'Best practice' as a term in the airline industry is asking everyone how wonderful they think their company / aircraft SOPs are.
Of course each airline does 'it' the best possible way, for a myriad of reasons ranging from when the Fleet Training Captain screwed something up and decided to change a procedure to when the Manufacturer In Question decides that an aspect requires revision for technical / engineering / safety / legal reasons.
My question concerns Effective Monitoring.
After mega hours on the line and a multitude of hours in the A346 sim doing the instructional thing, I have observed many variations of mashing up procedures while attempting to handle both simple and highly complex procedures.
The airline I work for prescribes the following (and of course it is the best method....
): btw PM = pilot monitoring - we don't use the term PNF.
Ping!
PF - I have control (verifies the blue side is still up and whats engaged)
Both pilots read ECAM
PF- Identify
PM- Hydraulics: Yellow system low pressure
PF- Verify
PM- (looking at SD page) Yellow system low pressure (looking at overhead panel) Yellow system engine-driven pump inop
Now - this is the point of my post:
Captain now becomes PF (if not already so), to allow the FO to action the ECAM and / or QRH as required. This allows the higher authority unit to challenge the lower one if the wrong switch is about to be used.
Capt: (now PF): I have control and the radio, ECAM actions.
Once "ECAM actions complete" signal the end of this phase, the Captain then becomes PM, with the normal handover of control. Now the fearless leader can assess, with all available resources what's what, while the FO flies and handles the radio.
Obviously, this ritual doesn't happen for a Level One warning, and appropriate behavior is exercised throughout.
I know of a few airlines that expect the Captain to handle AND action the QRH (Boeing) or ECAM ('bus) while the FO flies. Is that effective monitoring? Will the FO challenge the incorrect switch / checklist / etc if he notices such a mistake? How does this assist Risk Management?
A well publicised study in the US from 1985 to 1995 revealed that 84% of approach accidents happened while the the Capt was PF. That, to me says it all about effective monitoring by the little 'ol FO.
What says your (perfect!) airline?
