Bubbers44;
Thanks for the reply. No, I wasn't implying it was wrong, I was suggesting that individual changes to checklists, especially emergency ones, come with heightened risk and using the term "test pilot" was intended to convey the notion that the process may not have been tested or even authorized (for whatever reason) by the manufacturer.
The change can be successful or could be unsuccessful depending upon many circumstances including one's personal knowledge of one's aircraft which, these days is basic "need-to-know" only, with AOM's that have the barest systems detail for pilots.
That is perhaps the key to my response, especially considering there may be those reading here who may just be beginning a career at an airline. I know all too well how long "suggested changes" to checklists and other SOPs take. Given the issue under review here can well understand the urgency to "think about what one would do" as Captain faced with such a dire emergency. I certainly have.
That said, my Airbus experience has shown that the ECAM is exceptionally well thought out and needs to be followed completely to the end for a successful outcome. This doesn't mean that one does so unquestioningly I grant and in the smoke drill, unlike Airbus' ECAM design it's a paper QRH so the airline can mess with it.
The key here is discussion, not criticism and if you've understood it that way, please forgive my clumsiness.
Re, "By the way retirement is wonderful."
Glad to hear it. Five months...
PJ2