A320, flying knowledge, SOP, clarifications

[Airbusenjoyer]

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum but have been browsing for a while so do forgive me if I posted on the wrong area.

I have a few questions regarding flying knowledge and SOPs.
Today just got my 1000HRS on type A320 family!

I was consistent on flying and landings were ok, but today I flew with a guy with 42 years of experience and made me question some bits.

As his points:

1. On a Tailwind landing (A320), keep the power on because you will sink fast if you cut. Is this correct?
2. He always adds 3kts to the vApp, even on tailwinds and heavy, is this prudent?
3. After takeoff and flaps retracted we got a direct, so I lowered the speed to 230kts to improve the radius of turn and climb a bit faster, he said this was wrong, I should have kept 250kts because that is Vy
4. Vy is 250kts below FL100 and 300kts above FL100
5. He keeps Wx radar tilt on climb to -2.0 and on descent to +1.5
6. On Takeoff computation he always requests runway wet and config 2, his ideology is to make the aircraft airborne asap, is this prudent?

7. And today, my landing was 1.6g. I blame myself because I didn't flare much/flared a bit late.
What happened was:

We were approaching and wind was headwind of 5kts. 72.3 GW on A321 CEO
Vapp was 142 accdg to EFB and FMS
It was too late that I've noticed that he changed the Vapp to 146, this was done before data lock,and I didn't want to contest him, so I was keeping between 700-800fpm on the glide
My question is, the higher the Vapp, do you have to flare earlier?
I flared around 30 btw.


Thank you for your answers, I'm here merely to garbage in garbage out and keep whats proper.
Good day safe flights!

[gerzson6]

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum but have been browsing for a while so do forgive me if I posted on the wrong area.

I have a few questions regarding flying knowledge and SOPs.
Today just got my 1000HRS on type A320 family!

I was consistent on flying and landings were ok, but today I flew with a guy with 42 years of experience and made me question some bits.

As his points:

1. On a Tailwind landing (A320), keep the power on because you will sink fast if you cut. Is this correct?
2. He always adds 3kts to the vApp, even on tailwinds and heavy, is this prudent?
3. After takeoff and flaps retracted we got a direct, so I lowered the speed to 230kts to improve the radius of turn and climb a bit faster, he said this was wrong, I should have kept 250kts because that is Vy
4. Vy is 250kts below FL100 and 300kts above FL100
5. He keeps Wx radar tilt on climb to -2.0 and on descent to +1.5
6. On Takeoff computation he always requests runway wet and config 2, his ideology is to make the aircraft airborne asap, is this prudent?

7. And today, my landing was 1.6g. I blame myself because I didn't flare much/flared a bit late.
What happened was:

We were approaching and wind was headwind of 5kts. 72.3 GW on A321 CEO
Vapp was 142 accdg to EFB and FMS
It was too late that I've noticed that he changed the Vapp to 146, this was done before data lock,and I didn't want to contest him, so I was keeping between 700-800fpm on the glide
My question is, the higher the Vapp, do you have to flare earlier?
I flared around 30 btw.


Thank you for your answers, I'm here merely to garbage in garbage out and keep whats proper.
Good day safe flights!

Good evening!

That’s a very interesting post first of all, I’m curious what other people will say. Here are my thoughts

1: I think no, because if you keep the thrust on you might end up landing long.
2: I wouldn’t agree with it, because the brakes would need to dissipate more energy due to the extra speed and the tailwind, and your break temp would be higher in the end because of the higher energy. Plus I doubt it makes any sense, the vapp is calculated like that for a reason.
3: I think you did the correct thing. Also what was the goal? To reach the selected altitude sooner, or not to “drift off” from the fmgc depicted green line?
4: for this you can refer to FCTM NP-SOP-climb
5: whats wrong with the auto function and if he sees sometning the use the tilt to have a better view?
6: then he should be using flaps3/toga for all the take-offs, that is the shortest.
7: don’t worry about it too much, it happens. However from hus side it’s not so nice to do something without telling you, but that’d be a different discussion.

regards

[Airbusenjoyer]

Good evening!

That’s a very interesting post first of all, I’m curious what other people will say. Here are my thoughts

1: I think no, because if you keep the thrust on you might end up landing long.
2: I wouldn’t agree with it, because the brakes would need to dissipate more energy due to the extra speed and the tailwind, and your break temp would be higher in the end because of the higher energy. Plus I doubt it makes any sense, the vapp is calculated like that for a reason.
3: I think you did the correct thing. Also what was the goal? To reach the selected altitude sooner, or not to “drift off” from the fmgc depicted green line?
4: for this you can refer to FCTM NP-SOP-climb
5: whats wrong with the auto function and if he sees sometning the use the tilt to have a better view?
6: then he should be using flaps3/toga for all the take-offs, that is the shortest.
7: don’t worry about it too much, it happens. However from hus side it’s not so nice to do something without telling you, but that’d be a different discussion.

regards



Hello thanks for your response. Here is his reasoning:
3. My goal was to both climb faster and not drift off, then back to 250kts once the turn is about to complete
5. He never uses Auto. just keeps a fixed 2.0 and -1.5
6. lol my thoughts also
7. He changes a lot of things without telling, and I did not want any CRM issue so I just let it slide.


Thanks for the kind words about the 1.6, on second thought I wasn't completely looking at the end to judge sink, I was too focused on the aiming point.

[thetimesreader84]

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum but have been browsing for a while so do forgive me if I posted on the wrong area.

I have a few questions regarding flying knowledge and SOPs.
Today just got my 1000HRS on type A320 family!

I was consistent on flying and landings were ok, but today I flew with a guy with 42 years of experience and made me question some bits.

As his points:

1. On a Tailwind landing (A320), keep the power on because you will sink fast if you cut. Is this correct?
2. He always adds 3kts to the vApp, even on tailwinds and heavy, is this prudent?
3. After takeoff and flaps retracted we got a direct, so I lowered the speed to 230kts to improve the radius of turn and climb a bit faster, he said this was wrong, I should have kept 250kts because that is Vy
4. Vy is 250kts below FL100 and 300kts above FL100
5. He keeps Wx radar tilt on climb to -2.0 and on descent to +1.5
6. On Takeoff computation he always requests runway wet and config 2, his ideology is to make the aircraft airborne asap, is this prudent?

7. And today, my landing was 1.6g. I blame myself because I didn't flare much/flared a bit late.
What happened was:

We were approaching and wind was headwind of 5kts. 72.3 GW on A321 CEO
Vapp was 142 accdg to EFB and FMS
It was too late that I've noticed that he changed the Vapp to 146, this was done before data lock,and I didn't want to contest him, so I was keeping between 700-800fpm on the glide
My question is, the higher the Vapp, do you have to flare earlier?
I flared around 30 btw.


Thank you for your answers, I'm here merely to garbage in garbage out and keep whats proper.
Good day safe flights!


Question 1 - 6, what do the FCOM, FCTM, and company ops manuals say? I'm pretty sure ours say completely different things to what your Capt does, but I'll let the TRE/TRI crowd sort it out.

Question 7. Yes you do have to flare earlier in a heavy 321 than a light 319 BUT! not by much. For me it's the difference between flaring at the "T" of the "Thirty" call (in the heavy 321), vs flaring at the "y" of the call out. Its something that only comes with experience I'm afraid, but I'm sure you'll get it. If you were given good advice by your base trainers, revert to that. I still do, after about 3,000 hours on fifi!

[iggy]

Points 1 to 6, please smile and nod so you can survive the flight with that "diamond in a row" and carry on with your career. Then forget everything this guy tells you.

Point 7: how do you know it was a 1.6g landing? Was it because either the Captain or you called the 15 Load Report in the FMGC? If so, know that Safety Department gets a flag everytime a pilot does that...

[AerocatS2A]

Not the OP but our CEOs print out a landing score card automatically on landing.

[vilas]

FCOM, FCTM has the guidance on Vapp just follow that. There's a provision for pilot adding extra speed but it's not for tailwind. TW increase GS which increases the ROD so a little early flare is recommended. Generally problem with long landing starts with too much initial flare. It's a visual judgment you should be breaking the descent by half i.e. 350ft/mt appx. and continue towards touchdown point and reduce a little more at 10ft. Executing direct to there's no point reducing speed, if the new track is in opposite direction you may stop acceleration by selecting speed.
On takeoff Flap optimum setting or company recommendation can be used.

[sonicbum]

The only thing to question here is why this guy is still flying.
Always remember one thing in this racket: no matter who tells you any pieces of information, be it your head of training, it must be written somewhere, be it manufacturers and/or company material, otherwise it’s plain and simple personal technique which could (and often will be) wrong.

[TheEdge]

Points 1 to 6, please smile and nod so you can survive the flight with that "diamond in a row" and carry on with your career. Then forget everything this guy tells you.

Could not agree more...

[Airbusenjoyer]

Thank you very much for all your replies! I highly appreciate.


FCOM, FCTM has the guidance on Vapp just follow that. There's a provision for pilot adding extra speed but it's not for tailwind. TW increase GS which increases the ROD so a little early flare is recommended. Generally problem with long landing starts with too much initial flare. It's a visual judgment you should be breaking the descent by half i.e. 350ft/mt appx. and continue towards touchdown point and reduce a little more at 10ft. Executing direct to there's no point reducing speed, if the new track is in opposite direction you may stop acceleration by selecting speed.
On takeoff Flap optimum setting or company recommendation can be used.

My comfort zone is usually below minimum I focus outside and scan 10%. Target the aiming point , use PAPI, and and keep a steady descent angle.
However due to a lot of people I fly with, which order me to follow FD/GS below minima, I tend to fixate on it and the aiming point, usually forgetting to look at the far end of RWY to judge sink and flare input.
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't landing a visual maneuver? FCTM says when near the ground focus should be on attitude and sink rate, which I normally follow, however due to some people I am paranoid about my FD/GS when near the ground.

[Airbusenjoyer]

LOL.

Captain rolled the Vrtamax after landing. He said A320 FBW landing there is no "feeling" i.e, seat of the pants
He says its all procedural.

Another question is, during flight he opens up alpha call up and types sc1 sc2 sc3 and monitors the cabin temp from there. Cant we just use COND on lower ECAM or CRUISE page? Because he was on this page even during descent

[Denti]

Points 1 to 6, please smile and nod so you can survive the flight with that "diamond in a row" and carry on with your career. Then forget everything this guy tells you.


Time to get the like feature in this forum, would be nice to be able to use it for something like this.

[320.jockey]

Thank you very much for all your replies! I highly appreciate.




My comfort zone is usually below minimum I focus outside and scan 10%. Target the aiming point , use PAPI, and and keep a steady descent angle.
However due to a lot of people I fly with, which order me to follow FD/GS below minima, I tend to fixate on it and the aiming point, usually forgetting to look at the far end of RWY to judge sink and flare input.
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't landing a visual maneuver? FCTM says when near the ground focus should be on attitude and sink rate, which I normally follow, however due to some people I am paranoid about my FD/GS when near the ground.

Maybe a quick tip that helped me tremendously in the beginning. If you fly to runways with a LDA of 2400m+ don't use the big fat white markings as your aimpoint, as that is not where the glide slope intercepts the runway, on these runways the fat markings are at 400m, however the glide slope intercepts at around 300m, so at the smaller markings just in front of the big ones (2nd markings from the runway threshold). If you make those 2nd markings your aiming point you will stay on the glide all the way and there is no need to worry about not being on the GS when in the visual last part, as you most likely will be. Made it a lot easier for me.

Also, for me the usual tip of wandering your gaze along the runway (maybe but not necessarily towards the end) during your flare really helps in judging your closure rate and react accordingly with smooth inputs.

[Check Airman]

Your captain sounds like a micromanaging prick who eschews SOP and CRM in favour of personal techniques. I’d say nod, smile and politely ignore his “techcedures” until he becomes a pain in the ass, then have a chat with your professional standards folks. They ought to straighten him out.

[vilas]

Thank you very much for all your replies! I highly appreciate.




My comfort zone is usually below minimum I focus outside and scan 10%. Target the aiming point , use PAPI, and and keep a steady descent angle.
However due to a lot of people I fly with, which order me to follow FD/GS below minima, I tend to fixate on it and the aiming point, usually forgetting to look at the far end of RWY to judge sink and flare input.
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't landing a visual maneuver? FCTM says when near the ground focus should be on attitude and sink rate, which I normally follow, however due to some people I am paranoid about my FD/GS when near the ground.
Landing is a visual manoeuvre but low visibility, rain etc can create illusions. So if at minimum you are correctly place with GS and ROD then you shouldn't be requiring major flight path change. A glance at GS will ensure that but mainly looking outside going towards the aiming point.

[cav-not-ok]

I never thought I'd see the day that Vapp +3 or 4kts becomes a point of contention, or the accuracy level required to adjust the descent path by ~ 25fpm.

Not trying to defend the ol' chap, but 42 years of experience should bring him to around his 60s. Old farts do, what old farts do. As long as it doesn't impact flight safety, just roll with the punches.
If his "techcedures" offend you, then ask him about it. If his explanations don't satisfy you, then file a report with your local flight safety department.

[Check Airman]

Some of the best guys I’ve flown with are in their 60’s. Seems like this guy has picked up a LOT of bad habits in his 4 decades in the cockpit. I’ve never seen anyone monitor cabin temps beyond what’s presented on the ECAM.

(I did however fly with one strange fellow who didn’t find the CRUISE page sufficient, so he’d keep it on the COND page the whole time)

[Airbusenjoyer]

Your captain sounds like a micromanaging prick who eschews SOP and CRM in favour of personal techniques. I’d say nod, smile and politely ignore his “techcedures” until he becomes a pain in the ass, then have a chat with your professional standards folks. They ought to straighten him out.

Well, one of his "techcedures" is that there is no limit for THR RED / ACC ALT on PERF T/O
One day we were at a high elev airport (1800AGL) and he changed the Altitudes to 6600/6600
I asked him why? He said there is no limit and told that I sound like I am questioning his experience.
After around 3000ft he changed his mind and pulled OP CLB lol.

I never thought I'd see the day that Vapp +3 or 4kts becomes a point of contention, or the accuracy level required to adjust the descent path by ~ 25fpm.

Not trying to defend the ol' chap, but 42 years of experience should bring him to around his 60s. Old farts do, what old farts do. As long as it doesn't impact flight safety, just roll with the punches.
If his "techcedures" offend you, then ask him about it. If his explanations don't satisfy you, then file a report with your local flight safety department.

I think it's not an issue but I was asking if it was Prudent. Landing in Chiang Mai we were heavy (73T GW) and Vapp was 144, we had a 7kts tailwind and he changed the Vapp to 147
During approach he was flying, maintaining 800-900 FPM, had a sink in the middle of the glide and went briefly to 1100fpm, but corrected for it.
I was thinking why not just keep the computed Vapp since we also have a tailwind.

And one of his "techcedures" is he changes so many things in the FMS without telling his FO because experience. When I tried to ask a few things to learn more he got offended lol.

Some of the best guys I’ve flown with are in their 60’s. Seems like this guy has picked up a LOT of bad habits in his 4 decades in the cockpit. I’ve never seen anyone monitor cabin temps beyond what’s presented on the ECAM.

(I did however fly with one strange fellow who didn’t find the CRUISE page sufficient, so he’d keep it on the COND page the whole time)

Well he doesn't fly with PROG, PLAN, or PERF, he flies with Alpha Call up and types VRTAmax on 1st line, sc1 , sc2, sc3, on the following. I don't know why we need to check the landing g's of the previous crew during cruise. Would be nice to see my track miles during descent tho lol.

[Airbusenjoyer]

Nice tip! I'll try this next time. Thanks

[TheEdge]

Well, one of his "techcedures" is that there is no limit for THR RED / ACC ALT on PERF T/O
One day we were at a high elev airport (1800AGL) and he changed the Altitudes to 6600/6600
I asked him why? He said there is no limit and told that I sound like I am questioning his experience.
After around 3000ft he changed his mind and pulled OP CLB lol.



I think it's not an issue but I was asking if it was Prudent. Landing in Chiang Mai we were heavy (73T GW) and Vapp was 144, we had a 7kts tailwind and he changed the Vapp to 147
During approach he was flying, maintaining 800-900 FPM, had a sink in the middle of the glide and went briefly to 1100fpm, but corrected for it.
I was thinking why not just keep the computed Vapp since we also have a tailwind.

And one of his "techcedures" is he changes so many things in the FMS without telling his FO because experience. When I tried to ask a few things to learn more he got offended lol.



Well he doesn't fly with PROG, PLAN, or PERF, he flies with Alpha Call up and types VRTAmax on 1st line, sc1 , sc2, sc3, on the following. I don't know why we need to check the landing g's of the previous crew during cruise. Would be nice to see my track miles during descent tho lol.
Worse and worse...just speak to your flight safety guys.

[Fursty Ferret]

1. On a Tailwind landing (A320), keep the power on because you will sink fast if you cut. Is this correct?
2. He always adds 3kts to the vApp, even on tailwinds and heavy, is this prudent?
3. After takeoff and flaps retracted we got a direct, so I lowered the speed to 230kts to improve the radius of turn and climb a bit faster, he said this was wrong, I should have kept 250kts because that is Vy
4. Vy is 250kts below FL100 and 300kts above FL100
5. He keeps Wx radar tilt on climb to -2.0 and on descent to +1.5
6. On Takeoff computation he always requests runway wet and config 2, his ideology is to make the aircraft airborne asap, is this prudent?

7. And today, my landing was 1.6g. I blame myself because I didn't flare much/flared a bit late.

1. Not necessarily. Depends on the 100ft wind because you won’t get protection from GS mini. If 100ft wind is calm but surface wind is 5 knot tail, then you’ll lose 5 knots during the flare. A321 in particular is vulnerable to this. On the other hand if you have a tailwind at 100 ft but calm on the ground, then you’ll gain energy during the flare. So the real answer is “it depends”.

2. No. The correct speed is that determined by the aircraft weight with an optional and appropriate wind correction depending on conditions. You can tell with experience whether the speed in the FMGC is a bit low because the aircraft will feel a bit “weird” as it sits towards the back of the drag curve. But the correction is only a knot so who cares?

3 (and 4) Well, both best angle and best rate are weight dependent so it doesn’t matter either way. I’d have kept the speed back for the turn.

5. Personal preference. During the descent I’d want to see ground returns just past the destination so I know that there's nothing between me and the airport.

6. This is ridiculous. Wet degrades takeoff margins deliberately.

1.6g landings… everyone does crap landings from time to time, even with 10,000 hours. 1.6g is embarrassing but not going to break anything or anyone. Put it out your mind and expect to float down the runway on your next one.

[iggy]

1.6g landings… everyone does crap landings from time to time, even with 10,000 hours. 1.6g is embarrassing but not going to break anything or anyone. Put it out your mind and expect to float down the runway on your next one.

Sorry if I'm calling you a bit on this one. The OP just got 1.000 hours on type, he is still working on his confidence, and he doesn't need to put feelings into what he is doing in the cockpit, he needs to take them out of it. In his original post, the OP used the word "blame" when he talked about his landing, and now he will add "embarrassing" to the mix, even if you are telling him not to worry about it.

Please understand what I mean: you already know this because you already have plenty of experience and the proper angle, the issue is that the OP still feels that his personal validation goes hand to hand with his performance, and he thinks that because he is flying in a red-white-and-yellow toxic environment. Apart from sound advice regarding procedures, he needs to see how a real professional behaves.

Apologies to you if I'm not being able to explain myself...

[hans brinker]

Question 1 - 6, what do the FCOM, FCTM, and company ops manuals say? I'm pretty sure ours say completely different things to what your Capt does, but I'll let the TRE/TRI crowd sort it out.

Question 7. Yes you do have to flare earlier in a heavy 321 than a light 319 BUT! not by much. For me it's the difference between flaring at the "T" of the "Thirty" call (in the heavy 321), vs flaring at the "y" of the call out. Its something that only comes with experience I'm afraid, but I'm sure you'll get it. If you were given good advice by your base trainers, revert to that. I still do, after about 3,000 hours on fifi!


As I am fast approaching that age, I do my best to be able to show my fellow crew members what and why I do by referring to the company manual. As a copilot always hated flying with the guys that did things un-standard. Having said that, 10 years in the bus after 15 years and 4 other types does give me the experience to sometimes know better than whatever computer is running the show. Never in a “I always take off F2” nonsense way, but I do intervene during descent a lot.
That guy sounds like a total tool tho.

[Airbusenjoyer]

Proper angle, I'll keep that in mind.

[Fursty Ferret]

Iggy - I could have chosen a better word. I didn’t mean embarrassing in a professional sense, which a 1.6g landing isn’t. It’s a dent in your personal pride but ultimately it happens to everyone and it will keep happening for the rest of your career. As long as it’s not *every* landing it’s nothing to be concerned about.

The situation won’t be helped by flying with a captain that you’ve got to watch like a hawk because he’s not sticking to SOPs.

[VHOED191006]

This is where accidents start to occur; when pilots start to deviate from established SOPs, in favour of their own idiosyncrasies, which haven't proved to be safer, nor more effective. With this tendency to always calculate takeoff performance figures with 'wet runway' selected, say V1 for a dry runway is 140kts, whilst wet is 125kts. Let's say that runway is in fact dry, but this Captain is electing to use the wet runway calculations. If you have an engine failure/fire at, say 132kts, you are able to stop on the runway if your V1 was 140kts, not so much with 125kts. How is it safer to takeoff with a failure, all because your Captain elected to use wet runway calculations? Expect to takeoff normally but be ready and have the appropriate configuration in an event of an emergency, such as using the correct speeds.

Generally, you should trust the numbers that your landing calculator has spat out, particularly if the runway is short.

Having your engines at takeoff thrust for almost 5,000 feet is an awfully long time to have them at such setting.

I find it unacceptable if he is doing many things without telling you or without discussing it with you. How can you and your crew share the same picture/idea if you don't convey what you are doing?


Unfortunately, like others here have said, just sit down, smile and go along with it, unless it is abundantly clear to you that there is/will be an issue.

[Airbusenjoyer]

This is where accidents start to occur; when pilots start to deviate from established SOPs, in favour of their own idiosyncrasies, which haven't proved to be safer, nor more effective. With this tendency to always calculate takeoff performance figures with 'wet runway' selected, say V1 for a dry runway is 140kts, whilst wet is 125kts. Let's say that runway is in fact dry, but this Captain is electing to use the wet runway calculations. If you have an engine failure/fire at, say 132kts, you are able to stop on the runway if your V1 was 140kts, not so much with 125kts. How is it safer to takeoff with a failure, all because your Captain elected to use wet runway calculations? Expect to takeoff normally but be ready and have the appropriate configuration in an event of an emergency, such as using the correct speeds.

Generally, you should trust the numbers that your landing calculator has spat out, particularly if the runway is short.

Having your engines at takeoff thrust for almost 5,000 feet is an awfully long time to have them at such setting.

I find it unacceptable if he is doing many things without telling you or without discussing it with you. How can you and your crew share the same picture/idea if you don't convey what you are doing?


Unfortunately, like others here have said, just sit down, smile and go along with it, unless it is abundantly clear to you that there is/will be an issue.



Thanks for your input. You are spot on with the V1 on wet vs dry.

Landing VOR he went fully managed, and after FINAL APP engagement I was waiting for him to set GA altitude. So as we had RWY in sight and moments before flying manual, I reminded him politely to set the GA ALT. After landing he scolded me a bit, said I seem like I was flexing my knowledge and thinking that he doesnt know what to do.

There is no CRM. It's either his way or no way. We were landing in a CAVOK RWY with normal winds and he immediately dropped the gear down, flap 3, full without me asking. We were not heavy, high, fast nor asked to slow down. After landing he noticed I was very quiet and annoyed and he said, "Don't be mad I dropped the gear down, it's better we get early stabilized"


Anyway this begs the question, would it be better to just make the other person feel comfortable flying with you with whatever he does and roll with the punches as long as there is no flight safety involved, or be standard but assertive?

[sonicbum]

Thanks for your input. You are spot on with the V1 on wet vs dry.

Landing VOR he went fully managed, and after FINAL APP engagement I was waiting for him to set GA altitude. So as we had RWY in sight and moments before flying manual, I reminded him politely to set the GA ALT. After landing he scolded me a bit, said I seem like I was flexing my knowledge and thinking that he doesnt know what to do.

There is no CRM. It's either his way or no way. We were landing in a CAVOK RWY with normal winds and he immediately dropped the gear down, flap 3, full without me asking. We were not heavy, high, fast nor asked to slow down. After landing he noticed I was very quiet and annoyed and he said, "Don't be mad I dropped the gear down, it's better we get early stabilized"


Anyway this begs the question, would it be better to just make the other person feel comfortable flying with you with whatever he does and roll with the punches as long as there is no flight safety involved, or be standard but assertive?

Hi,

reading your posts the first thing that comes to my mind is that this guy never went through a proper command upgrade process and probably sold himself as a Captain thanks to the many flaws that unfortunately are possible in today’s globalized aviation. This type of attitude is typical of someone who is not comfortable in what he’s doing and lacks proper techniques of communication as he was probably a self made left seater. Another option is that he upgraded in a very very dodgy outfit but that basically goes back to the same results as above.
Any instructor/examiner with a little bit of experience is able to spot those kind of behaviors of people that are in the wrong seat and sometimes in the wrong part of the aircraft.

With that being said to answer your question:
It’s all based on proper communication and briefings and this goes both ways regardless of who is actually PF/PM. It is very important to describe briefly or more in depth depending on the complexity of the approach how this will actually be flown, I.e. from a straight forward home base ILS planning to be stable checks done at the latest by 1000 fr to a more complex approach with weather etc.. where we will discuss gates for configurations. Remember it’s all about having 2 pilots fly like 1, sharing the same picture or mental model at all times during the flight.

[william0203usa]

Really? The safety department is linked to the AIDS menu, MAN REQ REPORTS 15? Are they also linked when a pilot or mtx pulls a report 14 or 13? I'd love to see a reference for that.

[FlightDetent]

Welcome to the forum, you deserve a break from that ape. Goodspeed.

Much worse than you assume, even. I.e. using wet numbers on a dry runway is an AFM breach (screen height and TOD calculation).



For your landings, use the FCOM/FCTM diagram. Your visual aiming point is always 297/300 m from the threshold. Runway markers and PAPI could be all over the place, namely the easterly RWY in Ho Chi Minh is 450 mtrs. Learn to use PAPI and the makers as guidance until a wise moment but no longer, then identify the true aiming point, eyeball it and fly the plane there.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Really? The safety department is linked to the AIDS menu, MAN REQ REPORTS 15? Are they also linked when a pilot or mtx pulls a report 14 or 13? I'd love to see a reference for that.
That's operator-specific, depending on what the individual airline wanted. Keep in mind that even if the department in question is "linked" to the report in question, that does not necessarily mean that a human actually looks at each report, only means the ability is there.

[Airbusenjoyer]

Thanks for all your replies.

Another question, why does the A321 NEO tend to nose drop after closing the thrust during flare?
Even if the CG is around middle or aft side.

FCOM says on NEOs, flare mode begins at 100FT, what's the reason for this?

Thanks

[Fursty Ferret]

Another question, why does the A321 NEO tend to nose drop after closing the thrust during flare?
Even if the CG is around middle or aft side.

Flare mode on the A321 NEO is a direct stick to elevator law, not the altered normal law that the older A321s (and all A32x series have, really). So you gain a pitch/power couple which you need to control with additional back pressure.

Normal law resists pitch changes by targeting zero pitch rate, with another loop to maintain 1g flight (the FCOM gives a simplified overview, but at lower speeds it’s actually a pitch rate law because otherwise you end up with PIO due to the lag between input and response). In order to land you “need” the nose down order generated by the flare law otherwise you’ll start climbing again.

You can try this in the simulator by entering abnormal attitude law and then landing (this leaves you in pitch alternate law for landing), or by leaving the gear up. It’s quite interesting to see and worth the time.

[Uplinker]

Even today there are CRM challenged pilots like your Captain still flying. They might be - or have been - competent with flying generally, on previous types and more basic aircraft; but they might be doing what they do because they don't fully understand the Airbus - (There are many pilots who think the Airbus auto-thrust and GS mini goes wrong with changing approach winds for example, when actually it operates opposite to the Boeing system).

Normally no need to override or modify Airbus GS mini.

I once spent ages trying to find out why my Captain had wanted to continue an ILS approach underneath three enormous CBs, rather than holding off and waiting for them to move away. On the flight home, I showed him diagrams of micro bursts that were in the company manuals, along with the clear instruction to avoid them, and asked why he had disregarded that instruction. I tried to find out what was in his mind, and why he had wanted to take the risk. I never got a convincing answer, and I don't think he was competent. (In the event we had to go around anyway, for other reasons, and the company went into administration soon afterwards, so I could not pursue it).

Avoid if possible but if you can't, go with the flow at your stage - unless the guy is going to kill you, in which case you have to take control.

[meleagertoo]

This guy sounds like me to be an ex Boing analogue dinosaur who (at best) didn't/wouldn't understand the airbus philosophy during his conversion and hasn't been subjected to enough Professional FOs to question his methods on the line.
At worst he is the sort of analogue dinosaur who imagines he actually knows better than Airbus and all their computers - and is thus in dire need of a frank discussion with Flight Standards.
DO NOT 'go with the flow', that is how mavericks like this continue to harrass FOs and lead them into bad habits too. Have a quiet word with someone sympathetic that you can speak to in the Training Office and explain your concerns without sounding accusatory or intent on 'shopping' him.
People like this need to have their attitudes realigned, they are not doing anyone any favours at all and you and your colleagues are doing no-one any favours by letting them carry on.
Remember. You too hold a Professional flying licence and are bound by all that entails. It is your duty to address this matter. Tactfully and sensitively, but address it you must.

You need the courage of your convictions. I once was put in a position where I was forced to report a "captain" who resolutely and continuously refused toeven bother with, let alone adhere to checklists, apply SOPs and behaved as an autocratic one-man multi-fingered switch-flicker without engaging the FO in the process at all. The company was a disgracefully unprofessional one and my observations were made public and despite many FO's privately agreeing with my points I was ostracised as a 'sneak'. That pilot should never have had a flying licence for a Cessna but there he was "in charge' of a 737. He had four rings and I was just dirt. Fortunately the company deservedly went bust at about the same time and I commenced the rest of my career with a responsible outfit.
Moral? Be prepared for this to backfire on you - but if you are a true Professsional it is your duty, that is DUTY to flight safety and your passengers to act and accept any adverse consequences with Professional patience. The world will move on and you with it as a better, wiser and above all a more confidently Professional pilot. If your company is properly run none of the above adverse comments will apply.

[Airbusenjoyer]

Fursty Ferret
I've read somewhere that even on the A320 series, flare mode is a direct stick-to-elevator relationship? Is this correct?
What is the reason that Airbus decided to activate the flare law at 100' for NEOs instead of 50? Some people answered me its due to the aerodynamics of the bigger nacelle/heavier weight.

I'm not yet that experienced but I know that continous descent is preferred with thrust idle if able, this guy keeps switching between VS, DES, and OP DES in a time table of 10s. One time engine spooled up cause we were on OP DES and he selected a V/S of +500, this was on descent. I cant help but shake my head.

meleagertoo
I heard Airbus is against the "autocratic" cockpit and this can be evidenced by whats written on the manuals itself. Is Boeing philosophy the same?

Uplinker
Have you ever had an incident where the programmed GS mini was insufficient and you had to add kts?

[Check Airman]

Re GS mini- happens all the time. Sometimes we’re a bit heavier than we think we are, and the target speed is sitting right on top of Vls. In that case most (but not all) people increase it to get a 5kt gap.

[FlightDetent]

Crikey. Tell me you don't have a clue about a feature without telling me you don't have a clue about a feature.

[vilas]

Have you ever had an incident where the programmed GS mini was insufficient and you had to add kts?
​​​​​​​How does one know GS mini is insufficient? Any increase in headwind increases the target Vapp. In tailwind it flies the Vapp. May be rapid change of head wind to tailwind gives an illusion that speed is dropping but it's behaving as designed because the target itself is reducing.

[FlightDetent]

Vilas, he's not implying it ever is, just trying to confirm if perhaps his lunatic instructor was actually correct about some random small piece among all the trash.

Honest work from the student, hope it balances the suffering a bit.

I subscribe to the 'self educated' and self promoted theory here.

​​​​

[Check Airman]

Crikey. Tell me you don't have a clue about a feature without telling me you don't have a clue about a feature.

What’s wrong with bumping the Vapp up a few knots?

[vilas]

What’s wrong with bumping the Vapp up a few knots?
Do it by all means but it shouldn't cause any discomfort if you didn't.

[FlightDetent]

I read the post as if GS-mini reduced the target speed too much, and thus a manual add-on is sought.

On that level I honestly refuse to engage.

[Fursty Ferret]

​​​​Crikey. Tell me you don't have a clue about a feature without telling me you don't have a clue about a feature.​​​

Not sure what GS-mini has to do with this since in general it’ll have you flying faster than the minimum Vapp.

As long as it’s not routine I can’t see the problem with adding a couple of knots. My operator went down the “trust the load sheet” line, but it’s pretty obvious when the calculated approach speed is a little too low.

The aircraft (especially the A321) tends to wallow around and is very quick to decelerate further but reluctant to accelerate, even with a large thrust input. None of the Airbus series are happy about you entering the flare a few knots slow as I can vouch for from personal experience.

[vilas]

What was entered as ZFW shouldn't matter once Approach is activated because after that Vapp is not estimated but calculated. Following was a bulletin from Airbus.

GW and CG values are computed from entered ZFW and ZFWCG corrected for the predicted FOB and CG variation. When the Approach phase is activated, the characteristic speeds are recomputed using the actual weight and CG.The performance model used to compute the characteristic speeds, is accurate enough to provide speed errors of less than ± 2 kt from the certified speeds.

[Fursty Ferret]

GW and CG values are computed from entered ZFW and ZFWCG corrected for the predicted FOB and CG variation. When the Approach phase is activated, the characteristic speeds are recomputed using the actual weight and CG.The performance model used to compute the characteristic speeds, is accurate enough to provide speed errors of less than ± 2 kt from the certified speeds.

I believe that although this modification is incorporated in the latest FAC standards (or was it in an FMGS update?), it's not mandated for retrofit, so a large fleet will have varied setups. Nevertheless it's obvious when the aircraft is slightly slow and I don't think it's unreasonable to increase the speed slightly in those circumstances.

Airbus have to cover themselves from a regulatory point of view and their guidance is just that, guidance. On a 3000m runway there is little risk in increasing Vapp by 2 knots, provided it's taken into account in the performance. Doing it routinely because your landing technique is wrong is a different matter.

[enzino]

What was entered as ZFW shouldn't matter once Approach is activated because after that Vapp is not estimated but calculated. Following was a bulletin from Airbus.

GW and CG values are computed from entered ZFW and ZFWCG corrected for the predicted FOB and CG variation. When the Approach phase is activated, the characteristic speeds are recomputed using the actual weight and CG.The performance model used to compute the characteristic speeds, is accurate enough to provide speed errors of less than ± 2 kt from the certified speeds.
Could you please provide a link to this bulletin?

I made part of my approach prep routine to compare GW with GW FK in the AIDS page and add 1 note for every tonne of difference up to 3-4 kts.

[vilas]

Could you please provide a link to this bulletin?

I made part of my approach prep routine to compare GW with GW FK in the AIDS page and add 1 note for every tonne of difference up to 3-4 kts.
There's no need to develop personal procedures. A few knots less or more is within the accuracy of the system itself. If it mattered Airbus would say so. In Airbus Flare is purely a visual judgment since there's no aerodynamic feel in the stick. A little more or a little less pull on the stick is all that's required. All these extra additions are just personal comfort factors in reality. That everyone doesn't do it is the proof that it's not required. How accurate is your BUSS with which you fly in unreliable speed? Or the latest Digital Back up Speed which has replaced the BUSS is a calculated speed and is accurate within 15kts. So no need to go overboard with one or two tones knots. You achieve nothing.

[hikoushi]

Airbus allows the flight crew to manually adjust Vapp to compensate for wind effects that GS mini is not well-tuned to capture. GS mini works best in steady wind gradients and normal gusts, but sometimes gets a little behind phase in sudden shears. This is really going to be environmental based on conditions or local knowledge, and as previously stated not to adjust a faulty landing technique on a calm day. To quote Airbus:

“In some situations (e.g. gusty conditions or strong crosswind), the flight crew may choose a higher VAPP than the AFS computation as good airmanship”.


https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/control-your-speed-during-descent-approach-and-landing/

[vilas]

There was never any doubt that pilots can increase upto 15kts in gusty conditions. We were talking about nitpicking a few knots for the heck of it.
Firsty ferret and enzino see below:

FCOM 22_20-40-10 OPTIMISATION
The FMGC uses the performance model and either the predicted landing weight or the current gross weight at transition to the approach phase to compute approach speeds (VLS, VAPP, F, S, Green Dot).

[enzino]

Thanks Vilas. I will pay close attention to it.

[FlightDetent]

This particular topic can be discuses from many angles. Except the GS mini connected one, of course.


​​

[vilas]

If you increase the ZFW value inserted in Init B in flight, you will see the VLS going up.
​​​​​​​You need to try changing ZFW after activating approach before that it comes from MCDU. However a lot of changes are taking place no doubt. Anyway this is a digrasion. The point is nothing is achieved by trying to be accurate about LW to the last ton to get Vapp.

[pineteam]

Sorry Vilas I did not see your reply and deleted my previous post as it was off topic.
I totally agree with you tho. =)