Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

New Airbus SOP, and Trim

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

New Airbus SOP, and Trim

Old 18th May 2020, 16:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Asia
Age: 45
Posts: 474
New Airbus SOP, and Trim

Noticed that Airbus has hot addressed the nonstandard habit of calling the flight control page after engine start to set the takeoff trim.
I wish they were more specific so that people can confidently refer to the fuel prediction page and set the trim on the wheel, while comparing it to the Loadsheet takeoff CG for gross error.

i think the habit of pushing the sidestick to call the flight control page is widely used and looks very untidy and unnecessary.

i hope the airbus gods can read this and provide some hope.
MD83FO is offline  
Old 18th May 2020, 17:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,473
Noticed that Airbus has hot addressed the nonstandard habit of calling the flight control page after engine start to set the takeoff trim
this practice standard or non standard was stopped after setting of the trim by percentage was introduced.
vilas is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 00:14
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ziltoidia... indeed'd.
Posts: 319
Now that we are talking about it, is there any official allowance between the GWCG figure from the FUEL PRED page and the value of the TOCG from the load sheet?

I've notice that is hardly the samea and usually different by around 0.2 or so. If there has been a mistake in the input (typically introducing the TOCG value from the load sheet as the ZFWCG) then the difference is evident, but I wonder if there is an official value that should trigger a check from the flight crew.

Thanks!
iggy is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 03:43
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,613
Originally Posted by iggy View Post
Now that we are talking about it, is there any official allowance between the GWCG figure from the FUEL PRED page and the value of the TOCG from the load sheet?

I've notice that is hardly the samea and usually different by around 0.2 or so. If there has been a mistake in the input (typically introducing the TOCG value from the load sheet as the ZFWCG) then the difference is evident, but I wonder if there is an official value that should trigger a check from the flight crew.

Thanks!
My company is happy as long as the two values are within 5.0. Seems like a lot to me, but that's what it says.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 08:20
  #5 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,838
Is not the FCOM proc for the PM to set the TKOF-CG on the wheel from the LDS directly, without reference to FMS inputs or any other screens?

A320.

FlightDetent is online now  
Old 19th May 2020, 12:35
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,611
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
Is not the FCOM proc for the PM to set the TKOF-CG on the wheel from the LDS directly, without reference to FMS inputs or any other screens?

A320.
Absolutely. If I remember correctly there also used to be (many moons ago) the reference to the fuel prediction page in the Airbus PDPs... we used to have it as an FCOM procedure as well again several years ago. As of today we only do the crosscheck on the A330.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 14:49
  #7 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,838
Of course. Any mid-steps only create room for error.

I can understand the motives of people from the A300/310 (trim wheel-scale in units) or A330 et al (loadsheet not the ultimate CG reference due to trim-tank). The benefit of forcing the THS entry into the MCDU on the single-aisle does, however, escapes me a bit, as I do not buy the benefits of "THS disagree" warning.
FlightDetent is online now  
Old 20th May 2020, 18:59
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 19
It's a minor thing IMHO because provided the aircraft is loaded correctly you can safely get airborne regardless of the trim setting (well, presumably within the range of not triggering a config warning).

I never looked at the flight control page since I had a percentage figure to go from.

I believe at least one large carrier doesn't move the trim from zero.
Fursty Ferret is offline  
Old 21st May 2020, 04:18
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,473
It's a minor thing IMHO because provided the aircraft is loaded correctly you can safely get airborne regardless of the trim setting (well, presumably within the range of not triggering a config warning).​​​​​​
It's true at least for A320. For all old MSNs the entry of Stab setting into the PERF page was nothing more than a scratch pad entry. If you entered rightly, wrongly or didn't enter at all never triggered any warning. But correct aircraft loading is always important. Long ago there was a discussion here in which wrongly loaded A320 the nose came up as the thrust was set and could not be brought down till Thrust was reduced.
vilas is offline  
Old 21st May 2020, 08:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,613
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret View Post
I believe at least one large carrier doesn't move the trim from zero.
Well thatís certainly different. Any insight as to why?
Check Airman is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.