BA SOP's
 

Can someone explain to me what the SOP's of BA are like? I've heard that the non handling pilot starts the engines while the handling pilot talks on the radio?? whAt happens on the takeoff roll?
Thanks
oh, isn't this going to put off many wannabees for BA?

The Fors V Against about BA's SOP has been debated quite recently, As it is all that I know I think it works very well, so will not comment further.

I doubt it will put people off , since BA received over 20,000 applications last year alone for their TEP scheme, not sure about DEP applications.



[This message has been edited by CRP5 (edited 04 March 2001).]

25,000+ aircraft are operated one way. A few hundred are operated the BA way. No one really knows why and if you ask a dozen training captains in BA, you will get a dozen different answers as to how their procedures came to exist. It seems to work, as does the normal way, however it will always seem strange to me that you hand over the aircraft on finals to the other pilot to land - come rain or shine.

Something about the PF using the PNF as his 'personal autopilot' is the way it was explained to me.
Witnessed it as a guest in the Flight Deck of a 747 classic and although it seemed strange it did work just fine (of course).
One of the oddest moments was when the PF handed back 'control' of the a/c to the PNF at the top of descent.
I do quite a bit of Duty travel with BA and the whole operation seems pretty damn good to me (I'm CX 744).

BA's SOP's are perfect for landing a Trident in marginal weather. Now where's my 1968 diary?

Rod

Did he say the 'T' word ?!*?!*?!

[This message has been edited by The Zombie (edited 05 March 2001).]

BA SOPS clearly explained in this official document....

http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub...ahandling.html

:)

EDDNR

Never mind your diary, get your manuals out and let me have them please!

In 1968 weren't you known as WATSR? :)

The Zombie

Only those that flew it are allowed to take the mickey out of it!

How many BA 757 pilots does it take to change a lightbulb?
Three - one to change the bulb and two to say what it was like on Tridents.

Jagman - "Something about the PF using the PNF as his 'personal autopilot' is the way it was explained to me." But if the PNF is acting as personal autopilot, would he not be PF? In fact BA use "Handling Pilot" (HP) and "Non-Handling Pilot" (NHP).

To answer the original question, BA do it like this:

P1 (the pilot in charge of the sector) does all the management as well as taxying, doing the take-off, climb, cruise and landing. In between the P2 (the "co"-pilot) will fly the descent and approach. This is called the "monitored approach" and lets the P1 who will land the aeroplane get his eyes out of the windows early to pick up the visual references ASAP which saves that awkward transition from instruments to visual at a late stage.

As P1 runs the show, P2 does engine starts. The NHP reads checklists and does the R/T etc (just like almost everyone else).

During Take-off the HP (even if it´s the FO) gets to handle the thrust levers and make "Stop" calls is the situation merits.

A number of airlines use exactly the same procedures (easyJet for one) apart from the sole difference of not having the "monitored approach".


There´s a lot of Bulls**t talked about BA SOPs, mainly by people who don't fly for BA and know the SOP!!! I teach it every day so have a fair idea what it's about!

Moggie : hello again !
Its the P1 who starts the engines AND also has the RT + ground coms. Its after the selection of flaps that the RT goes to the P2.

You fail to mention the senario on a STOP. The P1 closes the thrust levers then the P2 selects reverse. If it was the Capts. sector he would close the thrust levers, the f/o would select reverse and then below 70Kts the Capt. would take the throttles back again.

Thats 3 hand over of control's in a space of a few seconds during a critical manourve only practiced every 6 months in the SIM. Not to mention the runway used during the extra reaction time.

Tell me why its a good idea for the NHP to operate the reversers in BA sop's ??

Monitored approaches were great in the 'old days' when all we had was an NDM/VOR let down with a 400' minimum or if you were very lucky a CAT1 ILS to 200'...... YES works very well in that senario, BUT this is 2001 almost every approach I do is to a CAT3 ILS, if it was 'minimums' WX I would do an autoland.

I've done one minimums no-precision approach in the last 6 years ..... thats the exception, so why not have an SOP that reverts to monitored approach on that occasion ....???

Also, in the 'real world' its not the NHP who is your 'autopilot' ... he does his own thing on many occasions ..... often disconnecting everything becuase HE feel likes it and leaving me with a 'raw' aircraft in a busy TMA ...... or calling visual without asking me as the P1.

BA sop were very current in Emirates, till he Boeing guy's told Ek that if they did not follow their advice they would give up their support.

Same reaction they got from Airbus.

Want more proof ?

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

It always amuses me how much BA sop's are debated by those outside the airline. If you're in BA then you have operate with BA's sop's, if your not in BA then don't worry about it - and if it really concerns you don't apply to work for them, simple enough.
Oh and why would somebody call themselves speedbird 744 then enquire about BA sop's - worrying!

[This message has been edited by SITMOFO (edited 06 March 2001).]

moggie,
I'm sorry old chap but youve let yourself down. Your talk of the P1 (pilot in charge of the sector) is crap, I've always thought the P1 was the captain regardless of who was handling. Also you go straight into HP, NHP, P1, Non-landing HP etc....... I've very recently done a 737NG course at Boeing, Seattle, they absolutely hate the way you disregard their intentions and go your own way. How come the vast majority of the world use one method and BA use another. I'm not saying that the majority are always right. Modern aircraft are getting simpler to fly so why complicate the matter by introducing your own procedures? Sorry if I sound aggressive but I just cannot see why the manufacturers procedures are ignored in favour of others.

------------------
'Keep the Stress Down'

I know this is a rumour network, but every now and again a few facts do help. Streamline's comments are sadly misinformed. Emirates'procedures were drawn up by their own pilots, working under a project pilot for each of the new fleets, 777 and A330-200. It became clear from a very early stage that a small airline needed to follow the manufacturer's recommended procedures, if only because the flood of amendments which accompany the first couple of years in service. Minor "cultural"changes were possible, and these were incorporated. There was never anything but co-operation and support from the manufacturers, whose follow up inspections of EK operations were very, very complimentary. Here endeth the facts.

Sorry TS - no manuals, still in my nappies in 1968, but felt well placed to comment after having my left ear bent by three hole polers for so long now!

Rod (nee AYLGR)

God, Carl, give the Emirates bashing a rest. They NEVER flew to BA SOPs. You might have, but the rest of the the company didn't.

Which might explain a few things.

Trident Sim

"The Zombie
Only those that flew it are allowed to take the mickey out of it! "

I have suffered long enough the 'T' word, but point taken !
I have seen one in a museum in Manchester !

Surely you mean the fire dump, Zombie!!

I seem to remember that there are 2 reasons why BA adopt these SOP's.The main one being to standardise across all fleets and the second is because of the 10 years plus one needs to remain in the R/H seat,therefore not wanting to be seen as a lowly co pilot and a radio operator on non handling sectors.
I always found it amusing when no flight level checks were made above FL200 and this was becuase the DC3 didnt fly this high so was omitted to keep all calls standard across the board.
The non handling pilot briefs the non flying pilot on how he/she would like the approach flown.The non flying pilot then flies the approach as briefed and will remain at the controls until DH visual when the controls are handed back to the non handling pilot who the makes the landing, who by now I presume becomes the non flying pilot, BUT WHOSE HANDLING IT? Anyway the flying pilot now asks the non handling pilot for full reverse but only if thats what he briefed for at TOD,otherwise he will have to ask for idle reverse which he will brief for on the rollout I presume.I think the purser taxis the A/C onto stand and the passenger in 3A does the after landing checklist.

Sorry Stressfree but I have to agree with Moggie.

P1 is the pilot whose sector it is, P2 the other. During the approach when P1 has handed control to P2, P1 is the NHP until he/she takes control again at decision altitude/height.

I think that when written down it might appear complex, but the teaching, implementation and use of the monitored approach method is actually quite simple. Plus it works very well indeed. Very few pilots who use it or who have used it complain about it. It seems to be those who've never tried it who have the most to say.

I've flown the 737-400 both ways - Boeing style with AirUK (Leisure) and now with BA. I prefer the BA way - why ? Because on a good day you get some handling on every sector if you want it, and both of you are 100% involved in the sector (no room for man and boy). On a bad day (down to minima of any kind) nothing changes in terms of role. When going into a grotty eastern european airfield at night it is a real luxury to be able to peer out into the murk (with an occassional look in) and then take the aircraft having aquired good visual reference.
Very few people in BA dislike our SOP's, so let us get on with it - if you dont like them, dont join! As for Boeing's opinion, whilst I value it, they are a MANUFACTURER, not an airline, and not a regulator. (The CAA dont seem to mind BA stylie ops either)
Hope the above helps.
Best Regards

HU

I have experienced a number of SOP's, including BA's. I can honestly say that it makes no odds whatsoever. Some of the BA SOP's seem like a good idea, and others less so. There really is more than one way to skin a cat III landing.

Personally I find a monitored approach ideal for CAT II/III conditions, but less useful for CAT I and visual approaches. Just a personal opinion.

But generally speaking BA always do things differently, just look at the Trident, it was a good idea until the company got it's claws into the design! How much did it cost to have autopilot engagement paddles instead of the standard buttons on Boeing a/c?

When I discover the perfect way to operate a/c I will let everyone know.

Harry Wragg

Yes, the Trident would undoubtedly have been a better aircraft if BEA hadn't improved it, but where are these "standard buttons" on the B747-100/200 ?

All the BA ones had the normal Boeing autopilot engagement levers that looked just ... er ... like ... er ... paddles :)

There has been talk to relax the monitored approach in good conditions. I've both ways in marginal wx and I prefer the BA way instead of scrabbling for a light or two at 200' into JFk on a wet Friday night.

Rod

Moggie,

Just out of interest, are you permanently based at Cranebank?

Tailwinds

It doesn't matter what the procedures are as long as both pilots actually operate them properly. My problem is the idiot who thinks he knows better than the company and tries to get me to operate to HIS personal SOPs. One item that seems to be a sensible use of resources in marginal weather is the monitored approach. Didn't that originate in BA?

Droopsnoot

Apparently, I was there before you.

7x7

It only just started.

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

TEMPO + TSRAGR

You said '.....so why not have an SOP that reverts to monitored approach on that occasion....???'

This would introduce in effect TWO different type of approach procedures. I prefer one and having operated both BA's 'monitored approach' and other methods in a previous life I find the BA method works well and as has been said is less confusing to operate than to write down and explain!

Don't know about other operators but BA also try and standardise across fleets where possible. It certainly makes conversion courses a little less stressful (I've done three within BA).

There is a lot of misconception about BA SOP's but on the whole I think they are as valid as any others and can only be fairly questioned by those that operate to them.

Droopsnoot you wrote:

Streamline's comments are sadly misinformed. Emirates procedures were drawn up by their own pilots, working under a project pilot for each of the new fleets, 777 and A330-200.
It became clear if only because the flood of amendments which accompany the first couple of years in service.
There was never anything but co-operation and support from the manufacturers, whose follow up inspections of EK operations were very, very complimentary.
Here endeth the facts.

You clearly admit that it had been different at a certain stage.
The fact is that some pilots visited the Boeing chalet at the Dubai air-show and discussed the items with the chief pilots. Their answer was very clearly the current SOP do not belong in a Boeing cockpit and that’s the end of it.

Another high ranked politically as well as in the EK structure TCE had the same remarks. I can not give his name but I will if it comes to it.

If things are any different now then that’s because a couple of F/O had stuck their neck out for it and that’s the facts in the right order my friend.

7x7 you wrote:

God, give the Emirates bashing a rest. They NEVER flew to BA SOP. You might have, but the rest of the company didn't.
Which might explain a few things.

I have a fax right in front of me from Boeing, addressed the BCTC at EK and myself.
It clearly states that Saudi Arabian Airlines wanted some SOP for their B 777 and that Boeing had advised them to contact EK as related to their new course material.
It may be worth to refresh your memory that I wrote that material myself and discussed it during a 5 hour meeting with the Boeing standards chief pilot.
Things do not change if someone does not take an initiative and put a bit of pressure from time to time.

You know 7x7 that reality is quite different and that I deserve much more credit than I got so far.
I was never out of line when on the flight deck.
Maybe my opinions were different then what was on paper (I was definitely not the only one) but I applied them to the letter getting a command recommendation on my first PPC.


------------------
Smooth Trimmer

[This message has been edited by Streamline (edited 11 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 12 March 2001).]

Streamline, I suggest you try taking a little more water with it!

Emirates has never followed BA's SOPs, admirable though they may be, nor has there been any criticism of EK procedures from either Boeing or Airbus.

How can you posssibly know, who are you ?

------------------
Smooth Trimmer

TEMP0+TSRAGR
sorry but you are wrong - it is the P2 (Non Handling pilot) who starts the engines and the P1 (handling pilot) who manages the show including taxiing the aircraft and performing the take-off. There are only 2 handovers of control on a standard sector - 10 min before TOD and again at some point prior to landing (but no later than DA).

STRESSFREE - it isn't "CRAP" BA have the "Captain" who is in charge of the aeroplane (aircraft commander) and "P1" who runs the sector (operating piot).

To both of you: I know this to be the case as I teach the SOP to BA pilots! I also have a brother in the company - first hand knowledge. Not sure where you chaps get your info from.

Some common sense,

One of the most important critical decision you are ever going to take is an aborted T/O.

The final decision/action on any important matter that is time critical is with the Captain, hence he should be in a position to do so.

All other situations are covered by the fact that the F/O should be able to fly.

Every set of SOP that respect these principles or OK.

And as a final remark, the less the differance in set up of the SOP between a normal and non-normal situation the more efficient the non-normal will be handeled.

When non-normals start to look like normal you are fully in control.


------------------
Smooth Trimmer

I'm sorry to drag this thread out again from the depths Pprune annals. However, it is of particular interest to me now that we at CFE are going to be initiated in the SOPs soon.

Unfortunately, I do not reside within the masses for whom there is a choice and so should be allowed a say. BA now pay my wages and if this is the way I am told to do it, this is the way I shall do it.

I shall reserve furhter judgement until such time as I have enough experience of our adopted SOPs. For now my only lament is that I shall not be allowed to hand fly raw data from Timba at 7,000' unless I am constantly visual with the airfield.

As far as I'm concerned this has seious implications in emergency situations where the difference between having a good scan and a shyte one could make the difference between getting down safely and not. Dunno, I could be wrong but I shall no doubt see for myself soon enough!

------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!

Somebody mentioned earlier about rejected take off and there being 3 changes of control. There's not actually, there is only one, from an FO handling a rejected take off, handing over to the captain at a safe taxi speed. The non handler at the time of the rto operates the thrust reverse once the handler has intitiated the rto by closing the thrust levers (on my fleet anyway). There's no calling of 'my thrust levers' or any of that, because everyone knows whose operating what and when. Like everyone else says who uses the sop's, they actually work fine. You can still do raw data approaches as well, I do them virtually every time into LHR, and the other guy takes the aircraft when he wants it, usually sometime between 1000R and 500R. Sounds crazy to some people I'm sure, but its pretty good when you get used to it. And if its your landing, you get to spend the whole of the approach adjusting your seat to perfection!

And your shades - Remember - its never to dark to be cool!

CCCCcccccc......ough

Streamline, I bow for thee oh great one!

Secret Squirrel'

If you want to hand fly the aircraft, in raw data, from 7000' at TIMBA, or from any other point - then go for it. there is nothing in BA SOP's which discourages it.
the only caveat is that 1 flight director needs to be programmed if > 3000ft, and that is a CAA requirement.

cheers.

SS do not fear if you want to hand fly no FD or AT then you can, I can,t be bothered to go upstairs and get my flying manual but I think as someone has mentioned that 1 FD needs to be on with the FO making sensible selections on the MCP panel you as Capt hand flying will interpret ATC instructions and Fly the aircraft.

The other factor is that the ATIS must imply that you will be visual with the airfield at 1000 feet.

Thus a simple scenario, It is your FOs sector, he/she will takeoff fly the climb and the cruise, 10 mins (or thereabouts(1 min if its a MAN)) he/she will hand the aircraft over to you, at any time in the decent you can take the automatics out and fly.Now with prior agreement with your FO this can be all the way down to 400 baro at LGW(for example), then he/she will take over and land.I appreciate this may take some getting used to.

Another scenario, its your sector, you can brief the FO for the decent and handover.At any time during the approach if you are fully visual and will remain so then you can "take it early" so to speak and configure the aircraft for your own landing.

The BA manual does "encourage" manual flying when the weather conditions allow.