PDA

View Full Version : FAA requires memory item briefing prior to flight


The_Grifted
5th Aug 2008, 00:46
FAA will soon mandate the cockpit crew review and brief aloud the memory items for cabin pressurization warning horns...

Dont those idiots know thats why its a MEMORY item? So we dont HAVE to brief it.

tuskegee airman
5th Aug 2008, 01:03
Grifted,
In my airline (Part 135) we are already required to brief the folowing memory items at least on the first flight of the sequence:

REJECTED T/O
ENG FIRE OR FAILURE- TAKE OFF CONTINUED
PRESSURIZATION PROBLEMS.

ANY OTHER THE COMMANDER DEEMS NECESSARY.

I've seen guys handle the first three with no probls but stutter when the capt throws in the initial actions of UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED. I therefore have no probs with this kind of brief, this way I know we are on the same page in those situations where we cant immediately get guidance from the QRH.



STRAIGHTEN UP AN FLY RIGHT!!!

JW411
5th Aug 2008, 07:29
Our FOD recently made the comment that any pilot who appears on the flight deck and who doesn't know his/her recall (memory) items is guilty of criminal negligence. I agree with him.

icemanalgeria
5th Aug 2008, 08:05
For years now I have been part of the cabin crew briefing where the No.1 ask's saftey questions to the cabin crew. I always thought this would be a good Idea for the flight deck too.

Not to catch anyone out but to refresh the memory.

Indeed before leaving the flight deck for my inflight rest, I always ask the gys left upfront to show me touch drills for engine failure and depressurisation failure.

And when on the Atlantic a quick refresher on Slop,WX Diversion off track, ect, again not to catch any one out, just to refresh the mind.

fireflybob
5th Aug 2008, 08:16
Firstly agree that as professional pilots we should know our Recall/Memory items.

But "questions" during flight preparation then please NO! We have sim checks, line checks and there is enough to think about at the flight planning stage without using the precious time to regurgitate stuff parrot fashion. In short we have ALREADY demonstrated competence in this area during recurrent checks!

Yes quite right to review emergencies in accordance with SOP in take off brief. On a normal line flight if time permits I find it useful to pull the QRH out for a review but don't believe in cross-examining my crew in an exam like style to test their knowledge. Better to have some fun doing it and then more is learned!

The only way to validate correct execution of recall items is actually to DO them - usually in the simulator! Saying what you would do is NOT the same as doing it!

westhawk
5th Aug 2008, 08:22
Ridiculous!

Why not just brief ALL of the memory items? What's so special about pressurization? What about engine fire drills or go-around procedures? Must I brief the procedure for a wake turbulence or windshear encounter too, or is it okay to just rely on the checklist? While we're at it, we might as well recite the entire limitations section of the AFM. Maybe conduct a full checkride prior to each flight day. Where does it stop?

Maybe it would be a better idea to concentrate our energies and attention to the task at hand. You know, departure particulars, special procedures, where we'll go if we have a problem, that kind of thing... Let's leave the memory items to our training and perhaps the occasional self-study session.

I'd like to see the official notice from the FAA outlining this new mandate. Until I do, I have difficulty believing that even they could be so obtusely reactionary as to require such nonsensical whimsy. Long, drawn out briefings are not the way to go. Clear, concise and focused is a much more productive use of valuable mental focus. If each recurrent training event is not often enough to remember abnormal and emergency drills, then increase the frequency of recurrent training until it is!

Best regards,

Westhawk

chimbu warrior
5th Aug 2008, 08:45
Exactly who are the FAA requiring to do this?

121 carriers?

135 operators?

Foreign carriers flying to the US?

If they were really concerned about this, then perhaps they should mandate more frequent sim checks. I understand that these are only mandatory once every 12 months in the US. At the other end of the spectrum (equally ridiculous), I am required to do 8 sim sessions per year by my carrier.

While we are reciting all this stuff, why not say the Lord's Prayer and sing God Save the Queen as well? :ugh:

Lear Jockey
5th Aug 2008, 09:17
that's like some collegues saying at the end of the briefing

" Otherwise standard call outs"....yep man, I wanted just to say chewing gum instead of engine fire n°1 today...

Anyway, lets brief for what we seem to be special of the day, bad WX, emergency return if high ground around, any items that are relevant. But for God sake, don't always brief for the same stuff, what can we do if a concentration of birds is around the airfield? Maybe do a barrel roll right after take off to avoid it?!

Cheers

Fly safe, think safe!

FlexibleResponse
5th Aug 2008, 10:24
What's the point of briefing Memory Items for say, Eng Fire drills before take-off, if subsequently when you do take-off you turn R instead of L and fly into a mountain?

Keep briefings succinct and relevant to the current circumstances!

Basil
5th Aug 2008, 11:47
you turn R instead of L and fly into a mountain
Very good point. Terrain is part of the briefing with and without engine failure together with cleanup, emg. turn etc.
Depressurisation? Get on oxygen take a couple of seconds to assess the situation - don't descend onto traffic, terrain - the escape route is open next to you - isn't it? :) The next bits are secondary.

When does the FAA want the depressurisation briefing to be carried out?
Waste of valuable time before departure - how about during the climb?

742
5th Aug 2008, 11:58
Briefings -- please note the root word "brief" -- provide a window of about 30 seconds. Certainly less than a minute. After that people start to tune it out. This is human nature.

They should be meaningful. Short, to the point and meaningful.

And in this case my bet is that the "FAA" is just some fed trying to make a name for himself. "The FAA" speaks in text, and as others I would like to see the hard copy of this new policy; not to mention what FAR they would use to enforce it.

I do run through the reject and "go" scenerios before each takeoff within my own mind, but there is no need to share SOP reviews unless there is something out of the ordinary.

West Coast
6th Aug 2008, 01:54
I understand that these are only mandatory once every 12 months in the US

Where did you hear/read this?

tuskegee airman
6th Aug 2008, 04:50
chimbu warrior,
I disagree, this is not just some mindless parrot-like recital. It is a drill in response to a serious inflite failure and as such needs to be performed/rehearsed precisely.

Jw411,
I agree with the "......criminal negligence." part of your post but I would prefer to discover this negligence during a brief rather than in the middle of an emergency descent for example.;)

The guy seated next to me has demonstrated repeatedly through simulators, line checks etc that he can fly an approach to minimums. But I'm going to watch his every approach with a critical eye (as I expect him to do mine). Not because I dont trust him but because this is an important measure in enhancing airline safety.

I view briefing memory items this way.... I know what they are but how do I know what's in the other person's MEMORY unless he tells me!!!

Remember also that there are airlines where the first time you lay eyes on your other crewmember(s) might have been when you checked in for the flight.




STRAIGHTEN UP AN FLY RIGHT

Dream Buster
6th Aug 2008, 05:53
During a brief for a rejected take off leading to an evacuation I remember a newish F/O reciting ‘Pressurisation Manual – SHUT’ It was meant to be ‘Manual – OPEN’ So at the end of the brief I queried his slip to 1) Find out if it was a genuine mistake 2) To ensure that in the event of an evacuation, possibly 20 minutes later, he would not spoil our day.

I can’t even remember whether it was a genuine mistake or not but at the time I thought that it was a worthwhile learning point for both of us and made the chances of a successful evacuation more likely.

A briefless flight must by definition, raise the stakes unnecessarily?

DB :ok:

fireflybob
6th Aug 2008, 09:31
I think maybe this thread has drifted a little. Yes take off/approach briefings make sense and indeed are required in most company SOPs. This is not the same as an interrogation at flight despatch on memory items.

SNS3Guppy
6th Aug 2008, 09:51
Dont those idiots know thats why its a MEMORY item? So we dont HAVE to brief it.


There are many reasons to have memory items...but not having to brief those procedures certainly isn't one of them. Not by a long shot.

Max Angle
6th Aug 2008, 10:38
There are many reasons to have memory items..Actually there is only one reason to have memory items, they are tasks which must be actioned without delay in circumstances that do not allow time for a checklist to be consulted. They should be strictly limited to the "do or die" items such as initial actions for stopping, engine failure, decompression and unreliable airspeed, can't think of anything else that needs them really, evacuation should certainly not be performed from memory, plenty of time to set the park brake and get the QRH out.

Litebulbs
6th Aug 2008, 10:51
Who calls the police if you get an item wrong?

talent
6th Aug 2008, 10:53
Would you not think it is such an important item (how much useful consciousness do you have left once the masks drop?) that it merits a briefing? In Europe so many low-cost carriers are using secondary airfields with short runways and executing bleeds off take-offs to nurse a few extra pounds of thrust out of the engines, then forgetting to switch it on again, that pressurisation warnings are more common that one would like to think. I know of one incident involvng a well known airline where cabin crew thought some pax were showing the early signs of hypoxia.

fireflybob
6th Aug 2008, 13:55
Would you not think it is such an important item (how much useful consciousness do you have left once the masks drop?) that it merits a briefing? In Europe so many low-cost carriers are using secondary airfields with short runways and executing bleeds off take-offs to nurse a few extra pounds of thrust out of the engines, then forgetting to switch it on again, that pressurisation warnings are more common that one would like to think. I know of one incident involvng a well known airline where cabin crew thought some pax were showing the early signs of hypoxia.

What's new about Bleeds Off take offs? - we did them for years on a regular basis when I was on the B737-200 and -300.

On the a/c I am on with a loco in Europe I have yet to do a Bleeds Off take off in 2 years of operation!! That said of course we should know how to do same and reconfigure when airborne etc.

talent, I am not quite sure what point you are making - I would have thought all professional flight deck crew on jet a/c are aware of the average times of useful consciousness at 35/38,000 ft - what's the big deal?

A37575
6th Aug 2008, 15:10
Saw this in the sim once and it was priceless. Engine fire warning at lift off. Captain orders "Recall Items Engine Fire, Severe damage or Separation checklist'.


First Officer known as PM says (after chewing knuckles) "Let's see...uum...Engine Severe Separation and Fire damage checklist...er... can you repeat that request please captain?"

Captain PF: "Idiot, Dolt, Illiterate Bogan, I said go a bloody-head with the EFSD or S checklist - and fast..we have a fire.."

F/O in humble mumbling tone. "Sorry Cap'n - I forgot wot the Recalls are...mind if I have a quick sneak at the QRH first..."

Speedbird48
6th Aug 2008, 16:37
The Gifted,

Where did you get this from???

FAA covers a rather broad spectrum, and I have seen nothing official from the Fun Palace in DC.

stator vane
6th Aug 2008, 20:23
whenever someone takes a new position, they must make some sort of change to give evidence that their coming to the new position was just in the nick of time.

every new chief pilot, head of training, checkairman, and must be the same within the FAA walls,

just as a dog cannot walk past a fire hydrant, without pissing on it, a new occupant of a position, must make some new change, to mark his/her turf!!!!

and after all these years of more and more layers of briefings and procedures, one must dig deep to find something new to add to the heap.

411A
6th Aug 2008, 20:46
and after all these years of more and more layers of briefings and procedures, one must dig deep to find something new to add to the heap

Yup, happens all the time.
However...
I worked for one carrier (now the largest in SE Asia) which took the checklists/QRH directly from the manufacturer (Boeing) and pasted their logo on the front cover....and said, 'follow this.'

Worked like a charm.

Same with the L1011 at another carrier.

All the rest...pure unadulterated BS.

Fact.

excrab
6th Aug 2008, 21:21
"Dont those idiots know thats why it is a MEMORY item? So we dont HAVE to brief it"

I wonder if anyone ever said that in the crew room of a certain Greek carrier which has featured in "Aircrash Investigations"?

fireflybob
6th Aug 2008, 23:04
"Dont those idiots know thats why it is a MEMORY item? So we dont HAVE to brief it"

I wonder if anyone ever said that in the crew room of a certain Greek carrier which has featured in "Aircrash Investigations"?

I think I can guess the accident you are referring to but am not convinced that recitation of memory items prior to flight would have changed the outcome given the circumstances.

Roadtrip
6th Aug 2008, 23:58
Remember, with the FAA, it's not actually doing anything that's the goal, it's giving the appearance of doing something.

filejw
7th Aug 2008, 00:12
I'm glad we have only one memory item. "Fly the A/C".:)

alf5071h
7th Aug 2008, 02:04
Assuming that the proposal is in fact FAA policy, then they appear to ignore or misunderstand several fundamental human factors safety principles.

The FAA’s action would increase the crew’s responsibility for safety without addressing their own responsibility to review a certification weakness of warning systems – having one warning with two meanings.
This is a form of blame culture; any future incident involving a mistake by the crew in briefing will be their fault, without consideration of the opportunities for error in the aircraft system and operation – the FAA’s responsibility - passing the buck, overloading the front end.
Similarly changing procedures during a high workload period also exposes crews to opportunity for error … more opportunities for blame.
The FAA appear to follow the old ideas of crew error and human performance, failing to look at the upstream influences in accidents; this is like applying more band-aids to the holes in the ‘Swiss Cheese’ without considering why the holes were there in the first place.
“it's giving the appearance of doing something.” - knee jerk reaction. :ok:

Memory items are not necessarily the best way of addressing some future event; they are better used sparingly in existing critical events.
There would be few drills or checks that would apply to all aircraft or circumstances. Some aircraft do not use air for take off or use APU air only, thus the critical checks occur after takeoff – the selection or change of air supply. Similarly there is need to check other pressurisation system switching, e.g. outflow values manual/auto, dump valve setting (before taxi), and that the control system is working during the climb. All of these checks are best completed with the aid of a checklist, which reduces the chance of error.
These are examples of proactive threat management, avoiding a warning and the associated hazard, thus reducing the need to review the drills.

Finally there should be consideration of crew performance.
Is there a need to improve crew knowledge of systems, their response to abnormal indications, avoidance of rush, or improvements in emergency checklist information. Again the FAA has top level responsibility for these. There may be little value in demanding operators to check these items as they created them, whereas a overview audit from the local FAA inspector might identify weaknesses and enable sharing of best practice across the industry.

Those in the FAA discussing these aspects might do well to consult their own Human Factors Web site, and also that of NASA who are researching checklists and concurrent tasks … … on an FAA research budget ?!!

ExSp33db1rd
7th Aug 2008, 02:13
While we are reciting all this stuff, why not say the Lord's Prayer and sing God Save the Queen as well?

Good grief ! Have you checked that with the P.C. Police ?

I've read that Mohammed is the most popular boys' name in the UK now ?

stator vane
7th Aug 2008, 18:13
all the briefings in the world will not prevent accidents.

the only thing that will, is a continuous personal striving toward what could be termed, integrity, perhaps.

and from where i stand, that can only come from within each individual.

simple things, but not easy, especially when one is flying close to the flight and duty time limits--one must beat him/herself mentally--my initial private flight instructor would yell at me and hit me with the sectional when i did something stupid--such as do something that gave indication that i had not listened or was not putting my 100% into the activity at hand. now i silently yell at myself when i notice that i have slacked off.

actually look at the switch, actually look at the indicator, actually read the notams. actually look at the pitot tubes during the walk around, etc. that is what happened in the helios 737 and in fact 90 percent of all the accidents i have read. there are only a few that fall outside of that.

nothing can replace self discipline on the flight line and no one can regulate it or brief it, or put it into a QRH and adding extra text and verbage during the flight will only contribute to missing more ATC calls.

i agree with 411 about the boeing books. same for the flight crew training manual.

less is better--but it requires our individual personal integrity.

layinlow
7th Aug 2008, 19:48
The FAA isn't so bad. I had to recite memory items 20 years ago. The FAA isn't nearly as anal as the Japanese Civil Aviation Authorities. Now that was an oral!!!

Enjoy the view
7th Aug 2008, 22:50
Why does the regulator need to be involved in this?
Let's keep things simple and use manufacturers' manuals.

Now having said that why not, at crews' discretion review one QRH recall item section on each flight? Just as a reminder, and during cruise once the workload has reduced....

Basil
8th Aug 2008, 00:03
Captain orders "Recall Items Engine Fire, Severe damage or Separation checklist'.
I can't say all that! I'd just say "Engine fire checklist."

took the checklists/QRH directly from the manufacturer (Boeing) and pasted their logo on the front cover....and said, 'follow this.'

411A,
I know you wind 'em up a bit on Prune but I'd certainly agree there.

A37575
8th Aug 2008, 13:01
my initial private flight instructor would yell at me and hit me with the sectional

Don't tell me these sort of idiots are still "instructing". I thought CRM and all that stuff was supposed to prevent screaming skull instructors. He should be sacked for incompetence and his file marked never to be allowed to instructor in aeroplanes - only billy-carts

GlueBall
8th Aug 2008, 16:23
"...The FAA’s action would increase the crew’s responsibility for safety without addressing their own responsibility to review a certification weakness of warning systems – having one warning with two meanings..."

This is where Boeing could learn something from Lockheed: The L1011 TriStars which I had flown many moons ago had a voice generated "Don Oxygen Mask" warning alternate with the cabin altitude warning horn. The little voice coming over the speaker left no doubt about cabin pressurization failure. In my case we had a cargo door seal blow out and the cabin altitude had zoomed up to 14000 feet, that's when we learned that our TriStar had this voice generated warning: "Don Oxygen Mask."

The dumb Helios pilots who couldn't identify the Boeing cabin altitude warning horn, [identical to the take-off warning horn] would have had a second chance of saving themselves if they had been flying an L1011 with augmented voice generated warnings. :ooh:

stator vane
8th Aug 2008, 17:18
i chose that instructor!

flying is not a forgiving environment so why should all instruction be soft as pillows!

when i decided to learn to fly, 1979, i wanted the best instructor at the airport (MEM) and after asking around, his name kept coming up. they said he was rough around the edges, but within the first lesson i could tell that in his heart he only wanted the best for me just as i only wanted the best for me!

he flew choppers in nam, so that might explain some of his technique-- and i only encountered his harshness when i had not given 100 percent.

so keep your opinion to yourself until you meet him personally. funny how many other pilots that were instructed by him still think the world of him.

411A
8th Aug 2008, 20:57
This is where Boeing could learn something from Lockheed: The L1011 TriStars which I had flown many moons ago had a voice generated "Don Oxygen Mask" warning alternate with the cabin altitude warning horn

Amazing, ain't it, these little improvements that made the 'ole TriStar so enjoyed by pilots that flew her...and still do.

All flying stab.
DLC.
Dual/dual autopilots, and CATIIIB, right out of the factory.
The first true FMS on a wide-body...with, VNAV/LNAV/engine thrust management, all in one (dual) neat package, courtesy of Hamilton Sundstrand.
A true...gentlemans airplane.
Ahhhh, Lockheed!:E

Now, lets look at operating procedures, specific to the respective type.
Lockheed states them, right in the AFM.
Boeing...likewise
Douglas...likewise
Airboos...don't specifically know (never flown one) but I suspect, them...too.

So, I ask (and I've been around a very long time)...just WHY do some airlines 'think' they know more than the manufacturer?
Personally, I think some of these 'other airlines' are nutty as a fruit cake.

In short,
RTFB, for best results.
The manufacturers book.:(

Desk Jockey
9th Aug 2008, 00:06
MAX ANGLE
"Actually there is only one reason to have memory items, they are tasks which must be actioned without delay in circumstances that do not allow time for a checklist to be consulted. They should be strictly limited to the "do or die" items such as initial actions for stopping, engine failure, decompression and unreliable airspeed, can't think of anything else that needs them really, evacuation should certainly not be performed from memory, plenty of time to set the park brake and get the QRH out."


You sure?

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/8-1988%20G-BGJL.pdf

"The crew then started on the non-memory 'Passenger Evacuation (Land) Drill' which proved unrealistically long for such an emergency, calling for passenger evacuation as item 14."

55 fatalities.

White Knight
9th Aug 2008, 07:10
Indeed 411a - Airbus tells you how it's to be done in the FCOM's...

Airlines do NOT need to embelish these - the aeroplane is certified with just the manufacturers books.. Sadly it's the astronaut wannabes at managerial level who want to adapt procedures.

BAck to topic - if you don't know the memory items you should not be flying the aeroplane. However, they don't ned to be briefed... Kind of makes a mockery of MEMORY doesn't it??

Old King Coal
9th Aug 2008, 07:50
In the front preamble section of the (Boeing) QRH(s) - i.e. about how to use that hallowed tome ('Non–Normal Checklist Use') - it says:The pilot flying calls for the checklist when: the flight path is in control.
the airplane is not in a critical phase of flight (such as takeoff or landing).
all recall items are completeThat said, the QRH of my B767-300ER tells me that in the event of an 'Engine Overheat' one of the first things one must do is to turn off the engine bleed air on the effected side... However it makes no mention of the fact that doing this above FL350 (which is the limit for operations on a single pack / bleed source - as per the DDPM for this type) might lead one into a cabin decompression, i.e. whilst one gently drifts down to a lower level on 1-and-a-bit engines ?! Therein the QRH is not infallible and it's been said that there's many a pilot who's died whilst holding the QRH their hand!

SpamCanDriver
9th Aug 2008, 08:40
Wasn't the reason that boeing took alot of the recall items from the QRH recently, was because in a survey they found a significant proportion of line pilots didn't know all the recall items!:=

I have to say Im not an anal bookworm pilot but not knowing your recall items is in my books criminal negligence!

Muntu
10th Aug 2008, 06:27
Stator Vane, although your post on integrity sounds regimental, it does make sense and I certainly agree with you.

My favourite chirp."You can brief yourself and crew so far ahead of the aircraft with events that could happen (lots of material there) that you will eventually forget where you are". Dont you just hate it when you miss an ATC call because you were entertaining a theatrical demonstration of an approach briefing including ....in the event of.....!

The question stares us in the eye. Is it better to keep it real and in line with the manufacturer's procedures and rely on the six monthly (or less) simulator training to give you the tools to handle any emergency thrown your way OR try to impress your audience with BS. The commercial flying evironment is dynamic enough as it is and one needs FREE RAM to deal with it.

The RTO briefing and other pertinant variables such as weather etc should form part of the pre flight. After all the RTO is one of the very few actions in aviation which needs to be executed with no delay and warrants a visit on the days we fly.

stator vane
10th Aug 2008, 10:30
interesting to see how the memory items have changed over the years just for the 737--

even this morning, it took over 30 minutes to confirm the multiple changes to the APU fire items. used to be memory. then not, then back to a memory item, whilst the current printed QRH still shows it as non-memory.

not to mention the smoke and cabin altitude checks.

used to have 19 items, now down to only 12.

how many does the scarebus 320 have in it's QRH? ;)

IRRenewal
22nd Aug 2008, 21:05
Stator Vane wrote:

actually look at the switch, actually look at the indicator, actually read the notams.

Actually stop when you get a take off config warning?

Feather #3
23rd Aug 2008, 00:35
SCD Wrote:

Wasn't the reason that boeing took alot of the recall items from the QRH recently, was because in a survey they found a significant proportion of line pilots didn't know all the recall items!

I have to say Im not an anal bookworm pilot but not knowing your recall items is in my books criminal negligence!

I think you'll find among Human Factors [HF] research, that under stress, pilots over 50 years of age had trouble recalling the items. Quiz and simulator packages were fine, but the real world was another matter! Thus, simplification became the order of the day.

This is not unreasonable IMHO. In the days of the B747 "Classic", I had a tape which I played in the car on the way to work of all memory recalls [aka Phase 1's in those days] and non-normal reference items which my employer had chosen as memory items. It took 45min to get to work and this tape played for half an hour!!:eek:

Thus, I'd ask that you temper your thoughts on "criminal negligence" with contemporary HF research on the human ability to cope under stress in the real world.

G'day ;)

Ignition Override
23rd Aug 2008, 06:43
Each airline must have its own manuals rubber-stamped by the FAA, and each flight ops culture must have its own imprint and often re-invent the wheel, regarding c0ckp1t flows and checklists. Some change their flows every 4-7 years. Change for the sake of change, produced by some upstairs flight ops types via more paperwork. Some changes are in order to pretend that a domestic two-pilot jet flying 30-1:40-minute legs can operate like a three or four-engine system monstrosity on an eight-twelve hour "long march". No time for 'fishheads and rice' with five minutes at cruise during a really short flight, and no ATIS from ACARS.

John Nance wrote a book and proved how US deregulation led directly to some tragedies. He claimed that Air Florida had a real hodge-podge of a Flight Manual.
Our Admin. was totally committed to its lofty airline experiment, as each admin. has been since then, no matter what types of airline manuals/procedures were developed or fused together, types of accidents took place, no matter how bizarre and strange Professor Alfred Kahn's economic theories, advice from our 'dereg. guru'.

Oh well, back to the simple elegance of the SKS and Mosin Nagant 44.:)

alwayzinit
23rd Aug 2008, 10:08
You know it's called a briefing as it's meant to be brief.........

Otherwise it should be called a "longing":E

Alwayz