This may not be appropriate in this particular case but it has a general relevance. I was a TRE on the same type to which JW411 refers (4 eng, 2 gen, 1 APU,1 batt) when the manufacturer decided to remove the ‘smoke removal drill’. This was done, probably in fear of possible litigation in the aftermath of the Swiss Air MD11 accident. IIRC the MD11 crew were preoccupied with the checklist and made no attempt to land a.s.a.p. at an airport about 7 minutes away and crashed about 20 minutes after smoke was detected on the flight deck.
Like JW411 I too retained the relevant 2 pages of the FRCs, just in case. I had previously sim trained crews in the use of that checklist on many occasions and always advocated landing a.s.a.p. whilst actioning the checklist. The workload was high (hence the training) and communication with oxygen masks on was difficult (hence the training) but with this training the whole procedure (in the worst/longest case) could be completed by an average crew in 9 minutes. If lucky and the first electrical isolation worked, the whole procedure took about 3 minutes to a smoke-free cockpit.
IMHO, removing that checklist was criminal. How dare the manufacturers of a medium range public transport aircraft that spends a good deal of its operating time more than 20 minutes away from the nearest suitable airport suggest that it’s OK for the crew to sit in a shower of molten metal and plastic rain whilst they land a.s.a.p.? I suggest that the litigiously minded morons who make these changes consult with those at the waterfront first.
rts