PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Cocpit design requirements
View Single Post
Old 16th Dec 2010, 05:47
  #68 (permalink)  
A37575
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re cockpit design. Straying slightly off that specific subject for a few moments, but I wonder if people are aware of an interesting aspect to cockpit check list design. Back in the Seventies my airline which had a couple of new Boeing 737-200's had the services of a former Boeing test pilot who was involved with the design of the 737 cockpit and associated operational checklist items. After receiving the first of our two 737's our company had added several more items to the published 737-200 checklist.

It was pointed out by the test pilot that we may have to employ a flight engineer since the 737 was designed to be flown by two pilots and the inclusion of several more checklist items invalidated the two crew concept.

He explained that research revealed there was a certain limit to the number of items a two crew could cope with. Any more than that, a third crew member such as a flight engineer was needed.

That is why various functions were automated in the 737 to reduce the number of eye movements, switch selections etc. The auto seat belts function and auto-switch over of the pressurisation system were two cases in point.

By adding more items, the integrity of the two pilot operation is compromised since the additional workload is unnecessary. I wonder if those check pilots responsible for adding further items to the manufacturer's published check list are aware there is a lot of planning and thought gone into the original checklist design for a particular aircraft type. Indeed, some of these checklist items may be the result of accidents or incidents in the past and designed to mimimise the chances of mistakes happening again.

Having observed in the simulator the sometimes extraordinary number of call-out's required of the crews of Airbus types it seems that continual verbalising of what they see in terms of instrument indications or what are considered as airmanship items such as company SOP's, could be considered as superfluous to the actual flying of the aircraft. Fly by mouth is an apt description. Sorry about the thread drift

Last edited by A37575; 16th Dec 2010 at 06:13.
A37575 is offline