that just won't happen for all sorts of circular 'legalistic' reasons that relate to the 'chain of command' ='chain of culpubility'
In short- the buck stops in the LHS!
But Wiley is 'on to it'-he/she is taking a more global approach to a systemic pre-flight problem.
And he's/she's absolutely correct!
We've allowed ourselves to be progressively compromised over the years to accepting
-interuppted briefings
-dispatchers with '2 ways' on max volume bursting onto the flight deck
etc etc
now some need to be there-
engineers have no-where else to go to sign off the tech log
FA's need to get tea/coffee orders
But it's typically mayhem....
We've all seen it-tried to manage it amongst revised slots, de-ice etc etc
but in the midst of that don't go finger wagging 'cos someone cocks-up a data entry on a single day.
It really deserves some attention-given we spend so much time and money on CRM
Vino over and out.....:E

...he's a he actually! :ok:

Interesting rule of thumb iflytb20, havent heard of it yet :) I would think however it only works if you use standard speeds and not improved climb speeds which can easily lead to 160kt+ Vr for 50t weights (-3/-7 obviously).

Thanks Schnowzer, that's interesting.

I would have another question :
Using the laptop for the performances, can you force an input value such as CONF 1+F ?
... and again what would have been the Vr and FLEX values ?

All good stuff,

Must be some lessons to be learnt.

When I go shopping, a small basket=$10, big basket=$20, small trolly=$40, big trolly=$60+, I don't always check the bill detail, but I check the bill zone.

Brings to mind an old story of an Air Florida 737 departing IAD I think, poss 1982 may be, they got reqd EPR IND but less N1 and thrust than needed, result was bad.

I liked the previous post of a wide guage plate just like the ones for other systems likes Flaps nd Gear on some aircrafts.

I've said it before, well done to the crew involved, great end result, only hope we learn the lessons and make flying even more safe.

Edit. Thinking on, I wonder how many similar type events have been saved from the press by crew Stopping or TOGA being applied when crew aware things are not what they might be, may be !!!

Does anyone have this info?
I'm like an old dog with a bone and am still keen to see if a cheap as chips plaque could have made a difference on this particular flight when they knew their weight but the speeds were wrong.
I think that is a bit too simplistic (with all due respect Obie) because of the vast range of attitudes towards SOP's and also the range of ability between different crews. Some people I fly with are naturally masters of maintaining SA and recognising when a distraction has occurred, others bumble along letting the distraction push in on the situation and constantly saying "where were we?". Both of these types are trying to stick to SOP's but the latter is not as capable as the former.
I agree with the sentiment that attention needs to be brought to ...bear?.. beer? ...bare on the flightdeck environment when these calculations/briefings are being done. I often observe ground staff bursting into the flightdeck having started their questions and statements without regard to what is happening inside. I don't blame them, they have obviously not been trained properly. A ten minute video on the consequences of distractions at this stage of preparations would probably do the trick.
I'm learning a lot from this thread,
Regards, Framer

Aviation Reports[G]skins%2ftaicAviation%2fskin_aviation

Lucky there wasn't an EMAS at the end of RWY 16.....

A very good point and one I pondered before !


Great to stop an overunning Aircraft, not so good when you are struggling to lift off !

LPC Laptops
 

A belated answer to post #858 by CONFiture:

YES, you can force the laptop into any approved take-off configuration.
It will provide the applicable figures, if a valid solution is available, or it will make clear that with the selected conditions, take-off is not possible.

Often airline managements will obligate the crews to use the OPTIMUM configuration output, because they fall for the word OPTIMUM.

In the instructions for the performance programs, you can read what the meaning is of the OPTIMUM CONFIG: it is the configuration, which will enable the highest lift capacity under the entered conditions, when using FULL THRUST.
The configuration that is thus determined will also be labelled OPTIMUM under conditions of reduced thrust.
The configuration that is labelled OPTIMUM often, but not always, also provides the highest lift capacity with reduced thrust. However, many times the assumed temperature that rolls out at lower flap settings is the same, or just 1 degree lower, than for the OPTIMUM CONFIG.

Often, the performance based maximum mass that can be lifted off a runway is far above the structural mass limit of the aircraft. Often, the differences between the Optimum and the other configurations amount to just a few hundred or a few thousand kilo’s, with all configuration providing performance far above the structural limit (FULL THRUST condition)

Yes, it is true that a higher performance limited mass gives you more margin in case of an engine failure, but seriously, a few hundred kilo’s difference on a total of more than 350 tonnes is not gonna give you much extra margin.

Realizing that the performance of the lower flap settings is hardly any less ON THE RUNWAY, it may be worthwhile to look at the performance once airborne. The climb performance with CONF 3 (an approved landing flap setting!) of course is abysmal, compared to a climb out with CONF 1.
The management bean counters should have a look at the amount of fuel that could be saved by the better climb performance! Than they would quickly reconsider their insistence on the use of laptop derived OPTIMUM CONFigurations.

Using minimum flap for take-off and only more flap when required for performance, would make it easier for crews to establish a mental reference of what is normal in terms of speeds for a certain mass (but yes, I know that also in fixed flap operations, errors are made).

P.S. This post is not a sneer at Airbus, their performance instructors properly explain the use of the laptop procedures, it is airline managements that order the improper use of the equipment.

Next point.

One important phrase from the ATSB preliminary report is about the use of the laptop(s). One laptop was used, the other was kept as spare, in case of breakdown of the first one. WRONG WRONG WRONG!
If pilot 1 closes the laptop and pilot 2 opens it again, to check the calculation, he will be staring at a screen with all the numbers as filled in by number 1! When glancing over numbers as a check, it is easy to overlook errors.

Pilot 2 should have autonomously filled in numbers on his own laptop and pilots 1 and 2 should have compared the outcome of their respective calculations. In that way, there would have been a comparison of independent calculations.

I do not know what the Emirates SOP’s were with respect to laptop use.

EMIT, thank you for your interesting extensive answer.

If I understand it well, by using the LPC laptop, crews end up using CONF 3 when most of the time 2 or even 1, for a mere flex degree or even a single knot, would be as good if not better.
So I’m glad we’re still old fashion by using the paper performance charts where it is definitely easier to keep an overall view. And I can hardly see anyone entering a paper chart 100 tonnes off !?
Also, with a book, one guy extracts some figures, then closes the book. When ready the other guy proceeds with its own independent calculation, usually both results don’t even differ enough to worth mention.

Exactly, CONFiture, and indeed we even do not use the OFP as a bookmark to the "correct" runway page, so that the other guy will really start from scratch in his independant performance calculation.

Great post EMIT
The other thing people should remember that the Green Dot speed displayed on the MCDU perf takeoff page is calculated using the TOW in the MCDU init-b Page.

If you press F9 on the LPC then it generates a Perf takeoff page with a Green Dot speed calculated usig the TOW entered in the LPC.

Assuming your loadsheet too MCDU check is water tight, the Green Dot speeds must be the same. IF NOT WHY?????? This is if you use 1 or 10 laptops.

Question from the other end
 

It went all the time through my mind, and I could dark remember that I heard it on a course:

A345 AMM


This FCPC law is engaged during rotation phase.
A pitch demand depending on pitch rate and side stick position is added to the ground law orders.
This law avoids tail strike if there is a side stick input from the pilot.

How the guys got managed to override this ?

Why Laptop 'Optimum' is Often Wise
 

EMIT, while you clearly understand a bit of the background with the laptop, you're a little 'off' on that response. That's not the reason why some companies choose to recommend the OPTIMUM setting for FLAP at all on Airbus FBW.

Many Airbus operators know the background for OPTIMUM (as you correctly say it's the flap setting that allows the theoretical max weight to be lifted off the runway...)

BUT they are NOT necessarily 'falling' for anything by choosing OPTIMUM as a standard procedure.

No. The simple reason is this; if OPTIMUM were NOT used by the crew, it leaves the process open to pilots making a large number of laptop calculations... fiddling with various flap settings (1/2/3) while they 'explore the envelope' to see what the max flex is. That's probably NOT a good idea. Why?

Because MORE laptop calculations for a single takeoff, means a GREATER chance of a MISTAKE :eek:

Using OPTIMUM CUTS DOWN the number of calculations... and makes it clear to crew they are not supposed to run calculations at various flap settings to find the max flex.

Considering the minimum financial gains from using a flex value a degree or two greater... clearly running more than one calculation to maximize flex is really a waste of time. Particularly when unnecessary calculations can add significantly to the risk.

Some airlines might be better off using TOGA everywhere... (when even one event costs millions of dollars and (mis)use of flex is often a factor).

Although this is not likely a practical solution in management's eyes, because that airline may be ridiculed in the industry, TOGA everywhere might still be safer. Considering the number of events which would have successful takeoffs, instead of running into the grass at the end of the runway (before finally getting airborne).

Worth thinking about.

I am a bit confused here : Is the computer handling things that differently from FCOM ???
The main two FCOM procedures are :

• Use the conf giving the max flex.
• If equivalent flex is obtained, choose the conf giving the lowest speeds.

My assumption is the computer is doing just that ... am I correct ?

So this is not possible to maximize flex more than the computer already did, but as EMIT mentioned, it is sometimes possible for the same flex or one only marginally lower, to reduce the conf and therefore significantly improve the climb performance.

How Airbus LPC Program Chooses Optimum Flap Setting
 

Internal-programming causes the Airbus LPC (Less Paper Cockpit) program, as far as Flap setting goes when OPTIMUM is left as the default, to choose the Flap setting that allows the maximum aircraft weight to be lifted off the runway.

For example, say the actual aircraft weight for takeoff is only 175T. The LPC program will calculate what Flap setting could lift 230T (or perhaps even more) and use the Flap setting for that 230T figure (disregarding the fact that the actual weight plugged into the laptop is much less).

What some pilots will then do, is go into the program and play around with the Flap setting to see if they can get a greater Flex (and use less thrust).

Why they do that, I don't know. Generally not wise, unless choosing a greater Flap setting for other reasons, such as tail clearance to avoid a tailstrike (FCTM contains text guidance that tail clearance is increased with a greater Flap setting - but tailstrike is really not a problem if SOPs are followed, anyway).

Playing with LPC flap settings is against FCOM SOP guidance (at a number of companies) is likely of little benefit (as far as we pilots are concerned) because pilots do not get paid extra for doing additional calculations with different flap settings. In fact, they may actually be punished for playing around with the Flap setting in the LPC... if they make a calculation or other mistake as a result.

If it ain't broke, don't :mad: with it. Safer for the career.

Your statement, allthough not wrong, goes along with the trend in aviation. Personally I find it lacking aviation common sense.
First of all, it is not merely "playing" with flap setting if a pilot choses another setting. As it seems to be against SOP, it shows that the issuers know as little about that matter than the pilots adhering to them religiously.
You rightly pointed out that the computer goes for the setting giving the most weight in relation to the lowest power setting. That's what it is programmed to do, point. The pilot however can take into consideration much more than that. For example surface condition. With an extremely rough surface he can go for a higher flap setting, as to get airborne earlier. If there are no obstacles impeding such a choice, it might be even the safer one. So why would SOP interdict that?? If windshears are predicted, icing or turbulence at low level, the pilot might opt for a lower flap setting as to get better climb performance and better power/drag ratios. If the runway is long enough and no other parameters against such a choice, why shouldn't the pilot be allowed to chose such a setting??
It all comes down to knowledge of aerodynamics and performance of your aircraft, because this raises the overall awareness of what might happen and what the values should look like. If we just punch in some numbers, and we all agree that this can go wrong, and we are only allowed to do exactly this, then we need zillions of crosschecks so it will never go wrong, instead of the good old gut feeling that this just doesn't look right.

Another point. I stated earlier that with the computers at EK, you could chose another flap setting. However you cannot chose a lesser flex/assumed temperature. This forces you to take either the lowest possible (proposed flex) or the highest possible (Max). Again, if some windshears are predicted, a low level inversion etc. etc. and you are light, the max power is not a very astute choice. Neither is the max flex . If you could reduce the flex by 5 to 10 degrees, you would be able to add a healthy and safe margin. The only way to build in a inbetween safer margin, with EKs procedure, would be to increase the weight input into the laptop. But you don't want to do that in the FMS because you'll get wrong trim settings. So there goes the crosscheck with greendot or Vref!!!! So it is very much not SOP, thus very much not recommended. With a editable flex/ass temp, this crosscheck remains fully in charge, as the procedure is consistent with laptop program, FMS and loadsheet, thus perfectly legal and safe.

I would love a more flexible programm, with a more flexible SOP as to get TO performance. It would raise not only the pilots awareness, but just as much the safety level.

Isn't there always someone who wants to rewrite the manual?

A 'wannabe' FOM or FSM?

I think Pool is one of these.

Just apply SOPs, Mate!

They were written by smarter people than you! :ok:

Oh dear Obie, or should I write Odie?


A lot of noise and praise for the powers in charge, but no own analysis of the matter.
If any proposal of change or raising a question as to the viability of procedures concerning safety just creates your pathetic " ... follow the SOPs, they're written by smarter people than you ..." , then you have put yourself in a very low corner of aviation professionalism.

Just stay there and I hope we never meet in the real world ...... Mate!!

Sorry, Obie, but your non-critical faith in those who write SOPs is entirely misplaced.

I have personally re-written sections of manuals as an FO, and had them published to the manual; challenged Boeing performance parameters and had Oz legislation changed as a result; been asked to write SOPs when I didn't have the skills, and declined; and seen quadruple SOPs for the same machine dictating four different procedures. The classic was a certain US manufacturer stating that on a certain three engine aircraft the statistical possibility of a double engine failure was too miniscule to write a procedure for ! ! Too many times I've bitten my tongue at operational stupidities.

I find your acceptance of everything in print frightening.

Pilots must first of all think. Follow SOPs as best they can when all is going well because it makes the cockpit an easier place to work in, but have a deeper well of knowledge & experience to draw on, hopefully, when the proverbial hits the spinning bits.

Rules are for the guidance of wise men, etc.

I also agree with pool : work with your head first !
On top of that, what he mentions is part of the FCOM, and the first thing to do to apply SOP's is to respect the FCOM.

From the FCOM, one of the two possibilities to improve the takeoff performance is to :
Move towards the left side of the takeoff chart (tailwind) while remaining with the same configuration and looking for the same actual takeoff weight.
This produces a lower flexible temperature and, in general, lower takeoff speeds.
Isn't it possible with the laptop to apply such recommendation ?

More LPC trivia
 

Hello Pool. Your comment;

At operators I have observed, it often IS the pilot playing around to get the max flex (even when greater flex [i.e. less thrust] is not really in his own career best interest).

Really, why bother saving a few flex degrees? A greater flex is not really in your best interests as far as career prospects go (ask the MEL guys). And you will NOT get a medal from the Company.

Because they don't care.

Now, if you want to use a different Flap setting for reasons such as windshear, rough runway etc. Sure. Use common sense. And for the most part, the books will back you up on those scenarios.

Probably not a good idea to make unnecessary calculations just to get a greater flex, that's all. Especially at operators where dual calculations are required. 3x calculations each = 6 calculations (and a lot of extra chatter).

It's up to you of course. But don't be surprised if you wander away from the Optimum setting, and make unnecessary calculations followed by an error.

Might not look good in the ensuing investigation :=

@AirBusted320:

I don't want a greater Flex, I want a lesser Flex!!
If you would read my post correctly, I am talking about wanting a bigger safety margin, with a smaller Flex setting, between the Opt (maximum) Flex and Max Thrust ......


@CONF iture:

Your proposition works with tables. With the laptop it is more delicate and not advisable. When inserting a different wind (more tailwind), you might get a different flap setting. You would have to insert/block the flap at the proposed setting and then insert more tailwind. I personally don't like such procedures, again for awareness reasons. Inputs should always be whats really on and happening. Additionally we don't see behind all the programming and might end up with unpleasant results if we try tricking Microsoft!!
Inserting a lesser and deliberately desired Flex would be clear, clean and safe. All other required inputs are correct, I just want a little less assumed temperature as to obtain a little more thrust/safety margin with all inputs on the laptop AND the FMS correct, thus crosschecking possible and correct aswell.

All the discussion is interesting but...


Where is the aircraft?

What is the final disposition?

Is it being worked on?

Scrap in MEL, repair in TLS?

Busbert,

The aircraft is still sitting outside the John Holland hangar in MEL,
looking right at it as I type.

No idea about the other questions though

Derab

Flexible FLEX
 

On post #878.

Pool, obviously, different operators have enabled or disabled available features in the interface of the LPC.
In my outfit, you would get a list of all possible thrust settings, from TOGA down to the max FLEX temp that still provided a safe take-off. Of course, standard procedure was to use the maximum amount of FLEX, but it was possible (and not outright prohibited) to FLEX a little less if you deemed that necessary. Of course, for all the FLEX temps, LPC would list the applicable take-off speeds.

One such an option that may be locked out is the mass and balance module - how many of you guys make a manual loadsheet on the LPC? Some people might argue that it would be much to dangerous to do that, loadsheets should be made by an automated process in which check-in data (from scanned boarding cards) are loaded into the loadsheet program without human interference. Funny though that the error than hides in a simple transcription error of 100 tons. I a pilot makes a transcription error in a manual loadsheet and, for instance, makes an error of 100 passengers, then the mass error would only be 8.800 kg (males) or 7.000 kg (females), or even just 1.500 kg for 100 bags. Not quite such a dramatic error.

Airbusted320
The notion that there is risk involved in viewing different flap settings is wrong. All the solutions that the LPC provides, are valid, that means, safe. If there is risk in "calculating" more than once, then what do you do: always use wet runway, so you don't need to redo the numbers when it starts to rain? Never pick up the most recent ATIS, because you might have to redo the numbers? Not accept LMC's, because the numbers have to be reworked? Not accept a change of runways after you have commenced taxiing?
The safe way is, both pilots must calculate a solution independently and compare their outcomes - they must be identical.
As a commander, you could "experiment" as much as you like, not every experiment has to be double checked by the co-pilot. Only the configuration that you are going to use, will have to be double checked. e.g. Yes, I have checked that intersection, performance from there is not adequate, we will take the full runway length. Because wind is light and variable, I have used 5 knots tail component. Compare outcome, slightly different, oh, I see, you have used take-off mass from the flight plan, actual mass is a little heavier, here check it on the loadsheet. That sort of work.

It's good to see some professional discussion again appearing in this thread.

Reason for edit: typo (forgotten word)

Busbert and Derab. I understand the A345 has been 'evicted' from the hangar as the space is required by another a/c. There appears to be a problem getting approval to ferry the a/c through Aust airspace enroute to TLS for major repair. The problem being structural integrity in the tail area until Airbus can satisfy the Aust authority.

This link is worth a look.
.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...012_Prelim.pdf
.
Nice pics as well.

Joetom, thanks for the link.
Captain logged 98.9 hours in the last 30 days. :eek:

FDR broke free....
 

According to the report, the flight data recorder was dislodged from its support!
I note that the report also states that the FDR ceased functioning just after take off.

I suggest that the FDR should be more securely attached so it can continue to record events post a tail strike or other sudden bump.


mickjoebill

LPC Calculations... the Hidden Danger
 

Hello EMIT. You're extrapolating the previous comment (pertaining to unneeded calculations some pilots make in the hope of maximizing Flex...which is unnecessary).

Leaving that aside, to help illustrate the career danger you could put yourself in, with your line of thinking in post #881. Take a look at this. (words are taken from your post);

Board of Inquiry (BOI): "You say you made additional LPC calculations, not called for by SOP. Why was that?"

YOU: "I experiment as much as [I] like, not every experiment has to be double checked by the co-pilot."

BOI: Do you think you messing around with flap setting in LPC might possibly have been factor in why you didn't detect the FO [insert the unrelated departure mistake here]

YOU: "The notion that there is risk involved in viewing different flap settings is wrong."

BOI: "Who says that, Airbus? Where is it written in the FCOM?"

YOU: "Well, no. It's not written anywhere in Company docs. But that's what I think"

BOI: "I see. That's all"

YOU: "Thanks, Bye."

BOI: "By the way, we've been firing people for lesser mistakes than the one you made on departure. Please wait outside."

Starting to see the picture? :{

Good post EMIT, Options are the name of the game...Don`t use the word "experiments" rather "options".

Common Sense is not very common any more.

Keep thinking and looking at all those options, not much place for Pavlov eh..:}

Absolutely !
Using paper charts, options are regularly reviewed, very convenient, it is done in a glimpse of an eye.
More complicated when runway is contaminated, but that's the exact time it HAS to be done.
Now, if the laptop makes things more tricky, maybe it's not an improvement ...

AirBusted320, there is no "Hidden Danger in LPC Calculations" the way EMIT put it. The Danger comes from NOT challenging through an INDEPENDENT calculation what your partner put in the FMC.

A few knots or degrees of flex mistake is not a big deal, 100 tonnes mistake on your TOW is.

Any update on the aircraft. Is it still in Australia ?

The aircraft is still in Melbourne and the damaged area was being worked on yesterday & today. Not major work though. It looks like a patch up job to get it home.

So at what FL is it getting over there at ? did they repair the rear pressure bulkhead or not ?

aussiepax,

I'm not sure of those details. I was just driving past the hangar and the doors happened to be open.

The damage to the bulkhead can only be repaired in Toulouse, the repairs in Melbourne are to make the aircraft structurally sound enough to either fly it back to the factory unpressurised (i.e 10000 or below) or to fly it to the scrapyard (can't be scrapped in-situ). Considering the damage to stringers etc my bet is on the latter.

I guess it depends on how badly the airframe has been stressed. It is possible that the aft fuselage will be replaced at the production join. Otherwise there are so many repair schemes to replace stringers and frames, splice in sections - which may take longer and cost more. All depends on the detailed assessment of the damage and possible options to return to an airworthy condition with costs/schedules before those decisions can be made.