Boeing Standard SOPs..... DO or ....don't

[World of Tweed]

Hello all,

Just thought I'd pose a question here. . . nee discussion....

My employer is currently adopting the so-called "Boeing Standard" SOPs across both of our fleets.

Within the airline I believe it is generally understood that the reason for this change is to facilitate Mixed-fleet-flying between two (distinctly different) types.

On the basis that Boeing refused (or couldn't be bovvered) to make the Hardware the same therefore having to modify the Procedures to remove as much risk as possible from operating both types.

Today, however, Galley FM broadcast that ALL airlines are having to adopt the Boeing Recommended SOPs as a matter of potential legal recourse.

It is understood that Boeing are basically implying; "operate OUR way or we take no responsibility for any incident that occurrs as a result of company customised SOPs".

I would just like to gauge if other UK airlines are also being "aligned" to the Boeing Books? If so, what reasons are being given for your respective changes?

[BOAC]

Wot - I had also heard the same - I believe BA were told by Boeing that they were 'on their own' with their in-house SOPs. It is up to the insurance folk/management to decide whether to take the 'risk'.

I've got some cheese with orange bits in it, Rainboe - do I panic?

[Speedbird48]

I find it strange that we never seem to learn from the past and keep repeating the same errors.

Many years ago there was a famous 707-436 accident at LHR (G-ARWE) when they left an engine in gravel pit and landed with a long flame from the fuel supply as the Firewall Shut-off was still open. The Captains name was Taylor. The airplane was destroyed by fire and, unfortunatly several lives were lost and a Flight Attendant lost her life trying to save those few remaining in the smoke and fire filled cabin.

After that BOAC made major changes to the SOP's when Boeing said they would disown the airplanes and the operation if they didn't do it the Boeing way!!

Here we are, once again, going down the same road after management thought they were better than the manufacturer. Fortunatly, this time, there has not been any loss of life.

Ex-436.

[019360]

And more recently.....non Boeing fuel management SOPs helped force the crew into a diversion to Manchester after the infamous 3 engine Atlantic crossing. As I understand Boeing and/or the CAA insisted that BA get back to Boeing basics.

Where I work we pretty much do what Boeing say. Not a bad idea. I wish their FCTM was more expansive and there's a few gaps we have to fill....but we largely don't change anything.

[Feather #3]

The Boeing response can be seen in the approach from operators who also use Airbus equipment. The CCQ process and SOP's make it easier to step from type to type. Boeing needed an answer!

We have 4 Boeing types in our company and it was interesting to look at the B737 operation the other day [who had to greatest change to make] comparing it to the B744. It's become relatively seamless.

G'day ;)

[Aeroengineer1]

Does Boeing add supplements to AFM for narrow runway operations of 737, if an airline intends to operate to airports with narrow runways (.e. 30 m width)?

[parabellum]

In 1983 the annual premium for Boeing's Product Liability cover was US$50 million so I'll leave you to work out what it is now.
If you don't operate the Boeing way you are outside their product liability cover and your own, (BA's for instance), underwriters will not be at all happy as it exposes them to unnecessary risk.

[Brian Abraham]

Extract of letter from Boeing to Qantas.

"Additionally, some of the techniques we have heard discussed, such as reduced flap settings and the use of idle reverse thrust, have a negative impact on airplane stopping performance. Therefore, these techniques are not recommended as standard practice...."

Qantas later parked a 744 on the golf course at BKK. Guess what was a major contributing factor?