Airbus 320 new SOPs

[Denti]

Originally Posted by T54A

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?

Because they are the ones actually operating it in their own unique environment. With their own unique pilot corps and its specific training and experience base and work/company culture.

That said, airbus makes it extremely expensive to run your own SOPs nowadays, which is why more and more operators use the OEM SOPs wether it fits or not.

[FlyingStone]

Denti hits the nail on the head, as always.

SOPs should be SMS-driven for that particular operator. Of course feedback from other operators through OEM is valuable, but not everyone is operating in the same environment, and that means that SOPs will and should differ.

What matters the most is that changes in SOPs are based on solid (SMS) data, carefully thought out, and the tested via sim and line trial before introduction. This kind of approach, even if it deviates from OEM SOPs is much better than OEM randomly changing half of SOP, because someone whose operation is completely different, thought it was better.

[T54A]

Originally Posted by Denti

Because they are the ones actually operating it in their own unique environment. With their own unique pilot corps and its specific training and experience base and work/company culture.

That said, airbus makes it extremely expensive to run your own SOPs nowadays, which is why more and more operators use the OEM SOPs wether it fits or not.

That all sounds like legacy excuses from the 'Old Boys Club' in an airline. None of those things will improve safety. I've worked for an 80 year old legacy airline, I've seen this story before. The move from our hybrid SOP to the Airbus SOP was met with a massive resistance to change. In the end it was better. Very few airlines are as special and unique as they like to think. We all see cold weather ops, the odd typhoon, Cat II/II and maybe RNP-AR. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

[FlightDetent]

Comparison document attached. The usual viewer discretion and RoE apply.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by FlyingStone

Denti hits the nail on the head, as always.

SOPs should be SMS-driven for that particular operator.

Need to disagree in the case of the Airbus OEM SOP. Had ample chance to study various suggestions brought in by pilots from huge brand names and upon detailed scrutiny 95 % of ideas were discarded. Mostly for being overbearing and fixing what was not broken if you had been using the FCOM correctly. Another 4% of ideas were appreciated but not implemented, benefits not above the threshold to execute the change.

Definitely disagree about the cost of changing the SOP, does not take much to write your own copy of PRO-SUP in MS Word.

I understand that with other manufacturers the story might be different. Nevertheless, the main driver behind most of what I'd seen was a deep rooted conviction that 'we do it better' but without actual substance, just the belief.

[Denti]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

Definitely disagree about the cost of changing the SOP, does not take much to write your own copy of PRO-SUP in MS Word.

That works only if you use solely paper documentation. As soon as you use the airbus sets of applications for an EFB it will be very costly indeed. In a previous airline i was, on the edge, involved in that issue and the cost to keep company SOPs in the documentation was in the millions a year for a fairly small airline with around 150 aircraft. And it was the only driver to switch to airbus OEM SOPs from our own ones that had been developed and refined together with airbus since they put the A320 in operation.

Again, they worked for us, but wouldn’t have worked for my current outfit where the average new captain has 3000 hours instead of 12.000, and where spend just a few weeks on training on a new FO instead of roughly half a year.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Denti

That works only if you use solely paper documentation. As soon as you use the airbus sets of applications for an EFB it will be very costly indeed.

Reassuringly not. Working with a 3rd operator who's done exactly that, detailed knowledge of at least another 2. The most rudimentary really run on MS-Word PDFs and Dropbox.

Not disputing your path was optimal for the era, fleet (mixed manufacturers is a headache) and local CAA, just that the options exist. Your OM-B (elements) does not have to be inside Airbus FlySmart, although not everyone can start with a clean slate. Striking a good deal with Airbus is unfortunately only available to those buying new aircraft, true.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

interesting that 95% of line pilot suggestions were ignored, usually its the “ office pilots” doing these changes.

Why reinvent the wheel. T
Really if Airbus knew some of these changes improved safety why didnt they make the changes 10 years ago ?
Or some of the changes to integrate with the A321NEO??

Thanks. Glad some happy line pilots, like the changes.

There were some German operators that used to operate a silent cockpit, right ? That worked right ?, interesting

Is Easyjet applying the new Airbus SOPs?

Some changes look like a employment and $ justification at Airbus

( Remember the “ Set standard” improvement from PULL STD &#129315
Related to A380 standardization (?) ( Airbus cross type standard changes?)

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

Comparison document attached. The usual viewer discretion and RoE apply.

Thanks FD. I’ve never seen that document. I wish my airline would publish the same.

[CVividasku]

Originally Posted by pineteam

We did not implement the new SOP yet but I agree some of these changes are unnecessary IMHO. But I have to say I’m looking forward to use the new shorter checklist! =)

The checklists are shorter but there is the "T.O. speeds & Thrust" that is much longer in the before start phase.
Since we're supposed to ask for pushback before doing the checklist, it leads to 30-40s delay between the approval and the pushback.

Originally Posted by Sergei.a320

We have been using new airbus SOPs, briefings and checklists since december 2021, everythings works well and more comfortable. Lots of things should now be discussed ,especially during preflight (prelim and cocpit prep parts). But they deleted After t/o climb checklist, imho very safety related one. I.e. l/g up should be checked

For normal flight I don't think there is a necessity to check the gear. At worst, you will notice it no later than 4000ft when accelerating towards 250kts (the red band will be visible at 280kts)
For abnormal flight, people will have to think about it no later than before reading the status.

Originally Posted by T54A

I've always wondered why companies use their SOP as opposed to the OEM SOP. Why do some people think they know better than the guys who actually made the machine?

The guys who made the machine do not operate it. They can aggregate their customers' experience but still don't operate it themselves.

[tubby linton]

Originally Posted by CVividasku

The guys who made the machine do not operate it. They can aggregate their customers' experience but still don't operate it themselves.

I used to fly on the line with one of their test pilots

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

I used to fly on the line with one of their test pilots

Did he feel that there was a good reason to require that 30-40 seconds worth of stuff be done after getting a push back clearance but before pushing back?

[CVividasku]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

I used to fly on the line with one of their test pilots

Yes, some test pilots have a double activity, however :
- I flew back home one Airbus test pilot who did not know much about real operation of the aircraft (I don't want to reveal the exact detail because it could identify him, but imagine something like the visual docking guidance system, if they don't have that at their test facility, he only knew it existed but didn't know if it worked well, if it was reliable, etc.. he had not much experience of it)
- Their lifestyle is so different than line pilots one that it seems they could easily forget or not realize the differences. If you fly a 350 almost every day and do several landings per day, you could easily forget that this activity is very different from landing the same 350 only one or two times per month, after one or two sleepless nights. They have areas of proficiency different from those of airline pilots. They probably don't practise regularly quick turnarounds with full passengers freight and catering... But perform much more and much more advanced manual flying.
- I'm not sure if they have much say in the procedures and checklists ? There is an entire flight operations and training standards department, whose director (at least when I used to work near there) was a purely office pilots who never flew on the line (at least never full time, having had jobs as top managers for smaller Airbus subsidiaries or other engineering organisations) and there is a large number of engineers who barely hold a PPL in this department.
I worked a few years at Airbus and my job, barely holding (at the time) a PPL, under the supervision of an engineer who never flew an airplane, was to make recommendations for airline, following some incidents. Pilots should have done this and that. And this guy at a few occasions that presented themselves contradicted the test pilot on the recommendations to make.

And, even better, when I joined my current airline, I asked some TRIs about some of the contradictions within airbus. I had a third answer !

You're on final at 100ft (IIRC), and you get VREF+13kts from a wind gust. You were with ATHR on and it was not able to maintain a correct speed.
Test pilot (and myself) said : just retard the throttle and control the speed up to touchdown (as you always do but with a larger movement of the thrust levers than usual) (follow """common sense""")
Engineer said : keep ATHR on even though it's commanding too much thrust and try to land like this ("""follow SOP""", because ATHR should work and because you should not disconnect ATHR below 1000ft)
TRI said : your final is unstable, just go around. ("Follow the airline operating manual A)

Airbus is not a unique entity with a unique voice. Maybe if some other guys had been there at the meeting about this line on the SOP, the line would have been different. Ask a question on techrequest, get two different answers from two different support engineers (depending on the case, I'm talking grey situations obviously)

In short, it's not a perfect company, even if they do their best, some things like ego fights, errors, changing considerations, can happen as in all human organizations. They don't know every little detail from anywhere, and probably can't provide for every possible particularity that your airline may have. If your organization has very good reasons to go against Airbus, I wouldn't be shocked if they implemented it. And they can even discuss it with Airbus beforehand ! For example, my airline approved the new SOPs but did not implement the new briefings.

Some examples of misunderstandings between me and airbus below :

Originally Posted by Sergei.a320

From explanation document : "Basic pilot competency to be aware of energy of the aircraft.
Know the FMA and A/THR mode at all time.
Not specific to landing.

Desicion:
Line is deleted."

Thank you for the document
I found something that caught my attention :
Before takeoff, ATC... SET was deleted :

No risk identified if the SQUAWK is forgotten by the flight crew. The ATC will remind the crew in case the SQUAWK is forgotten.

I'm not so sure about that. If you takeoff without the squawk (happened to me once), it will trigger an ECAM just after takeoff. I'm not exactly sure but I remember it leads to TCAS inop (you don't have an active transponder, you don't have a TCAS)
If I'm correct, Airbus deemed necessary to check the TA/RA position before takeoff, so they should also check the squawk. Else, you are not protected by the TCAS during the takeoff and initial climb phases.

Response updated to remove "CONFIRMED". Rationale: Reflect the aural form pronounced in the cockpit (CONFIRMED is not pronounced in the cockpit)

Everybody at my outfit used to pronounce "confirmed" out loud.

: "AS RQRD" is considered as not enough specific. The new format of the answer will engage the PF in a more efficient check of the actual status of the ANTI ICE.

Conversely, I don't know anyone who responded "as required"

ADIRS OFF Deleted : Covered by the external horn

I don't know if anybody would know that a horn would sound, if you would hear it if you deboarded the plane from the jetway, and if someone heard it would he know what to do ?
Ask your colleague next time if they know what happens if you shut the aircraft down while forgetting the ADIRS..

[Check Airman]

There are indeed a few curious choices. Heaven forbid you should set off on your flight without your beacon on...or leave for the day without first turning the wing lights off...

[Jonty]

I tend to agree with Check Airman, most of the changes are to non critical systems.

Couple of things about Cvivi’s post. The ADIRS horn is very loud and you can most certainly hear it from the flight deck. If it goes off and you don’t know what it is you most certainly will be asking questions! Second, When Airbus talks about the squawk it’s talking about the actual numbers, not that you haven’t turned on the transponder. If you haven’t turned it on, you will get a memo message to remind you that it’s switched off.

[CVividasku]

About the wing lights, I make the most of this line by checking the strobes OFF and beacon OFF at the same time. This can happen, is very easy to miss, and would be annoying to other people around the aircraft.
And after all, strobes are lights that are located on the wings Beacon on at this point will make your passengers late.
However, for the BUS 320, from the 318 to the 321 I never saw a single jetway going against the wing light. Maybe they wanted to harmonize the checklist with another model that has this problem ?
Why would they want to have the same checklists for aircraft that were designed several decades apart ?

"The ADIRS horn is very loud and you can most certainly hear it from the flight deck." Thank you for your input, I never heard it before.
Is it much louder than the ground horn that we regularly use to call the mechanics ? Do you confirm the risk is to completely deplete the batteries during the night if left on ? I don't think I will try to hear it by myself.. Maybe on the sim, if it's simulated ?

Overlooking the squawk on as well as the memo really can happen. There are several memos forming a list, pilots don't necessarily read it before each flight phase. Even ATC is not a reliable barrier, some airports will call you out immediately if you forget the squawk, some won't care. The final barrier will be the ECAM after takeoff.

[pineteam]

The SQWAK, if you forget ATC will remind you during push back. Had it a few times.
The Horn with APU off you will definitely hear it. I did a push back once on battery only and it was so quiet (no avionic fans running) that we could actually hear the ground mechanic talking to the tow truck driver. And the main reason for the horn, is not for saving the batteries but to avoid the ADIRS to overheat. As if you are on battery only, there is no avionics ventilation at all.

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by CVividasku

...........I don't know if anybody would know that a horn would sound, if you would hear it if you deboarded the plane from the jetway, and if someone heard it would he know what to do ?
Ask your colleague next time if they know what happens if you shut the aircraft down while forgetting the ADIRS..

I have done it, or it has happened to me at least once over the years, Cannot remember the circumstances - probably losing ground power while having a U/S APU - but the ADIRS horn is loud !

[FlightDetent]

The change also removes the task-sharing from the QRH, apart from
+ Safety Exterior Inspection
+ Preliminary Cockpit Preparation
+ Securing the Aircraft

Those are long accepted to be 'read-and-do' tasks for the fatigued/lazy pilot and sublty retained in the QRH for the same reason. Enough mitigation tools to cover the missing Securing the A/C NCL. Pilots used to execute read-and-do out of the old NCL anyway (wrongly), feel free to reach for the page if not up to speed.

BTW I have witnessed a crew in SIM failing to raise the gear on a G/A with OEI and the PM captain picked that up nicely with the new flow sans C/L

[swh]

Originally Posted by Manual Pitch Trim

For those who are implementing the new Airbus 320 SOPs

Changing the wording from Smokes to smoke/fumes is a improvement


Wondering how they are working for you? Are they better for you or not?
What do these changes in the FCOM have to do with the new A321 NEO FCOM?

Re PRO-NOR-TSK
Dont see how now having the CM2 doing the battery check and starting is a improvement?
So now as the CM2 is the one always starting the APU, the Captain starting the APU is a SOP incompliance according to the Airbus SOPs.

Also only the CM2 (FO) aligns the IRs, interested to hear from the genius at Airbus behind this change. Makes me miss Boeing

The Captain is now the one that FM database validity. Such a genius new SOP change from Airbus. (?)


why re-invent the wheel again?
A penny for your thoughts.

Some of the changes would not seem that obvious if you only fly the A320 series, however these SOP changes are across all types, the CM2 power up flow makes more sense when on the A380 or A350 which has integrated OIS, CM1 would be getting the techoog and OIS setup.

The SOP has to be consistent enough to allow MFF, CCQ, and CTR where applicable. Longer term I would see the A320 moving towards having blade servers and avionics living as applications on these blasé servers like the A380/A350 instead of individual LRUs like the A320. I would see the future cockpit be more like the A350.