Airbus "departure change" check

[Escape Path]

Hello everyone.

Regarding the new Airbus SOPs and the new "Departure Change" checklist, consider the following scenario:

Weather is favorable for takeoff on both RWY 01 and 19, ATC may clear the flight for departure on either runway. So, primary FPLN is programmed with departure from RWY01 and SEC FPLN is programmed with a RWY19 departure. Before pushing back, a full briefing, including crosscheck of PERF TO FMS page information for both runways, is performed. After pushing back, ATC clears the flight for the RWY19 departure, so SEC FPLN is activated and performance information is still valid, so there are no changes from what was briefed; there is no configuration change as both FPLNs were planned and computed with a Conf 1+F takeoff.

Do we run the departure change checklist?

FCOM/Procedures/Normal Procedures/SOP/Departure Change seems to point to a re-briefing, after recomputing and crosschecking of PERF and FPLN data and then run the checklist. But there's no re-briefing, as there were no changes from the briefing performed at the gate. There's no change of data either.

FCTM/Normal Procedures/Normal Checklists says the checklist trigger is "revised departure briefing completed". But once more, there are no revisions since there are no changes from the original briefing

A document posted here a while back, when the new procedures were introduced (I forgot the source) states the following, regarding the reason for the new checklist:

Ensure that new takeoff data are taken into account.
The DEPARTURE CHANGE checklist is designed to protect the flight crew against erroneous setting (RWY, SID,
CONF, Takeoff speeds and thrust, FCU altitude…) after a change in the departure clearance.

As previously mentioned, the SEC PERF TO page was already crosschecked by both crewmembers. So any errors would/should have been catch at that moment. The only condition which would seem to match is a change in departure clearance, assuming the flight was initially cleared for the RWY01 departure and then re-cleared for the RWY19 dep.

Do any of you guys have any input on this?

Thanks in advance!

[Vessbot]

Hello everyone.

Regarding the new Airbus SOPs and the new "Departure Change" checklist, consider the following scenario:

Weather is favorable for takeoff on both RWY 01 and 19, ATC may clear the flight for departure on either runway. So, primary FPLN is programmed with departure from RWY01 and SEC FPLN is programmed with a RWY19 departure. Before pushing back, a full briefing, including crosscheck of PERF TO FMS page information for both runways, is performed. After pushing back, ATC clears the flight for the RWY19 departure, so SEC FPLN is activated and performance information is still valid, so there are no changes from what was briefed; there is no configuration change as both FPLNs were planned and computed with a Conf 1+F takeoff.

Do we run the departure change checklist?

FCOM/Procedures/Normal Procedures/SOP/Departure Change seems to point to a re-briefing, after recomputing and crosschecking of PERF and FPLN data and then run the checklist. But there's no re-briefing, as there were no changes from the briefing performed at the gate. There's no change of data either.

FCTM/Normal Procedures/Normal Checklists says the checklist trigger is "revised departure briefing completed". But once more, there are no revisions since there are no changes from the original briefing

A document posted here a while back, when the new procedures were introduced (I forgot the source) states the following, regarding the reason for the new checklist:



As previously mentioned, the SEC PERF TO page was already crosschecked by both crewmembers. So any errors would/should have been catch at that moment. The only condition which would seem to match is a change in departure clearance, assuming the flight was initially cleared for the RWY01 departure and then re-cleared for the RWY19 dep.

Do any of you guys have any input on this?

Thanks in advance!

The purpose of any checklist is to check that the things on it are done. "We did the thing, therefore we don't need to do the checklist" shortcuts the entire concept of checklists.

Who cares if you did the briefing earlier vs later? Do the checklist and check that it's done.

[Check Airman]

My company knows better than the Airbus, so we don't use their procedures, so we don't have a departure change checklist. That said, we have to redo the before takeoff checklist if there's a runway change. In the example you gave, it's all been briefed at the gate, so there's nothing more to brief.

[awair]

This wouldn’t fly with our Boeing Procedures:

Surely changing the flight plan involves changing Heading bug, V-speeds, thrust and other operational considerations.

The checklist is there to make sure that you have actioned all necessary changes, not just briefed them.

[Check Airman]

This wouldn’t fly with our Boeing Procedures:

Surely changing the flight plan involves changing Heading bug, V-speeds, thrust and other operational considerations.

The checklist is there to make sure that you have actioned all necessary changes, not just briefed them.

:)

Not to start an Airbus vs Boeing debate, but Airbus is just…better. More civilised.

I’ll get my hat now…

[Denti]

This wouldn’t fly with our Boeing Procedures:

Surely changing the flight plan involves changing Heading bug, V-speeds, thrust and other operational considerations.

The checklist is there to make sure that you have actioned all necessary changes, not just briefed them.

No, it wouldn’t work on the Boeing.

Changing the flight plan on airbus, if the alternative has already been prepared in the secondary flight plan, just involves pressing the Activate Secondary prompt. Speeds, flex temp (atm/derate), departure are all contained in the secondary so there is no need to set anything, except for a different stop altitude for the departure if there is a difference.

The departure change checklist is classified as „optional“ in my outfit, but is actually quite a good idea to quickly run through it (is just 4 items) after an unexpected departure change. If the change was deemed possible and therefore prepared and briefed, i wouldn’t bother unless there are more things to change than just activating the secondary, like flap setting ans FCU altitude.

Had it happen recently in CDG where we got a runway change for departure halfway through the taxi out, unexpected for us so we did need to set up everything from scratch while being stopped holding short, to the displeasure of ATC who seem to have no concept how much is involved in a change like that and the time needed to do it. The Departure Change checklist was a nice way to make sure we had done everything despite the many unwarranted disruptions by ATC (are you ready, how long do you need, are you ready yet, any estimate, could you finish please).

[VariablePitchP]

This wouldn’t fly with our Boeing Procedures:

Surely changing the flight plan involves changing Heading bug, V-speeds, thrust and other operational considerations.

The checklist is there to make sure that you have actioned all necessary changes, not just briefed them.

Nor would it with my 1989 Vauxhall Nova, or an ice cream van, or other miscellaneous and unrelated item of mechanised transport.

[awair]

No, it wouldn’t work on the Boeing.

Changing the flight plan on airbus, if the alternative has already been prepared in the secondary flight plan, just involves pressing the Activate Secondary prompt. Speeds, flex temp (atm/derate), departure are all contained in the secondary so there is no need to set anything, except for a different stop altitude for the departure if there is a difference.


Thank you for the explanation. Much appreciated.

[sonicbum]

Hello everyone.

Regarding the new Airbus SOPs and the new "Departure Change" checklist, consider the following scenario:

Weather is favorable for takeoff on both RWY 01 and 19, ATC may clear the flight for departure on either runway. So, primary FPLN is programmed with departure from RWY01 and SEC FPLN is programmed with a RWY19 departure. Before pushing back, a full briefing, including crosscheck of PERF TO FMS page information for both runways, is performed. After pushing back, ATC clears the flight for the RWY19 departure, so SEC FPLN is activated and performance information is still valid, so there are no changes from what was briefed; there is no configuration change as both FPLNs were planned and computed with a Conf 1+F takeoff.

Do we run the departure change checklist?

FCOM/Procedures/Normal Procedures/SOP/Departure Change seems to point to a re-briefing, after recomputing and crosschecking of PERF and FPLN data and then run the checklist. But there's no re-briefing, as there were no changes from the briefing performed at the gate. There's no change of data either.

FCTM/Normal Procedures/Normal Checklists says the checklist trigger is "revised departure briefing completed". But once more, there are no revisions since there are no changes from the original briefing

A document posted here a while back, when the new procedures were introduced (I forgot the source) states the following, regarding the reason for the new checklist:



As previously mentioned, the SEC PERF TO page was already crosschecked by both crewmembers. So any errors would/should have been catch at that moment. The only condition which would seem to match is a change in departure clearance, assuming the flight was initially cleared for the RWY01 departure and then re-cleared for the RWY19 dep.

Do any of you guys have any input on this?

Thanks in advance!

Hi,

departure change flow and checklist is required if takeoff conditions change during taxi and if previous performance computation is no longer appropriate. So in your example there is no requirement to perform a departure change checklist.
With that being said, the last item of the departure change checklist is the FCU ALT which could well be different from the one you did preselect for runway 01 therefore the departure change checklist could work as a safety net in such scenarios.

[Vessbot]

All the twisting and wrangling in this thread over whether to do the checklist, seems like more effort than simply doing the checklist.


i wouldn’t bother unless there are more things to change than just activating the secondary, like flap setting ans FCU altitude.
.

Say there was a flap setting or altitude change, but you had missed that fact. Then this system doesn't work, does it? Within this logic, the same failure that leads to missing the change, also leads to not doing the checklist that would catch the missed change.

[Denti]

Say there was a flap setting or altitude change, but you had missed that fact. Then this system doesn't work, does it? Within this logic, the same failure that leads to missing the change, also leads to not doing the checklist that would catch the missed change.

If there was a need for that it would be flagged while preparing and briefing both versions at the gate, which would then trigger a discussion about mitigation and the optional departure change checklist would be the logical mitigation measure. For an unplanned departure change i do it anyway.

[FlightDetent]

I wouldn't go without a check-list lest it was all crosschecked, verifed and agreed beforehand the only action required was swapping the FMS programming with a 'single' button. And then, I would do the check-list anyway, unnecessarily.

Because all the people who failed their duty where reading a C/L could have saved them honestly believed reading one was exactly that, unnecessary.

Somehow I found the practice of briefing 2 trajectories dubious, that is even as someone who frowns upon a formalized taxi review. Part of the briefing intrinsic value is to develop a shared mental model and jointly fly a test sortie with the brains in advance. Guess I am too lazy to remember and too busy looking for a restful moment to keep 2 trajectories conscientiously. Slogan version: If you can brief 2 flight-paths at the same time, you are briefing wrong.

Same reason when preparing the SEC-FPL for a different IAP I never insert the DA and don't formally brief until after a change from the primary plan actually happens. (not a suggestion, just a description of personal technique to underline logic behind the opinion above)

Having said all that, the benefit of reducing head-down time and administrative tasks to minimum during actual movement is thoroughly recognized.

[Escape Path]

Hello everyone.

First of all thank you for your responses. Second of all, while the experience gathered from all of us here makes for interesting discussions, suggestions and whatnot, my focus when asking this question was in asking if someone could have information on how or when Airbus wants us to do the checklist, or how other operators are managing this particular topic. Therefore, this isn't a generic question of "should I run a checklist?", but definitively a specific one, that needs information from those with knowledge on Airbus' current SOPs, since this change was introduced in their latest change of SOPs.

My understanding of the concept of the checklist is quite similar to what Denti and sonicbum are saying: If all it takes to fly the different FPLN is just to activate the SEC FPLN and nothing else (with no changes to what was briefed), no need to run the check. Need to change anything else (flap setting, for instance)? It becomes a threat, and as mentioned by Denti, a suitable mitigation would be to run the checklist. That being said, if there were no preparations for the change, then one would definitively need to do the checklist, as by design, is the purpose of it: it is necessary to recalculate speeds, possibly even configuration and initial altitude, brief the departure... i.e., a re-briefing, which is the trigger for the C/L.

Flight Detent , while I understand your idea and your reasons about not performing these kind of things, I based this scenario (which is actually a real life example in my operation, and not a too uncommon one) on the premise that both the FCOM and the FCTM state that one of the uses for the SEC FPLN is to prepare in advance for both a SID or a runway change. I've had a few examples of unprepared late runway or flight path changes, both departing and arriving, and it can become quite a hectic deal and the window for errors opens up; then I've had some other examples of previously prepared changes (when such a thing can be done) and, as you mentioned, one can't help but notice the difference in workload, heads-down time, crew coordination and a couple of more benefits.

Vessbot my intention with this topic is nothing more than me trying to understand how to use the tools provided by the OEM as they intended us to.

I reckon vilas may have a thing or two to say about this.

Once more, I appreciate your comments and insights on this topic!

[hans brinker]

Before start checklist is completed, but ground crew headset doesn't work. I switch of the beacon, open the cockpit window, we discuss the procedure. I close the window, turn on the beacon. And I run the before start again.

[FlightDetent]

The tools of FCOM don't split all hair so sometimes you end up living on the edge.

It says you could prepare the SEC for an alternate departure point / direction.

It says you should do the runway change C/L when taking one.

It never says briefing 2 trajectories at the same time is the way to go.

- - - x - - -

What you are seeing is 2 principles at odds with each other. One, the ability of proficient crew to manage their workload. Two, checklist discipline.

What may be a smart choice for a single given situation will thin the defences on a systematic level. Because, trust me, someone will get and try to go bit further with their creativity the next time.

It does not hurt to spell out that briefing is not the same as FMGS programming review or FCU/AFDS cross-check.

As well, you rightly point out that it is busy moments, falling behind the tempo, when we need to cover the intended actions with a checklist the most.

- - - x - - -

To answer the last, my​ airline would have me fail a linecheck if skipping that c/L even under the circumstances described.
​​​​
While not adopting the new Airbus setup yet due to corporate processes, themselves they came up with departure and approach change C/L about 3 years ago as a mitigation measure from internal occurence investigations.

The fail justification would be for not properly using the tools inside the box which are still adequate for the situation. That is the line pilot's task before starting to think outside the box.

As much as I may hold some of their philosophies in average regard, that is a fair hit.

Flying safely and running a safe operation are not the same (insert the tied gentleman meme).

​​​​




​​​​​

[Sergei.a320]

I wouldn't go without a check-list lest it was all crosschecked, verifed and agreed beforehand the only action required was swapping the FMS programming with a 'single' button. And then, I would do the check-list anyway, unnecessarily.

Because all the people who failed their duty where reading a C/L could have saved them honestly believed reading one was exactly that, unnecessary.

Somehow I found the practice of briefing 2 trajectories dubious, that is even as someone who frowns upon a formalized taxi review. Part of the briefing intrinsic value is to develop a shared mental model and jointly fly a test sortie with the brains in advance. Guess I am too lazy to remember and too busy looking for a restful moment to keep 2 trajectories conscientiously. Slogan version: If you can brief 2 flight-paths at the same time, you are briefing wrong.

Same reason when preparing the SEC-FPL for a different IAP I never insert the DA and don't formally brief until after a change from the primary plan actually happens. (not a suggestion, just a description of personal technique to underline logic behind the opinion above)

Having said all that, the benefit of reducing head-down time and administrative tasks to minimum during actual movement is thoroughly recognized.
PERFECTLY said! absolutely agree with every single word!:ok:

[Escape Path]

The fail justification would be for not properly using the tools inside the box which are still adequate for the situation. That is the line pilot's task before starting to think outside the box.​​​

FD, in the absence of more detailed information from Airbus (as you point out regarding the amount of info contained in the FCOM), we can absolutely agree that using the CL for any departure change is a defense against having a change in different conditions than usual and the forgetting to adjust something we needed to adjust.

[FlightDetent]

I like the way you put it, splendid.

Moreover, if you think training yourself the C/L is better avoided (in a niche situation) is bad in the long run, just wait to see what a cognitively challenged copycat can grow out of that arrangement pronto.

Pilots will do crazy things, you remeber Air Arabia opposite RWY take-off. One pattern you will see everywhere is fellow aviators avoiding the drill of full chores when coming back to base. Then for 50% of the flights the drill is not practiced but replaced with something fuzzy. How strong is the drill when a bad day arrives becomes a question.

Blame the reactive-SMS boxtickers for building the drill too heavy? I wish, but sadly nobody in the office has the incentive to simplify anything and there is much more gravity to this sentece that meets the eye.

Stay safe and enjoy.the job!

Last words: If having a decision-making process wheter or not to read a C/L, or shaping the workflow so that it can be avoided,
takes longer then actually performing it - the aviators' choice is a singular one. Even the longest ones take less than 20 seconds.