A320 Glareshield preparation.

[CM1A320]

Find myself joining yet another new airline, and interim training manager insists that during cockpit preparation both crew members seated, the glareshield task sharing should be verbalized along with the items on the PFD ND check. That used to be a thing when I did the type rating 20 years ago.
is that open for interpretation? Is there any language I’m overseeing outside of the FCOM?

[AerocatS2A]

FCOM doesn't say anything about verbalising the glare shield so it's up to company SOP. Also the only item of the glare shield that is "BOTH" under task sharing is the altimeter setting, so while you are supposed to both be seated for all of the other items as well they are marked as PF/PM and can therefore be done independently.

[Jwscud]

Remember the FCOM is customised by your company to suit their SOPs - it’s one for your training standards team as to what precisely they want.

[FlightDetent]

Toulouse class May 2005, it was not a thing.

[pineteam]

Was like this when I started in 2014; It was crazy: We had to read everything on the PFD/ND. Pretty confident it was not Airbus SOP but outfit home made SOP. Luckily this is not the case anymore and in my outfit now we only read out loud the QNH and altimeter value.

[MD83FO]

I’ve seen this trend in some places. And it’s poor interpretation and desire to complicate things. Imagine verbalizing the whole cockpit preparation.

[Rico_Corp]

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A

FCOM doesn't say anything about verbalising the glare shield so it's up to company SOP. Also the only item of the glare shield that is "BOTH" under task sharing is the altimeter setting, so while you are supposed to both be seated for all of the other items as well they are marked as PF/PM and can therefore be done independently.

Agree with this Aerocat, in my airline it is silent and is similar philosophy as the "ALTIMETER SETTING CHANGES TO/FROM QNH" where the QNH value is NOT announced to ensure independent setting by PF and PM.

[pineteam]

Originally Posted by Rico_Corp

Agree with this Aerocat, in my airline it is silent and is similar philosophy as the "ALTIMETER SETTING CHANGES TO/FROM QNH" where the QNH value is NOT announced to ensure independent setting by PF and PM.

That’s a very good point. THE QNH value shall not be announced even though not very clearly written in the FCOM to avoid confirmation bias; Most importantly the destination QNH should be preselected in the ISIS at least in case ATC gives you a wrong QNH (eg 1011 ISO of 1001) like it happened before and almost caused a fatal accident in Paris where an A320 went as low as 6 feet from the ground during go around.

You Tube

[CW247]

Let me guess, said training manager from one of those hot countries with hot heads/macho types?

[Jacare_Pilot]

We have exactly the same issue on my airline. Half of the pilots and TRI`s swear by the whole "verbalising" philosophy, while the other half follows the current FCOM/SOP which do not mandate the verbalisation of all glareshield/PFD/ND settings. It seems to be a leftover from old Airbus SOP's, but I'm not sure.