Interesting scenario A320
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Vilas,
You are totally right. Thank you for reminding me. That's a good point. I was suggesting that cause I believe if you do the standard Procedure of putting TOGA and calling go around the PM might act blindly like a robot and jump on the flaps lever up. Pressing the approach push button and open climb will cancel the approach so no risk to dive to the ground. But I hear what you say. It's not the smartest move.
You are totally right. Thank you for reminding me. That's a good point. I was suggesting that cause I believe if you do the standard Procedure of putting TOGA and calling go around the PM might act blindly like a robot and jump on the flaps lever up. Pressing the approach push button and open climb will cancel the approach so no risk to dive to the ground. But I hear what you say. It's not the smartest move.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Camberley
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a non standard situation like this, it's often a good idea to look at the configuration and quickly agree a safe plan prior to the actual G/A. Avoids PM's jumping like a robot...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With decelerated approach being the order of the day go around with less than landing flap setting should form part of approach briefing. Normally airlines do revise GA procedure but that doesn't cover this aspect.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bkdoss,
Yours is a very good question.
My FCOM says:
GO AROUND........... ANNOUNCE
FLAPS lever..........SELECT AS REQUIRED
Retract one step of flaps
It makes no allowance for a go around in flaps 1 and therefore, requires retraction of flaps, potentially putting the aircraft in an undesired state.
Moreover, the standard callout is "GO AROUND - FLAPS". not GO AROUND, not GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS. This leaves little ambiguity on what Airbus wants to happen.
My particular airline SOP has no special case for go around with less than landing flaps.
So, having said all that, what would I do in this situation?
I would call GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS, and consider myself as knowingly breaking an FCOM procedure, that was badly written and doesn't account for my situation. But better to not follow the FCOM than get the aircraft into an undesired state.
Then, at S speed, call Flaps Zero.
Yours is a very good question.
My FCOM says:
GO AROUND........... ANNOUNCE
FLAPS lever..........SELECT AS REQUIRED
Retract one step of flaps
It makes no allowance for a go around in flaps 1 and therefore, requires retraction of flaps, potentially putting the aircraft in an undesired state.
Moreover, the standard callout is "GO AROUND - FLAPS". not GO AROUND, not GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS. This leaves little ambiguity on what Airbus wants to happen.
My particular airline SOP has no special case for go around with less than landing flaps.
So, having said all that, what would I do in this situation?
I would call GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS, and consider myself as knowingly breaking an FCOM procedure, that was badly written and doesn't account for my situation. But better to not follow the FCOM than get the aircraft into an undesired state.
Then, at S speed, call Flaps Zero.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scenario implies the aircraft is on final approach because by definition a go-around is only issued to aircraft on final approach therefore the technique to "select a speed below the manoeuvring speed of the present configuration" is probably not being used correctly or the scenario is invalid. Also - only CONF 2 & CONF 3 are certified for go-around (unless above MLW) hence you really do need to apply some airmanship in this scenario.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bkdoss,
Yours is a very good question.
My FCOM says:
GO AROUND........... ANNOUNCE
FLAPS lever..........SELECT AS REQUIRED
Retract one step of flaps
So, having said all that, what would I do in this situation?
I would call GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS, and consider myself as knowingly breaking an FCOM procedure, that was badly written and doesn't account for my situation. But better to not follow the FCOM than get the aircraft into an undesired state.
Yours is a very good question.
My FCOM says:
GO AROUND........... ANNOUNCE
FLAPS lever..........SELECT AS REQUIRED
Retract one step of flaps
So, having said all that, what would I do in this situation?
I would call GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS, and consider myself as knowingly breaking an FCOM procedure, that was badly written and doesn't account for my situation. But better to not follow the FCOM than get the aircraft into an undesired state.
I think it's reasonable for Airbus to assume that you can handle one from 2500ft without having to hold your hand. Would you then be inclined to file a safety report because you violated the SOP?
For what it's worth, I willingly broke my SOP 2 nights ago, as I landed with the wipers on in the rain. Poorly written SOP.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Chennai,India
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So true Vilas. That was where I was getting to. I have considerable time on the Airbus, and am someone who keeps revisiting the FCOM regularly and was surprised that I never thought about this scenario in years. With so much emphasis on cost cutting and fuel saving these days, decelerated approaches are the order of the day. The airline or the manufacturer, I feel, has to discuss about this scenario in a little more detail, so that someone doesn't screw a go around.
Just leave it in Flap 1' call Go Around 'NO FLAP' or something to that effect, this is what you are paid for. The published missed approach procedure is there for the worst case scenario and some of the actions are only appropriated in that scenario. In your scenario you won't have the gear down either but I assume you will still call 'positive climb' and 'gear up'. Makes the procedure to fit, we have a certain missed approach in my operation that has a speed constraint of 160 kts about 10 mm passed the missed approach point so if we go-around from flap 2 we will not retract any flap to enable compliance with that constraint.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Chennai,India
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely you can't expect the SOP to cover every conceivable event. The GA SOP is written for the worst case scenario- a low level GA at mins.
I think it's reasonable for Airbus to assume that you can handle one from 2500ft without having to hold your hand. Would you then be inclined to file a safety report because you violated the SOP?
I think it's reasonable for Airbus to assume that you can handle one from 2500ft without having to hold your hand. Would you then be inclined to file a safety report because you violated the SOP?
So now if I were to execute a Go Around from that altitude with such a PM, he'd retract flaps because that's what the SOP says. The aim of SOP and FCOM procedures Is to keep even the less experienced guys within the safety envelope. Keeping that in mind, I find it prudent that a small note of caution on this scenario should be added, which would give everyone more awareness of what to expect and how to react.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Chennai,India
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bkdoss,
Yours is a very good question.
My FCOM says:
GO AROUND........... ANNOUNCE
FLAPS lever..........SELECT AS REQUIRED
Retract one step of flaps
It makes no allowance for a go around in flaps 1 and therefore, requires retraction of flaps, potentially putting the aircraft in an undesired state.
Moreover, the standard callout is "GO AROUND - FLAPS". not GO AROUND, not GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS. This leaves little ambiguity on what Airbus wants to happen.
My particular airline SOP has no special case for go around with less than landing flaps.
So, having said all that, what would I do in this situation?
I would call GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS, and consider myself as knowingly breaking an FCOM procedure, that was badly written and doesn't account for my situation. But better to not follow the FCOM than get the aircraft into an undesired state.
Then, at S speed, call Flaps Zero.
Yours is a very good question.
My FCOM says:
GO AROUND........... ANNOUNCE
FLAPS lever..........SELECT AS REQUIRED
Retract one step of flaps
It makes no allowance for a go around in flaps 1 and therefore, requires retraction of flaps, potentially putting the aircraft in an undesired state.
Moreover, the standard callout is "GO AROUND - FLAPS". not GO AROUND, not GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS. This leaves little ambiguity on what Airbus wants to happen.
My particular airline SOP has no special case for go around with less than landing flaps.
So, having said all that, what would I do in this situation?
I would call GO AROUND STANDBY FLAPS, and consider myself as knowingly breaking an FCOM procedure, that was badly written and doesn't account for my situation. But better to not follow the FCOM than get the aircraft into an undesired state.
Then, at S speed, call Flaps Zero.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point BKdos, but wouldn't the more experienced pilot in the other seat catch the error? Is he not also qualified?
I've never seen the scenario play out in the sim, but I imagine the instructor would forgive the PF for calling out "GA Flaps". The PM would get scolded for actually doing it though.
I agree that SOP is written to cover less experienced pilots, but some degree of proficiency has to be assumed, right? The SOP doesn't say to adjust the temperature if it's too low, but somehow, we manage, right?
I've never seen the scenario play out in the sim, but I imagine the instructor would forgive the PF for calling out "GA Flaps". The PM would get scolded for actually doing it though.
I agree that SOP is written to cover less experienced pilots, but some degree of proficiency has to be assumed, right? The SOP doesn't say to adjust the temperature if it's too low, but somehow, we manage, right?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Chennai,India
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BK
There are additional procedures like Landing with slat/flap jam or overweight landing. On ground in spare time if you question the why and how of these procedures it becomes very easy to apply them when the need arises and helps keep track of what one is doing. Otherwise mere button pushing with ECAM can leave one unsure of what he has done.
There are additional procedures like Landing with slat/flap jam or overweight landing. On ground in spare time if you question the why and how of these procedures it becomes very easy to apply them when the need arises and helps keep track of what one is doing. Otherwise mere button pushing with ECAM can leave one unsure of what he has done.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like you said nothing wrong with doing it but I'd be taking flap 2 in this situation for sure. My company even mandates taking the next flap if flying below current manoeuvre speed. I think it's a good idea usually.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BK
Once the procedure is understood in it's entirety then it's applicability at a different stage should be included in approach briefing so nothing is left to chance or confusion during execution. Airbus go around was discussed in 2009 Toulouse Instructor meeting. I had quoted that one year ago. The Emirates Dubai accident may have been avoided if the variation in the go around procedure after touch down was included in the briefing. They carried out normal go around actions which doesn't advance throttles to TOGA if the aircraft has touched down. So with only idle power the aircraft came down and the PM thought he was being smart had retracted the gear quickly without checking sustained climb. That is another popular mistake because people think they may forget to raise the gear. FMA is more important. It ensures everything from TOGA to FDs in GA.
Once the procedure is understood in it's entirety then it's applicability at a different stage should be included in approach briefing so nothing is left to chance or confusion during execution. Airbus go around was discussed in 2009 Toulouse Instructor meeting. I had quoted that one year ago. The Emirates Dubai accident may have been avoided if the variation in the go around procedure after touch down was included in the briefing. They carried out normal go around actions which doesn't advance throttles to TOGA if the aircraft has touched down. So with only idle power the aircraft came down and the PM thought he was being smart had retracted the gear quickly without checking sustained climb. That is another popular mistake because people think they may forget to raise the gear. FMA is more important. It ensures everything from TOGA to FDs in GA.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vilas, you're obviously knowledgeable on the matter at hand. Your last post mentions (rightfully) that EK in DXB may have been avoided if briefed. That's true for the vast majority of accidents. At what point do you stop briefing though?
Someone's mind is likely to start wandering about a minute into the approach and landing dissertation that some people give. I find it more effective to spend most of the time focusing on what's likely to go wrong, instead of going down the never ending list of what could go wrong.
Someone's mind is likely to start wandering about a minute into the approach and landing dissertation that some people give. I find it more effective to spend most of the time focusing on what's likely to go wrong, instead of going down the never ending list of what could go wrong.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Chennai,India
Age: 34
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on what you understand by considerable time, the answer could range from a ‘No’ to a ‘Maybe’ to a ‘Yes’. Jokes apart, if you were trying to be cynical with your remarks, I’m sorry, I’m not someone to be offended. Certainly, I work my ass off to know about the systems and the aircraft that I fly. But I’m sure there would always be something that I might have glazed over or never really thought about. And if that happens, any day in my flying career, be it the last day before I hang my boots, I’d still try my best to clarify and learn and I’d be brazenly unapologetic about it.