What happened to the old principle of KISS-"Keep It Simple, Stupid"-? Over the years, the Jepp charts have become more and more cluttered, with "information duplication overload", unlike earlier charts which were much clearer, just like (dare I say it), Aerad. These days, it's hard to see the wood from the trees.

3.0% versus 2.8% missed approach climb gradient minima on those Ibiza charts? Who cares! How often are you landing at such a weight that this would have any significance? I am sure most of todays commercial jets would have no problem achieving these figures, except maybe after losing an engine on a heavywt/hot/high or terrain challenged departure and returning to land. But if the performance calcs (2.4%) allowed you to get airborne and climb out in that condition, the landing should be no problem where G/A is concerned, (unless you lose more donks, in which case it's not your day; bugging the appropriate Cat 1 minima could then be academic-280' instead of 249' on the baro?!. I'd be looking for somewhere else to go if conditions were that bad.)

If the relevant authorities are that concerned, then please publish gradients etc (and many do this) in 10-1P amongst all the other legal junk that we plough through at our leisure during cruise. Just like Notams, the important items are often buried away amongst all the out-of date stuff. Thank God for the sharp F/O's who are usually pretty good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

These days, too many of these procedures seem to be written by lawyers, not pilots. If you have the time or the inclination, have a look at the missed approach procedure for Runway 25R at Hong Kong; I call it-"The Go-Around from Hell". Does anyone actually attempt to fly it when the chips are down?!

Missed approach on glide at DH,
Missed approach at MDA(G/S inop):600 feet about 3 mils..no level off and no dipping under passed the Visual descent point for a 3 degrees continued desent if visual passed IBA 3miles.

Was bit too quick saying DME read 0 at threshold,hence the need to look at the chart longer than a few seconds.... but slant range:cool:

NOTAMS,Lights (especially which side of the runway are the Vasi/papi in case of non precision approach)...

I am not experienced and I still listen to my Fos brief even if too long...they dont only try to brief you but also briefing themselves so let them be:-)

PEACE:E

Phantom Driver, as far as I can see it's 2,5 versus 3% to start with. You're absolutely right though it's somewhat academical and shouldn't be a problem in normal configuration which all procedures are designed for. Procedure design doesn't take EO conditions into account thus it's operators responsibility to assure performance requirements are met regardless of the configuration. That's the reason any reputable airline will nowadays have landing performance module on it's LPC and it's part of the approach briefing to calculate actual landing performance and go around. You brought up vivid memories about HKG with all it's crazy missed approaches. I believe on 07L the missed approach climb out gradient required is 7% or so till 4000ft clearly on the edge of SE capabilities of a twin, of course dependable on all the data implied.
That's the reason why EO procedures are flown in case of EO OPS instead of published go around where the performance isn't met. Another topic though.
I'll allow my self to disagree with you on that for following reason TO performance EU OPS class A is finished at 1500 ft AAL unless stated otherwise in charts or notams. GO Around climb gradient is a constant value to be maintained till the obstacle clearance of 164 ft is obtained in the final segment which may be well above 1500 ft AAL.
Purely academical approach not that critical in IBZ on a sunny CAVOK day.
Cheers.:ok:

I'll give it a try.

Given that I'm cleared to the D20 IBA IAF flying my current type (Bambino Saab):
Formalia
ILS approach rwy 24, Ibiza, 11 dash 1, 28'th of sept 01
Frequency 109.5 with DME hold on IBA VOR 117.8
ADF set to 394 IBZ
Final Approach Track 243
Sector Altitude 2800

Tracks and navigation
Cross D20 IBA inbound on track 233 at 4000 feet or above, inside D20 lowest altitude is 2200 feet.
D 16 IBA, left turn to 196 to intercept the ILS, when established descend to 1900 feet. Pick up the glide at D6.9 IBA.

Altitudes and checks for the final approach
Check outer marker at 1490, minima 218 feet and 550 meters RVR.

Missed approach procedure
When going around, I'll call going around, flaps 7, set power, positive rate, gear up, LRN Nav, indicated airspeed. I'll continue straight ahead 2000 feet, left turn and join IBZ holding at 3000 feet.

Brief any use of non standard company procedures
High speed/low drag approach, noiseabadement

Open up to feedback and corrections
Any questions?

I think it's important to talk about how you intend to fly the approach, even though it at first glance may look very straight forward. On charts with a lot of intermediate altitudes during the arrival segment, it can often be confusing which altitude applies to which segment (look at the ENSN LLZ19 chart if you have access to it and you'll see what I mean). Therefore, it doesn't hurt to talk about the flightpath up the glideslope intercept so as to clear any questionmarks. It's a good way to spot errors before you make them.

Don't try and memorize all the formalia. This is just used to check that the navaids are set properly and that both have the same plate and edition. Put that energy on limiting factors such as altitudes, distances and turning directions.

If your company offers you several different procedures for you to use depending on the prevailing conditions, state which procedure you will use. Especially if they involve automatic configuration changes that are prompted by a sequence and not by the initiation of the handling pilot. In my case this would be the high speed/low drag approach that indicates that I as the flying pilot will call for condition levers to be set to max a opposed to them following automatically after the final flap setting.

And as stated by previous posters, with experience and especially experience related to that particular approach and airport, the briefing can be slightly compressed, offering more of your capacity to actually flying the aircraft and executing the approach as safely as possible. Remember that you cannot brief an aircraft to the stand, it has to be flown...

I hope this was any help.
/LnS

It died and went to heaven when Airboos announced, ever so proudly....that everything must be verbally enunciated.
I watched early A300-600 guys do this nonsense, meanwhile, those of us on the L10 practised the...(mostly) silent FD routine.

IMO, more talking...less (proper) action.
IE: been known to happen....:}

Now, lets look at departures.
Some SIDs can be a tad complicated, and they require a 'brief' briefing...however, for the normal airlines standard procedures on takeoff...I normally announce...."standard company calls'.
Have everyone actually read the manual?
Yes, they have been doing these procedures for the last 10 years....at least.

KISS...a well known commodity, that works well, provided everyone is on the same page of music...and make no mistake, we most certainly ARE

I must admit that it really makes me wonder, when some folks I fly with say "Sandard calls and drills" ... and then proceed to give me chapter and verse as to what that entails. On EVERY sector of a six trip day.

Either - or, *please*!

Dear 'airyana' a good example of briefing is that one shown by 'low n 'slow'. By the way I want you to notice that on the top left of each Jeppesen map there is a small note written near the top: "Briefing Strip". This is exactly what that strip, together: I and my co-pilot, two of my students or examinees in the simulator or on-line, in the past, and now my IFR student pilots, with or without FMS, accessed and cross-controlled, integrated with relevant NOTAM, before each and every beginning of descent for the approach.
I, too, when I used to land in JED, BRU or NYC only, sometimes in Taipei, already knew each and every single map by heart, yet claimed that the Pilot Flying did the briefing for the landing.
And only in very rare cases accepted a change of runway at the last minute.
For other tricks like the missed approach gradient, the procedure turn, the racetrack, those are issues to be studied during the homework. Even today, before leaving for a series of instructional flights, after 44 years and 22000 hours flying (well say that I am a novice), among other things I Take a refresh at home of airports maps interesting to me.
I say again: only Minima and Go Around procedure have to be memorised (according to a major intercontinental Carrier I've been flying for).
Regards
DOVES

This is how we learn it [Assuming good WX conditons + approach from the northeast with no racetrack procedure req'd]

"ILS Rwy 24 into Ibiza.

MSA 2800, highest terrain to the right of the approach track.

DME-20 IBA VOR at or above 4000, then after DME-16 a left turn to intercept the localizer or radar vectors onto final.

Glide slope intercept from 1900 feet at DME-7 from the VOR, 3° slope, final altitude 1500' at the OM, decision altitude 270' to cater for the worst-case climb gradient.

Missed Approach straight ahead to 2000 on heading 243, then a left turn direct to IBZ NDB, climbing 3000.

Nav Setup: I've got IBZ 109,5 / final approach course 243 for the ILS on NAV1, Ibiza VOR on NAV2. NDB 394 for the go-around.

Flap 30 landing, Autobrakes 3, approach speed 145.

Wind from the right at 10." [Any special items such as runway condition, WX, config, taxi procedures, fuel/divert situation etc etc amend here if required]

Final + Decision Altitude & MAP are by-heart items. Turned out quite similar to low'n slow's version. As a cade... eerm correction, soon-to-be 200-hour-wonder, I'm quite happy with that (I swear I didn't look :}

I find 411's opinion on briefings quite interesting and the experience on which that must be based admirable. However, even most 15.000 hour captains in our company would prefer a slightly longer briefing. It doesn't really hurt anyone to talk and establish/confirm a mind-set WITHOUT sounding like an aviation psychologist in a CRM lesson ;) That said, I've heard briefings like... "yeah well, there's the field, let's go and land on it". If it's the 6th leg on a CAVOK-day, a well-known 4000 meter runway with vectors to final and everyone on the flight deck is happy with that, why not?

This is the 'funnest' thread in ages!

Ol' 411A is getting a bit of flak but I have to say I agree with much of what he's posted. Unless you're a test pilot about to take a new type for its first flight, there's very little need for long winded, statements-of-the-bleedin'-obvious recitation. Lots of information, most of it redundant.

"...10DME at 3,000' ... blah ... QDM and frequency ... blah ... 3 degree slope ... blah ... height of the outer marker is ... blah ..." *snore*. Yes, I can read an approach plate too. :rolleyes: Tell/ask me what's different about today that might cause a problem: density altitude? Tailwinds? Other traffic? Going visual? Windshear? MEL? Feeling tired? Etc. If there's a bit of novelty concerning the destination, then a bit of the "how" as well as the "what" can be useful and sometimes shows you're trying to do something inadvisable.

Why do we have briefings? Is it:

a) so we can tick all the items off in the checklist? Or,

b) that the entire crew is happy with plan 'A' and some of the less outlandish eventualities surrounding it?

Or, for those that give exceptionally long briefs for home and familiar airfields, all other things being equal:

c) For the CVR.

The most embarrasing thing that can happen is to be surprised when you come to a turn that you weren't prepared for.

The phrase "what is it doing now?" comes to mind.

Brief and just go thorugh what you plan to do so that the guy besides you can be spared from any surprises such as "what the :mad: are you doing?" or "where are you going?".

If you fly to the same place 3 times a day with the same guy, focus on the non standards. Look for CB's, small planes without mode C, fatigue, complacency or any other than normal master cautions :}

I fully agree with the KISS rule, but whenever I'm flying with someone I usually don't fly with, or have never flown with, I brief it in full, just to clear any questionmarks. It's a good indicator of the style in which you fly. After that first approach, both know what you aim for and how you like to execute your sectors. This helps as the day continues.

/LnS

411A

I have to say I am amazed a large jet aircraft operator is too cheap to provide approach charts for both pilots.

my 02 cents is if I am the PNF I want to know what flight path PF intends to fly. This could be as simple as "visual descent to join a 5 mile final for runway 09" any questions ? (For a clear and a million day to a familar airport) to a quite lengthly discussion (for a bad wx, unfamilar field, non radar, mountainous terrain approach).

I do think boiler plate descriptions of exactly what you are going to do at every phase of the appraoch and landing and possible overshoot, just get tuned out by the other guy. For eample; so your say you are going to raise the gear when you achieve positive rate..... Like there are other ways to operate the gear :hmm: The things you want to talk about are the Gotcha items in the approach so extra vigilance is applied at the appropriate times.

Always flying with the same crew is good in many ways. It can be real poetry in motion as the crew devlopes a rhythm where the flight proceeds in such a smooth and inevitable way it is like magic. but you do have to guard against complaicency and any deviation from what is happening vs what you thought was going to happen, needs to be challenged immediately.

Apart from KISS. don't you remember that old favourite?--

"Briefings should be like miniskirts-Long enough to cover the essentials and Short enough to keep you interested".

As already mentioned by others, when the crunch comes, you usually end up doing something different from what you planned/briefed anyway. Fact of life; not helped by those longwinded briefs that simply engender zzz's in all concerned.

Saudia (as an example) used to brief -"Chart 11-1-dated xxx-any comments?". As supposed professionals, that really should be enough, i.e we're all looking at the correct chart. If you're not a professional in your attitude to the job in hand, all the briefing in the world is not going to make much of a difference.

(p.s still standing by for comments on GA procedures for HKG 25R.)

(p.p.s- by the way, my comments refer purely to the approach chart. Of course, unusual circumstances that relate to weather etc deserve special comment. This is a natural part of our trade-AIRMANSHIP.

d) To honor the memory of the pilots (not ignoring what they wanted to teach us with their error), and all the occupants of AA Flight 965 crashed in the BUGA 20/Dic/1995 due to:
1. The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation.
2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.
3. The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids.
4. Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an
excessive workload in a critical phase of the flight.
Regards
DOVES
Romano

IF the respective pilots had continued with the original plan (instead of accepting an ill-advised last minute change, with concurrant FMS duff gen)...we wouldn't be reading about them...now.:rolleyes:

Phantom Driver
I think I'm missing something. If that's the "go-around from hell" i'd hate to show you some difficult ones. Climb straight ahead to 3dme then turn right to the vor climbing to 4000'. By then you've had around 4 mins to clean up, talk to atc and read the next (not difficult) bit of the procedure. Not exactly beyond a professional crew i'd have thought.
As for the original question, the brief depends on the circumstances. Flying with someone i know to be experienced into somewhere we're both familiar with on a nice day - chuck the plate in the middle and "any questions" is about right. Line training a 200 hour newbie who's struggling, then I'd want the whole nine yards to be sure they actually can read the plate, then remind them which bits they need to remember and which bits they'll have time to read as they go along. Spouting lots of cr@p to satisfy some "standard" just shows that the guy who wrote the standard doesn't know what (s)he's on about. A lot of them about these days.:ugh:

Our FHB and checklists give a list of the minimum information to be covered in the takeoff and approach briefings. Yours should, too. Adhere to those minimums, and add info as needed for the situation.

When this question was first posed, I did wonder what was the point. Supplying an example of an approach brief would be fairly pointless, since it would be a personal embellishment of a template. If a thousand of us did it there would be a thousand variants. Most would contain the salient points, but all would omit the real world variables that change all of the time. So what?

One thing that has been highlighted by the thread, is some of the perceived value that different people apply to these briefings, and that is certainly interesting. The idea that presenting an approach plate to somebody in lieu of any briefing certainly causes a raised eyebrow in front of this screen. The briefing is supposed to be a verbal comunication that tells the other flight deck crew how that pilot is going to conduct that approach. Whatever is contained within that brief, it allows one additional layer of safety, in that any errors or misinterpretations, or personal observations can be accepted or queried.

I have had people brief me an approach that contained a complete misinterpretation of a plate. I have misread category minima, and missed important points, and used wrong or outdated charts, where the listening pilot or engineer picked up the error. That is the whole point. It almost doesn't matter what actually happens, or changes, or the style of presentation. What matters is that the crew are all being brought back into a focused loop where an opportunity to agree or question should afford some degree of additional safety. If you simply say "there is the plate, that is what I am doing." How does anybody else know that you haven't misunderstood something, or made an error in your own personal mental model?

The biggest danger is always one of complacency. Like some of you, I have sat there in a warm shirt sleeved environment, cocooned for over 3 decades listening to much of the same thing every day. It is sometimes very much easier to say rather than actually do, when it comes to avoiding complacency, or irritation over repetition. The problem is that this can be an insidious enemy, where routine, reliability, familiarity, experience and ego can all combine to make these briefings less effective than they should be, and clearly in some cases completely worthless.

A lot of people who flew into mountains, or the ground, or the sea had also flown safely and effectively for decades, until the fateful day. Knowing what somebody intends doing or how they interpret an approach can be very helpful before things start going wrong, and the rapid cascade of events and distractions makes it too late to revisit that particular element.

Maybe some of us need to remind ourselves that we are not as invulnerable as we have led ourselves to believe we are.

Well said ... I concur absolutely.

JD
:)

Bealzebub I love you!
What I meant was exactly that: in my cockpit there is not, there's never been, and won't never be any crew member who is sure that I am infallible. That is, if at any time somebody feels the need to go around because who is at that moment at controls, is not doing what he was expected to do, can and must do so (according to the Pilot Incapacitation Procedure). It's 'a bit' as the billiard player who declares what his shot will be. He is 'predictable' (and that's what we want), but he is also easily criticized when and if he don't do what he said.

Quote:
d) To honor the memory of the pilots (not ignoring what they wanted to teach us with their error), and all the occupants of AA Flight 965 crashed in the BUGA 20/Dic/1995 due to:
...
IF the respective pilots had continued with the original plan (instead of accepting an ill-advised last minute change, with concurrant FMS duff gen)...we wouldn't be reading about them...now. ...

Quote:
2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.

Quote:
And only in very rare cases accepted a change of runway at the last minute.
Regards
DOVES

411A: Odd that you should mention Cali. That accident would seem to be the poster child for not "tossing it down on the center console, and saying...any questions?"

I wonder how many of the incidents discussed here reviewed the chart with sufficient detail during the approach briefing.
Incident 1 - incorrect descent point.
Incident 2 - incorrect descent point, no check altitudes.
Incident 3 - incorrect descent point, no check altitudes, poor use of FMS.
Incident 4 - check distances, even when visual.
Incident 5 - incorrect descent point.
Incident 6 - incorrect descent point, wrong DME.
Incident 7 - failed to follow / check procedure.
Incident 8 - failed to follow / check procedure.

PEI_3721, an interesting link, thank you.

Having read through all these incidents, it did seem to me that in most of the cases there were major flaws in the execution of the various procedures... Even if there had been mega-briefs, it'd have all gone to worms anyway. In fact, the authors of the paper thought the same:

The approaches were all NP, sometimes a late change from an ILS. If you're going to agree on just one thing, I'd have thought the descent point would have been it...? Several of the approaches went below MDA without an adequate visual reference or any sort of altitude/distance checks - seems SOPs went out of the window.

Phantom Driver
Quote:
Saudia (as an example) used to brief -"Chart 11-1-dated xxx-any comments?". As supposed professionals, that really should be enough, i.e we're all looking at the correct chart.

Yoy make a serious disservice to the professionalism, discipline and competence of the Saudia pilots (albeit they were coming from, in my time, some 56 different nations). From a review of my notes I find on thier SOP:

LANDING BRIEFING
Where possible, prior to commencing descent, and once the type of approach has been decided upon, all crewmembers shall review the information on the relevant Jeppesen Terminal Chart. The PNF will call out for the other crewmembers at least the following information:
The approach chart date, number, airport and type of approach.
The MEA and MSA.
The field elevation and touchdown zone elevation.
A point, selected by the PF for an "Altitude Check" for which a glideslope crossing height is published, in order to ensure when passing that point the proper functioning of ground and airborne approach aid components, altimeters and other flight instruments. This point should be higher than 1000 ft AGL. For a non-precision approach, the point selected should normally be the FAF.

For a CAT I approach:
the DA/DH and visibility requirement.
For a CAT II approach:
the Radio Altimeter (RA) and RVR requirement. Also for a CAT II approach, the CAT I DA/DH and associated visibility requirement given on the CAT I approach chart.
For a non-precision Approach:
The MDA, missed approach point and associated visibility requirement

The missed approach procedure.
Verification of barometric and radio altimeter bug settings.
The PF shall discuss any other significant aspects of the approach and landing that he considers necessary, e.g. terrain, weather, runway conditions, MEL/CDL, and in case of holding expected: MDF, fuel available; and radio set-up, etc. The expected taxiway route to the parking position will also be discussed.

And I do not think it's changed much in recent years.
Regards
DOVES

If briefing time exceeds 1 minute, most of us have gone beyond the average person's attention span. Try this. Once the ATIS and STAR have been received, each pilot takes time out for self briefing from the charts, having first agreed on the chart numbers. We already know what country and state we are in and usually have a fair idea of which airport we are at; though sometimes this does need to be confirmed if there are two airports in the area sharing the same location name. So normally, we can spare the full title. Ditto standard stuff like 250 knots below 10,000 feet or loss of comms procedures. Anything 'standard' should not be read - it should already be known. Saves at least a minute of talk-fest.
After studying the charts, PM quizzes PF on essential stuff, such as inbound course, most limiting descent step, missed approach point and missed approach procedure. Where is the high terrain? Divert fuel?
Briefing done in 1 minute. Locked in to memory for 30 minutes. PM knows PF knows what to do. PF knows PM will be on his case.

It's an interesting topic. Many have commented on the content of an approach brief.

But maybe the question should be "What is the purpose/objective of an approach briefing?"

Brief what's different on the day. That's it.

fireflybob:
Presto said
The purpose of a briefing for the approach is to ascertain, well ahead of time that the whole crew will understand how you will conduct the approach and landing/go-around that day, for that airport's runway, with that operational conditions, with those weather, and the traffic expected.
The goal is simple: to correct or be corrected if necessary.
That's my two cents.
Regards
DOVES

..and always keep in mind: its called BRIEFing. the shorter the better. otherwise it would have been called "Approach LONGing".

even if you fly to a new airport we should have already done an airport familiarisation by ourselves at home, shouldn't we ?
So then just make a brief brief of the "highlights" and any changes you want to do on the expected approach, e.g like additional constraints etc.
"Standard Approach, as published! No changes! Any additional Questions?"

I agree. - but the problem is the Court of Inquiry if something goes wrong. It doesn't have to be a fatal accident either. Perhaps an incident such as a near miss. Lawyers and prosecutors will quickly seize on the slightest infraction of SOP. Your company will drop you like a hot brick as well. A defence of "when you deal with professionals, the wheel need not be reinvented on a daily basis" would be manna from Heaven to a lawyer..

Unfortunately we live in a litigious society. Failure to mention any perceived pertinent factor will inevitably be the opening lawyers and the company are after. The CVR can save you or hang you.

I may have misunderstood your post. If the PF has already briefed the PM on his intentions are you seriously having the PM coming back at him by saying "OK Skipper mate - are you ready for the hard questions? Wot's the ILS frequency? Wot's the inbound course? Where's the big rocks? Hang on there Skip - no cheating there, - don't look at the chart when I'm talking to you because you should already know the answers. If you don't then gimme the controls - my leg from here...":ok:

This thread is hilarious. There have been 71 posts. Yet no-one has just done a simple "say this" approach briefing for the plate in question!!!!

I feel really sorry for airyana if he is a new FO who is just asking how the airlines brief normally for the approach......:D

But I think airyana has given up as no-one has yet answered his question in a simple straightforward way!!! We all know that we would amend things depending on who we are flying with and whether we've just done the last 24 sectors with them into the same field etc.etc. but lets assume not. I don't know IBZ, having only been there a couple of times a long time ago but on first glance....

"I am looking at plate 11-1, 28 Sep 01 the Lctr ILS for runway 24. MSA is 2800ft based on the IBZ NDB. The approach is based on the IBZ 109.5 with a final course of 243 (and check both set up). Airport elevation is 23' with the threshold at 18' (good time to check the Airbus landing elevation figure). Transition alt is 6000'. Weather is XXX and tech status is XXX. The initial approach fix is based on the IBA at 20 miles and we need to be at or above 4000'. We will be expecting radar vectors....or.... course of 233 to 16dme, min 2200', then left turn onto track 196 to pick up the inbound course of 243. We expect to pick this up at 13.6d from the IBA. I will fly the approach with the automatics in initially. We should pick up the glide from 1500 ft at around 5.5d IBA (or more likely work back depending on what they normally clear you to start the approach from at Ibiza, at 1900' at 6.7d perhaps, or say 2200 ft at around 8d or whatever). The check altitudes are based on the IBA VOR. Its a standard 3 degree glide, with a minima of 218 ft, 550m (check its set up), with a go-around gradient of 3% which we can make on one engine. The gradient is due to a couple of obstructions either side of track so will make sure we stay on course. If we do go missed, I will apply TOGA power, call go-around flap, positive climb, gear up, then climb to 2000' on the heading - 243 - then a left turn back to IBZ NDB climbing to 3000 ft to hold. This is all in the box and so will be flown using managed nav. If we continue to landing I will use medium autobrake and idle reverse. I will be aiming to exit at (exit point). The runway length and slope is XXX. Fuel reserves - 1st alternate - weather and initial track. Any questions, anything to add, anything I've missed....."

You really actually verbalise all this?
Now, some may think that I am 'too brief', yet the above is the opposite....much too long-winded, and if the First Officer mentioned all this, I would have serious doubts about his ability...:rolleyes:

Negative, the 'briefing' wasn't the problem, not understanding the automatics and actually flying the airplane most certainly was.

Well I would say that Airbus girl has pretty much hit on what the 3 airlines I have worked for in Europe are looking for in a brief. You can get through that lot in just over a minute.

Yes, but if you read those 71+ posts you will see why? Your example contains too many "XXX's" to be relevant other than as a template. The thread originator should have a grasp of the template already, from his own company procedures and acquired experience. The thread has evolved into a discussion on the usefulness and relevance of these briefings.

It wasn't that the point was missed, it was rather a case of what was the point? If the poster had asked for an example of your inflight PA to the passengers, it would have been much the same. There would have been as many different versions as there were people who replied.

I 'get' 411A and I know where he's coming from,...you've got to dispel your personal prejudices and actually hear wgat is being said,...we should look at ourselves before criticizing othersPA

Mate, it really is a no drama event.
By the time the dunlops are out of the airstream, and you have given atc a hoy, (they watch you anyway), the tend to give you radar vectors to the South to slot into the radar pattern for another go. This is generally a much better low pucker factor option, than leaving you on the MAP track which was cleverly designed to take you over all the big lumpy bits of the New Territories.:ugh:
They only slight gotcha is the departing traffic off the parrallel runway 25L, but distance/performance means you normally out climb 'em with you going to your normal altitude and the departing traffic, if close, restricted to 3/4000'.

As for the thread topic, it was not that long ago that the company who pays me, required an epic of 'war and peace' proportions for both arrival AND! departure briefs.
Painfull to listen to, and even if you managed to stay awake for the many minutes it took for the PF to reguritate, was often missing the important bits. As a result, it was realised that it became ineffective, and a significantly shorter version was introduced. Personally, this is still too long, and borders on stating the bleedin' obvious.

Despite 411a trying to wind people up, (as if:}), I have to agree with him that 'less is better', and quite possibly, 'least is best', providing the briefing is kept to the few salient points and covers the threats that are likely to bite you in the ass.

I believe some of us are looking for the word CONCISE, aren't we? Legal aspects aren't to be neglected as well, however practical relevance saves our butts.
Cheers fellas :ok:

did you see the upper left corner of the chart???? "Briefing strip" normally in most airlines if 2.5 % or more gradient is required , or in case of missed approach after single engine and overweight landing, or high ambient temperatures the company has an alternate procedure for go around, normally is the ENGINE OUT SID.

so you follow the "Briefing strip " ,and then mention that for Go around you will follow the SPECIAL ENGINE OUT SID you can coordinate that with the app control ,in case of Go around, request what is stated in your ENG OUT SID.

I might be wrong ,but that is how we operate in all those apts

For the purpose of this briefing, I have googled the latest METAR LEIB 311930Z 10006KT 050V140 CAVOK 27/22 Q1016 NOSIG=, and assuming no significant NOTAMs and arrival from the North East from FL300

Without further song and dance here's my brief

"If you're ready for it I'll brief the arrival and approach into Ibiza?"
"We will start descent with 90 miles to IBA, and expect vectors to the ILS, which is on plate 11-1 effective 4th of october 2001 [check that the other pilot has that chart] . The approach is based on localiser IBZ 109.5, final approach course is 243. Highest MORA on the way in is xxxx feet, MSA withn 25 miles of IBZ NDB is 2800 feet, no corrections. Intial approach altitude 1900 feet to glideslope, check glide at LOM 1500 feet. Continue to DA 218 feet baro, 3% missed approach is no problem today. We hope to see high intensity approach lighst with multiple crossbars and papi on left side, if not, we'll go around, climb straight ahead to 2000' feet, the left turn back to the locator and up to 3000' feet, parallell entry. The weather is all good, slight tailwind, if that should increase, we'll opt to circle to runway 06 in which case I'll rebrief the altitudes. The same goes if we have to enter the approach procedurally. No NOTAMs to affect us, fuel is plenty to hold for at least 30 minutes before going to [wherever], and no special company procedures. 100 knots across the threshold and after landing we'll turn off [left/right]. Questions, comments? Anything you would like to add? Anything dangerous we didn't talk about?"