Actually APU start as said before comes after STATUS is completed when you refer to FCOM where it says "If available APU may be started". But normally in the simulator(Only place where it happens) nobody reads FCOM and you forget to start it. So most do it at elec page though not strictly an Airbus procedure.

Ok thanks Vilas. I did not remember reading this on the FCOM. I will have a look. Happy to see that we follow SOP.

Imagine tomorrow an OEB comes up which tells You : in case of failure XYZ apply the ECAM initial actions and in addition do this and that. When reaching the STATUS you would continue with whatever other actions you need to perform. I remember many many years ago on the A321 we had specific OEBs for fuel pumps failures and in some circumstances we had to perform extra actions dictated by the OEBs once the primary ECAM actions were performed. This is just an example.

When was this? In some specific cases, it's ESSENTIAL to apply OEB's before any displayed ECAM , and so the book says. Airbus even did a FWC modification that allows a properly configured ship to display a "CHECK QRH/OEB" instead of the action lines to prevent applying them.

How come in 2021 we still have techniques to do ECAM, stop - N/CL, OEB, reset - continue STS? I got trained the same way in 2005 and even then it was not the proper sequence, but the correct guidance not that visible. Since about 2008 the books cannot be any clearer.

It is kind of astonishing, my experience is that 2 full generations passing (cadet->TRI) is almost not enough, such is the inertia. :)

What’s amazing is that we have OEBs at all. I don’t see why instead of publishing a bit of paper, they don’t send out an update to the FWC / ECAM database, similar to the AIRAC.

Another possible "procedure" at STATUS: when an OEB affects the STATUS only. There are no current case of an OEB affecting STATUS only, but it is a possibility, as hinted at by the OEB reminder function which may be either on the procedure itself, the procedure and the status, or the status only. In any case, check the OEBs before calling "ECAM Actions". When reaching STATUS, if the OEB (checked previously) affects STATUS messages only, apply the OEB procedure.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....42fa67f6e4.png

Hi thanks for the reply.

Actually, OEB's now have to be considered before starting ECAM. Though, the OEB may direct you to do something only when reaching the STS page.

All the OEBs I have seen before were always applicable before initiating the ECAM. Our QRH states: « The flight crew must disregard the ECAM procedure and/or Status of the Ecam alerts listed in the « Ecam Entry » field and must apply the QRH’s OEB procedure instead »

Now it’s a good time to be on A320 Family. No more OEBs in our fleet now except a simple one on the NEOs (OEB 57).

I don't know what the company plan was, but the general thinking was that actioning any relevant OEBs might reduce the list on the STATUS page, which in turn would make TDODAR easier. Obviously with something like an EFATO you wouldn't ask "any OEBs?" before performing the initial ECAM actions.

Initial ECAM actions, failed engine secure, cleaned up and climbed to MSA while working through the system pages; then a check of the ECAM MEMO at that point was useful and would show if a STBY pump etc. was still running. i.e. check your ECAM MEMO and run any relevant normal checklists when clean and safe, just before STATUS.

*your QRH and company SOPs take precedence*

It is a big job to update and verify the FMGS/ECAM data bases, and not one to be taken lightly. A navigation download takes 20 mins or more involving floppy discs on older A320 family, and it can fail, requiring the process to be repeated. Not ideal during a turnaround - having engineers in the cockpit and unable to access the FMGS for that length of time. (no disrespect to engineers).

The new data base has to be checked and cross checked for errors by the approved provider, so is not something you would want to do or have to afford for every change.

OEBs are supposed to be temporary until a permanent fix is worked out for engineering to implement.

5-6 years ago on approach the gear wouldn’t come down (A320). Like any good Captain, I asked the FO what the hell he did!

FO then proceeded to follow the ECAM. I said no, that’s a “special” (thats what we call OEB’s) I told him to go to the QRH for the procedure. He started with that, and I said that doesn’t sound right either, then I remembered the “specials” were only published in the Flight Manual. He opened the flight manual and we applied that procedure - the gear came down on the third try.

I’ll be honest, when the gear didn’t come down my stress level went through the roof - landing gear up wasn’t and isn’t on my “to do” list. Normally we want the Captain to relinquish control of the aircraft and radios to the FO in a non normal with the Captain handling the checklist. In this case I didn’t do that and I believe that allowed me to think more clearly about what I remembered the special to be and that what the FO was reading the first two times didn’t correspond to that memory.

Long story to say I don’t like OEB’S either, I get why they are necessary but I don’t like them.

In dynamic environment something doesn't work properly or as designed. OEB is temporary fix or a work around till a permanent solution is found to remove it. But OEB reminder function is a good help so you don't have to remember it.

Correct, that’s what I have written above. You could be instructed by an OEB to apply the ECAM and some additional procedures in the OEB upon reaching the status. It’s just an example anyway.

The good old landing gear not downlocked OEB 44 :) A colleague had it and it took him about 30 secs after the recycle to get it down (of a max of 2 min). It surely did feel like half an hour !

We have a similar setup where "normally" the FO will fly, but it's up to the CA to decide ultimately. Glad it worked out for you. I'd have thought being PM would give you more clarity, but it's all situation-dependent, now isn't it?

Can still remember the debrief after one of my first recurrent rides as a Captain. Very small company, not clearly defined SOPs. Every emergency in the SIM “I said: you have control”. Examiner wondered if I was afraid to fly and I answered “I know we can both fly, but I have the responsibility to fix the problem”. It works for me.

I quite like the system- even if it’s not a full on emergency. It really frees up the CA’s brain cells. As we saw yesterday though, some situations are unique, so I think it’s important that we retain the ability to use discretion.

I was PF, we were flying into an airport with some terrain, coordinating the go around with tower was a goat rope (You want to do what? Why? Where?) Further coordination with approach control was bothersome but not as bad as with tower. Of course fuel was an issue, probably more of a self imposed issue, we had about :40 mins of loiter left. Transferring control didn’t seem like a good idea time during that period. I also didn’t want to delay starting the procedure because of my self imposed fuel deadline. (Sounds like a bunch of excuses, but that is what was happening and what I was thinking)

I agree however that in virtually all circumstances transferring aircraft control to the FO is the appropriate course of action during a non normal.

If you are about to land soon, no need to switch it off. If not, you have time to review the FCOM procedure, which will instruct you to do it. That is what I have been taught.

Thanks, that's very coherent with sonicboom 's answer for APU on the 320: Wait until the book tells you to.