn is very loud and you can most certainly hear it from the flight deck. If it goes off and you don’t know what it is you most certainly will be asking questions! Second, When Airbus talks about the squawk it’s talking about the actual numbers, not that you haven’t turned on the transponder. If you haven’t turned it on, you will get a memo message to remind you that it’s switched off.

CVividasku

12th May 2022, 08:43

About the wing lights, I make the most of this line by checking the strobes OFF and beacon OFF at the same time. This can happen, is very easy to miss, and would be annoying to other people around the aircraft.
And after all, strobes are lights that are located on the wings :) Beacon on at this point will make your passengers late.
However, for the BUS 320, from the 318 to the 321 I never saw a single jetway going against the wing light. Maybe they wanted to harmonize the checklist with another model that has this problem ?
Why would they want to have the same checklists for aircraft that were designed several decades apart ?

"The ADIRS horn is very loud and you can most certainly hear it from the flight deck." Thank you for your input, I never heard it before.
Is it much louder than the ground horn that we regularly use to call the mechanics ? Do you confirm the risk is to completely deplete the batteries during the night if left on ? I don't think I will try to hear it by myself.. Maybe on the sim, if it's simulated ?

Overlooking the squawk on as well as the memo really can happen. There are several memos forming a list, pilots don't necessarily read it before each flight phase. Even ATC is not a reliable barrier, some airports will call you out immediately if you forget the squawk, some won't care. The final barrier will be the ECAM after takeoff.

pineteam

12th May 2022, 09:59

The SQWAK, if you forget ATC will remind you during push back. Had it a few times.
The Horn with APU off you will definitely hear it. I did a push back once on battery only and it was so quiet (no avionic fans running) that we could actually hear the ground mechanic talking to the tow truck driver. And the main reason for the horn, is not for saving the batteries but to avoid the ADIRS to overheat. As if you are on battery only, there is no avionics ventilation at all.

Uplinker

12th May 2022, 13:30

...........I don't know if anybody would know that a horn would sound, if you would hear it if you deboarded the plane from the jetway, and if someone heard it would he know what to do ?
Ask your colleague next time if they know what happens if you shut the aircraft down while forgetting the ADIRS..

I have done it, or it has happened to me at least once over the years, Cannot remember the circumstances - probably losing ground power while having a U/S APU - but the ADIRS horn is loud !

FlightDetent

12th May 2022, 15:26

The change also removes the task-sharing from the QRH, apart from
+ Safety Exterior Inspection
+ Preliminary Cockpit Preparation
+ Securing the Aircraft

Those are long accepted to be 'read-and-do' tasks for the fatigued/lazy pilot and sublty retained in the QRH for the same reason. Enough mitigation tools to cover the missing Securing the A/C NCL. Pilots used to execute read-and-do out of the old NCL anyway (wrongly), feel free to reach for the page if not up to speed.

BTW I have witnessed a crew in SIM failing to raise the gear on a G/A with OEI and the PM captain picked that up nicely with the new flow sans C/L

swh

13th May 2022, 13:31

For those who are implementing the new Airbus 320 SOPs

Changing the wording from Smokes to smoke/fumes is a improvement

Wondering how they are working for you? Are they better for you or not?
What do these changes in the FCOM have to do with the new A321 NEO FCOM?

Re PRO-NOR-TSK
Dont see how now having the CM2 doing the battery check and starting is a improvement?
So now as the CM2 is the one always starting the APU, the Captain starting the APU is a SOP incompliance according to the Airbus SOPs.

Also only the CM2 (FO) aligns the IRs, interested to hear from the genius at Airbus behind this change. Makes me miss Boeing

The Captain is now the one that FM database validity. Such a genius new SOP change from Airbus. (?)

why re-invent the wheel again?
A penny for your thoughts.

Some of the changes would not seem that obvious if you only fly the A320 series, however these SOP changes are across all types, the CM2 power up flow makes more sense when on the A380 or A350 which has integrated OIS, CM1 would be getting the techoog and OIS setup.

The SOP has to be consistent enough to allow MFF, CCQ, and CTR where applicable. Longer term I would see the A320 moving towards having blade servers and avionics living as applications on these blasé servers like the A380/A350 instead of individual LRUs like the A320. I would see the future cockpit be more like the A350.

Manual Pitch Trim

13th May 2022, 18:59

Thanks
Then it makes more sense

Some of the changes would not seem that obvious if you only fly the A320 series, however these SOP changes are across all types, the CM2 power up flow makes more sense when on the A380 or A350 which has integrated OIS, CM1 would be getting the techoog and OIS setup.

The SOP has to be consistent enough to allow MFF, CCQ, and CTR where applicable. Longer term I would see the A320 moving towards having blade servers and avionics living as applications on these blasé servers like the A380/A350 instead of individual LRUs like the A320. I would see the future cockpit be more like the A350.

Escape Path

14th May 2022, 02:39

Thanks for the docs FlightDetent . The one with the explanations makes for interesting reading.

While I concur that some of the items that were modified or added are curious (i.e: wing lights, seat belts deleted from cockpit prep, but kept for parking check), I particularly like the "taxi" check. That before takeoff check was a nightmare...

As for the other items that I may consider that were necessary but were deleted, I do believe that a manufacturer with more than ten thousand aircraft in service would know better than a line pilot before performing and publishing such a critical change as their checklists. So I've trusted them on this one, and whenever I'm in doubt of forgetting something, I perform the old checklist in my head... A habit I expect will be made redundant over time.

P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did?

pineteam

14th May 2022, 06:40

Thanks for the docs FlightDetent .

P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did?

We still don’t use the new checklist but I don’t see why you need to double or triple check. Just one quick look at the landing gears indicator is enough. I guess it’s just a matter of adaptation. In my previous job where we were flying all sort of old high performance twin pistons with no Ecam memo or gears warning ( some of them it was broken) we were not using any checklist. No operators were using them as they are horrendously way too long. Just one Mnemonic for departure and final. Never had any issues. =) Mnemonics are so underrated IMHO.

compressor stall

14th May 2022, 08:22

P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did?

And that is the crux of the of the changes. Getting pilots to think again, getting them back in the loop.

That's why pretty much the only things on the checklist are things that will affect safety.

Escape Path

16th May 2022, 17:50

We still don’t use the new checklist but I don’t see why you need to double or triple check. Just one quick look at the landing gears indicator is enough. I guess it’s just a matter of adaptation. In my previous job where we were flying all sort of old high performance twin pistons with no Ecam memo or gears warning ( some of them it was broken) we were not using any checklist. No operators were using them as they are horrendously way too long. Just one Mnemonic for departure and final. Never had any issues. =) Mnemonics are so underrated IMHO.

It's not that is needed, but old habits indeed die hard. In the back of your head, you know you lost a safety net if you forget to raise the gear (even though I haven't done such thing in all of my years of flying retractable gear aircraft), so you check again. But in the end, I concur with compressor stall , the thing with all changes is that they make you think, they get you out of robot mode, which can be a dangerous thing in the right (or wrong) day.

And I think it's a good thing; technology improves so things can be done differently. I remember the DC-9/MD-80 checklist for the first flight of the day was something like a 3 page ordeal... I can only imagine it would likely be easier (procedural-wise) to start the Lunar Module on the Apollo ships

MD83FO

16th May 2022, 18:46

We never start the Apu at that time anyway, so it’s always an sop breach

Lookleft

18th May 2022, 02:42

Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.

Check Airman

18th May 2022, 06:33

pineteam

18th May 2022, 07:36

We never start the Apu at that time anyway, so it’s always an sop breach

Mind you! in almost 8 years flying Airbus, at home base I never came to the plane with APU not running. We don't use GPU unless APU is U/S. Maintenance always starts APU before crews arrive to the plane. Crazy I know.. :}

Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.

I always make sure that the 3 pins are on board as part of my flow regardless if I'm PF or PM. We have one of our aircraft who took off with the nose gear pin still inserted and have to return back as they could not retract the nose gear.. Embarrassing but it happened. It always makes me smile when we do the checklist and when the FO reads: Gears pins and covers and turns his head back to pretend to check.. On the newest A320 where the pins are located behind the captain, it's impossible to see the 3 pins are actually on board unless you stand up open the compartment and check inside.

Gwolf90

18th May 2022, 16:48

I don’t understand how an aircraft thats 30+ years old still need sop updates

Escape Path

18th May 2022, 23:12

I don’t understand how an aircraft thats 30+ years old still need sop updates

Well, that same aircraft has had extensive modifications during its lifespan; the technology and the regulations have changed in those +30 years and, certainly, people have come up with new ways to save fuel, hence new procedures.

I still concur with those who say it's not necessary to have gear pins and covers checked every time in a NB aircraft doing 30 min turnarounds...

pineteam

19th May 2022, 01:48

I still concur with those who say it's not necessary to have gear pins and covers checked every time in a NB aircraft doing 30 min turnarounds...

That’s true.. Obviously if you checked these items at the first flight of day, unless maintenance needs to change a tyre or something, you know the pins and covers are still on board on the following sectors..Lol

Check Airman

19th May 2022, 09:45

This highlights the problem with OEM SOP. Airbus has to make a one size fits all SOP, but we know that can’t be ideal for everyone.

The obvious fix is to have each company tailor the SOP to meet its specific operational requirements. The problem with that is that every new training manager thinks his technique is an operational requirement, and we wind up in a situation like my company has, where our SOP bears no resemblance to the manufacturer’s.

compressor stall

19th May 2022, 12:12

That’s true.. Obviously if you checked these items at the first flight of day, unless maintenance needs to change a tyre or something, you know the pins and covers are still on board on the following sectors..Lol
Unless you operate to airports that recommend refitting pitot covers on short turnarounds due wasps. Admittedly not many of those places about.

pineteam

19th May 2022, 12:36

Good point. We don’t in our outfit. But I see what you mean after watching this serious incident..
https://youtu.be/f80WwpNuaxg

Uplinker

19th May 2022, 17:53

I always make sure that the 3 pins are on board as part of my flow.............It always makes me smile when we do the checklist and when the FO reads: Gears pins and covers and turns his head back to pretend to check...

I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit ! :)

Escape Path

19th May 2022, 22:58

I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit ! :)

I know! Funny thing is, if you missed them on the walkaround, I hardly think an item on a checklist that (on a NB in mentioned short turnarounds) is answered to almost by reflex (cause they're always on board, save for the mentioned cases) is going to prevent you from taking off without them.

Check Airman has got it on point.

FlightDetent

19th May 2022, 23:53

technique is an operational requirement, and we wind up in a situation like my company has, where our SOP bears no resemblance to the manufacturer’s. A.k.a 'smarter than Airbus'.

Agreed, OTOH, that push for super-standardisation across the production models has created some ugly skeletons in the narrowbody book.

Check Airman

20th May 2022, 01:06

A.k.a 'smarter than Airbus'.

Agreed, OTOH, that push for super-standardisation across the production models has created some ugly skeletons in the narrowbody book.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but that’s small potatoes compared to a training department that tries to standardise SOP across models from different manufacturers!

pineteam

20th May 2022, 02:09

I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit ! :)

I hope not! I’m definitely checking these items carefully during walk around. But when the other guy is doing the walk around I check in the stowage to make sure the 3 pins are there in case he missed them. We don’t normally use pitot and static covers tho.

Rico_Corp

20th May 2022, 11:07

So for clarification, from FCOM:

* GEAR PINS and COVERS................................ CHECK ONBOARD and STOWED | PM
Check that the covers and the three gear pins are on board and stowed.

And from FCTM:

GEAR PINS & COVERS...................................................... ................................................ REMOVED
The PF confirms that the gear pins and covers were checked removed (e.g. during the walkaround).
The PF announces “REMOVED”.

pineteam

20th May 2022, 12:03

How can the PF confirmed that the pins and covers were removed when these items are not part of his flow? I always check but it’s the PM responsibility and unless the PF go and check also, he is only assuming that the PM did his part correctly.

FlightDetent

20th May 2022, 15:19

Walkaround.

pineteam

21st May 2022, 03:21

Walkaround.
But the walk around is performed by the PM.:zzz: Or the PF assumes that if the PM did the walk around then the pins and covers are removed I guess?

FlightDetent

21st May 2022, 05:52

Ooops, screwed that. (company SOP).

Alpine Flyer

22nd May 2022, 19:40

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?

IMHO the main reasons airlines go for manufacturer's checklists rather than own procedures are money saved on devising and revising own procedures and reducing liability. If line crews have to put up with less than optimum procedures doesn't bother those in charge.

Can't speak for Airbus but some aspects of original Embraer E-Jet checklists are ill suited for a multiple sector operation and some redesign would allow for a more streamlined ops. E.g. the company checklist on a previous airplane was designed to minimise the number of items to be checked between closing of doors and pushback. Some manufacturers publish separate procedures for optional equipment or optional procedures (such as RNP approaches) which airlines using them frequently might want to include in their normal checklists.

I also knew an airline that would use similar procedures on all their planes to ease transition between models. It's a common topic in training that people "fall back" to previous airplanes' procedures under stress (e.g. go-around callouts, calling out malfunctions).