Thoughts about this odd SOP....
Thread Starter
Thoughts about this odd SOP....
My recent return to the sim saw a bleeds off takeoff using the APU to supply one pack.
When responding to the after start checklist item of:
Packs and bleeds I responded with:
Packs auto, bleeds off which is the actual switch position.
But I was corrected, apparently the correct answer is:
Packs auto bleeds set
Which is exactly the same response as for a normal after start bleed configuration.
I comply, no arguments from me.
But doesn't this fly in the face of logic? Shouldn't a checklist response reflect the ACTUAL switch position as apposed to simply replying with a generic response which could be used in either bleed configuration.
It doesn't appear to be a very effective trap for an incorrect bleed configuration?
When responding to the after start checklist item of:
Packs and bleeds I responded with:
Packs auto, bleeds off which is the actual switch position.
But I was corrected, apparently the correct answer is:
Packs auto bleeds set
Which is exactly the same response as for a normal after start bleed configuration.
I comply, no arguments from me.
But doesn't this fly in the face of logic? Shouldn't a checklist response reflect the ACTUAL switch position as apposed to simply replying with a generic response which could be used in either bleed configuration.
It doesn't appear to be a very effective trap for an incorrect bleed configuration?
In order for the challenge and response to be completely correct, you would need a separate checklist for the bleeds off option, some operators prefer to keep it simple and the "packs set" allows for bleeds either off or on. Airmanship applies in this case, but unfortunately we don't have any checklist items for airmanship. I know that some companies that have a "bleeds off" take off procedure checklist on the reverse side of the normal checklist.
The examiner is quite correct regarding checklist compliance, but blind systemisation can lead to unanticipated errors. It is up to the company to decide whether a separate checklist is needed.
The examiner is quite correct regarding checklist compliance, but blind systemisation can lead to unanticipated errors. It is up to the company to decide whether a separate checklist is needed.
When you get down to this level you just nod and smile and go along with whatever the training captain says.
And for the trainers who decide to get picky over stuff like this… imagine what the pilots really think of this kind of thing.
And for the trainers who decide to get picky over stuff like this… imagine what the pilots really think of this kind of thing.
just nod and smile
Reports of the death of Common Sense have now been widely circulated for some considerable time, …
https://www.drdavidwright.co.uk/uplo...mmon_sense.pdf
and
Common Sense was preceded in death;
"… Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing … "
https://www.drdavidwright.co.uk/uplo...mmon_sense.pdf
and
Common Sense was preceded in death;
- by his parents, Truth and Trust,
- by his wife, Discretion,
- by his daughter, Responsibility,
- and by his son, Reason
- I Know My Rights
- I Want It Now,
- Someone Else Is To Blame,
- I'm A Victim,
- Pay me for Doing Nothing
"… Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing … "
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
It appears illogical to me. As you say, the more meaningful response should be to state the actual position of the switch.
What does the SOP say about the response to other switches - for example “landing gear”?
What does the SOP say about the response to other switches - for example “landing gear”?
Shy, your logical and reasonable answer would avoid the response to Landing Gear..................... AS REQD.
It is up to the operator to determine how they standardise, but it is irrational to have a response to a variable that doesn't state the system state. If you are briefing navaids, an imperious wave of the hand and a response "set" is hardly a confirmation of the state of the FMC, VOR, DME, ILS etc, so it would seem to follow that a system that can spoil your day, say, like Helios, should have a confirmation of state, and the term SET is interchangeable with, "AS REQD".
Whatever the trainer says, that should be the company policy, and it should be specified as being what the owner of the ball wants, loopy or otherwise.
Take the training, nod, and if it intolerable, vote with your feet. Every system has it's idiosyncacies.. makes it far more interesting.
It is up to the operator to determine how they standardise, but it is irrational to have a response to a variable that doesn't state the system state. If you are briefing navaids, an imperious wave of the hand and a response "set" is hardly a confirmation of the state of the FMC, VOR, DME, ILS etc, so it would seem to follow that a system that can spoil your day, say, like Helios, should have a confirmation of state, and the term SET is interchangeable with, "AS REQD".
Whatever the trainer says, that should be the company policy, and it should be specified as being what the owner of the ball wants, loopy or otherwise.
Take the training, nod, and if it intolerable, vote with your feet. Every system has it's idiosyncacies.. makes it far more interesting.
My recent return to the sim saw a bleeds off takeoff using the APU to supply one pack.
When responding to the after start checklist item of:
Packs and bleeds I responded with:
Packs auto, bleeds off which is the actual switch position.
But I was corrected, apparently the correct answer is:
Packs auto bleeds set
Which is exactly the same response as for a normal after start bleed configuration.
I comply, no arguments from me.
But doesn't this fly in the face of logic? Shouldn't a checklist response reflect the ACTUAL switch position as apposed to simply replying with a generic response which could be used in either bleed configuration.
It doesn't appear to be a very effective trap for an incorrect bleed configuration?
When responding to the after start checklist item of:
Packs and bleeds I responded with:
Packs auto, bleeds off which is the actual switch position.
But I was corrected, apparently the correct answer is:
Packs auto bleeds set
Which is exactly the same response as for a normal after start bleed configuration.
I comply, no arguments from me.
But doesn't this fly in the face of logic? Shouldn't a checklist response reflect the ACTUAL switch position as apposed to simply replying with a generic response which could be used in either bleed configuration.
It doesn't appear to be a very effective trap for an incorrect bleed configuration?
