Centaurus-
It is 12 Inches at idle.

:ok:

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

Only if keg is the mod

:}

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

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

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

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

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

morno

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly, that was going to be my question also.

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

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

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

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

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

Having flown both
 

Airbus = both heads in
Boeing = one head in

Regards
Exeng

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

Havick
 

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Exeng

Also flown both ++
 

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