The Airbus safety magazine

#31

Safety
first
Safety first, #31 January, 2021. Safety first is
published by Airbus S.A.S. - 1, rond point Maurice
Bellonte - 31707 Blagnac Cedex/France.
Publisher and Editor: Yannick Malinge,
Chief Product Safety Officer.
Safety first
The Airbus magazine contributing to the enhancement
Concept Design by Airbus MultiMedia Studio
20210475. Reference: X00D16031905 Issue 31. of the safety of aircraft operations by increasing knowledge
Photos by Airbus, A. Tchaikovski, S. Ramadier, and communication on safety related topics.
M. Min Tun, H. Goussé, F. Lancelot, P. Masclet.
Computer rendergins by Fixion.

This brochure is printed on Symbol Tatami White.

This paper is produced in factories that are accredited
EMAS and certi ed ISO 9001-14001, PEFC and Safety first is published by the Product Safety department.
FSC CoC. It is produced using pulp that has been
whitened without either chlorine or acid. The paper is It is a source of specialist safety information for the use
entirely recyclable and is produced from trees grown of airlines who fly and maintain Airbus aircraft. It is also
in sustainable forest resources.
The printing inks use organic pigments or minerals.
distributed to other selected organizations and is available
There is no use of basic dyes or dangerous metals on digital devices.
from the cadmium, lead, mercury or hexavalent
chromium group.
The printer, Art & Caractère (France 81500), Material for publication is obtained from multiple sources
is engaged in a waste management and recycling and includes selected information from the Airbus Flight
programme for all resulting by-products.
Safety Confidential Reporting System, incident and accident
investigation reports, system tests and flight tests. Material
is also obtained from sources within the airline industry,
studies and reports from government agencies and other
aviation sources.

All articles in Safety first are presented for information

only and are not intended to replace ICAO guidelines,
standards or recommended practices, operator-mandated
requirements or technical orders. The contents do not
supersede any requirements mandated by the State of
Registry of the Operator’s aircraft or supersede or amend
any Airbus type-specific AFM, AMM, FCOM, MMEL
Editorial Team documentation or any other approved documentation.
Guillaume Estragnat, Vanessa Sadi,
Gwyneth Duggan and Tim Roach.
Articles may be reprinted without permission, except where
copyright source is indicated, but with acknowledgement
© Airbus S.A.S. 2021 – All rights reserved.
Proprietary documents.
to Airbus. Where Airbus is not the author, the contents of
By taking delivery of this Brochure
the article do not necessarily reflect the views of Airbus,
(hereafter “Brochure”), you accept on behalf neither do they indicate Company policy.
of your company to comply with the following
guidelines:
Contributions, comment and feedback are welcome. Enquiries
No other intellectual property rights are granted
by the delivery of this Brochure than the right to related to this publication should be addressed to:
read it, for the sole purpose of information.
This Brochure and its content shall Airbus
not be modified and its illustrations
and photos shall not be reproduced without
Product Safety department (W)
prior written consent of Airbus. 1, rond point Maurice Bellonte
This Brochure and the materials it contains 31707 Blagnac Cedex - France
shall not, in whole or in part, be sold, rented, or Fax: +33(0)5 61 93 44 29
licensed to any third party subject to payment.
This Brochure contains sensitive information [email protected]
that is correct at the time of going to press.
This information involves a number of factors that
could change over time, effecting the true public
representation. Airbus assumes no obligation Visit us at safetyfirst.airbus.com
to update any information contained in this or install the Safety first app:
document or with respect to the information
described herein.
Airbus S.A.S. shall assume no liability for any
damage in connection with the use of this
Brochure and of the materials it contains, even if
Airbus S.A.S. has been advised of the likelihood
of such damages.
 editorial
Dear Aviation colleagues,

I hope that the new year finds you, your families, friends, and colleagues well. The entire
Airbus safety team and I pass on our best wishes for a brighter 2021. With the vaccine
solutions now becoming available, it gives us hope that we will begin to emerge from this
COVID-19 situation. However, we will still face some uncertainty, together with all of its
associated challenges.

Seeing so many grounded and parked aircraft in 2020 was disheartening for everyone,
especially in contrast to the normally dynamic operational environment of commercial
aviation. In this context, there is also the heightened risk of falling into the complacency
trap. It is why we must remain vigilant, and ensure we do everything that is required to safely
YANNICK MALINGE return to the skies.
SVP & Chief
In response to the evolving circumstances of 2020, aviation actors had to adapt and develop
Product Safety Officer
risk management strategies, in particular to avoid this complacency trap. At Airbus, we
launched our own task force, which included a dedicated focus on supporting Operators
with storage, parking, maintenance practices, and preparing aircraft for their return to service
including flight operations aspects. The significant work achieved by our colleagues in Airbus
Customer Services and Engineering teams is reflected in the Safety first articles published
throughout 2020.

These included Aircraft Parking and Storage (May), which was followed up by Preparing
for a Safe Return to the Skies (June), and with further updates provided in the Parking and
Storage / Return to Service Summary Letter. For flight crews who have recently flown much
less than usual, there are articles on Prevention of Unstable Approaches (October), A Focus
on the Landing Flare (September), and the latest article, A Focus on the Takeoff Rotation
(January). Each article provides operational best practices and the key safety elements for
pilots to recall during these critical flight phases.

Nevertheless, the aviation industry is not yet clear of the COVID-19 “wake vortex” effect.
Therefore, we need to remain focussed on fully applying a risk management mindset and to
implement all of the resulting risk mitigation strategies. It is why I strongly encourage every
one of us to keep going, and for you to make full use of the above-mentioned Airbus safety
information, which will support a safe return to flying.

Safety in aviation is a part of our professional DNA and our shared passion for aviation. It
is why we are pleased to see the readership of the Airbus Safety first articles continue to
grow, with over 500,000 visits to safetyfirst.airbus.com and the Safety first app in 2020. I
want to thank all of you for engaging with the safety information that we are sharing and for
continuing to connect your aviation colleagues with Airbus Safety first in 2021.

I look forward to seeing you in the safe skies ahead.

Safety
first
The Airbus Safety magazine

Also available in app

and website versions

Visit us at safetyfirst.airbus.com
 NEWS

News: Parking and Storage / Return to Service

Summary Letter
A dedicated task force in Airbus Customer Support was created in response to
the unprecedented impact of the global pandemic on our industry since March
this year. As there have been many aircraft grounded for an extended period of
time, this letter provides Operators with the latest Airbus guidance on parking
& storage of aircraft and to ensure their safe return to service.

You can download the latest issue of the “Parking and

Storage/Return to Service Summary Letter” by scanning
this QR code.

This Summary Letter can also be found on the AirbusWorld

portal in the Content Library/Publications/Newsletter section.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 005

Safety
first #31
OPERATIONS
P06
A Focus on the Landing Flare

P16
Prevention of Unstable Approaches

Flight Operations P24

Attention! Crew at Stations!
Cabin Operations

P36
Ground Operations

Maintenance
A Focus on the Takeoff Rotation
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Landing Flare

A Focus on the
Landing Flare
There were several cases of aircraft touching down with their
nose landing gear first or hard landings reported to Airbus
over the last 2 years. This article will present some key points
coming from the analysis of two of these incidents and recall
the operational recommendations for performing the flare
phase that are key to ensuring a safe landing.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 007

CASE STUDY 1: BOUNCED 

LANDING, NOSE LANDING GEAR 
IMPACT, AND A TAIL STRIKE ON 
GO-AROUND

Event Description
An A320 was on the final approach segment of its ILS approach, configured
for landing (CONF FULL).

The Pilot Flying (PF) disconnected the autopilot at 370 ft Radio Altitude (RA) and
kept autothrust ON. At 200 ft, tailwind variations caused the airspeed to drop
below approach speed (Vapp).

1 From 100 ft RA and below, high tailwind gradients maintained the airspeed
below Vapp -5 kt despite autothrust increase and reached a minimum of 119
kt (Vapp -20 kt) at 5 ft RA.

2 The PF performed the flare at 14 ft and at the same time started to slowly
push the thrust levers above CLB detent.

3 The aircraft touched down on its main landing gear and bounced. During the
bounce, a PITCH PITCH auto callout triggered.

4 The PF applied full nose down order and retarded the thrust levers to IDLE.
This triggered an extension of ground spoilers leading the aircraft to heavily impact
the runway, first with its nose landing gear and then its main landing gear.

5 The impact of the nose gear resulted in another sudden increase of the
aircraft’s pitch and the PITCH PITCH auto callout triggered for a second time.
The PF initiated a go-around by setting TOGA thrust and applying a full nose up
command. There was a tail strike as the aircraft lifted off from the runway at 133 kt.

The NLG wheels separated due to the impact of the NLG on the runway and
one wheel was sucked into Engine 1, causing this engine to stall. Other system
failures occurred due to the impact on the NLG and these caused the aircraft
to revert to alternate law. The flight crew diverted to a different airport and
eventually landed the aircraft.
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Landing Flare

(fig.1) Operational Considerations

Sequence of events from case study 1
Role of the Pilot Monitoring (PM)

The FCOM SOP for landing requests a SPEED callout by the PM in the case
of speed deviation of 5 kt below the target speed. The PF should initiate a
go-around unless they consider that a stabilized condition can be recovered
by small corrections to the aircraft and within sufficient time prior to landing.

The FCTM states that the risk of tail strike is increased due to the high angle of
attack and high pitch attitude if the speed of the aircraft is allowed to decrease
too far below Vapp before the flare.

Looking at step 1 in the event described above, it shows the speed went below
Vapp -5 kt from 100 ft and below. If the PM had made a “SPEED” callout then
the PF may have noticed the speed decay and attempted to correct it or initiate
a go-around if it was not likely to stabilize in time.

Flare Height

The FCOM states that in a stabilized approach, the flare should be initiated at
30 ft for A320 family aircraft (the values for other Airbus aircraft are provided
later in this article).

The FCTM recommends initiating the flare earlier if there is a tailwind. This is
because a tailwind will contribute to a higher ground speed with an associated
increase in vertical speed to maintain the approach slope.

Initiating the flare earlier would have reduced the high vertical speed of the
aircraft in the event described above.

Thrust Lever Management

The A320 FCTM explains that the flight crew can rapidly retard all thrust levers to
IDLE either earlier or later than the 20 ft “RETARD” auto callout reminder depending
on the conditions. However, the thrust levers should be at IDLE by touchdown to
ensure that the ground spoilers will extend and keep the aircraft on the ground.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 009

In step 2 of the event, the PF pushed the thrust levers above the CLB detent
during flare. This increased thrust and inhibited the ground spoiler extension
during the initial touchdown, which contributed to the aircraft bounce.

Bounce Management

For a high bounce, as was the case in the incident described above, the FCTM
recommends maintaining the aircraft’s pitch attitude and performing a go-around.

The hard impact of the nose landing gear with the runway described in step ​ 4
of the event was caused by extension of the ground spoilers when the thrust
levers were retarded to IDLE during the bounce combined with a full forward
stick input after the bounce.

Go-Around Close to the Ground

The FCTM recommends avoiding an excessive rotation rate during a go-around

close to the ground and to counteract any pitch-up effect due to the thrust increase.

In step 5 of the event, it was the full back stick input combined with the nose
landing gear bounce and thrust increase that contributed to the tail strike.

CASE STUDY 2: A321 NOSE 

LANDING GEAR LANDING

Event Description
The A321 performed an ILS approach in night conditions. The weather was fine
and there was a 10 kt headwind.

The flight crew switched OFF the autopilot at 940 ft RA and kept the FD ON.
The autothrust was ON and the speed was stabilized at approach speed.

1 From 110 ft RA to 50 ft RA, the PF applied several nose up inputs that

increased the aircraft pitch attitude to 3.8° nose up. The autothrust commanded
a thrust increase to maintain Vapp. The aircraft consequently flew over the
runway threshold at around 40 ft RA with a vertical speed close to 0 ft/min.

2 The PF applied several pitch up inputs that maintained the nose up pitch
attitude and the aircraft subsequently floated above the runway for 4 seconds.
At around 20 ft RA, the PF retarded the thrust levers progressively to IDLE.

 3 4 seconds later the aircraft was at around 10 ft and the PF applied a ​full
forward stick input​. The nose landing gear heavily impacted the runway 660
m after the runway threshold, followed by the main landing gear.

Both nose landing gear wheels separated due to the severe impact and the
aircraft finally stopped on the runway centerline resting on its nose landing
gear axle.
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Landing Flare

(fig.2) Operational Considerations

Sequence of events from case study 2

Flare Height

The FCOM recommends a flare manoeuvre at around 30ft for an A320 family
aircraft in a stabilized condition.

The flare described in the case study 2 was initiated too early at 110 ft RA and
autothrust was kept engaged. This Led to the aircraft crossing the runway
threshold with a vertical speed close to 0 ft/min.

Thrust Lever Management

The autothrust is active and targets the approach speed or selected speed as
long as thrust levers are not retarded to IDLE detent.

In this event, the aircraft descent rate was almost 0 ft/min at the runway threshold.
The A/THR was still active (thrust levers remained in CLB detent) and targeting
the approach speed. This led the aircraft to float above the runway for several
seconds until the PF retarded the thrust levers.

Pitch Control

The FCTM states that the PF must avoid using nose down inputs once flare is
initiated. The PF can release the back stick input slightly as required.

In step 3 of this event, the aircraft pitch down effect due to the full forward stick
input, combined with the aircraft's descent rate, resulted in a heavy impact of
the nose landing gear with the runway surface.

Go-Around Decision

The FCTM states that if a normal touchdown point cannot be reached, a

go-around (or rejected landing) should be performed.

In this event, the appropriate action would have been for the PF to initiate a
go-around when the aircraft was in a float condition above the runway.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 011

RECIPE FOR A SAFE LANDING

The recommendations below summarize the procedures and techniques
provided in the FCOM and FCTM. If the aircraft
Be stabilized
reaches the flare
height at the correct
A safe flare can only be achieved when the aircraft is stabilized, meaning that
all of the flight parameters areas expected, including:
speed and it is on the
expected flight path,
• the aircraft is on its expected final flight path (lateral and vertical) then a normal flare
• speed is close to Vapp, and
• wings are level. technique will lead to
a safe landing.
If the aircraft reaches the flare height at the correct speed and it is on the
expected flight path, then a normal flare technique will lead to a safe landing.

PM must call out any flight parameter deviation

Careful monitoring of the flight parameters including speed, pitch, bank and Careful
vertical speed, enables the PM to raise the attention of the PF to any deviation monitoring of the
during the final approach. This will enable the PF to respond accordingly and
initiate a go-around, if required. flight parameters
including speed,
Refer to the FCOM SOP for Approach for more information about the PM callout
related to the flight parameter deviation threshold.
pitch, bank and
vertical speed,
Flare at the right time enables the PM to
Flare should be initiated at around 3
​ 0 ft RA (A220/A300/A310/A320) / 40 ft raise the attention
(A330/A340/A350/A380)​in stabilized conditions. of the PF to any
Factors that may require an earlier initiation of the flare:
deviation during the
final approach.
• Steeper approach slope (more than the nominal 3°)
• Increasing runway slope or rising terrain before the runway threshold
• Tailwind
• High airport elevation.
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Landing Flare

(fig.3)
Factors that may require an earlier flare

Flare correctly
On Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft

The PF must The PF should apply a progressive and gentle back stick order until touchdown.
avoid forward stick
The PF must avoid forward stick inputs once flare is initiated. The PF can
inputs once flare is gradually release the back stick input if needed. The PF must perform a
initiated. go-around If a normal touchdown point cannot be reached.

Any forward stick input after flare is initiated will increase the risk of landing on
NLG with hard impact.

(fig.4)
Flare technique on Airbus fly-by-wire
aircraft
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 013

On A300/A310 aircraft:

The PF must start the flare with a positive and prompt back pressure on the
control column to break the descent rate. The PF must then maintain a constant
and positive back input on the control column until touchdown.

Retard!
A320/A330/A340/A350/A380 aircraft

The 20 ft “RETARD” auto callout is a reminder, not an order. The PF can retard
The PF must
the thrust levers earlier or later depending on the conditions. ensure that the
thrust levers are at
The PF must ensure that the thrust levers are at idle in any case, by touchdown
at the latest, to enable automatic extension of the ground spoilers. idle in any case, by
touchdown at the
Delaying the retard of the thrust levers may increase the landing distance because
the autothrust will target Vapp or the selected speed until it is disconnected by
latest, to enable
moving the levers to the IDLE detent. automatic
A220 aircraft
extension of the
ground spoilers.
The A220 is different from the rest of the Airbus family, because when the thrust
levers are engaged, they continuously respond to autothrust commands. The
A220 does not have any callout for retard. The Flight Mode Annunciator displays
the status of the autothrust (when it is armed and active) at the top of the PFD or
the HUD. When the autothrust RETARD function is activated, it will automatically
reduce the thrust levers to idle. When the autothrust RETARD function is armed,
it will be activated at 30 ft AGL(except in the case of an autoland, when it will
be activated between 20 and 15 ft AGL depending on the condition).

If the autothrust is not armed or if the autothrust RETARD function is not

activated, the flight crew manually retards the thrust levers to idle at 30 ft AGL.

Note that the A220 ground spoiler is activated if the thrust levers are at or near
the idle position.

A300/A310 aircraft

If autothrust is engaged, the PF monitors throttle reduction to idle at 30 ft.

If the thrust is controlled manually, the PF retards throttles progressively to idle
at 20-30 ft. The PF should hold a positive back pressure input on the control
column to counter the nose-down pitching moment as the thrust is reduced.

Maintain the aircraft pitch in the case of a bounce

The FCTM recommends to maintain the pitch attitude in the case of a light
bounce at landing. The aircraft will make a second lighter touchdown and the (fig.5)
landing roll can continue. Management of a light bounce
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Landing Flare

The FCTM recommends to maintain the pitch attitude and initiate a go-around in
the case of a high bounce . Maintaining the pitch attitude, and counteracting any
(fig.6) pitch-up tendency due to the thrust increase, enables the flight crew to avoid a
Management of a high bounce tail strike and ensure a softer secondary touchdown should this occur.

Be go-around minded
The PF can
The PF must perform a go-around if any parameter deviation becomes excessive,
abort the landing or if the aircraft is destabilized just prior to the flare.
and go-around at
any time until the If the aircraft floats above the runway, the flight crew must initiate a go-around
instead of attempting to recover the situation.
thrust reversers are
selected. However, The PF can abort the landing and go-around at any time until the thrust reversers
are selected. However, when the reversers are selected, the landing must be
when the reversers continued.
are selected, the
Avoid excessive rotation rate in a go-around close
landing must be to the ground
continued.
When the flight crew initiates a go-around close to the ground, they must avoid
an excessive rotation rate to limit the risk of tail strike.

The flight crew must wait until the aircraft is safely established in the go-around
before retracting the flaps by one step and the landing gear.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 015

The landing phase is very demanding and it requires good coordination

CONTRIBUTORS:
between the flight crew. The FCOM procedure and FCTM provide
Raimund GEUTER the recommended techniques that must be carefully followed to
Expert Pilot ensure a safe landing.
Flight Operations Support
The Pilot Flying must ensure that the aircraft is established on the
Sundeep GUPTA
expected final approach path at the approach speed. They will apply
Accident/Incident
Investigator progressive back stick input at the correct height, which has been
Product Safety determined depending on external parameters. Any forward stick
inputs must be avoided once flare is initiated. The thrust levers must
Thomas LEPAGNOT be retarded to IDLE, by touchdown at the latest, for the ground
Accident/Incident
Investigator spoilers to deploy.
Product Safety
In the case of a bounce at touchdown, the PF must maintain the
Marc LE-LOUER pitch attitude and decide to either continue the landing if the bounce
A300/A310 was light, or to go-around if it is a high bounce. In the case of a high
Flight Operations Support bounce, the PF must not attempt to land the aircraft by applying nose
Engineer Customer Support down input on the sidestick.
With thanks to Xavier LESCEU,
Andris LITAVNIKS and Christian
The PM also plays an essential role throughout the entire landing
PAQUIN-LAVIGNE and from Airbus sequence.The PM is expected to call out any deviation of the
Canada.
flight parameter to the PF, which will ensure that the PF can react
accordingly or initiate a go-around if the deviation cannot be corrected
in a timely manner. Avoiding an excessive rotation rate of the aircraft
for a go-around initiated close to the ground will prevent a tail strike.

The PF must be prepared for a go-around, and initiate a go-around in

the case of late destabilization or if the aircraft floats above the runway.
A go-around can be initiated at any time during flare or landing roll
until thrust reversers are selected. However when the reversers are
selected, the landing must be continued.
OPERATIONS
Prevention of Unstable Approaches

Prevention of
Unstable Approaches
Unstable approach has been a problem since the very beginning
of commercial aviation. Even so, it is still one of the most
common contributing factors to many of the incidents and
accidents that occur on landing today.
Regardless of the changes or cycles our industry faces, this
article is a timeless reminder for the importance of efficient
preparation for approach including anticipation of late changes,
and the need for cooperation between flight crews and air traffic
controllers. The article also provides tips to detect a potential
unstable approach in advance so that it can be corrected long
before the stabilization height. Respecting stabilized approach
criteria is also highlighted as well as being go-around minded
in the case of late destabilization.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 017

MANAGING CHANGES
IN AVIATION 

New challenges
A global pandemic, such as COVID-19, has several ramifications for the aviation
industry. This includes the challenge for pilots to maintain recency in the face of
an unprecedented drop in air traffic. Ongoing concerns about the effects of the
pandemic can also be distracting for flight crews. It is an important reminder for
crews to remain focused on their tasks throughout the flight. Especially during very
dynamic and variable phases such as arrival, approach, and landing.

Modified ATC guidance

In a congested airspace, ATC sequences the large number of aircraft arriving at
their destination airport by providing speed and trajectory guidance. However, ATC
may not transmit this guidance when the traffic is low. Flight crews should therefore
avoid the trap of expecting ATC to provide this guidance in usually congested
airspaces, and always be aware of the need to monitor and control their energy.

Shortened approach trajectories

When an airspace is less congested in situations like the COVID-19 pandemic,
ATC can clear flight crews on more direct routings. The flight crew must then
quickly adapt their strategy to efficiently manage the aircraft energy due to the
shortened approach trajectories.

In all cases, the flight crew must take advantage of the various tools and techniques
available to efficiently manage and monitor their energy.
OPERATIONS
Prevention of Unstable Approaches

PREPARATION FOR A
STABILIZED APPROACH

Energy Management
Good aircraft energy management from the top of descent is a prerequisite for
a stabilized approach. Aircraft energy management is a combination of tools,
anticipation, and a flexible flight crew action plan.

Use of the Flight Management System

The use of the FMS during descent, approach, and landing provides efficient
assistance to the flight crew to manage the energy of the aircraft and reach the
final approach at the correct speed. The “​Procedures - Normal Procedures -
Standard Operating Procedures - Descent​” from the FCTM provides details on
how the FMS computes the descent profile and how the use of the managed
guidance modes enables the aircraft to stay near this ideal profile during
descent. This is also described in the “​Control your speed during descent,
approach and landing​” Safety first article published in July 2017.

Anticipation of late changes

In areas that use specifically constructed arrivals and approaches that enable
sequencing of high volumes of traffic in congested environments, the anticipation
of a late “direct to” request from ATC, if traffic is low, can help to reduce the
crew workload and stress. The flight crew should review the planned approach
trajectory and be prepared for the “worst case” scenario of a “direct to” that
would significantly reduce the track miles to the runway.

Discussing the approach strategy during

the Approach Briefing
During the approach briefing, management of late changes due to ATC requests
should be anticipated and discussed, ensuring the strategy and task sharing
are clearly defined. This should be part of the flight crew’s Threat and Error
Management (TEM) considerations.

Cooperation between flight crews and air traffic

controllers
Cooperation between flight crews and ATC is essential to prevent situations
that may lead to an unstable approach. The Air Traffic Controller should inform
the flight crew if a shorter route is expected as soon as possible . This would
enable the flight crew to anticipate and adapt their strategy accordingly and
avoid high workload in the last phases of the approach.

Flight crews should alert ATC when they are unable to comply with any request
and should ask for additional track miles to manage the aircraft’s energy if
necessary.

Selecting the appropriate approach speed technique

The ​decelerated approach is the standard technique for approach using
xLS (ILS, MLS, GLS or FLS) or FINAL APP guidance.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 019

However, Airbus recommends that the flight crews use an early stabilized
approach​technique when:

• a selected guidance is used (TRK/FPA or LOC/FPA)

• the final approach path is at a high glide path angle
• the intermediate approach segment is at a lower altitude than usual, and as a
result, the Final Descent Point (FDP) is at a shorter distance from the runway

The flight crew should enter Vapp as a speed constraint at the FDP, enabling
the FMS to calculate the adjusted vertical descent profile (not applicable to
A220 aircraft).

The “​Control your speed during descent, approach and landing​” Safety first
article, published in July 2017, illustrates the two approach speed techniques.

EARLY DETECTION OF AN
UNSTABLE APPROACH
In many cases, a potential unstable approach can be detected long before
the stabilization height. The flight crew should take advantage of the tools and
techniques available for early detection of an unstable approach. This will enable
them to take the time to recover the situation using trajectory modification in
cooperation with ATC. This will avoid the need for last-minute corrections by
the flight crew or a discontinued approach.

Situational awareness
Use of the FMS V/DEV indication during descent

The use of the FMS V/DEV indication available on the FMS PROG page (A320/
A330/A340), PERF DES page (A380/A350), or FMS DES page (A220) and its
indication on the PFD altitude scale ​(fig.1) and VSD (A220) provides the flight
crew with an indication of the aircraft position compared with the FMS descent
profile.

This indication is also useful when radar vectored and flying near the FMS route.

Sequencing of the FMS Flight Plan

The flight crew needs to sequence the FMS flight plan if it is not done automatically
when in selected lateral modes during radar vectors. It enables the FMS to
compute an updated descent and approach trajectory and therefore to still
provide a useful reference to the crew. In addition, it allows the flight crew to (fig.1)
Example of a V/DEV indication on the PFD
switch back to managed guidance mode when cleared from ATC constraints. altitude scale of an A320
More information on the Flight Plan sequencing is available in “​Procedures -
Normal Procedures - Standard Operating Procedures - Approach - Configuration
Management - Initial approach” in the FCTM​.
OPERATIONS
Prevention of Unstable Approaches

Use of the energy circle (A320/A330/A340/A350/A380)

(fig.2)
Computation principle of the energy circle

The ND will display the energy circle when the aircraft is in HDG or TRK lateral
guidance modes and within 180 NM of its destination. It provides a visual cue
of the minimum required distance to land, i.e. the distance required to descend
in a straight line from the current aircraft position at its current speed down to
the altitude of the destination airport at approach speed. The descent profile
used to compute the distance takes into account speed limits, the wind, a
deceleration level-off segment and a 3° final approach segment (fig.2). If the
airport is inside the energy circle, the flight crew should take action to adjust
the situation using speed or rate of descent adjustments or speedbrakes as
necessary or by requesting additional track miles from ATC.

The flight crew needs to keep in mind the computation logics of the energy circle
to better take advantage of the indications displayed on the ND.

Use of the bearing/distance field in the PROG page

The flight crew should consider inserting the landing threshold in the BRG/DIST
field of the FMS PROG page. This will provide the direct distance to the landing
threshold, and therefore, a very conservative estimation of the shortest possible
distance to land. To do a quick mental estimation of the vertical position vs.
distance, the flight crew can use the formula DELTA FL = DIST (nm) * 3 DEG.

Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) function (A320/A330/A350)

The CDA function is standard on all A350 aircraft and is an option on A320
and A330 aircraft equipped with Release 2 FMS standard. The CDA function
computes a continuous descent profile that ensures the aircraft is configured
(fig.3) for landing and is at VAPP, at 1 000 ft AAL. The CDA function displays pseudo
CDA pseudo waypoints on the Navigation waypoints on the ND (fig.3) indicating to the flight crew the latest position to
Display extend the slats and flaps in order to follow the vertical profile of the approach.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 021

Cross-crew Communication
Efficient crew communication is essential during the entire flight, especially
during the whole dynamic approach phase that can include several changes in
speed and aircraft configuration in addition to the navigation and the guidance
toward the final segment. Flight crewmembers should express any concern
they may have about a parameter they are not comfortable with, even before
reaching the stabilization height. Such an exchange can bring the attention of
the other flight crewmember to a parameter that may not have been noticed.
This communication between the crewmembers will also prepare them for
a potential discontinued approach or go-around and will prevent a rushed
go-around maneuver at the last minute.

BE PREPARED TO INTERRUPT
THE APPROACH AT ANY TIME
The flight crew should be prepared to discontinue the approach or go-around
at any time, if it is not possible to reach or maintain a stabilized flight path.

Discontinued approach versus go-around

If the flight crew needs to interrupt the approach at or above the FCU altitude,
then the “Discontinued approach” procedure should be considered. If the
flight crew interrupts the approach below the FCU altitude, then the go-around
procedure should be applied. For more information, refer to the “​Flying a
Go-around, Managing Energy” Safety first article published in January 2014.

Soft go-around
To limit the aircraft acceleration during go-around, especially when the aircraft
is light, the soft go-around can be used on aircraft equipped with the soft
go-around function. Refer to the “​Introduction to the Soft Go-around Function​”
Safety first article published in January 2017 for more information.

THE STABILIZATION GATE

Rigorous respect of a stabilization gate provides a good basis for the
accomplishment of a subsequent safe landing: a stabilized aircraft at the
stabilization height enables the pilot flying to be prepared for a safe and efficient
landing flare.

Operators should define and provide their flight crew with a clear definition of
their stabilization criteria and stabilization height based on the FCOM guidance,
their local regulations and experience.
OPERATIONS
Prevention of Unstable Approaches

Operators should encourage their flight crews to strictly respect the stabilization
gate and to perform a go-around if they cannot achieve the criteria or if they
do not feel comfortable with the stabilization of their aircraft. A non-punitive
policy regarding go-arounds combined with adequate go-around training using
various scenarios will increase flight crew confidence in their handling of the
maneuver and will improve their go-around decision making.

Stabilization criteria from the FCOM (fig.4) illustrated below provides guidance
(fig.4) to help Operators define their own stabilization policy. If one of the conditions is
FCOM stabilization criteria for not satisfied, the flight crew should initiate a go-around, unless they estimate that
an A320 aircraft only small corrections are required to recover stabilized approach conditions.

(*)In IMC, a later speed and thrust

stabilization can be acceptable LATE AIRCRAFT
provided that:
DESTABILIZATION
• It is allowed by Operator policies
and regulations
• The aircraft is decelerating toward Being stabilized at a gate is not sufficient to ensure a safe and efficient landing.
the target approach speed The flight crew must keep the flight parameters stable and within the limits until
• The flight crew stabilizes speed the landing.
and thrust as soon as possible
and no later than 500 ft AAL. However, some external conditions such as wind gradients may lead to late
• The flight crew does not detect destabilization.
any excessive flight parameter
deviation. Close monitoring of the flight parameters
The nearer the aircraft gets to the ground, the greater the importance of efficient
monitoring of the flight parameters is.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 023

The PM must make a callout if any flight parameter deviates above the defined
thresholds. The PF must then either correct the deviating parameter, if possible,
or initiate a go-around if the correction cannot be made in a timely manner.

Refer to the FCOM “​Procedures - Normal Procedures - Standard callouts - Flight

parameters​” for information about the callouts to be used during approach and
the thresholds for flight parameters deviations.

The “​A focus on the Landing Flare​” Safety first article, published in September
2020, provides an example of a late destabilization in final approach and the
associated recommendations for go-around near the ground.

Every pilot is already aware of the potential safety consequences of an

CONTRIBUTORS:
unstable approach condition. Knowing that an unstable approach is still
Dirk DE-WINTER a contributing factor to many accidents or incidents during approach
Flight Ops & Training
Pilot Expert
and landing, it is why repeating and sharing the lessons learned can
Customer Support ensure the flight crew is well prepared to ensure a safe landing.
Craig HILDEBRANDT Flight crews should anticipate scenarios that can happen during
Senior Director Safety &
Flight Operations
descent and approach during their approach briefing, such as
Technical Affairs late changes requested by ATC. The aircraft's energy can then be
Airbus America
efficiently managed by using the available tools and techniques
Vincent SIBELLE provided in Airbus documentation. This will also enable the flight
Flight Ops & Training crew to identify any possibility of an unstable approach as soon as
Pilot Expert
Customer Support possible, allowing for early intervention to either recover the situation
or to interrupt the approach. Anticipating late change in the action
With thanks to Marc LE-LOUER
from the A300/A310 Flight
plan for the approach and landing phases is part of the Threat and
Operations Support and Andris Error Management (TEM) considerations.
LITAVNIKS from Airbus Canada.
Cooperation with ATC is essential to ensure that the flight crew are
informed of any expected shortened trajectory in advance, so they
can adapt their strategy accordingly. Flight crews should alert ATC
when they are not able to comply with a request, and if necessary,
ask for additional track miles to manage the aircraft’s energy.

Operators should promote strict adherence to stabilization criteria with

flight crews and to consider the stabilization height as a hard decision
gate that should not be passed if any of the stabilization criteria is
not met. A non-punitive policy regarding go-around should apply
together with appropriate training for go-around in various situations.
This will increase the confidence and competencies of the flight crews
to discontinue the approach or perform a safe go-around at the
appropriate time in the case -or with the risk- of an unstable approach.
OPERATIONS
Attention! Crew at Stations!

Attention!
Crew at Stations!
An emergency evacuation is always a stressful situation for
passengers, cabin crews, and flight crews. Decisions have to be
made rapidly and if the communication between the cabin and
cockpit is not clear, or the evacuation is delayed by passengers
trying to take their personal belongings, these can have critical
consequences on the outcome.
From the preflight briefing until the safe evacuation of all aircraft
occupants, this article provides recommendations for both flight
crew and cabin crew to ensure a safe and efficient emergency
evacuation is performed.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 025

CASE STUDY 1 

Event Description
An A319 was taxiing along the taxiway when the passengers and the cabin
crew detected smoke in the cabin. The purser used the interphone to notify
the flight crew and asked the captain’s permission to evacuate. The captain
set the parking brake to stop the aircraft on the taxiway, and called ATC to
report that they detected smoke in the cabin and that they would initiate an
emergency evacuation.

As the smoke became thicker in the cabin, the purser called again to the
cockpit, insisting that an evacuation was necessary and requested that the
captain urgently initiate the evacuation. The captain turned on the evacuation
alarm by pressing the COMMAND pushbutton-switch on the EVAC panel to
initiate the evacuation, but did not make an announcement to the cabin using
the Passenger Address (PA) system.

The cabin crew immediately began the evacuation but both engines were still
running.

The cabin crew at the rear doors of the aircraft had to hold up the passengers
ready to evacuate the aircraft for more than 30 seconds until the engines were
shut down. The flight crew saw the ECAM alert indicating that the doors were
open with engines running, and shut down the engines using the engine fire
pushbuttons instead of the master switches.

Event Analysis
Without the presence of any ECAM alerts and with pressure from the cabin
crew, the captain initiated the emergency evacuation. The QRH EMER EVAC
procedure, that specifically requests the flight crew to ensure that the engines
are shut down before initiating the evacuation, was not followed.

Because no announcement was made in the cabin for the evacuation, some
passengers mistook the evacuation alarm as a smoke alarm and they did
not immediately react, causing some delay to begin the evacuation. Other
passengers gathered their personal belongings, this resulted in some minor
injuries caused by people pushing past them or climbing over one another in
the aisle to reach the exits.

CASE STUDY 2

Event Description
The left engine of an A320 suffered a contained failure during the takeoff roll
at a ground speed of 31 knots. The captain immediately rejected the takeoff
and brought the aircraft to a stop on the runway. He announced “ATTENTION
CREW ON STATION” twice.
OPERATIONS
Attention! Crew at Stations!

The flight crew completed the ECAM actions, shut down the left engine, and
contacted the Rescue and Fire Fighting Services to make sure that no fire was
visible outside the aircraft. The flight crew decided to taxi the aircraft off the
runway and were about to tell the cabin crew to resume normal operations, but
the purser had already initiated an emergency evacuation.

Event Analysis
The purser initiated the emergency evacuation and did not inform the flight crew
despite the “ATTENTION CREW ON STATION” announcement, which clearly
indicated that the flight crew was in control of the situation.

Lack of knowledge of the communication system hindered communication

between the crew members. Even though there was no sign of immediate
danger, the purser initiated the emergency evacuation without a decision from
the captain and with the right engine still running.

Fortunately, only some passengers suffered minor injuries, some of which were
caused by them being blown over by the jet exhaust coming from the right
engine that was still running. Many of the passengers gathered their personal
belongings and took these with them when they evacuated the aircraft.

BE PREPARED FOR EVACUATION

Being prepared makes it easier to perform an emergency evacuation and will help
the crew in their capacity to make decisions and apply the Standard Operating
Maintaining Procedures in a stressful environment.
effective
communication and Aircraft Knowledge
ensuring compliance To ensure efficient evacuation, the cabin crew must have extensive knowledge
with the Standard of the aircraft systems. This includes the cabin communication system and the
aircraft configuration, especially the cabin layout that could impact visibility of the
Operating Procedures cabin and other cabin crew members or generate congested areas. Operating a
starts with the diverse fleet can imply various cabin configurations that have different numbers
of exits or positions of galleys and toilets. Cabin crew must be familiar with the
preflight briefing. cabin layout to ensure an efficient emergency evacuation.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 027

Crew Briefing
Maintaining effective communication and ensuring compliance with the Standard
Operating Procedures starts with the preflight briefing. T
​ his is when the flight
crew and cabin crew should define together any parameters that could affect
their decision-making if an emergency were to occur. It is also the opportunity
to review the emergency evacuation procedure with the associated standard
callouts, and discuss them in the context of the upcoming flight. The crew
should take into account any specific conditions such as airport equipment,
external conditions, and the application of MEL items.

Passenger Identification & Briefing The cabin

At the beginning of the flight, the cabin crew must select the Able Bodied
crew should remind
Passengers (ABP) who are able to assist them in the case of evacuation. They passengers to
must also identify any passengers who may require additional support during leave all personal
evacuation for example unaccompanied children.
belongings inside
The preflight briefing will help passengers to be better prepared for an evacuation the aircraft in
if passengers are encouraged to pay attention. The cabin crew will indicate
the location of the nearest emergency exits, and ​should remind passengers to
the event of an
leave all personal belongings inside the aircraft in the event of an evacuation. evacuation.

BEST PRACTICE

The Silent Review

The silent review (or 30-second review) is recommended for cabin crew to
mentally recall the key aspects of the emergency evacuation procedure while
they are seated at their station before each takeoff and landing, and decreases
the risk of distraction. This silent review will help the cabin crew to focus and
be prepared in case an emergency evacuation is required. This technique will
also help to minimize the startle effect.

STOP - INFORM - ECAM - 

ASSESS

In the case of an emergency situation during takeoff or landing, task sharing

should be established and respected so that the crew are well prepared for a
potential emergency evacuation.

Stop the aircraft

The flight crew must bring the aircraft to a stop and set the parking brake.
In the case of fire, they should consider positioning the aircraft so that the wind
direction will blow the flames away from the fuselage.

Inform ATC
Once the aircraft is stopped, the flight crew should notify the ATC.
OPERATIONS
Attention! Crew at Stations!

Captain: Inform Cabin Crew

After the aircraft stops, the captain tells the cabin crew to prepare for a possible
evacuation. The “ATTENTION CREW AT STATION” callout is made through the
Passenger Address system, which lets the cabin crew know the flight crew is not
incapacited and that they are performing actions to determine if evacuation is
required. This callout avoids unnecessary evacuations initiated by the cabin crew.

First Officer: Clear ECAM Actions

The first officer should independently perform any ECAM action in a “read and
do” manner. On A220 aircraft, the first officer should independently perform the
Electronic Checklist (ECL) procedure from any EICAS message in a “read and
do” manner.

When the ECAM actions (or ECL procedures) are completed, the first officer can
then assist the captain with the situation assessment.

Captain: Assess the Situation

The decision The captain should use any possible means to get a clear and comprehensive
to evacuate should overview of the situation. They can use direct communication with any relevant
rely on the captain's person, for example, cabin crew, ATC, ground personnel, Rescue and Fire Fighting
Services. The decision to evacuate should rely on the captain's judgement based
judgement based on their assessment of the overall situation.
on their assessment
of the overall Cabin crew: Assess the Situation and Identify
Usable Exits
situation.
As soon as the flight crew informs the cabin crew of the possible evacuation, the
cabin crew must assess the situation at each cabin station. They should identify
the available exits and begin to assess the outside conditions as well as the
conditions inside the cabin. The cabin crew must communicate any pertinent
information to the flight crew.

DECIDE - SECURE - INITIATE

Decide if evacuation is required
The situations that lead to an emergency evacuation are very stressful with a
high workload in a short period of time for both flight crew and cabin crew.
The decision to evacuate is irreversible and can have severe consequences.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 029

The main factors that result in the crew initiating an emergency evacuation are
uncontrollable fire, thick smoke, and severe structural damage.

In most cases, the flight crew initiates the evacuation. However, in catastrophic
situations with immediate risks of life-threatening injuries or when the flight crew
is incapacitated, the cabin crew can decide to initiate the evacuation.

No evacuation required

If the situation does not require an evacuation, the captain should notify the
cabin crew and ATC, and should resume normal operations.

Need for evacuation

If the situation requires an evacuation, the captain calls for the EMER EVAC
procedure to be performed.

Secure the aircraft as per EMER EVAC Procedure

To ensure safe evacuation, the flight crew must secure the aircraft before the
To ensure safe
evacuation is initiated by performing the following actions: evacuation, the flight
• 1 Check the cabin ∆P=0 on the CAB PRESS SD page to prevent explosive
crew must secure
door opening due to residual pressure if manual pressure mode was used the aircraft before
in flight. the evacuation is
• 2 Set all engine master switches to OFF
• 3 Press all engines and APU FIRE pushbuttons to secure them initiated.
• 4 Press relevant ENG and/or APU AGENT pushbuttons as required
in case of engine and/or APU fire.
(fig.1)
On A220 aircraft, step 1 is performed after step 4 . The flight crew ensures Example of the A320 aircraft securing
cabin ∆P=0 by setting the EMER DEPRESS guarded switch to ON. steps before evacuation initiation

Order from flight crew

The captain initiates the evacuation with a short and clear announcement to
the cabin crew over the PA.

For aircraft equipped with the EVAC panel (optional for A300-600/A310/A320/
A330/A340/A350 aircraft, standard for A380 aircraft), the captain presses the
EVAC COMMAND guarded pushbutton-switch.
OPERATIONS
Attention! Crew at Stations!

For A220 aircraft, the captain presses the EVAC CMD guarded switch. This
ensures clear communication with the cabin crew and helps the flight crew to
focus on other actions in this high-workload situation.

Immediately after the emergency evacuation is initiated, the captain advises

the ATC.

(fig.2)
Example of EVAC panel
on A350 aircraft

NOTE
On A220, A330/A340 aircraft equipped with aircraft modification 49314 (CIDS
emergency power update), A340-500/600, A350, and A380 aircraft, the flight
crew must switch off the batteries. This is to make sure that after the aircraft
comes to a stop, power is still supplied to the CIDS for 10 minutes. This
is required by regulations in the case of emergency evacuation due to an
electrical emergency.

Order from cabin crew

The cabin crew can initiate an emergency evacuation only in the case of a
catastrophic event or if the flight crew is incapacitated and normal disembarkation
is no longer possible. The cabin crew can use the EVAC command available on
the Flight Attendant Panel or as an option on any Additional Attendant Panel. They
can also use this command to request that the flight crew initiate an evacuation
if they are not authorized to do so directly.

KEYPOINT
Even if the cabin crew can initiate an emergency evacuation they must try to
contact the flight crew first to avoid any unnecessary evacuation.

(fig.3)
Example of Forward Attendant Panel (FAP)
lower section A320 aircraft
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 031

EVACUATE, EVACUATE,
OPEN SEAT BELTS!

An efficient evacuation is a quick and safe

evacuation The objective
The objective of an emergency evacuation is to evacuate all aircraft occupants
for cabin crew is to
as quickly and as safely as possible to ensure they have the best chance of maintain an evenly-
survival in the case of a life-threatening situation. distributed flow of
Therefore, after the cabin crew identify the usable exits and check that the passengers towards
slides are deployed and inflated, the objective for them is to maintain an evenly- all available exits.
distributed flow of passengers towards all available exits.

Crew Coordination and Adaptation

Throughout the evacuation process, a constant real time assessment of
the situation is necessary in terms of aircraft and external conditions, exit
usability, and passenger flow. The situation can change rapidly and efficient
communication between all the crew is essential to share any elements that can
impact the evacuation: Presence of immediate danger such as fire or smoke,
an exit becoming unusable due to a damaged slide or external conditions, a
congested exit, or an exit with a reduced flow of passengers.

As a result, the crew must rapidly make decisions and adapt to changing
scenarios in a dynamic and stressful environment. This will ensure a constant
flow of passengers to each usable exit, and therefore, a quick evacuation.

Passenger Management
Multiple and unpredictable behaviors

Under stressful conditions, people can have varied reactions. Unlike cabin crew
who are trained, passengers are not. They can have unpredictable reactions that
can jeopardize their own safety and that of the other aircraft occupants. Panic
can lead to “frozen” passengers overwhelmed by the situation or passengers
trying to evacuate as soon as possible by aggressively pushing past other
passengers as referred to in Case Study 1.

Risks to slow down the evacuation

Passengers that do not comply with cabin crew instructions can put the success
of an evacuation at risk. Baggage retrieval, use of phones, and not jumping
on the evacuation slides are the most common factors that slow down an
evacuation.

Be assertive!

Assertive management of passengers is key to dealing with the risks that could
impact the success of an evacuation. The cabin crew must use clear and
concise orders, and use a loud voice and assertive body language to ensure
that all passengers follow their instructions. The challenge for the cabin crew
is to switch from a nice and smiling cabin crew to an assertive one able to use
physical force, if necessary.
OPERATIONS
Attention! Crew at Stations!

Evacuation of the Crew

Assertive
Each cabin crew member should check for any remaining passengers, and as
management of soon as their assigned area is empty, evacuate the aircraft.
passengers is key
When the actions are completed in the cockpit, the first officer should assist the
to dealing with the cabin crew with the evacuation of the passengers in the cabin, if accessible,
risks that could and on the ground.
impact the success
The captain should be the last crew member to evacuate the cockpit and the
of an evacuation. last one to evacuate the aircraft after a final check that all aircraft occupants
have evacuated. They are in charge of the operations on ground until the rescue
and emergency services arrive on site.

Keep focused even after the evacuation

After evacuation, the crew remains responsible for the passengers until the
rescue and emergency services arrive. In 2008, after a successful evacuation,
one passenger went back inside the aircraft using an evacuation slide to retrieve
their personal belongings.

To prevent this situation from occurring, the cabin crew should gather the
passengers away from the aircraft and from any potential danger. They should
also count them and provide first aid, if necessary. For that, they have to
take any necessary equipment during the evacuation to help them with crowd
management on ground such as flash lights (if night conditions) or megaphones
if not at an airfield.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 033

THE IMPORTANCE OF 

REALISTIC TRAINING

To be able to deal with these stressful situations, appropriate training is crucial

for both the flight crew and the cabin crew.

For Flight Crews

The emergency evacuation procedure applies the same philosophy to all Airbus
The emergency
aircraft. This consistency across the Airbus fleet and over time is a positive evacuation
contributing factor to ensuring safe application of the procedure. The emergency
evacuation procedure is short and clear, the key factor is how it is trained.
procedure is short
and clear, the key
It is essential that the flight crew members understand task sharing: they have factor is how it is
to know exactly what actions must be performed, by whom, and when. It is
important for the flight crew to keep in mind when to work independently and
trained.
when to come back together. To help understand this, the training scenarios
need to be as realistic as possible and especially have to simulate the high
workload that is often encountered in these situations. Instructors should be
able to keep the captain busy by simulating conversations with ATC and the
cabin while the first officer is performing the ECAM actions. It trains captains
not following first officers actions in this specific situation and first officers
continuing with ECAM actions without captain confirmation.

For Cabin Crews

Cabin crew training is both theoretical and practical. Scenarios have to be as
realistic as possible, based both on evacuations and on a return to normal
operations. Cabin crew training should be conducted on a training device Scenarios
in order to create a realistic environment and based on case studies where have to be
possible. This enables trainees to learn from past experience and it highlights
the importance of reporting incidents to learn from in the future.
as realistic as
possible
The Cabin Safety training is designed using regulations by EASA and FAA
and approved by local airworthiness authorities. It is performed annually and
includes the emergency evacuation procedure.

The standard training focuses on exit and slide management, but the latest
publications from aviation authorities such as the EASA and the FAA, encourage
trainers to put more emphasis on passenger management, especially techniques INFORMATION
to discourage passengers from retrieving personal belongings or baggage
because it has a significant impact on the efficiency of any evacuation.
For more information on
managing emergency
CRM Training evacuation, you can
Given the importance of communication and crew coordination, Crew watch the “Evacuation
Resource Management (CRM) training is of utmost importance for both flight Management” video available on
crews and cabin crews. It should include stress management, decision- the Airbus Worldwide Instructor
making, leadership, human factors, including surprise and startle effect News (WIN) website.
management, and risk assessment.
OPERATIONS
Attention! Crew at Stations!

Preparation by flight crews and cabin crews is key to conducting an

CONTRIBUTORS:
effective and efficient emergency evacuation. Clear communication
Claire COLEMAN and the knowledge of Standard Operating Procedures are vital.
Cabin Crew Instructor Knowing the aircraft systems and the cabin layout is fundamental
Flight Operations
Support and Training
for cabin crews.
Standards
The preflight crew briefing and the passenger safety briefing help
Pierre ECHES ensure everyone onboard the aircraft is better prepared to face an
Flight Operations emergency evacuation scenario.
Support Engineer
Flight Operations The silent review that cabin crew should perform before takeoff
Support and Training and landing is an excellent technique that helps the crew to remain
Standards
focused and to be ready to act in the case of an emergency.
Capt. Raimund GEUTER
Expert Pilot - Flight Operations Knowing the essential steps and the associated task sharing of any
Flight Operations Support evacuation STOP - INFORM - ECAM - ASSESS - DECIDE - SECURE
and Training Standards - INITIATE, and regularly practicing realistic training scenarios can save
Ian GOODWIN lives in the event of an emergency.
Director Product Safety
Enhancement When emergency evacuation commences, passenger management
Product Safety can have a huge impact on the outcome. Passengers may feel
disoriented, panicked, and helpless. Their behaviors, such as
With thanks to Marc LE-LOUER retrieving their personal belongings before moving to the nearest
from A300/A310 Flight Operations exit, not only endangers their own safety but also the safety of others.
Support and Capt.
Xavier LESCEU from Airbus Well-trained and assertive cabin crew are required to urge passengers
Canada. to move to the nearest available exit and to assemble outside the
aircraft in a safe place away from the aircraft.

An emergency evacuation is always a dynamic situation where time is

critical, and it requires constant situational awareness combined with
rapid decision-making. This can only be achieved through efficient
coordination and communication between all flight crews, cabin
crews, ATC, and rescue and fire fighting services on ground.
Safety first #31 | January 2021 035
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Takeoff Rotation

A Focus on the
Takeoff Rotation
An appropriate takeoff rotation maneuver is a balance between
good takeoff performance and sufficient margin versus tail strike,
stall speed, and minimum control speeds.
Applying the 3°/s rotation rate requested in the SOPs is the key to
ensure that the aircraft meets the expected takeoff performance.
Flight data monitoring shows that the rotation rate values in
service vary and a lower rotation rate is observed in some cases
with the associated degradation of takeoff performance. This
article describes both the takeoff rotation laws available on
Airbus Fly-by-Wire (FBW) aircraft and the recommended rotation
techniques that will enable flight crew to achieve consistent
takeoff rotations at the requested rotation rate.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 037

CASE STUDY: A340 LONG

TAKEOFF 

Event Description
A takeoff from a high altitude airport (8360 ft)

An A340-300 was performing a takeoff from a high altitude airport. A TOGA

thrust takeoff in CONF2 was selected. The takeoff performance was calculated
for a 4 kt tailwind and was limited by the runway length (takeoff run in One Engine
Inoperative (OEI) condition). The gross weight of the aircraft was 236.9 t and
was close to the Maximum Takeoff Weight of 237 t in the conditions of the day.

An uneventful takeoff roll

The aircraft reached V1 (128 kt) 54 s after brake release and TOGA thrust
application. 1 The Pilot Flying (PF) then initiated the rotation close to VR. The
nose landing gear lifted off the ground 1 s later and the pitch began to increase.

A late liftoff

2 V 2 (149 kt) was reached with the aircraft still on the ground. The main
landing gear was still compressed and the aircraft had a pitch of 4° up. 3 (fig.1)
Liftoff occurred 11 s after rotation initiation at 155 kt, and at only 140 m from Sequence of events from
the runway end with a recorded pitch of 9° up. V to liftoff

Runway end overflown at 6 ft radio altitude

4 The aircraft flew over the runway end at 6 ft Radio Altitude (RA), and then 5
overflew the end of the clearway at 20 ft RA and avoided the LOC antennas by
only 12 ft. 6 The aircraft eventually reached 35 ft RA 550 m after the runway
end. The landing gear was selected up 3 s later at 135 ft RA with a vertical
speed of 1300 ft/min, pitch at 12°, and speed at 160 kt. The aircraft continued
its climb and completed its flight uneventfully.

Despite what seemed to be a standard takeoff roll, the aircraft lifted off the (fig.2)
runway very late, overflying the LOC antennas located at the end of the clearway Sequence of events from
with very little clearance. How did this happen? runway threshold to 35 ft RA
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Takeoff Rotation

Event Analysis
A nominal aircraft acceleration performance until V​R

The analysis of the DFDR data showed that the aircraft acceleration was in
accordance with the expected performance in the conditions of the day reported
as wet runway with 4 kt tailwind.

A slow rotation rate during takeoff

The sidestick inputs ordered by the PF during the rotation resulted in an average
rotation rate of 1°/sec. Airbus SOPs request a 3°/s rotation rate. This slow rotation
rate resulted in degraded takeoff performance leading to a significant increase in
the takeoff distance.

THE REQUESTED TAKEOFF

ROTATION RATE VALUE 
The origin of the requested rotation rate
The requested
3°/s rotation rate The rotation rate that is used to compute the takeoff performance was determined
during the takeoff performance flight test campaign together with the Airworthiness
was the value Authorities. This value is the average of the rotation rates recorded during all of
selected and is the test aircraft takeoffs performed in a variety of operating conditions.
applicable to all The requested 3°/s rotation rate was the value selected and is applicable to
Airbus aircraft all Airbus aircraft except for the A220, which has a 3 to 5°/s rate requested
except for the A220, in its FCOM. This value ensured that the actual takeoff distance is closest to
the computed distance. If the PF applies a rotation rate that is lower than the
which has a 3 to 5°/s requested rotation rate, the aircraft may not take off according to the computed
rate requested in its performance, leading to an increased takeoff distance and a decreased
obstacle clearance.
FCOM.
Rotation rate too low in some takeoffs
Flight data monitoring shows that the rotation rate values recorded in service
vary. A low rotation rate with an associated takeoff performance degradation
was observed in some cases. Safety margins used in takeoff performance
computation prevent any significant problems in most cases. However, these
margins may not be sufficient in certain situations as can be seen in the event
described above. It is why flight crews should always perform the takeoff
rotation at a rate as close as possible to the requested rotation rate, and this
is especially important in conditions where performance is limited by runway
length or obstacle clearance.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 039

A significant impact on takeoff performance

A rotation rate lower than the requested 3°/s in the SOPs significantly increases
the takeoff distance. For example, a takeoff performed with a 2°/s rotation rate (fig.3)
increases the takeoff distance by approximately 300 m (1000 ft) compared to a Impact of a lower rotation rate on the
3°/s rotation rate. takeoff distance

Takeoff Distance (TOD) margins

The regulatory Takeoff Distance (TOD) on a dry runway is calculated by taking
the greatest value of:

- the TOD computed with one engine failure happening just prior to reaching
V1 (TODN-1), or
- the TOD computed with all engines operative (TODN ) with an additional margin
of 15 %.

TODdry = max of { TODN-1 ; 1.15 x TODN }

Twin-engine aircraft

On a twin-engine aircraft, the TOD is often provided by the TODN-1 because the
loss of half of its thrust strongly impacts the takeoff distance. This calculation
provides additional margin for a takeoff with both engines operative.

While the PF should perform the requested rotation rate of 3°/s in all conditions, (fig.4)
it is even more important in case of engine failure during takeoff, because there Example of a TOD computation
is no additional margin for the calculated TOD. for a twin-engine aircraft
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Takeoff Rotation

Four-engine aircraft

On a four-engine aircraft, the TOD is often sized by the factored TODN because
the TODN-1 is often the shortest as it is computed with a loss of thrust limited to
a quarter of the total available thrust.

Achieving the requested rotation rate of 3°/s is especially important in daily

(fig.5) operations (i.e. when all four engines are operative), because this condition is
Example of a TOD computation usually the sizing one, and therefore, does not provide additional margin on top
for a twin-engine aircraft of the 1.15 factor.

TAKEOFF ROTATION LAWS

AVAILABLE ON FBW AIRCRAFT 

The takeoff rotation law helps the flight crew to perform the optimum takeoff
rotation. The takeoff rotation law consists of both the rotation law and tail strike
prevention functions.

There are different types of takeoff rotation law depending on the aircraft model.

Rotation assistance on A320ceo, A330ceo,

and A340-200/300 aircraft
Rotation law: Direct law

There is a direct relationship between the sidestick deflection and the elevator
deflection on these aircraft models. The rotation rate obtained by a fixed sidestick
deflection value may vary noticeably with different operating conditions such
as aircraft weight, center of gravity position, slats/flaps configuration, engine
thrust, and takeoff speeds.

Tail strike prevention: Pitch rate limitation function (A320ceo, A330ceo,

A340-200)

A limitation function reduces the pitch-up command sent to the elevators to

reduce the risk of tail strike in case of excessive pitch rate. This pitch rate
limitation function does not provide tail strike protection: If a nose-up
input is maintained on the sidestick, a tail strike can still occur.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 041

Tail strike protection function (A340-300 only) (fig.6)

Rotation law on A320ceo, A330
and A340-200 aircraft
A tail strike protection function estimates the rear fuselage clearance margin based
on radio-altimeter height and pitch attitude. This function modulates the nose-up
input order sent to the elevator whenever the clearance of the tail to the ground
becomes too small. The function protects the aircraft against tail strike for
average sidestick deflection values until the sidestick deflection reaches
approximately ¾ of nose-up order. The PF can override this protection by (fig.7)
pulling back on the sidestick beyond ¾ of nose-up. Rotation law on A340-300 aircraft

Rotation assistance on A320neo, A330neo,

A340-500/600, A350, and A380 aircraft

Rotation law: Pitch rate target

On these aircraft, the rotation law ensures that an equivalent and repeatable
rotation rate is achieved for a given sidestick deflection, and independent of the
variable operating conditions such as aircraft weight, center of gravity position,
slats/flaps configuration, engine thrust, and takeoff speeds.

Tail strike protection function

(fig.8)
A tail strike protection function similar to the one available on A340-300 is also Rotation law on A320neo, A330neo,
available on these aircraft. A340-500/600, A350 and A380 aircraft
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Takeoff Rotation

Tail strike pitch limit indication at takeoff (A330/

A340 family and A380 aircraft)
The tail strike pitch limit indication is currently displayed at takeoff and landing on
all A340 and A380 aircraft. The tail strike pitch limit was an option on the earlier
models of the A330ceo, but was later installed as standard for all A330ceo
produced after mid-2013.

A320, A321, A330neo, and A350 aircraft also have a tail strike pitch limit, but
it is only displayed on landing, because it is not necessary at takeoff. There is
no tail strike pitch limit indication on A318 and A319 aircraft, because these
aircraft have shorter length fuselage and less risk of tail strike.

(fig.9) Removing the tail strike pitch limit for takeoff

Example of a tail strike pitch limit
indication on an A330 aircraft
In-service experience showed that when the tail strike pitch limit indicator
appears on the display, it may cause the PF to unnecessarily reduce the rotation
rate of the aircraft during takeoff and prevent the aircraft from reaching the
requested 3°/s rotation rate. As a result, Airbus decided to deactivate the tail
strike pitch limit indicator at takeoff and to keep it activated only on landing for
all aircraft models.

The tail strike protection function proved to provide A340-300, A340-500/600,

and A380 aircraft with sufficient tail strike protection.

The pitch rate limitation function on A330ceo aircraft, combined with its tail
strike margin is sufficient protection against the risk of tail strike.

Deactivation of the tail strike pitch limit indication for takeoff will be performed
at the opportunity of a next A330/A340 Flight Management Guidance and
Enveloppe Computer (FMGEC) or A380 Flight Control and Guidance Computer
(FCGC) update.

Rotation assistance on A220 aircraft

Rotation law: Direct law

There is a direct relationship between the sidestick deflection and elevator

deflection with a compensation for forward or aft center of gravity conditions
on A220 aircraft.

Pitch Target Marker (PTM)

The Pitch Target Marker (PTM) on the PFD provides the initial pitch for the flight
crew to target during the takeoff rotation until FD guidance is available.
(fig.10)
Pitch Target Marker (PTM)
on the PFD of an A220 aircraft
Tail strike prevention: Pitch rate reduction

A limitation function will reduce the pitch-up command sent to the elevators in
case of excessive pitch rate, and will reduce the risk of tail strike. T
​ he flight
crew should be aware that this pitch rate limitation is not protection
against tail strike​: A tail strike event can still occur if a nose-up input is
maintained on the sidestick.

A tail strike symbol is displayed on the Head-Up Display (HUD) during rotation
when the PTM is not displayed and the aircraft pitch angle approaches the
tail strike angle by less than 3 degrees or when the pitch rate is excessive.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 043

THE TAKEOFF ROTATION

TECHNIQUE 

A technique common to all FBW and non-FBW aircraft

A similar technique is used on all Airbus aircraft. It can be found in the FCOM
SOPs, and additional information is provided in the Flight Crew Techniques
Manual (FCTM).
A similar
technique is used
Step 1: Initiate Rotation on all Airbus
When the aircraft reaches VR, the PF should apply a 1 positive backward aircraft
sidestick (or control column) input to initiate the rotation.

Step 2: Use outside visual references to achieve & maintain rotation rate
After the PF initiates the rotation, they should 2 use outside visual
references to achieve and maintain the rotation rate.

Adjustments may be necessary to achieve and maintain the required rotation

rate. On aircraft with direct rotation law or non-FBW aircraft, the flight crew
should adapt to the takeoff conditions on the day. On aircraft that have the
pitch rate rotation law, the law assists the flight crew to achieve an equivalent
rotation in all conditions.

With a suitable rotation rate, the aircraft typically lifts off approximately 4 to 5 s
after the PF initiates the rotation and when the pitch reaches approximately 10°.

Step 3: Target initial pitch attitude after liftoff then follow FD guidance
When the aircraft is airborne, the PF should 3 adjust the pitch toward
the initial pitch target provided in the FCOM (e.g. 15° or 12.5° if one
engine failed on A320 aircraft). On A220 aircraft, the Pitch Target Marker
(PTM) provides a visual indication of the initial target pitch. The PF should (fig.11)
then 4 follow the FD guidance. Recommended rotation technique
OPERATIONS
A Focus on the Takeoff Rotation

INFORMATION
The “​What about rotation technique?​” video is available on
the Worldwide Instructor News (WIN) website and provides a
step-by-step review of a full takeoff sequence performed in an
A380 simulator.

NOTE
Training Areas of Special Emphasis (TASE)
for A340 family aircraft
An EASA Safety Information Bulletin (SIB 2017/20) was published in 2017
following the incident described in this article. In 2018, a Training Areas of
Special Emphasis (TASE) was included in the A340 Operational Suitability Data
(OSD) for flight crew in response to the SIB. The TASE emphasizes the need to
ensure flight crews know how to perform the correct takeoff rotation technique
during initial and recurrent training. This includes:

• How to initiate the rotation

• How to achieve and maintain the rotation rate
• How to achieve the pitch attitude after liftoff.
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 045

Flight data monitoring shows that the takeoff rotation rates recorded
CONTRIBUTORS:
in service vary and that a lower rotation rate is observed in some
Sebastien BALZER cases, with the associated degradation of takeoff performance.
Aircraft Performance
Engineer Achieving an appropriate rotation rate is essential to ensure takeoff
Design Office performance, while maintaining a sufficient margin with tail strike, stall
speed, and minimum control speeds.
Philippe CASTAIGNS
Experimental Test pilot Airbus aircraft are designed, tested, and certified to achieve the
Flight Tests
necessary rotation rate, while having sufficient margins against the
Stéphane DELANNOY tail strike. Flight control laws include features that reduce the risk of
Aircraft Stability & tail strike.
Control Engineer
Design Office The flight crew should apply the FCOM procedures and FCTM
techniques to achieve the requested rotation rate:
Thomas LEPAGNOT
Accident/Incident After the rotation is initiated with a positive nose-up input, the flight
investigator crew should use outside visual references to achieve and maintain
Product Safety
the rotation. The flight crew should fly the rotation, and make any
Xavier LESCEU necessary adjustments to achieve and maintain the required rotation
A220 Chief Pilot rate. When the aircraft is airborne, the PF adjusts the pitch toward
Test Pilot - TRI/TRE the initial FCOM pitch target and then follows the FD guidance.
Customer Services

Daniel LOPEZ-FERNANDEZ
Director Product Safety
Enhancement
Product Safety

Patrick SALLIER
Aircraft Performance
Senior Expert
Design Office

Gilbert SAVARY
Head of Operational
& Training Policy
Flight Operations
& Training Support
ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN PREVIOUS
‘SAFETY FIRST’ ISSUES
Available in the Safety first app and website: safetyfirst.airbus.com

Issue 30 Issue 25

July, 2020 January 2018

• Avoiding fuel spills on A320 family aircraft-source files • Are You Properly Seated?
• Safe aircraft refuelling • A Recall of the Correct Use of the MEL
• Aircraft parking and storage • Protecting Aircraft and Passengers from Cargo Fire
• Preparing for a safe return to the skies
• Mind the oebs Issue 24
July 2017
Issue 29
• Control your Speed... During Descent, Approach and Landing
January, 2020 • Troubleshooting Airframe Vibrations
• GNSS Interference • Preventing Falls from Height
• Takeoff Surveillance & Monitoring Functions • Progress to Pinpoint anAircraft’s Position
• Managing Severe Turbulence
• Safe Aircraft Parking
Issue 23
Issue 28 January 2017
July, 2019 • Safely Flying Non-Precision Instrument Approaches
• Overspeed Event with Crew • Introduction to the Soft Go-Around Function
Take-over and OEB49 Application • Preparing Flight Crews to Face Unexpected Events
• Management of Overspeed Event in Cruise • Safety, Our Shared Destination
• The Adverse Effects of Unrealistic Simulator Scenarios
• Preventing Fan Cowl Door Loss Issue 22
• Correct Escape Slides Maintenance for
Successful Slides Deployment
July 2016
• Pitot Probe Performance Covered
Issue 27 On the Ground
• 180° turns on runway
January, 2019 • Optimum use of weather radar
• Engine Thrust Management - Thrust Setting at Takeoff
• Prenventing Inadvertent Slide Deployments Issue 21
• Preventing Violent Door Opening due to
Residual Cabin Pressure
January 2016
• Lessons Learned About the Teach-In Function • Control your speed... in cruise
• Lithium batteries: safe to fly?
Issue 26 • Wake vortices
• A320 Family Aircraft configuration
July 2018
• Look out for Ice Ridges on the Lower Nose Fuselage Issue 20
• High Load Event Reporting
• Using Aircraft as a Sensor on Contaminated Runways
July 2015
• Thrust Reverser Deployment in Fight • Control your speed... during climb
• Lateral runway excursions upon landing
• Fuel monitoring on A320 Family aircraft
• Hight-altitude manual flying
 Safety first #31 | January 2021 047

Issue 19 Issue 14
January 2015 July 2012
• Tidy cockpit for safe flight • Thrust Reverser Selection means Full-Stop
• Landing on contaminated runways • Transient Loss of Communication due to
• Understanding weight & balance Jammed Push-To-Talk A320 and A330/A340 Families
• Wind shear: an invisible enemy to pilots? • A380: Development of the Flight Controls - Part 2
• Preventing Fan Cowl Door Loss
• Do not forget that you are not alone in Maintenance
Issue 18
July 2014
Issue 13
• Control your speed... at take-off January 2012
• Safe operations with composite aircraft
• Learning from the evidence • A320 Family / A330 Prevention and Handling
• A320 Family cargo Containers/ pallets movement of Dual Bleed Loss
• Parts Departing from Aircraft (PDA) • The Fuel Penalty Factor
• The Airbus TCAS Alert Prevention (TCAP)
• A380: Development of the Flight Controls - Part 1
Issue 17
• Facing the Reality of everyday Maintenance Operations
January 2014
• Airbus Brake Testing Issue 12
• Hard Landing, a Case Study for Crews July 2011
and Maintenance Personnel
• Aircraft Protection during Washing and Painting • Airbus New Operational Landing Distances
• Flight Data Analysis (FDA), a Predictive Tool for Safety • The Go Around Procedure
Management System (SMS) • The Circling Approach
• Flying a Go-Around, Managing Energy • VMU Tests on A380
• Automatic Landings in Daily Operation
Issue 16
Issue 11
July 2013
January 2011
• Performance Based Navigation:
RNP and RNP AR Approaches • What is Stall? How a Pilot Should React
• Atlantic Airways: Introduction of RNP AR 0.1 Operations in Front of a Stall Situation
• Flight Crews and De-Icing Personnel – Working together in • Minimum Control Speed Tests on A380
Temporary Teamwork for safe Skies • Radio Altimeter Erroneous Values
• Low Speed Rejected Take-Off upon Engine Failure • Automatic NAV Engagement at Go Around
• Late Changes before Departure
Issue 10
Issue 15
August 2010
January 2013
• A380: Flutter Tests
• The Golden Rules for Pilots moving from PNF to PM • Operational Landing Distances: A New Standard for
• Airbus Crosswind Development and Certification In-flight Landing Distance Assessment
• The SMOKE/FUMES/AVNCS SMOKE Procedure • Go Around Handling
• Post-Maintenance Foreign Objects Damage (FOD) Prevention • A320: Landing Gear Downlock
• Corrosion: A Potential Safety Issue • Situation Awareness and Decision Making
ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN PREVIOUS
‘SAFETY FIRST’ ISSUES
Available in the Safety first app and website: safetyfirst.airbus.com

Issue 9 Issue 4
February 2010 June 2007
• A320 Family: Evolution of Ground Spoiler Logic • Operations Engineering Bulletin Reminder Function
• Incorrect Pitch Trim Setting at Take-Off • Avoiding High Speed Rejected Take-Offs Due to
• Technical Flight Familiarization EGT Limit Exceedance
• Oxygen Safety • Do you Know your ATC/TCAS Panel?
• Managing Hailstorms
• Introducing the Maintenance Briefing Notes
Issue 8
• A320: Dual hydraulic Loss
July 2009 • Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems Operations
Based on GPS Data
• The Runway Overrun Prevention System
• The Take-Off Securing Function
• Computer Mixability: An Important Function Issue 3
• Fuel Spills During Refueling Operations December 2006
• Dual Side Stick Inputs
Issue 7
• Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Damage
February 2009 • Pitot Probes Obstruction on Ground
• A340: Thrust Reverser Unlocked
• Airbus AP/FD TCAS Mode: A New Step • Residual Cabin Pressure
Towards Safety Improvement • Cabin Operations Briefing Notes
• Braking System Cross Connections • Hypoxia: An Invisible Enemy
• Upset Recovery Training Aid, Revision 2
• Fuel Pumps Left in OFF Position
• A320: Avoiding Dual Bleed Loss Issue 2
September 2005
Issue 6
• Tailpipe or Engine Fire
July 2008 • Managing Severe Turbulence
• Airbus Pilot Transition (ATP)
• A320: Runway Overrun • Runway Excursions at Take-Off
• FCTL Check after EFCS Reset on Ground
• A320: Possible Consequence of V /M Exceedance
• A320: Prevention of Tailstrikes Issue 1
• Low Fuel Situation Awareness January 2005
• Rudder Pedal Jam
• Why do Certain AMM Tasks Require Equipment Resets? • Go Arounds in Addis-Ababa due to VOR Reception Problems
• Slide/raft Improvement • The Importance of the Pre-flight Flight Control Check
• Cabin Attendant Falling through the Avionics Bay • A320: In-flight Thrust Reverser Deployment
Access Panel in Cockpit • Airbus Flight Safety Manager Handbook
• Flight Operations Briefing Notes
Issue 5
December 2007
• New CFIT Event During Non Precision Approach
• A320: Tail Strike at Take-Off?
• Unreliable Speed
• Compliance to Operational Procedures
• The Future Air Navigation System FANS B