A320, flying knowledge, SOP, clarifications
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 350
Likes: 147
From: FL390
1. On a Tailwind landing (A320), keep the power on because you will sink fast if you cut. Is this correct?
2. He always adds 3kts to the vApp, even on tailwinds and heavy, is this prudent?
3. After takeoff and flaps retracted we got a direct, so I lowered the speed to 230kts to improve the radius of turn and climb a bit faster, he said this was wrong, I should have kept 250kts because that is Vy
4. Vy is 250kts below FL100 and 300kts above FL100
5. He keeps Wx radar tilt on climb to -2.0 and on descent to +1.5
6. On Takeoff computation he always requests runway wet and config 2, his ideology is to make the aircraft airborne asap, is this prudent?
7. And today, my landing was 1.6g. I blame myself because I didn't flare much/flared a bit late.
2. He always adds 3kts to the vApp, even on tailwinds and heavy, is this prudent?
3. After takeoff and flaps retracted we got a direct, so I lowered the speed to 230kts to improve the radius of turn and climb a bit faster, he said this was wrong, I should have kept 250kts because that is Vy
4. Vy is 250kts below FL100 and 300kts above FL100
5. He keeps Wx radar tilt on climb to -2.0 and on descent to +1.5
6. On Takeoff computation he always requests runway wet and config 2, his ideology is to make the aircraft airborne asap, is this prudent?
7. And today, my landing was 1.6g. I blame myself because I didn't flare much/flared a bit late.
2. No. The correct speed is that determined by the aircraft weight with an optional and appropriate wind correction depending on conditions. You can tell with experience whether the speed in the FMGC is a bit low because the aircraft will feel a bit “weird” as it sits towards the back of the drag curve. But the correction is only a knot so who cares?
3 (and 4) Well, both best angle and best rate are weight dependent so it doesn’t matter either way. I’d have kept the speed back for the turn.
5. Personal preference. During the descent I’d want to see ground returns just past the destination so I know that there's nothing between me and the airport.
6. This is ridiculous. Wet degrades takeoff margins deliberately.
1.6g landings… everyone does crap landings from time to time, even with 10,000 hours. 1.6g is embarrassing but not going to break anything or anyone. Put it out your mind and expect to float down the runway on your next one.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 496
Likes: 19
From: Ziltoidia... indeed'd.
Please understand what I mean: you already know this because you already have plenty of experience and the proper angle, the issue is that the OP still feels that his personal validation goes hand to hand with his performance, and he thinks that because he is flying in a red-white-and-yellow toxic environment. Apart from sound advice regarding procedures, he needs to see how a real professional behaves.
Apologies to you if I'm not being able to explain myself...
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 180
From: USA
Question 1 - 6, what do the FCOM, FCTM, and company ops manuals say? I'm pretty sure ours say completely different things to what your Capt does, but I'll let the TRE/TRI crowd sort it out.
Question 7. Yes you do have to flare earlier in a heavy 321 than a light 319 BUT! not by much. For me it's the difference between flaring at the "T" of the "Thirty" call (in the heavy 321), vs flaring at the "y" of the call out. Its something that only comes with experience I'm afraid, but I'm sure you'll get it. If you were given good advice by your base trainers, revert to that. I still do, after about 3,000 hours on fifi!
Question 7. Yes you do have to flare earlier in a heavy 321 than a light 319 BUT! not by much. For me it's the difference between flaring at the "T" of the "Thirty" call (in the heavy 321), vs flaring at the "y" of the call out. Its something that only comes with experience I'm afraid, but I'm sure you'll get it. If you were given good advice by your base trainers, revert to that. I still do, after about 3,000 hours on fifi!
As I am fast approaching that age, I do my best to be able to show my fellow crew members what and why I do by referring to the company manual. As a copilot always hated flying with the guys that did things un-standard. Having said that, 10 years in the bus after 15 years and 4 other types does give me the experience to sometimes know better than whatever computer is running the show. Never in a “I always take off F2” nonsense way, but I do intervene during descent a lot.
That guy sounds like a total tool tho.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 350
Likes: 147
From: FL390
Iggy - I could have chosen a better word. I didn’t mean embarrassing in a professional sense, which a 1.6g landing isn’t. It’s a dent in your personal pride but ultimately it happens to everyone and it will keep happening for the rest of your career. As long as it’s not *every* landing it’s nothing to be concerned about.
The situation won’t be helped by flying with a captain that you’ve got to watch like a hawk because he’s not sticking to SOPs.
The situation won’t be helped by flying with a captain that you’ve got to watch like a hawk because he’s not sticking to SOPs.
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 170
Likes: 58
From: I would tell you, but my GPS keeps getting jammed
This is where accidents start to occur; when pilots start to deviate from established SOPs, in favour of their own idiosyncrasies, which haven't proved to be safer, nor more effective. With this tendency to always calculate takeoff performance figures with 'wet runway' selected, say V1 for a dry runway is 140kts, whilst wet is 125kts. Let's say that runway is in fact dry, but this Captain is electing to use the wet runway calculations. If you have an engine failure/fire at, say 132kts, you are able to stop on the runway if your V1 was 140kts, not so much with 125kts. How is it safer to takeoff with a failure, all because your Captain elected to use wet runway calculations? Expect to takeoff normally but be ready and have the appropriate configuration in an event of an emergency, such as using the correct speeds.
Generally, you should trust the numbers that your landing calculator has spat out, particularly if the runway is short.
Having your engines at takeoff thrust for almost 5,000 feet is an awfully long time to have them at such setting.
I find it unacceptable if he is doing many things without telling you or without discussing it with you. How can you and your crew share the same picture/idea if you don't convey what you are doing?
Unfortunately, like others here have said, just sit down, smile and go along with it, unless it is abundantly clear to you that there is/will be an issue.
Generally, you should trust the numbers that your landing calculator has spat out, particularly if the runway is short.
Having your engines at takeoff thrust for almost 5,000 feet is an awfully long time to have them at such setting.
I find it unacceptable if he is doing many things without telling you or without discussing it with you. How can you and your crew share the same picture/idea if you don't convey what you are doing?
Unfortunately, like others here have said, just sit down, smile and go along with it, unless it is abundantly clear to you that there is/will be an issue.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Earth
This is where accidents start to occur; when pilots start to deviate from established SOPs, in favour of their own idiosyncrasies, which haven't proved to be safer, nor more effective. With this tendency to always calculate takeoff performance figures with 'wet runway' selected, say V1 for a dry runway is 140kts, whilst wet is 125kts. Let's say that runway is in fact dry, but this Captain is electing to use the wet runway calculations. If you have an engine failure/fire at, say 132kts, you are able to stop on the runway if your V1 was 140kts, not so much with 125kts. How is it safer to takeoff with a failure, all because your Captain elected to use wet runway calculations? Expect to takeoff normally but be ready and have the appropriate configuration in an event of an emergency, such as using the correct speeds.
Generally, you should trust the numbers that your landing calculator has spat out, particularly if the runway is short.
Having your engines at takeoff thrust for almost 5,000 feet is an awfully long time to have them at such setting.
I find it unacceptable if he is doing many things without telling you or without discussing it with you. How can you and your crew share the same picture/idea if you don't convey what you are doing?
Unfortunately, like others here have said, just sit down, smile and go along with it, unless it is abundantly clear to you that there is/will be an issue.
Generally, you should trust the numbers that your landing calculator has spat out, particularly if the runway is short.
Having your engines at takeoff thrust for almost 5,000 feet is an awfully long time to have them at such setting.
I find it unacceptable if he is doing many things without telling you or without discussing it with you. How can you and your crew share the same picture/idea if you don't convey what you are doing?
Unfortunately, like others here have said, just sit down, smile and go along with it, unless it is abundantly clear to you that there is/will be an issue.
Thanks for your input. You are spot on with the V1 on wet vs dry.
Landing VOR he went fully managed, and after FINAL APP engagement I was waiting for him to set GA altitude. So as we had RWY in sight and moments before flying manual, I reminded him politely to set the GA ALT. After landing he scolded me a bit, said I seem like I was flexing my knowledge and thinking that he doesnt know what to do.
There is no CRM. It's either his way or no way. We were landing in a CAVOK RWY with normal winds and he immediately dropped the gear down, flap 3, full without me asking. We were not heavy, high, fast nor asked to slow down. After landing he noticed I was very quiet and annoyed and he said, "Don't be mad I dropped the gear down, it's better we get early stabilized"
Anyway this begs the question, would it be better to just make the other person feel comfortable flying with you with whatever he does and roll with the punches as long as there is no flight safety involved, or be standard but assertive?
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
Thanks for your input. You are spot on with the V1 on wet vs dry.
Landing VOR he went fully managed, and after FINAL APP engagement I was waiting for him to set GA altitude. So as we had RWY in sight and moments before flying manual, I reminded him politely to set the GA ALT. After landing he scolded me a bit, said I seem like I was flexing my knowledge and thinking that he doesnt know what to do.
There is no CRM. It's either his way or no way. We were landing in a CAVOK RWY with normal winds and he immediately dropped the gear down, flap 3, full without me asking. We were not heavy, high, fast nor asked to slow down. After landing he noticed I was very quiet and annoyed and he said, "Don't be mad I dropped the gear down, it's better we get early stabilized"
Anyway this begs the question, would it be better to just make the other person feel comfortable flying with you with whatever he does and roll with the punches as long as there is no flight safety involved, or be standard but assertive?
Landing VOR he went fully managed, and after FINAL APP engagement I was waiting for him to set GA altitude. So as we had RWY in sight and moments before flying manual, I reminded him politely to set the GA ALT. After landing he scolded me a bit, said I seem like I was flexing my knowledge and thinking that he doesnt know what to do.
There is no CRM. It's either his way or no way. We were landing in a CAVOK RWY with normal winds and he immediately dropped the gear down, flap 3, full without me asking. We were not heavy, high, fast nor asked to slow down. After landing he noticed I was very quiet and annoyed and he said, "Don't be mad I dropped the gear down, it's better we get early stabilized"
Anyway this begs the question, would it be better to just make the other person feel comfortable flying with you with whatever he does and roll with the punches as long as there is no flight safety involved, or be standard but assertive?
reading your posts the first thing that comes to my mind is that this guy never went through a proper command upgrade process and probably sold himself as a Captain thanks to the many flaws that unfortunately are possible in today’s globalized aviation. This type of attitude is typical of someone who is not comfortable in what he’s doing and lacks proper techniques of communication as he was probably a self made left seater. Another option is that he upgraded in a very very dodgy outfit but that basically goes back to the same results as above.
Any instructor/examiner with a little bit of experience is able to spot those kind of behaviors of people that are in the wrong seat and sometimes in the wrong part of the aircraft.
With that being said to answer your question:
It’s all based on proper communication and briefings and this goes both ways regardless of who is actually PF/PM. It is very important to describe briefly or more in depth depending on the complexity of the approach how this will actually be flown, I.e. from a straight forward home base ILS planning to be stable checks done at the latest by 1000 fr to a more complex approach with weather etc.. where we will discuss gates for configurations. Remember it’s all about having 2 pilots fly like 1, sharing the same picture or mental model at all times during the flight.
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
Welcome to the forum, you deserve a break from that ape. Goodspeed.
Much worse than you assume, even. I.e. using wet numbers on a dry runway is an AFM breach (screen height and TOD calculation).
For your landings, use the FCOM/FCTM diagram. Your visual aiming point is always 297/300 m from the threshold. Runway markers and PAPI could be all over the place, namely the easterly RWY in Ho Chi Minh is 450 mtrs. Learn to use PAPI and the makers as guidance until a wise moment but no longer, then identify the true aiming point, eyeball it and fly the plane there.
Much worse than you assume, even. I.e. using wet numbers on a dry runway is an AFM breach (screen height and TOD calculation).
For your landings, use the FCOM/FCTM diagram. Your visual aiming point is always 297/300 m from the threshold. Runway markers and PAPI could be all over the place, namely the easterly RWY in Ho Chi Minh is 450 mtrs. Learn to use PAPI and the makers as guidance until a wise moment but no longer, then identify the true aiming point, eyeball it and fly the plane there.
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 71
From: Village of Santo Poco
That's operator-specific, depending on what the individual airline wanted. Keep in mind that even if the department in question is "linked" to the report in question, that does not necessarily mean that a human actually looks at each report, only means the ability is there.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Earth
Thanks for all your replies.
Another question, why does the A321 NEO tend to nose drop after closing the thrust during flare?
Even if the CG is around middle or aft side.
FCOM says on NEOs, flare mode begins at 100FT, what's the reason for this?
Thanks
Another question, why does the A321 NEO tend to nose drop after closing the thrust during flare?
Even if the CG is around middle or aft side.
FCOM says on NEOs, flare mode begins at 100FT, what's the reason for this?
Thanks
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 350
Likes: 147
From: FL390
Another question, why does the A321 NEO tend to nose drop after closing the thrust during flare?
Even if the CG is around middle or aft side.
Even if the CG is around middle or aft side.
Normal law resists pitch changes by targeting zero pitch rate, with another loop to maintain 1g flight (the FCOM gives a simplified overview, but at lower speeds it’s actually a pitch rate law because otherwise you end up with PIO due to the lag between input and response). In order to land you “need” the nose down order generated by the flare law otherwise you’ll start climbing again.
You can try this in the simulator by entering abnormal attitude law and then landing (this leaves you in pitch alternate law for landing), or by leaving the gear up. It’s quite interesting to see and worth the time.
Joined: Nov 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,139
Likes: 740
From: UK
Even today there are CRM challenged pilots like your Captain still flying. They might be - or have been - competent with flying generally, on previous types and more basic aircraft; but they might be doing what they do because they don't fully understand the Airbus - (There are many pilots who think the Airbus auto-thrust and GS mini goes wrong with changing approach winds for example, when actually it operates opposite to the Boeing system).
Normally no need to override or modify Airbus GS mini.
I once spent ages trying to find out why my Captain had wanted to continue an ILS approach underneath three enormous CBs, rather than holding off and waiting for them to move away. On the flight home, I showed him diagrams of micro bursts that were in the company manuals, along with the clear instruction to avoid them, and asked why he had disregarded that instruction. I tried to find out what was in his mind, and why he had wanted to take the risk. I never got a convincing answer, and I don't think he was competent. (In the event we had to go around anyway, for other reasons, and the company went into administration soon afterwards, so I could not pursue it).
Avoid if possible but if you can't, go with the flow at your stage - unless the guy is going to kill you, in which case you have to take control.
Normally no need to override or modify Airbus GS mini.
I once spent ages trying to find out why my Captain had wanted to continue an ILS approach underneath three enormous CBs, rather than holding off and waiting for them to move away. On the flight home, I showed him diagrams of micro bursts that were in the company manuals, along with the clear instruction to avoid them, and asked why he had disregarded that instruction. I tried to find out what was in his mind, and why he had wanted to take the risk. I never got a convincing answer, and I don't think he was competent. (In the event we had to go around anyway, for other reasons, and the company went into administration soon afterwards, so I could not pursue it).
Avoid if possible but if you can't, go with the flow at your stage - unless the guy is going to kill you, in which case you have to take control.
Last edited by Uplinker; 1st March 2023 at 11:01.
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,243
Likes: 1,154
From: Central UK
This guy sounds like me to be an ex Boing analogue dinosaur who (at best) didn't/wouldn't understand the airbus philosophy during his conversion and hasn't been subjected to enough Professional FOs to question his methods on the line.
At worst he is the sort of analogue dinosaur who imagines he actually knows better than Airbus and all their computers - and is thus in dire need of a frank discussion with Flight Standards.
DO NOT 'go with the flow', that is how mavericks like this continue to harrass FOs and lead them into bad habits too. Have a quiet word with someone sympathetic that you can speak to in the Training Office and explain your concerns without sounding accusatory or intent on 'shopping' him.
People like this need to have their attitudes realigned, they are not doing anyone any favours at all and you and your colleagues are doing no-one any favours by letting them carry on.
Remember. You too hold a Professional flying licence and are bound by all that entails. It is your duty to address this matter. Tactfully and sensitively, but address it you must.
You need the courage of your convictions. I once was put in a position where I was forced to report a "captain" who resolutely and continuously refused toeven bother with, let alone adhere to checklists, apply SOPs and behaved as an autocratic one-man multi-fingered switch-flicker without engaging the FO in the process at all. The company was a disgracefully unprofessional one and my observations were made public and despite many FO's privately agreeing with my points I was ostracised as a 'sneak'. That pilot should never have had a flying licence for a Cessna but there he was "in charge' of a 737. He had four rings and I was just dirt. Fortunately the company deservedly went bust at about the same time and I commenced the rest of my career with a responsible outfit.
Moral? Be prepared for this to backfire on you - but if you are a true Professsional it is your duty, that is DUTY to flight safety and your passengers to act and accept any adverse consequences with Professional patience. The world will move on and you with it as a better, wiser and above all a more confidently Professional pilot. If your company is properly run none of the above adverse comments will apply.
At worst he is the sort of analogue dinosaur who imagines he actually knows better than Airbus and all their computers - and is thus in dire need of a frank discussion with Flight Standards.
DO NOT 'go with the flow', that is how mavericks like this continue to harrass FOs and lead them into bad habits too. Have a quiet word with someone sympathetic that you can speak to in the Training Office and explain your concerns without sounding accusatory or intent on 'shopping' him.
People like this need to have their attitudes realigned, they are not doing anyone any favours at all and you and your colleagues are doing no-one any favours by letting them carry on.
Remember. You too hold a Professional flying licence and are bound by all that entails. It is your duty to address this matter. Tactfully and sensitively, but address it you must.
You need the courage of your convictions. I once was put in a position where I was forced to report a "captain" who resolutely and continuously refused toeven bother with, let alone adhere to checklists, apply SOPs and behaved as an autocratic one-man multi-fingered switch-flicker without engaging the FO in the process at all. The company was a disgracefully unprofessional one and my observations were made public and despite many FO's privately agreeing with my points I was ostracised as a 'sneak'. That pilot should never have had a flying licence for a Cessna but there he was "in charge' of a 737. He had four rings and I was just dirt. Fortunately the company deservedly went bust at about the same time and I commenced the rest of my career with a responsible outfit.
Moral? Be prepared for this to backfire on you - but if you are a true Professsional it is your duty, that is DUTY to flight safety and your passengers to act and accept any adverse consequences with Professional patience. The world will move on and you with it as a better, wiser and above all a more confidently Professional pilot. If your company is properly run none of the above adverse comments will apply.
Last edited by meleagertoo; 1st March 2023 at 19:48.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Earth
Fursty Ferret
I've read somewhere that even on the A320 series, flare mode is a direct stick-to-elevator relationship? Is this correct?
What is the reason that Airbus decided to activate the flare law at 100' for NEOs instead of 50? Some people answered me its due to the aerodynamics of the bigger nacelle/heavier weight.
I'm not yet that experienced but I know that continous descent is preferred with thrust idle if able, this guy keeps switching between VS, DES, and OP DES in a time table of 10s. One time engine spooled up cause we were on OP DES and he selected a V/S of +500, this was on descent. I cant help but shake my head.
meleagertoo
I heard Airbus is against the "autocratic" cockpit and this can be evidenced by whats written on the manuals itself. Is Boeing philosophy the same?
Uplinker
Have you ever had an incident where the programmed GS mini was insufficient and you had to add kts?
I've read somewhere that even on the A320 series, flare mode is a direct stick-to-elevator relationship? Is this correct?
What is the reason that Airbus decided to activate the flare law at 100' for NEOs instead of 50? Some people answered me its due to the aerodynamics of the bigger nacelle/heavier weight.
I'm not yet that experienced but I know that continous descent is preferred with thrust idle if able, this guy keeps switching between VS, DES, and OP DES in a time table of 10s. One time engine spooled up cause we were on OP DES and he selected a V/S of +500, this was on descent. I cant help but shake my head.
meleagertoo
I heard Airbus is against the "autocratic" cockpit and this can be evidenced by whats written on the manuals itself. Is Boeing philosophy the same?
Uplinker
Have you ever had an incident where the programmed GS mini was insufficient and you had to add kts?
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,632
Likes: 134
From: USA
Re GS mini- happens all the time. Sometimes we’re a bit heavier than we think we are, and the target speed is sitting right on top of Vls. In that case most (but not all) people increase it to get a 5kt gap.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Have you ever had an incident where the programmed GS mini was insufficient and you had to add kts?
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
Vilas, he's not implying it ever is, just trying to confirm if perhaps his lunatic instructor was actually correct about some random small piece among all the trash.
Honest work from the student, hope it balances the suffering a bit.
I subscribe to the 'self educated' and self promoted theory here.
Honest work from the student, hope it balances the suffering a bit.
I subscribe to the 'self educated' and self promoted theory here.