How can the pnf tell that the sidestick has been moved in the same direction as the controls are moving in as the one manipulating the stick doesn't actually say anything during the check, unless the resultant movement is not in agreement?

Erm that is what I wrote !

if you are going to be truculent about it then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Hi Speedwinner,
Try https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/airb...839632065?mt=8

JS
The silent procedure is against Airbus procedure not mine or yours. I am familiar with 15 different airline procedures including Airbus and I have trained at least 12 of them and none of them follow this silent procedure. When under pressure pilots do fail to check FMA and if both of them are silent then I don't know how any one can be sure that it is checked. And you don't simply say checked you actually read the changes

Completely correct, PFD has the input, the SD the output. What you want to check is the output of the input after it goes via the computers and the controllers and hydraulics, i.e. the SD.

Same is done for a rigging check, check the upper/lower ECAM.

Airbus these days is half/half from what I understand, the PNF calls the SD display when the PF does the FLT CTL check, and silent when the PNF does their unless it is not normal.

This is to keep the PF heads up while taxing.

Hi Speedwinner, besides the link to the App store that was posted you can also download and save pdf backissues. I find them very informative with pictures :ok:
Try this link
Airbus Safety First Magazine

tubby linton
According to airbus pilot silently applies full side deflection and checks that the PNF calls are in accordance with the side stick orders and PFD has nothing to do with it. PF does not indicate left or right to avoid a conditioned response. How ever since the airline has paid for the aircraft if they want to disagree nothing can be done. Although time and again airbus has insisted that they should be consulted prior to any changes are envisaged, which I agree because manufacturer is in touch with all operators, airlines only know their own operation they don't have access to hardware, software that goes into the machine. Three years ago two airlines started in Japan from the same base and their procedures were 180 degrees apart. As far as accidents are concerned nothing has happened so far is not much valued philosophy.

swh
I am talking about silent FMA check and not flight control check.

Hello Ladies and Gents,
In the world of man/machine interface there is often a "best" way to accomplish objectives. I would tend to agree with the notion that having done something the same way for a quarter century in no way translates as a "best way" to accomplish an objective.
Flight controls in airbus have been cross controlled and the only way to guard against a second occurrence is to scan the Maltese cross or glance over at the PF's SS which is even more taxing to your scan. Sure the odds are you will never encounter a cross controlled situation but if you do and the PF is experiencing fatigue on that leg you better hope he catches the fact that he's holding SS opposite your call out.
Also, for those flight departments mixing it up with the flight control sequence in hopes of keeping everybody on their toes, you lose a lot for such a gimmicky reason. By testing the same sequence every time you are more likely to catch the cross controlled situation mentioned above if you know what's coming first.
Lets assume two things shall we?
First, that the PM is actually able to tell the difference between full left vs full right and full up vs full down on the SD.
Second, that every pilot in either seat actually performs the checks and doesn't just respond in cadence alone.
Were adults paid to do one thing, lets bring it safely from point A to B.
Last, if you look over at the other guy when he's supposed to say "check" to a call out you'll know what kind of professional you are working with.
I will sometimes look out of the corner of my eye and I noticed that most guys look before responding, a very few guys actually look at the FMA or SD but sometimes after they have already replied "check" and fewer still will not look at all. They are rare and a well know few at my airline.

Early on in my Airbus flying I was cautioned to be more gentle when doing the control check on the rudder as this was a large heavy piece of metal swinging around at the back of the aircraft.

Now I cringe if the other pilot stamps on the pedals too hard.

Speedwinner.
Contact Airbus via their website and ask to be put on the mailing list for the magazine.

The LH incident happened because the crew only checked full deflection but not for the correct direction of deflection. After the inquiry recommended a more detailed check procedure, the present procedure was introduced. The PNF announces amount and direction of travel and the PF checks that it coincides to the side he has moved the stick.It does not include PFD nor is it required.

As a slight 'aside', I have often wondered why this 'crosswired' malfunction is not available in the sims I work in (CAE and Thomson/Thales/L3). I did suggest it to the trg mgmt, but......
mcdhu

JS , first let me preface this by saying that as with many OPs here , the questioning of an Airlines SOP's should be directed to the relevant Airlines FOP's department as we all operate Airbus under various degrees of differences and generally the Aircraft don't fall out of the sky because of these idiosyncrasies . We operate as our particular airline dictates .

The FCTM seems to indicate at least the Rudder check IS to be accomplished in a particular sequence, maybe some could infer that the other flight controls checks follow the same sequence ? Semantics?
The FCOM states that the Maltese cross must not be used for making the check , it doesn't state that it cannot be used to supplement it ? The stipulation is that the SD is the only verification method. If memory serves , (it may have been a "company procedure " long ago) , the Maltese cross was included as an Airbus SOP some time ago ,so perhaps some have kept it in their scan ? Maybe it gives some like Tubby more awareness ?
The FCTM also states under "NO-10 General", "cross cockpit communications" , that modifications to the Flight path , FMGS and changes in speed/Mach MUST be notified by the CM making the mod and MUST be acknowledged by the other CM . I guess some companies have found a way to do this without the "chatter", but most seem to figure that the FMA calls are a good simple way to go .
LH do it their way , it works for them . That Airbus may have issued an NTO doesn't necessarily indicate that they are happy , but merely as it states " they have no tech objection' . That Airbus has kept their procedure intact seems to imply that LH have assumed any responsibility for any incident arising outside of the Manufacturer's recommended procedures .
The "MUSTS v/s MUST NOT's , should and should not's go on and on in Airbus . One example ,is it a must to have Perf TO and Flt Pln pages set to PF/PNF(PM) for take off ? What would you tell your F/O, Capt , Training Capt?
Simple answer to the OP is : check what your Airline wants , not PPrune .