737 one engine inoperative landing checklist
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: BRU
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 one engine inoperative landing checklist
Recently in the sim, the instructor made a remark on the fact that we used this checklist as follows:
Flaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, Green light
PM read every item as it was shown, so "speekbrake-armed" and PF answered again with "armed"
Instructor told us that NNchecklist should be done like normal checklist
PM: "speedbrake" PF: "arm"
Looking forward to your findings.
Carl.
Landing Checklist
ENGINE START switch
(operating engine)
ENGINE START switch
(operating engine)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONT
Speedbrake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARMED
Landing gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Down
Speedbrake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARMED
Landing gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Down
Flaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, Green light
PM read every item as it was shown, so "speekbrake-armed" and PF answered again with "armed"
Instructor told us that NNchecklist should be done like normal checklist
PM: "speedbrake" PF: "arm"
Looking forward to your findings.
Carl.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the introductory notes in the QRH, especially the NON-Normal Checklist Use section. This is what ours says;
"For those checklists with only recall items or a combination of recall and reference items, the pilot monitoring first verifies each recall item has been done. The checklist is normally read aloud during such verification. The pilot flying does not need to respond except for items not in agreement with the checklist. However, in the non-normal landing checklist the pilot flying verifies and responds to checklist items.
The checklist title and reference items, including the response or action and any amplifying information, are read aloud by the pilot monitoring. Read aloud as much of the condition statement as needed to verify the selection of the correct checklist. Information appearing in brackets does not need to be read aloud. The pilot flying need not repeat these items, but must acknowledge that the items were heard and understood. After moving the control, the crewmember taking the action also states the checklist response."
I would ask for verification of your instructor, quoting YOUR QRH (if it implies the same as mine).
PP
"For those checklists with only recall items or a combination of recall and reference items, the pilot monitoring first verifies each recall item has been done. The checklist is normally read aloud during such verification. The pilot flying does not need to respond except for items not in agreement with the checklist. However, in the non-normal landing checklist the pilot flying verifies and responds to checklist items.
The checklist title and reference items, including the response or action and any amplifying information, are read aloud by the pilot monitoring. Read aloud as much of the condition statement as needed to verify the selection of the correct checklist. Information appearing in brackets does not need to be read aloud. The pilot flying need not repeat these items, but must acknowledge that the items were heard and understood. After moving the control, the crewmember taking the action also states the checklist response."
I would ask for verification of your instructor, quoting YOUR QRH (if it implies the same as mine).
PP
Agree. The checklist that rarely caused a problem in the old days and now it does, is the revised (a couple of years ago) before landing check. Since the first 737 came on line in the late Sixties the check was gear down flap 15 and Landing Checklist to flaps. That meant speed brake was armed, start switches on or continuous, gear down and locked, and "holding at flaps. Once final flap was selected for the landing the call was "Complete the Landing Checklist" and all that was required was the PNF to call "Flaps" and the PF replied "40 green light etc".
This very sensible checklist order was then changed to a God Amighty rushed checklist where no checklist items were read until final landing flap when the PF now called for "Landing Checklist" resulting in a feverish gabble and reply of all of the above items. Just perfect on a tight circling approach when landing flap may occur on the turn to final or early base with the PNF looking outside for the runway or its environmemt at the same time having to respond to the PNF calling all the above items when previously these were done in an unhurried logical way. What on earth made Boeing bring in a poorly thought out checklist when for forty years the previous landing checklist was tried and trusted?
This very sensible checklist order was then changed to a God Amighty rushed checklist where no checklist items were read until final landing flap when the PF now called for "Landing Checklist" resulting in a feverish gabble and reply of all of the above items. Just perfect on a tight circling approach when landing flap may occur on the turn to final or early base with the PNF looking outside for the runway or its environmemt at the same time having to respond to the PNF calling all the above items when previously these were done in an unhurried logical way. What on earth made Boeing bring in a poorly thought out checklist when for forty years the previous landing checklist was tried and trusted?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth made Boeing bring in a poorly thought out checklist when for forty years the previous landing checklist was tried and trusted?
Centaurus I agree with everything you say, but you didn't address the actual question! 
It is correct during the One Engine Inoperative landing checklist for the pilot-not-flying (the one holding the QRH) to read out both the challenge and response ie "Landing Gear...Down". The pilot flying then looks over and confirms that the gear is down and says "Down".
Sometimes at these sim sessions when you know the instructor is wrong, you have to be nice but assertive and correct the errors of their ways. Knowing where to find the reference in the company manuals that supports your argument without any hesitation helps too!
It is correct during the One Engine Inoperative landing checklist for the pilot-not-flying (the one holding the QRH) to read out both the challenge and response ie "Landing Gear...Down". The pilot flying then looks over and confirms that the gear is down and says "Down".
Sometimes at these sim sessions when you know the instructor is wrong, you have to be nice but assertive and correct the errors of their ways. Knowing where to find the reference in the company manuals that supports your argument without any hesitation helps too!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaff - there may be a confusion somewhere between your company's and Boeing's procedures? Are you in the middle of a changeover? As said above, look in your Ops Manual/QRH for the 'Golden Rule' and if the instructor is wrong, get him to quote you his reference!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is (too) much discussion about this very topic amongst our training dept at the moment. Confusion has occurred in part due to the changes relating to areas of responsibility (A of R) and the Normal checklists responses that happened a few years ago "bleeding" across to the traditional Landing NNC responses.
This means one group suggests that the correct way is for PNF to say "xxx down" PF looks and says "down" and PNF also looks and says "down" again
So the PNF reads the landing NNC item including response and then the pilots respond as per A of R. Seems silly at first but does fit in with the A of R philosophy.
I think Boeing simply did not amend the NNC notes to reflect the new philosophy. It needs a rewrite.
So the Jury is still out on this one with the result different instructors are teaching different stuff.
This means one group suggests that the correct way is for PNF to say "xxx down" PF looks and says "down" and PNF also looks and says "down" again
So the PNF reads the landing NNC item including response and then the pilots respond as per A of R. Seems silly at first but does fit in with the A of R philosophy.
I think Boeing simply did not amend the NNC notes to reflect the new philosophy. It needs a rewrite.
So the Jury is still out on this one with the result different instructors are teaching different stuff.
[
QUOTE]Er? "Boeing" plus "Checklist" plus "Changes" equals "Lawyers"[/QUOTE]
Cynical but no doubt true. The proliferation of additional verbal announcements covering company initiated perceived safety/situational awareness, has increased flight deck chatter and therefore work load, out of all proportion to the original design of a two man automated cockpit.
A profusion of altimeter call-outs by both pilots covering climb and descents; FMA changes which both pilots can presumably see with their eyes, are subject to more or less constant verbalisation, hardly a finger crooked without confirming verbalisation - all this is stuff adds up to lawyer defensive measures. In todays flight deck, professional silence is not golden anymore- but, according to the "experts", potentially dangerous...
QUOTE]Er? "Boeing" plus "Checklist" plus "Changes" equals "Lawyers"[/QUOTE]
Cynical but no doubt true. The proliferation of additional verbal announcements covering company initiated perceived safety/situational awareness, has increased flight deck chatter and therefore work load, out of all proportion to the original design of a two man automated cockpit.
A profusion of altimeter call-outs by both pilots covering climb and descents; FMA changes which both pilots can presumably see with their eyes, are subject to more or less constant verbalisation, hardly a finger crooked without confirming verbalisation - all this is stuff adds up to lawyer defensive measures. In todays flight deck, professional silence is not golden anymore- but, according to the "experts", potentially dangerous...
Centaurus,
RE your post #3, the One Engine Inop Landing Checklist has not changed much in 41 years. From my 1st Nov 1968 QRH…
1968
LANDING
Recall…………………….CHECKED
Speedbrakes…..………….ARMED, GREEN LIGHT
Gear………………………DOWN, 3 GREEN
Flaps………….………….15, GREEN LIGHT
2009
LANDING
Engine start switch (op eng)…CONT
Speedbrake…………………..ARMED
Landing Gear……………..….Down
Flaps………………..………..15, Green light
The 2009 checklist is the same as the normal 2 engine checklist, except for flaps 15. So it is still acceptable to ask for “Landing checklist to flaps”, or at least it is in my company.
I must admit that I still occasionally reply “Down, 3 greens”
S&L
RE your post #3, the One Engine Inop Landing Checklist has not changed much in 41 years. From my 1st Nov 1968 QRH…
1968
LANDING
Recall…………………….CHECKED
Speedbrakes…..………….ARMED, GREEN LIGHT
Gear………………………DOWN, 3 GREEN
Flaps………….………….15, GREEN LIGHT
2009
LANDING
Engine start switch (op eng)…CONT
Speedbrake…………………..ARMED
Landing Gear……………..….Down
Flaps………………..………..15, Green light
The 2009 checklist is the same as the normal 2 engine checklist, except for flaps 15. So it is still acceptable to ask for “Landing checklist to flaps”, or at least it is in my company.
I must admit that I still occasionally reply “Down, 3 greens”
S&L
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find it is not the wording that he is questioning....rather the excecution of the checklist. We still have the PM read the checklist AND the response, to which the PF also responds after cross-checking the item.
PP
PP
I couldn't believe how bad the checklists/QRH is when i transferred to a Boeing.
At our company the response part of the OEI landing cx-list is said three times in all.
eg. PM speed brake....armed?
PF armed
PM armed
PM Landing Gear ....Down?
PF....down
PM down
Pm flaps.....15 green light?
PF 15 green light
PM 15 green light OEI landing cx-list complete.
At our company the response part of the OEI landing cx-list is said three times in all.
eg. PM speed brake....armed?
PF armed
PM armed
PM Landing Gear ....Down?
PF....down
PM down
Pm flaps.....15 green light?
PF 15 green light
PM 15 green light OEI landing cx-list complete.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A check-list is designed to be actioned on the basis of Challenge / Response.
In my view it is psychologically quite wrong to be suggesting the response (i.e. condition to be checked) by reading it out with the challenge. It is a similar principle to the "prosecution leading the witness".
Therefore, for the example given, I believe ...
PM "Speedbrake ..."
PF "... Armed"
PM "Landing Gear ..."
PF "... Down"
PM "Flaps ..."
PF "... 15, Green Light"
... would be correct.
It is also, of course, more expeditious.
JD
In my view it is psychologically quite wrong to be suggesting the response (i.e. condition to be checked) by reading it out with the challenge. It is a similar principle to the "prosecution leading the witness".
Therefore, for the example given, I believe ...
PM "Speedbrake ..."
PF "... Armed"
PM "Landing Gear ..."
PF "... Down"
PM "Flaps ..."
PF "... 15, Green Light"
... would be correct.
It is also, of course, more expeditious.
JD
Framer said.
I would suggest that that is not Boeing's fault but the airline management modification of the standard checklist. (actually sounds like the Ansett Aussie or an airline run by ex Ansett pilots way)
My current airline runs the list as per Jumbo Driver
I couldn't believe how bad the checklists/QRH is when i transferred to a Boeing.
At our company the response part of the OEI landing cx-list is said three times in all.
eg. PM speed brake....armed?
PF armed
PM armed
PM Landing Gear ....Down?
PF....down
PM down
Pm flaps.....15 green light?
PF 15 green light
PM 15 green light OEI landing cx-list complete.
At our company the response part of the OEI landing cx-list is said three times in all.
eg. PM speed brake....armed?
PF armed
PM armed
PM Landing Gear ....Down?
PF....down
PM down
Pm flaps.....15 green light?
PF 15 green light
PM 15 green light OEI landing cx-list complete.
My current airline runs the list as per Jumbo Driver
Jumbo Driver.
Your point has merit for checklists that we are familiar with and use on every flight, namely the Normal Checklists.
In this case however we are talking about a Non-Normal Checklist. Admittedly the "One Engine Inoperative landing" checklist has deferred items ("Approach", and "Landing") which are very similar to the normal landing checklist, however there are many many non-normal checklist that we are not familiar with. Hence the reason why the PNF reads out the challenge and response when running through Non-Normal checklist.
I suppose to be consistent, ALL non-normal checklists must have PNF/PM read the challenge AND response including the One Engine Inoperative Landing checklist.
Your point has merit for checklists that we are familiar with and use on every flight, namely the Normal Checklists.
In this case however we are talking about a Non-Normal Checklist. Admittedly the "One Engine Inoperative landing" checklist has deferred items ("Approach", and "Landing") which are very similar to the normal landing checklist, however there are many many non-normal checklist that we are not familiar with. Hence the reason why the PNF reads out the challenge and response when running through Non-Normal checklist.
I suppose to be consistent, ALL non-normal checklists must have PNF/PM read the challenge AND response including the One Engine Inoperative Landing checklist.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blip, you make a very valid point, which I completely accept.
I would suggest that if the check-list relates to routine or Emergency situations, certainly if it involves memory or familiar items, then there should be no reason not to follow the simple Challenge / Response method and I would stick to my stated view.
However, I agree that if the "check-list" is actually being read as a Procedure - perhaps for trouble-shooting or diagnostic purposes - and is therefore unfamiliar, the required setting/config might need to be stated by the reader, then confirmed by the respondent.
I really hadn't thought about this aspect before - but, thinking back over the years, this distinction and the slightly different technique according to the circumstance always seems to have happened quite naturally ...
JD
I would suggest that if the check-list relates to routine or Emergency situations, certainly if it involves memory or familiar items, then there should be no reason not to follow the simple Challenge / Response method and I would stick to my stated view.
However, I agree that if the "check-list" is actually being read as a Procedure - perhaps for trouble-shooting or diagnostic purposes - and is therefore unfamiliar, the required setting/config might need to be stated by the reader, then confirmed by the respondent.
I really hadn't thought about this aspect before - but, thinking back over the years, this distinction and the slightly different technique according to the circumstance always seems to have happened quite naturally ...
JD
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that if the check-list relates to routine or Emergency situations, certainly if it involves memory or familiar items, then there should be no reason not to follow the simple Challenge / Response method and I would stick to my stated view.
PP
