Airbus 320 new SOPs

[Manual Pitch Trim]

Thanks
Then it makes more sense

Originally Posted by swh

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.

[Escape Path]

Thanks for the docs FlightDetent . The one with the explanations makes for interesting reading.

While I concur that some of the items that were modified or added are curious (i.e: wing lights, seat belts deleted from cockpit prep, but kept for parking check), I particularly like the "taxi" check. That before takeoff check was a nightmare...

As for the other items that I may consider that were necessary but were deleted, I do believe that a manufacturer with more than ten thousand aircraft in service would know better than a line pilot before performing and publishing such a critical change as their checklists. So I've trusted them on this one, and whenever I'm in doubt of forgetting something, I perform the old checklist in my head... A habit I expect will be made redundant over time.

P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did?

[pineteam]

Originally Posted by Escape Path

Thanks for the docs FlightDetent .

P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did?

We still don’t use the new checklist but I don’t see why you need to double or triple check. Just one quick look at the landing gears indicator is enough. I guess it’s just a matter of adaptation. In my previous job where we were flying all sort of old high performance twin pistons with no Ecam memo or gears warning ( some of them it was broken) we were not using any checklist. No operators were using them as they are horrendously way too long. Just one Mnemonic for departure and final. Never had any issues. =) Mnemonics are so underrated IMHO.

[compressor stall]

P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did?

And that is the crux of the of the changes. Getting pilots to think again, getting them back in the loop.

That's why pretty much the only things on the checklist are things that will affect safety.

[Escape Path]

Originally Posted by pineteam

We still don’t use the new checklist but I don’t see why you need to double or triple check. Just one quick look at the landing gears indicator is enough. I guess it’s just a matter of adaptation. In my previous job where we were flying all sort of old high performance twin pistons with no Ecam memo or gears warning ( some of them it was broken) we were not using any checklist. No operators were using them as they are horrendously way too long. Just one Mnemonic for departure and final. Never had any issues. =) Mnemonics are so underrated IMHO.

It's not that is needed, but old habits indeed die hard. In the back of your head, you know you lost a safety net if you forget to raise the gear (even though I haven't done such thing in all of my years of flying retractable gear aircraft), so you check again. But in the end, I concur with compressor stall , the thing with all changes is that they make you think, they get you out of robot mode, which can be a dangerous thing in the right (or wrong) day.

And I think it's a good thing; technology improves so things can be done differently. I remember the DC-9/MD-80 checklist for the first flight of the day was something like a 3 page ordeal... I can only imagine it would likely be easier (procedural-wise) to start the Lunar Module on the Apollo ships

[MD83FO]

We never start the Apu at that time anyway, so it’s always an sop breach

[Lookleft]

Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.

The obvious solution is to avoid 4 and 5 sector days. 1 or 2 sectors is/are quite sufficient, wouldn’t you say?

[pineteam]

Originally Posted by MD83FO

We never start the Apu at that time anyway, so it’s always an sop breach

Mind you! in almost 8 years flying Airbus, at home base I never came to the plane with APU not running. We don't use GPU unless APU is U/S. Maintenance always starts APU before crews arrive to the plane. Crazy I know..

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.

I always make sure that the 3 pins are on board as part of my flow regardless if I'm PF or PM. We have one of our aircraft who took off with the nose gear pin still inserted and have to return back as they could not retract the nose gear.. Embarrassing but it happened. It always makes me smile when we do the checklist and when the FO reads: Gears pins and covers and turns his head back to pretend to check.. On the newest A320 where the pins are located behind the captain, it's impossible to see the 3 pins are actually on board unless you stand up open the compartment and check inside.

[Gwolf90]

I don’t understand how an aircraft thats 30+ years old still need sop updates

[Escape Path]

Originally Posted by Gwolf90

I don’t understand how an aircraft thats 30+ years old still need sop updates

Well, that same aircraft has had extensive modifications during its lifespan; the technology and the regulations have changed in those +30 years and, certainly, people have come up with new ways to save fuel, hence new procedures.

I still concur with those who say it's not necessary to have gear pins and covers checked every time in a NB aircraft doing 30 min turnarounds...

[pineteam]

Originally Posted by Escape Path

I still concur with those who say it's not necessary to have gear pins and covers checked every time in a NB aircraft doing 30 min turnarounds...

That’s true.. Obviously if you checked these items at the first flight of day, unless maintenance needs to change a tyre or something, you know the pins and covers are still on board on the following sectors..Lol

[Check Airman]

This highlights the problem with OEM SOP. Airbus has to make a one size fits all SOP, but we know that can’t be ideal for everyone.

The obvious fix is to have each company tailor the SOP to meet its specific operational requirements. The problem with that is that every new training manager thinks his technique is an operational requirement, and we wind up in a situation like my company has, where our SOP bears no resemblance to the manufacturer’s.

[compressor stall]

Originally Posted by pineteam

That’s true.. Obviously if you checked these items at the first flight of day, unless maintenance needs to change a tyre or something, you know the pins and covers are still on board on the following sectors..Lol

Unless you operate to airports that recommend refitting pitot covers on short turnarounds due wasps. Admittedly not many of those places about.

[pineteam]

Good point. We don’t in our outfit. But I see what you mean after watching this serious incident..

You Tube

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by pineteam

I always make sure that the 3 pins are on board as part of my flow.............It always makes me smile when we do the checklist and when the FO reads: Gears pins and covers and turns his head back to pretend to check...

I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit !

[Escape Path]

Originally Posted by Uplinker

I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit !

I know! Funny thing is, if you missed them on the walkaround, I hardly think an item on a checklist that (on a NB in mentioned short turnarounds) is answered to almost by reflex (cause they're always on board, save for the mentioned cases) is going to prevent you from taking off without them.

Check Airman has got it on point.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

technique is an operational requirement, and we wind up in a situation like my company has, where our SOP bears no resemblance to the manufacturer’s.

A.k.a 'smarter than Airbus'.

Agreed, OTOH, that push for super-standardisation across the production models has created some ugly skeletons in the narrowbody book.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

A.k.a 'smarter than Airbus'.

Agreed, OTOH, that push for super-standardisation across the production models has created some ugly skeletons in the narrowbody book.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but that’s small potatoes compared to a training department that tries to standardise SOP across models from different manufacturers!

[pineteam]

Originally Posted by Uplinker

I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit !

I hope not! I’m definitely checking these items carefully during walk around. But when the other guy is doing the walk around I check in the stowage to make sure the 3 pins are there in case he missed them. We don’t normally use pitot and static covers tho.