Originally Posted by
Vorsicht
I would have thought the crew would have been given a fairly firm gentle reminder that in future, follow the SOP's. It is a completely flawed argument to say that the outcome was good, therefore the process is justified. No 777 crew can reasonably claim they have enough knowledge of any system to justify second guessing the EICAS or QRH. Aircraft technical simply isn't taught to that level anymore. The whole premise behind how we operate these days is based on the amount of F*&k ups that have resulted from crews miss diagnosing problems. The assumption behind the Boeing QRH is that they want to take the least risk approach. The least risk approach (in Boeing view) is the operate the aircraft normally until it tells you to do otherwise. Once you have been advised of a system fault, then carry out the QRH actions, it's that simple. Assuming the author is from the Australian operator of 777's, their actions were counter to what is taught and required of crews. Happy to argue all day long as to the merits of those particular SOP's, but the fact remains the crews actions contravened SOPS's. At it's worst, that is a willful contravention of SOP's. Generally not looked upon well these days.
And sometimes SOP/QRH aren't enough, so I do think there is still room to at least think about what you are doing. In the 777 case I would definitely have coordinated with MX before deciding not to follow SOP. I have had erratic engine indications due to failure if the TAT input to the FADEC on the A320. No ECAM/QRH/SOP available, but after talking with MX we were able to continue by switching to rated mode. If you think you can ALWAYS save the situation by following SOP, we might as well leave the pilots home.
https://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074