Airbus - Expanded ECAM - oops?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus - Expanded ECAM - oops?
What's your policy with regard to AIRBUS ECAM and the use of the expanded ECAM procedures in the FCOM?
Consider HI OIL TEMP procedure. ECAM calls for IFSD.
The Expanded ECAM procedure, of which we have 2 versions until such time as the EIU upgrade is accomplished fleetwide), essentially states in one of the 2 versions that in the absence of any other anomalous ENG readings - disregard the OIL TEMP warning.
In our world we'd have already done the IFSD before getting to the FCOM and the note to disregard.
Does this strike you folks as a bit dodgy?
Consider HI OIL TEMP procedure. ECAM calls for IFSD.
The Expanded ECAM procedure, of which we have 2 versions until such time as the EIU upgrade is accomplished fleetwide), essentially states in one of the 2 versions that in the absence of any other anomalous ENG readings - disregard the OIL TEMP warning.
In our world we'd have already done the IFSD before getting to the FCOM and the note to disregard.
Does this strike you folks as a bit dodgy?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SURREY, U.K.
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We teach that ECAM drills to secure the aeroplane, then refer to Chapter 3. If ECAM status instructs to apply (i.e.) Landing Distance Procedures, we secure on ECAM, check Chapter 3, and then dive into the QRH.
Not sure if that helps, as I dont think we have the EIU upgrade yet.
Not sure if that helps, as I dont think we have the EIU upgrade yet.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many have far more experience and knowledge than myself at this stuff as I have only been intimately associated with Airline Operations for the best part of 40 years, flying at a selection of Airlines around the world and I readily admit that the last 15 years I have spent Airline flying most of the "Heavy" Airbus types gives me very limited credibility to make any comment, therefore it is with much intrepidation that I dare to even comment. Nonetheless with much humility.......
It's my understanding that Airbus has, in its own interminable way, tried for several years now to address the issue of unnecessary IFS and "enlighten" us as to its real intentions through its OEBs and more in particular the FCOM Bulletins, both of which, like it or not, do form a part of the operating FCOM procedures and therefore a good working knowledge and understanding of them is assumed .
With this slightly obscure method in mind the FCOM bulletins have for a long time tried to emphasize, particularly regarding IFS, that the prevailing circumstances and all available clues should be considered prior to ECAM actions.
Implicit in this is, and I quote FCOM bulletins:
In other words we are meant to clearly and individually understand the italic additions and notes inserted within the FCOM 3 procedures, at least the operationally important ones as far as possible.
MOST of the time following ECAM actions should deal with the "detected" failure appropriately and safely however more background knowledge may often be required to optimize your decision making process.
Is this convoluted methodolgy
Have a nice day and good luck.
It's my understanding that Airbus has, in its own interminable way, tried for several years now to address the issue of unnecessary IFS and "enlighten" us as to its real intentions through its OEBs and more in particular the FCOM Bulletins, both of which, like it or not, do form a part of the operating FCOM procedures and therefore a good working knowledge and understanding of them is assumed .
With this slightly obscure method in mind the FCOM bulletins have for a long time tried to emphasize, particularly regarding IFS, that the prevailing circumstances and all available clues should be considered prior to ECAM actions.
Implicit in this is, and I quote FCOM bulletins:
The procedures calling for a positive or conditional engine shutdown should be clearly individually understood.
MOST of the time following ECAM actions should deal with the "detected" failure appropriately and safely however more background knowledge may often be required to optimize your decision making process.
Is this convoluted methodolgy
a bit dodgy
Last edited by Bird On; 4th Dec 2005 at 12:56.