Good arguments for modifying procedures from operating manual
I recall from 40 years ago when a Pacific island airline bought two new Boeing 737-200's directly from Boeing. A Boeing instructor pilot accompanied the first aircraft from USA to the island and jump seated on various routes to advise the crews where necessary. The chief pilot decided in the meantime to add several more items to the 737 start up checklist based upon his personal views of what should be included or double checked.
The Boeing instructor pilot pointed out that when Boeing designed the 737 as a two pilot aircraft (as against the 727 which required a flight engineer), some systems were automated in order to meet an airworthiness limitation to the number of switch movements and eye scan movements applicable for a two pilot operation. Violation of those limitations meant a flight engineer must be carried as a third person in the cockpit.
That point was wisely accepted by the chief pilot and the extra items deleted from the appropriate checklists. This two crew airworthiness principle seems to have been long forgotten, judging by the number of additional (need I add superfluous) call-out and checklist items foisted upon some airline crews by well-meaning, but historically misguided, chief pilots. Flying school operators are by far the worst offenders with unnecessarily lengthy and superfluous checklist items that often dismay and bewilder their student pilots. .
The Boeing instructor pilot pointed out that when Boeing designed the 737 as a two pilot aircraft (as against the 727 which required a flight engineer), some systems were automated in order to meet an airworthiness limitation to the number of switch movements and eye scan movements applicable for a two pilot operation. Violation of those limitations meant a flight engineer must be carried as a third person in the cockpit.
That point was wisely accepted by the chief pilot and the extra items deleted from the appropriate checklists. This two crew airworthiness principle seems to have been long forgotten, judging by the number of additional (need I add superfluous) call-out and checklist items foisted upon some airline crews by well-meaning, but historically misguided, chief pilots. Flying school operators are by far the worst offenders with unnecessarily lengthy and superfluous checklist items that often dismay and bewilder their student pilots. .
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus: an interesting insight into some designs. I wish the same reaction and effect could be applied to some briefings. I once flew for an operator who had written in the OM that briefings should be brief as the attention of the 'listener' could wane and defeat the objective. All well & good, but the Before Takeoff brief grew with a mind of its own; and 90% of it was SOP applicable to every airfield. The only 'interesting stuff' was any modification demanded by the departure runway. Yawn. With quick turnarounds the takeoff brief became a rapid fire blah blah that whizzed by the ears of PM.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your depth of A320 experience is recognised and appreciated here, but I have to disagree.
For the brakes- Our mtx department is pretty good at replacing the brakes when necessary. It's a rare day to find them close to the limit. I can't recall a single time in the last year where they've been close. Given that, when real life intervenes, I'd rather get the preflight done early, and take the 1% chance that I may have to go back up to set the brakes to verify the position.
Regarding the flaps- again, it's rare to see one of our planes parked with anything other than flaps up. That would certainly stand out. Even so, what's so wrong with noting the flight control position outside, then verifying once you get into the cockpit?
Again, I'm not advocating throwing out the SOP, but good judgement must be exercised. I can go get the preflight done first, or stand there at the door for 5-10 minutes, fighting my way through deplaning passengers, crews and ground staff, then having to rush through the preflight.
My time is better spent doing the preflight first, at a more relaxed pace, while the organised chaos at the L1 door dissipates.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CA
first thank you for kind words. My point is not whether to change a procedure or not but rather how to go about it. I said it if your airline accepts it is fine. Didn't I?
first thank you for kind words. My point is not whether to change a procedure or not but rather how to go about it. I said it if your airline accepts it is fine. Didn't I?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had this ever ongoing debate about walk round & hydraulic pumps. The SOP (contrary to Boeing) had been to turn all pumps off. The new crew arrives, and wanting to save time as the pax are disembarking, does a walk round own side each. Except the incoming crew has turned the HYD pumps off. Much banging on the fuselage and signalling to leave the pumps ON. Eventually, after much wringing of hands and tugging of hair, the company decided to go with Boeing and leave pumps on. So following the manufacturer's recommendations solved our dilemma. There were other deviations e.g. full IRS alignment that eventually went the way of the designers.
I often wondered why it was airlines with no experience of the new technology who changed the manufacturer's procedures the most. Curious that.
I often wondered why it was airlines with no experience of the new technology who changed the manufacturer's procedures the most. Curious that.
Only half a speed-brake
vilas:You are choosing dogma over practicality. These pins are only there to give a measure of how much brake pad thickness remains. With anything other than brand new brakes this is obvious to see. So, using your arguement what happens to the everyday operations with an airline that chooses to routinely set the park brake off on all turnarounds? Your logic would have the flightcrews having to wait until just before engine start (see checklist - brakes ON ) to then rush out and check the brake wear because now the brakes are set to PARK! From your previous postings you seem to be very involved in simulator training - do you get any line flying these days?
Only half a speed-brake
It is not about little this or that. It sets up a culture, a psychology that deviations are OK and then it doesn't stop there. It protrudes into everything. If what you say is correct then the the airline should incorporate that in the OM. Any change requires an effort to find out the pros and cons and careful thought.
Really, keep calm & understand. The writing is right here.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SOP (contrary to Boeing) had been to turn all pumps off
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our SOP’s are virtually identical to those written by the manufacturer (our name is on the front of the manual). Only when they contain errors may we depart, but that is still done officially. Therefore to change SOP we go via the manufacturer. This happens either directly or via operator meetings attended by the manufacturer. It’s clear, non-ambiguous and it works.
PM
PM
FlightDetent: I am not sure what your emojis mean or add to the discussion...............
My original quip to vilas was to point out that it was indeed possible to assess brake wear with the brakes off. Nothing more, nothing less. In true PPRUNE fashion the thread has morphed off into the sanctity of manufacturer produced SOPs.and the inherent dangers of deviating from them, no matter by how trivial an amount. I have never argued against SOPs but I just observe that they do often change especially in light of circumstances and incidents.
My original quip to vilas was to point out that it was indeed possible to assess brake wear with the brakes off. Nothing more, nothing less. In true PPRUNE fashion the thread has morphed off into the sanctity of manufacturer produced SOPs.and the inherent dangers of deviating from them, no matter by how trivial an amount. I have never argued against SOPs but I just observe that they do often change especially in light of circumstances and incidents.
That's an easy one to answer, because it is most times very hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Quite a while ago, "we" came across an operator of glass B737 who would not allow use of LNAV/VNAV or moving maps except in cruise, and insisted on switching to only display a "conventional RMI" for departure and arrival. And insisted everything had to be "heading up", none of this flying "track" nonsense. INS/IRS/FMCS was too much like black magic for their liking, best stick to the "tried and true".
It turned out many oi their procedures went back to Viscounts, after all, what would Boeing know?? It was quite a job to culturally update by several generations all at once. The resistance to change was close to immovable, short of removing the management.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. because it is most times very hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Quite a while ago, "we" came across an operator of glass B737 who would not allow use of LNAV/VNAV or moving maps except in cruise, and insisted on switching to only display a "conventional RMI" for departure and arrival. And insisted everything had to be "heading up", none of this flying "track" nonsense
Quite a while ago, "we" came across an operator of glass B737 who would not allow use of LNAV/VNAV or moving maps except in cruise, and insisted on switching to only display a "conventional RMI" for departure and arrival. And insisted everything had to be "heading up", none of this flying "track" nonsense
Switching to "conventional RMI" is IMHO sound airmanship and a wise precaution as against blind following of a flight director with its danger of tunnel vision. I always select ILS on the standby ADI when flying an ILS (manual or automatic) to compare it to the PFD ILS or HSI/ILS. Nothing like a precautionary cross check. During a dark night rotation and initial climb I scan the standby ADI as a continual cross check. Maybe it goes back to when artificial horizons could fail and one never forgets those potentially deadly events especially near the ground. Heading up is my preference too, particularly when flying an ILS in crosswinds and I know in which direction to look for the runway at DH.
What are seemingly old fashioned practices to some, are in many cases the product of hard earned experience. Children of the Magenta Line might look at us with pitying glances but that is their problem - not mine
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@sheppy
I don't consider that to be "old dog", that's maintaining proficiency. Switch the ND to ILS mode and fly the approach without the FD. I did it in New York 2 days ago. Miraculously, it wasn't on the news. Perishable skill.
I don't consider that to be "old dog", that's maintaining proficiency. Switch the ND to ILS mode and fly the approach without the FD. I did it in New York 2 days ago. Miraculously, it wasn't on the news. Perishable skill.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying EXP APP mode for an ILS works great without an FD. With an FD the track line on MAP should be sufficient to 'lead' the FD. I guess that is what you are meaning by not becoming tunnel vision on FD. Both need scanning. Too many are not taught the correct use of track line. That allows to have a good overview.
During a dark night rotation and initial climb I scan the standby ADI as a continual cross check. Maybe it goes back to when artificial horizons could fail and one never forgets those potentially deadly events especially near the ground. Heading up is my preference too, particularly when flying an ILS in crosswinds and I know in which direction to look for the runway at DH.
What are seemingly old fashioned practices to some, are in many cases the product of hard earned experience. Children of the Magenta Line might look at us with pitying glances but that is their problem - not mine
What are seemingly old fashioned practices to some, are in many cases the product of hard earned experience. Children of the Magenta Line might look at us with pitying glances but that is their problem - not mine
Indeed, the operator with whom I spent many years required (not just encouraged) practice and demonstration of flying on raw data, both in the sim. and the aircraft. Indeed, for F/Os, hand flying non-precision approaches in the sim. was mandated.
My point was, prohibiting the effective use of modern instrumentation is not very smart. which is different to maintaining competency.
The air safety outcome statistics are very clear, the situational awareness of having a moving map display, as opposed to "traditional" raw data, cannot be challenged.
It is abundantly clear that such improved situational awareness has greatly reduced GPWS incidents and CFIT losses.
Tootle pip!!
PS: On all the "glass" systems I have flown, if I am flying track up, I still have a drift display which will, effectively, tell me where to look for the runway, and I can choose what raw data I want to overlay on the map, but with disappearing NDB and VOR I have reducing choices.
