Fly and talk (PF) where PM will fix it.

Okay.

Problem is, if PF gets it (ATC) wrong and dials in wrong numbers in the FCU...

Interesting...

I was sceptical at first, but i find it works a lot better than having the PM get constantly interrupted while sorting out the situation - both in the sim and in the plane.

Isn't that Airbus SOP? "My control and ATC. ECAM actions"

The OP's company has the PF tell the PM what to set in the FCU after getting an instruction. I'm trying to figure the rationale there.

Coming back onto the A320 from the B787 after 4 years, during the endorsement I would say that out of habit, but as it turns out now we just say,

“I have control, ECAM actions”. Radios are automatically transferred to the PF.

After “ECAM ACTIONS COMPLETE” Radios are automatically transferred back to the PM.

It took a while to get used to it, but it works well enough. Doesn’t hurt to do a little “mini brief” just to bring everyone in the loop, especially if there has been a PF->PM swap at some point during the ECAM ACTIONS.

Interestingly, in our company on the 787, we didn’t transfer Radios during Non Normal Checklists, and it worked pretty well, but the Electronic checklists on the 787 are next level compared with the A320. I guess that’s the 30 years of development for you.

I've seen the normal checklist in action, and think it's awesome. What else did Boeing improve on, on the 787? That cockpit sure looks slick. now if they'd just replace the control column with a sidestick and tray table...:E

Yes, the yoke was a pain in the ass, a side stick (and table) would have made it “almost” perfect.

One of the best things was the full-size screen for the checklist, so much easier to use visually than the little screen on the Airbus. Attaching all the “STATUS” items to the Descent/Approach checklist was really good too, so when you started a NNC you worked it all the way to the end and then it was “Complete”, back to Normal Ops. Then do all your normal landing prep, do the checklist and it’s all done👍 (No need to write little reminder notes, LDR, Vref + etc, maybe that’s why they didn’t put a table in?😂)

They still missed the boat in a few areas because of “Commonality” issues with the earlier aircraft and the need to keep it similar to the 777, it was also very nice to Hand fly, and having a HUD on both sides made Low Vis super easy.

Mostly, everything was just a simplified version of what we know on the A320. But I believe the 330 and all that came after it were a generational improvement too. I imagine the A350 is pretty slick.

Not sure if your FCTM is different but in manual flights on A320, the PF can also set his own EFIS except FD p/b on top of AP and A/THR.

Also when you ask for something there is no please just: « Set heading XXX. »
and as PF you don’t need to read back the value of the heading after the PM has set it. You both checked it silently. Only the FMA and altitude are announced out loud. You only announced « Heading » if you were in Nav mode before. Some guys and even me I sometimes announced the value but this is non standard.

I am not qualified to comment on Airbus philosophy or SOP so the following comments need to be taken in context.

In general, flight directors are amazingly accurate provided the information sent to them is correct. But you don’t need an FD for all stages of flight. Given wrong information and followed blindly, it becomes a fatal attraction. Yet we have seen in the simulator a marked reluctance for pilots to switch it off even when it no longer gives useful information.

Instructors are quick to blame the hapless student for not following the FD needles. This only serves to reinforce addiction to the FD needles as they must be right because the instructor keeps on telling them so. For type rating training on new pilots, repeated circuits and landings sharpen handling skills. Yet it is not uncommon for instructors to teach students to enter waypoints around the circuit and then exhort the pilots “Fly the flight director” instead of having them look outside at the runway to judge how things are going.

The FPV is a magical device when manually flying. But if you are used to flying by it all the time, then try flying with it off for a change and see how much your scan has deteriorated.

First officers are a captive audience to a captain’s whims. If the captain is nervous about letting his first officer turn off the flight director for simple climbs or descents, or even a non-threatening instrument approach, then it reflects adversely on the captain’s own confidence that he could handle a non-flight director approach himself, which he probably can't. . The FAA has already acted belatedly in publicly recommending that operators should encourage more hand flying raw data if conditions are appropriate. But switch off the flight directors if you want real value for money, particularly with low-hour pilots. It may save lives on the proverbial dark and stormy night and the generators play up.

Decades ago the so called "Silent Cockpit" policy was introduced to cut down on unnecessary and often distracting chatter between the two pilots during operations below 10,000 ft. But nature abhors a vacuum and now we have situations where the golden silence below 10,000 feet is filled with company mandated SOP calls as mode changes occur. The fact that most pilots have good eye sight and can see mode changes on annunciator systems is now seen as not enough. You have to tell the other pilot what you are seeing. Perhaps the next future design feature in cockpits is to have automatic loud speaker announcements at each mode change to reduce the workload associated with verbal call-outs by pilots..

Thanks for all that. The 350 indeed looks pretty slick. I’ve seen a few YouTube videos. It’s a bit disappointing to see the improvements Boeing has made to the 737 displays over 4 generations, and then see that Airbus has stuck with the same basic 1980’s display design for the 320. The LCDs are a big improvement over the CRTs though. I’ll give them that much.

:D:D:D

Very well said, sir. Could not agree more.

We really need that “Like” button. Great post Tee Emm!!

It reminds me one of my last flight before my upgrade assessment, I asked the captain I flew with who was also a line instructor if I could do a raw data approach on my sector ( A319, Home base, ILS, CAVOK...) and he told me: “Nah sorry I don’t do that”. At first I thought he was joking. But no he was serious... Lol. Unbelievable but sadly not an isolate case.

Piss poor excuse for a pilot, let alone an instructor. He’s exact the sort of person I don’t want to have up front when I’m in the back. You should have the CAA put a DAY VFR ONLY restriction on his certificate.

My 2p :

Hand flying in a Boeing/Airbus does increase workload for both PF and PM. More talking is required, and PM has to do part of PF's job as well as their own, since PF is not supposed to make their own selections. PM also needs to monitor PF much more closely when PF is hand-flying, which takes up a lot of PM's capacity.

I really can't see the problem of PF making their own simple FCU changes - if PM is busy. Airbus FBW stays where you put it, and a Boeing won't go far off if you have correctly trimmed it, so you can select a new heading or whatever with your inboard hand, while hand-flying. I don't recognise this threat of veering off our heading or altitude if we look away for a second or two. In our cars at 70mph; we don't veer out of our lane or crash into the car next to us on the motorway when we look down at our speedometer or clock or radio - why would we do so in a big stable jet.

If PF has to ask PM for every selection it can get silly. When in busy TMA airspace*, PM is making many radio calls and frequency changes, and reading those back and dialling them in. If PF has to ask for an FCU change, they will either talk over ATC, making PM forget the six digit frequency, or have to wait until PM has finished their task.

*obviously, not a sensible place to hand-fly !

I don't see the problem with flying 'through' the FD in the short term. The FD tells you where you need to be to follow the current settings on the FCU. However, if those settings are no longer valid, and PM is busy with an important task; then I will fly a different heading and ignore the heading bar of the FD while still following the pitch bar. Or vice versa. When PM is back, I can ask for the FCU changes to update the FD. Or turn off the FD. Or - if it is getting too busy, pop the AP back in to reduce workload for both of us.

Hand flying should be encouraged by companies, it makes a lot of sense for them to keep our skills and scans sharp. But they should also specify the conditions and situations where hand flying would be appropriate, so as not to introduce extra problems or reduce safety or compromise the commercial parameters of the flight. Hand-flying a complicated SID - with strict noise abatement turns that gets peeled off into quick-fire ATC vectors and speed changes in the London TMA - is asking for cock-ups and embarrassment ! Hand-flying an intercept to an ILS or a visual approach for practice on a quiet, CAVOK day with light winds when both pilots are alert and rested, would be fine, and should be encouraged.

Companies could have us log 3 manually flown approaches every 6 months, like we used to do for practice auto-lands.

For BOTH Airbus and Boeing, it is NOT a Flight DIRECTOR bar but a Flight SUGGESTION bar!!!!!
For God’s sake.

Who is in charge of the aircraft? The pilot or a computer?

Anyone not seeing that has no bloody place on a flightdeck, let alone write SOP’s.

It does make sense (but it's forbidden, because it is written "on PF request")
And can the PF set his own FCU at your airline ?
There is a table in Operational philosophy, tasksharing rules, FCU/AFS, which clearly states "NO" in my FCTM. I also have a generic airbus one that is a bit older (uses PNF, different arrangement of content) but has the exact same answer.

Either they want the same logic whether the PF decides a new target or ATC asks for a new target. I worked at airbus for a bit and they have this sort of reasoning, that things should be done as identically as possible even in situations that are different.

I feel like I don't fully understand the situation here.
Does this little rule ("NO" in the specific page of the FCTM) apply to all airlines or do some airlines have a modified version where pilots have a tiny bit more of freedom ?
Or, do some pilots routinely make this very little violation to touch a knob when they normally couldn't (not ordered to do so)
Same question, do you have a different FCTM than ours ?
Now this is becoming hilarious

The same kind of comments could be made about the radio altimeter auto callout. After years of flaring on the "30" callout or just after (or even on the "20"), maybe if one day the callout does not work it will be a disturbance and the flare could be late ? When I worked at airbus, I saw at least one report in which the pilot wrote the callout was missing and it was the main reason why they flared late and landed hard.
Is it really required or just a rule that could be changed ?
​​​​​​​
If you only train your manual flying when conditions are easiest, will you really be ready for the day you will have an AP failure + any condition less than ideal ? Be it weather, traffic, or any other, but if you have an AP failure that will be due to some technical problems so workload would be at least high. I'm not saying pilots should only train in unduly hard conditions (at some time in the past, it used to be done, instructors simulated failures with pax on board to train a newbie like me), but restricting to easy conditions is maybe not completely enough, you could at least go to average conditions with a medium workload.

Just imagine talking to a passenger, what is more reassuring ?
- If the conditions are all easy, I decide fly the plane manually, but if there is a bit more workload I prefer not to.
- In normal conditions I usually fly manually

I agree with your disagreement with Uplinker. Just because it's windy or IMC doesn't mean the AP/AT should be used. I actually think those are the best times to fly raw data. Stay sharp. Now if it's overcast at 200ft, obviously, we'll just be doing a CAT2/3.

Very well. Do this- in the briefing, say "assume any instructions given by ATC to be my request". That should keep you within the SOP and eliminate unnecessary chatter.:)

We seem to have a bit more freedom. The first page of the SOP allows us to deviate from normal operations as necessary to maintain a safe operation. It also specifically says that the PF should make FCU inputs when the PM is busy. I recall on day 1 of my very first airline class, the instructor threw the FCOM across the room to make the point that even though we needed SOPs, the book couldn't fly.

Little violations? Probably. My last flight, I was PF. In the climb with the AP off, as the captain made a PA, we were cleared to our requested cruise altitude. I read it back, and set the FCU. Later on, while the captain was having his dinner, I responded to a radio call, tuned the new frequency and contacted the next sector, with nary a word from the captain. Would my disregard for SOP have caused me to fail a line check at your company?

I love hand flying, but you gotta pick your moment. I disconnected quite early one day when ATC was annoying the sh$t out of us with multiple 1000 ft altitude changes and my offsider says, “I’m not your MCP monkey!” 😂😂😂

Hahahaha, soooo true 😂😂😂

Look, If I am conducting an ILS on a very windy, choppy day, I will hand-fly it from a long way out in order to get my responses up to speed, so that at around 4-5 miles, I am totally in the groove and able to deal with whatever the wind throws at me. I do NOT take the AP out just before minimums !!! and nor was I suggesting that.

Quote:

---

Is it {more talking} really required or just a rule that could be changed ?

---

You would have to ask Airbus/Boeing, they write the SOPs. Obviously, you don't want a situation where PF does their own thing and becomes a single pilot operation while PM loses SA. You need to keep both pilots in the loop

Regarding practicing hand-flying in poor weather or busy airspace; yes of course you can, but you must remember that you will massively increase PM's workload, and airlines are commercial operations. If pilots violated noise abatement or made errors in busy airspace because they were hand-flying, the chief pilot might have something to say.

Practice in sensible conditions, but never be afraid of hand-flying turbulent approaches.
Better to do so a long way out and get into the groove than disconnect at 400' and only then discover how much the AP was coping !! (This especially applies to Airbus FBW, since you cannot normally see what control inputs it is making).

As others have pointed out, if the manual flying "workload" is too high for you then maybe you are in the wrong line of work!

Makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. Agree with a lot of this. To be clear, I’m not turning everything off in the midst of the afternoon rush into JFK or while dodging storms in MEX. Wrong time and wrong place.

Ahh yeah it does - if you want to fly manually, you should have the discipline to make the appropriate commands / callouts as per the FCOM, otherwise engage the AP.

I'm not worried about manual flying workload, I'm fresh out of flight school where it was manual flying + manual IFR navigating + comms and all procedures including serious abnormal (simulated or not) in real IMC.
I'm just worried about rules with poor justifications. And I also don't like breaking rules. If there is no rule with poor justification there is no breaking this rule, so that would be ideal.
You wouldn't fail a line check but there could be one small remark yes.

Wow this thread has given me a headache. Thanks to Corona I've been out of the game for a few months now but by God I don't recall the job being this complicated!? :confused::bored:

The workload is easy for PF, what some don't realise though, is how much it increases PM's workload. Have you taken off from say Luton, into and across the London TMA during a very busy period and with CBs around?

I beleive our FCTM is identical to Airbus FCTM at least for that chapter.
Here's a screen shot of what mine says:
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....42ec9149b4.jpg

LOL! I absolutely agree with you, you summed it up perfectly!

Kay Pam
Why don't you give yourself time? If you start judging procedures as right or wrong.without much experience then you will build anti mind set There are personality types that hinder decision making and one of them is Anti Authority i.e. Don't Tell me. As they say SOPs are written in blood at least some of them. Clarifying your doubts is OK but every guy out of flying school brings new ideas then it will be chaotic. Just give yourself time it will work out by itself.

IMHO KayPam raised a good question.
In our business there should always be enough room for improvement.
Some operators do it that way, others do it different as learned in this thread.
At least I did.

KayPam,



How would your company fly an approach like this?



https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2009/00443RIVER_VIS19.PDF

Raising a question in the way the topic starter did is, IMHO, still not sufficient grounds to get worried about their anti-authoritarian attitude. He's made it clear that he does and will follow the rules even if he doesn't like them. From that point, any discussion is welcome and should be encouraged as long as the suggestions remain as suggestions only until they are reviewed by the flight ops management and implemented into the SOP if found reasonable. It's good to see people put some thought into the reasoning behind what they do rather than follow orders blindly and with no clue as to why.

Questionable items in the SOP will always be a thing. One example which caused a lot of controversy amongst colleagues in an airline I used to work for was why the PF was not required to hand over the controls for the approach briefing. And, when the matter was voiced appropriately, the DFO gave a really good explanation which ended the dispute once and forever. The reason was that, in this way, the PF effectively remained head-up and monitoring the flight path while briefing the approach from the ND. And it was much better than the PM having the controls while being focused on his tablet to cross-check the arrival against the chart. Once people understood that, nobody said anything against it ever again. So, a little discussion may often be useful to resolve any questionable matters. Certainly better than people quietly doing their own thing while nobody is watching.

Why's it gimmicky to fly through the FD? If it's not doing what I want it to do, I ignore it. Push the red button by each thumb if it misbehaves further.

What copmpany in the ME has that dangerous SOP? I'd like to know, so I can avoid them. Is it the one that shall not be mentioned?

Quite a fascinating thread.

Caveats.

I have some experience in a number of sandpits but not the level of flying experience represented by many of our PPRuNe colleagues. As well, I came into the flying game when a more rigorous level of discipline was being established but not then to the extent that we see in recent years.

These days, the legal animal is ever present so any activity must, necessarily, be tempered by thoughts of discussions, challenges, and consequences in a different arena.

One significant factor is that the general starting age of airline folks probably is a little younger and with substantially less aviation experience than it was in years gone by ? By itself this is not a major problem but does require that the operating entity’s control over (new) pilot development is reasonably rigorous. We can see this in the military environment where the increasing level of imposed discipline over recent decades has resulted in a significant reduction in hull losses and fatalities – certainly within the Australian environment.

Many opine that traffic densities and airspace complexities are now such that rigour and procedural prescription are both inevitable and essential – I don’t profess to have the answers to that one although I posit that there have always been busy locations with which one had to contend ?

My thoughts, just for whatever they may be worth ..

I think the main philosophical catchcry need be something along the lines of “horses for courses”. I recall when I transitioned to the B733, the then boss was a wise chap (and one of those natural “born with the stick in his hand” types – was I envious ? of course I was) who, after a period of Type introduction, took the view that we were free to emphasise either the manual and/or the automatic, but need know and be competent with both, while taking care not to embarrass ourselves (or him, either, I guess).

While I have always inclined to the manual flying practice attitude, it didn’t take me long to realise (the -300 being my first somewhat automatic machine) that one could, quite easily, get out of one’s depth, particularly when significantly fatigued for whatever reason – horses for courses, again ?

Some of us would definitely emphasise the automatics, others would hand fly sectors, raw data, no auto throttle, essentially single pilot, the other guy watching with an appropriate level of interest, from takeoff to landing, to hone the hand tool skills. Did this greatly increase the workload on the monitoring pilot ? With an appropriate discussion at the start, it didn’t appear to do so. One thing did ensue, that being that we gained a high level of feel for what the aircraft would do while being reasonably conservative in one’s personal discipline.

Some for instances,

(a) check flight – severe blue day, 50 odd miles to run straight in. modest traffic. Checkie turned all the gadgets off (including aids) on my side so it was a real do-it-yourself visual approach from 20-odd thousand feet. Difficult ? Not really, certainly interesting (and totally unannounced), but one had to keep the brain thinking all the way in … (722 on that occasion).

(b) line flight, training captain asked did I have any idea of how steep a sensible approach could be conducted from the mid-twenties ? No ? Try dirty one in a mile. Worked out fine, gear, then flaps at 20. Again, had to keep the wits about me.

(c) DRW to CNS, severe blue day, howling westerly so CNS was going to be more than a tad rough in the lower levels. Over the upwind end at around 12000-13000 ft, steep descending circuit over the water and land into the north. Not a problem at all.

And so one could continue to recite relevant anecdotes from years gone by.

Would we have done these sorts of interesting things on a dirty night at the end of a long duty period ? Of course not – horses for courses.

Did we learn a bit about the capabilities of our steed ? Sure did.

What should be the approach ? Probably not for me to pontificate other than to observe – horses for courses.

You actually quoted my justification for my statement, did you read it? :)

Pilots should always "fly through" the flight directors - by which I mean you should always be looking at the pitch and roll presentation of the PFD, and any adjustment to the aircraft path should be by reference to this. Pilots must always refer to the pitch and bank presentation, and only regard the FD as a suggestion for guidance. Unusual attitudes? look only at pitch, bank, and speed, ignore all else. This should be instinctive.

The FD is an advisory instrument, and it should never be blindly followed. Doing so has caused accidents, and one must always look through it to confirm the actual pitch and bank of the aircraft, and that the FD is offering sensible guidance.

As far as taking the FD out if you are not going to follow it. I thought I had explained my reasoning fairly clearly.

On two occasions in my commercial flying I have rotated and got airborne and then had to avoid birds. In both cases the FDs were on, as per SOPs, and were guiding the usual path: bank to follow the SID, pitch to follow SRS (pitch to maintain V2). At a few hundred feet, birds appeared ahead, flying across our path, and I instinctively 'ducked' the aircraft underneath them to avoid damage to our pitot probes or ingesting the birds into an engine. There was no time to request "flight directors off", I just reacted as I needed to do, and ignored the flight director, since its indications were no longer appropriate at that precise moment. After passing under the birds, I gently resumed the FD guidance.

On another occasion during approach into Alicante, a banner towing aircraft - unknown and unseen by ATC radar - suddenly appeared off to our right flying across our path while PM was head down, dialling in tower frequency. Again, there was no time to follow SOPs, I simply avoided the aircraft and ignored the FD.

Regarding your so-called 'clutter' of the PFD, with a "plethora of information" and "waving needles" well, the A320, A321 and A330 that I fly (flew), have extremely well designed cockpit displays. Some say they are crude and old fashioned, but actually they have been very well thought out with only relevant information displayed, and they are very clear and easy to use. (I have not flown the A350). I have flown Boeing 737-300/400 though, and I found their displays awkward in terms of information layout and clutter.

Things must have changed, the wording in CAP24 “Guidance for Examiners” used to require the IRE/TRE to brief the candidates that “you may use the flight director, but if you do, you must ensure it is correctly programmed and you must follow its commands”

Bloody hell, this is hard work. :ugh: I don't know how to explain it any simpler.

Fine, fly your aircraft with blind adherance to the FD if it makes you happy and you really think that's what you should do.

I started my commercial flying on an aircraft with no auto-pilot, no auto-thrust, and no flight directors. I still fly by reference to the pitch and bank indications, the speed tape and the N1/EPR gauges. Everything else on top of that is nice to have, reduces my workload and I use it, but the FD is not my primary reference. I can, and do, ignore one or both axes of it in the short term if I need to in order to fly the plane safely.
.

The correctly programmed bit is the clue here

A last example from me. We are in the cruise and PM has gone to the loo. Or we are following vectors in a TMA and PM is getting cabin secure from the CC. Out of the blue ATC says "avoiding action, turn left 30°." I am going to take out the AP and turn immediately by reference to my bank and heading display, and ignore the roll bar of the FD but still follow the FD pitch bar. When I know the aircraft is safe, and/or PM comes back, we can turn the heading bug to realign the FD, and pop the AP back in.