Standard Approach Briefing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: san diego
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard Approach Briefing
Am in the process of re-writing our standard calls and briefings........have used one similar to that of Air Canada's in the past..
Would anyone like to share their current Air Canada approach briefing or one similar in nature.
Thanks!
Would anyone like to share their current Air Canada approach briefing or one similar in nature.
Thanks!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: center if NA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine info is in my Ops manual for the company i fly with, as far as i know most companies have there own way for this..
But check with the company you are going to fly with or fly with..
But check with the company you are going to fly with or fly with..
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “....most companies have there own way for this..”
Why? I have wondered why each company has its own version of SOP’s and similar items. Every time there is a change of Chief Pilot the whole lot gets revised yet again. Why? Surely there should be one country-wide set of SOP’s for operating a specific type of aircraft. This should be approved by both the maker and TC and should be identical at every company in Canada that operates that particular type of aircraft. Instead, when changing jobs, it is necessary to try to unlearn one set and learn another, just to fly the identical aircraft.
The same should apply with approach briefings. The format should track through from the bottom, from textbooks such as From the Ground Up, continue upwards and be used by every air operator in Canada, There should be no need to have different formats at different companies.
Why? I have wondered why each company has its own version of SOP’s and similar items. Every time there is a change of Chief Pilot the whole lot gets revised yet again. Why? Surely there should be one country-wide set of SOP’s for operating a specific type of aircraft. This should be approved by both the maker and TC and should be identical at every company in Canada that operates that particular type of aircraft. Instead, when changing jobs, it is necessary to try to unlearn one set and learn another, just to fly the identical aircraft.
The same should apply with approach briefings. The format should track through from the bottom, from textbooks such as From the Ground Up, continue upwards and be used by every air operator in Canada, There should be no need to have different formats at different companies.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: "como todo buen piloto... mujeriego y borracho"
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A cute and noble idea, however, I can't even see the manufacturers agreeing.
I can count alone three calls for not continuing a takeoff-roll, from various companies and manufacturers over the course of my career:
1) Reject!
2) Abort!
3) Stop!
And we are just discussing the debate on the use of one word.
I can count alone three calls for not continuing a takeoff-roll, from various companies and manufacturers over the course of my career:
1) Reject!
2) Abort!
3) Stop!
And we are just discussing the debate on the use of one word.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: inside of a pretty bustard
Age: 53
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as pilot in command you call stop in the cockpit, and after that , for tower the call is aborted or rejected take off, however it was a thread some months ago about this situation.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the balmy beautiful south
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airman13...you obviously have a very narrow knowledge of airline procedures.
Many airlines also use "Reject" or "Abort" as the cockpit call-out for a rejected take-off. To me "Stop" seems less appropriate than the other two words, but would still be acceptable as a SOP.
Many airlines also use "Reject" or "Abort" as the cockpit call-out for a rejected take-off. To me "Stop" seems less appropriate than the other two words, but would still be acceptable as a SOP.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DHC6
you also have a very small knowledge of aviation around the world
Many UK Cie if not all ,as well of some Cie in Asia are using STOP
which is faster to say and it is know by everybody and it make sens
Myself I worked for different Cie using those words and I prefer using STOP
but unfortunatly now I work for a Cie using REJECT so I follow the SOP
you also have a very small knowledge of aviation around the world
Many UK Cie if not all ,as well of some Cie in Asia are using STOP
which is faster to say and it is know by everybody and it make sens
Myself I worked for different Cie using those words and I prefer using STOP
but unfortunatly now I work for a Cie using REJECT so I follow the SOP
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the balmy beautiful south
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LindbergB767 - My rebuttal to your post is self-explanatory if you reread the previous three posts and have a normal comprehension of the English language.
On a side note, just because the Brits do it a certain way doesn't make it right for everyone else.
On a side note, just because the Brits do it a certain way doesn't make it right for everyone else.
Quoted from Doc 9432, ICAOs Manual of Radiotelephony.
4.5.12 When a pilot abandons the take-off manoeuvre, the control tower should be so informed as soon as practicable, and assitance or taxi instructions should be requested as required.
FASTAIR 345 STOPPING
If anyone is a little fuzzy on why we should follow ICAO phraseology, it's because we kill fewer people that way.
4.5.12 When a pilot abandons the take-off manoeuvre, the control tower should be so informed as soon as practicable, and assitance or taxi instructions should be requested as required.
FASTAIR 345 STOPPING
If anyone is a little fuzzy on why we should follow ICAO phraseology, it's because we kill fewer people that way.
