Mr Boeing can’t speak proper.

[HPSOV L]

Engine Fire Switch.

It’s not a switch is it? It’s a HANDLE.
It’s something that you grasp and pull and twist. It has multiple functions.
Every other control in the flight deck follows accepted descriptive naming conventions. eg: switch, selector, lever, knob etc.

The word “Fire” in it’s title also implies exclusivity, whereas it is also used in non fire related checklists.

For twenty years I’ve watched people stumble over this counter-intuitive mouthful in the simulator every six months. The preceding item being Fuel Control Switch adds to the tongue twisting (as an aside why not the more intuitive “Fuel Cutoff Switch?).

I’d settle for “Engine Fire Handle” but how about Engine Emergency Shutoff Handle compressed to “E-Handle”? Or did another manufacturer have a patent on that?

I could go on all day about the grammatical shortcomings of the Boeing QRH but let’s just start here...
Boeing don’t accept unsolicited comments hence this missive...

Rant over.

[IFixPlanes]

Did you feel better now?

[B737C525]

I suggest you absolutely avoid the French aeroplane. If Boeing leaves you ranting, you really have no idea what horrors are manifest in the 'European' jet.

[Concours77]

"Boeing don't"?

Boeing is not plural it is a single Corporation.

Boeing doesn't.

:O

[pattern_is_full]

C77 - It's a UK vs. US english thing (i've run into it many times in global forums) and a battle you can't win - a draw is the best you can expect.

In "the King's English," corporations are usually treated as plural entities, an association of multiple individuals, a "they." It may be related to the royal "We."

We in the US (including me) subsume the individuals into one entity, an "it" - a curiously "collectivist" approach for our ruggedly-individualistic society to take, but there it is.

And certainly in a phrase such as "Did Boeing pay its/their taxes?" - the singular is clearer about whose taxes are under scrutiny, and who might pay a fine (presumably not each individual employee). ;)

[Concours77]

Thanks pif. I'll take a draw, then, someone has to defend the Murcan language.

[tdracer]

You've got two things going on here. First off, anything Boeing puts out in the AFM or MM is written in something they call "simple English". Supposedly simple English is easier for people who don't have English as their native language to understand. However it loses much of the subtlety that native English speakers depend on so it has the effect of making less clear to them. Whenever we came up with instructions or procedures that would go into the AFM or MM, we had to give it to another group who then re-wrote it in simple English (sometimes we didn't even get to review it afterwards to make sure they hadn't inadvertently changed the meaning). I suspect that's where Fire Handle became Fire Switch - internally we always called it the Fire Handle...


Secondly the lawyers get involved - for example a throttle cable doesn't break or fail, it "separates"...:ugh:

[esscee]

Americans do not speak English, they think they do but unfortunately for them they speak "American".

[HPSOV L]

Nurse Ratched has brought my medication and I feel better now...
Thanks for some insightful replies.
I will leave with my favourite Electronic Checklist QRH double negative from Airspeed Unreliable:

“Airspeed cannot be trimmed to the desired pitch attitude:”
Select option: Yes / No

[jolihokistix]

"It cannot" should be preceded by No, ie, "No, it cannot". Simples. Clear as mud.


However, if you imagine the question "Is this correct?" after the proposed problem, then, "Yes, that is correct. It cannot be trimmed..." becomes the way to reply. Aaarrrggghhhh....

[andmiz]

Nurse Ratched has brought my medication and I feel better now...
Thanks for some insightful replies.
I will leave with my favourite Electronic Checklist QRH double negative from Airspeed Unreliable:

“Airspeed cannot be trimmed to the desired pitch attitude:”
Select option: Yes / No

Yes; but try explaining something to a Russian without using a double negative, and you'd get the same confusion...hence it's written for all cultural understandings of English.

[dixi188]

When the BAC 1-11 went to the USA, I believe the them "FUEL COCK" was an issue.

[RAT 5]

HSPOV L: I empathise.

"Simple English" Hm? My QRH to hand is 2013, so I apologise if this has been changed in recent years. Firstly, I had many comments on the text of QRH after during years of giving TR courses to a wide spectrum of cadets & primary language. I watched their confusion and errors caused by some uncertainties that I briefed them on them in advance. As has been said, it is very difficult to make comments direct to Boeing. The appropriate 'tech pilot' who did have access was not overly interested.

One common mistake was during 'One Engine Inoperative Landing' B738.
#2 Set VREF 15 or VREF ICE.
NOTE:........

#3.............

50% of cadets did not set VREF of any type. Why? Because the text was not in the usual format. Suggestion.

#2 VREF 15 or VREF 15 ICE........................SET
NOTE:................

This is how all other actions are commanded. It works, it is simple, but here was a scenario where the text format caused it not to work.

There are others where simple text is not the case, especially in the NOTES. Using a QRH is not the time to wonder, "I know what I'm reading, but is it what they meant.?" There was a huge improvement many years ago. The concept was good, but sometimes I have wondered if the lawyers took over from the pilots, as wordsmiths.

Back to the Fire Handle/Switch and pilots struggling with the mouth music under stress. For me it's important to 'do' the correct thing. Is it really a negative point to use the wrong word? Doing nothing while you flounder with your memory of Recall Items is more negative. Similarly on takeoff/GA "is it positive rate or positive climb?" No idea, but put the gear up FGS.

[maggot]

Gees no worries whilst they're calling em autoTHROTTLES

[Bluescan]

From our books and checklists I have always found the isolation valve switches a bit counter intuitive. "Isolation valve switch.....ON" sounds like you are isolating something, but in fact you do the opposite. To me, a valve is either open, closed or automatic.



“Airspeed cannot be trimmed to the desired pitch attitude:”
Select option: Yes / No

I have always considered these statements as true/false.


However, I find the Boeing checklists to be mostly simple to follow. This is also a thing I hear from pilots transitioning from Airbus.

[Webby737]

I suggest you absolutely avoid the French aeroplane. If Boeing leaves you ranting, you really have no idea what horrors are manifest in the 'European' jet.

I couldn't agree more !
Assuming that the QRH for the bus is written in a similar language to the technical manuals (I'll have a look when I'm back in work tomorrow) there will be nothing "Quick" about it.
And for me, regardless what is written in the books, it's a Fire Handle.

[FlyingStone]

I could go on all day about the grammatical shortcomings of the Boeing QRH but let’s just start here...

If you really want to rant, plenty more material in (supposedly written in English) documents produced in south of France.

[Jet II]

Engine Fire Switch.

It’s not a switch is it? It’s a HANDLE.
It’s something that you grasp and pull and twist.

Well it is a switch - it just happens to be operated by a handle. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Like a few "switches" in my Boeing... they're actually pushbuttons... :confused:

[aterpster]

Americans do not speak English, they think they do but unfortunately for them they speak "American".
Things have never been the same since we bloody colonists rebelled. :)

[RAT 5]

And let's not get started with the pedantic instructors who insist on "Eng 2" but "Right Pack", when under stress. Right ENG is wrong. repeat after me, and write out 100 times.......... etc. etc.

[MarkerInbound]

Like a few "switches" in my Boeing... they're actually pushbuttons... :confused:

Yes, but are they "momentary action" push buttons or "alternate action" push buttons?

[Vessbot]

And let's not get started with the pedantic instructors who insist on "Eng 2" but "Right Pack", when under stress. Right ENG is wrong. repeat after me, and write out 100 times.......... etc. etc.

My airplane's packs are labeled L and R by the buttons, but 1 and 2 on the EICAS screen, so I'm covered no matter what:cool:

[RAT 5]

Indeed, and so are the B737's, but all i'm suggesting is there are more important things to concentrate on when training cadets than the the difference between Left Engine & Engine #1.
On a 4 pot a/c it might make a difference; horses for courses.

But then again, this is slight thread drift and not worth the energy.

[PEI_3721]

Aside from the banter and examples, is there an actual standard for ‘handiness’ and flight deck nomenclature ?
I cannot identify a specific regulatory requirement or ‘binding’ recommendation in international standards, e.g. SAE.
I suspect that there is an overriding interpretation in regulations which allows either form provided it is consistent across the aircraft type. This might be voluntarily extended to all aircraft by a particular manufacturer, but even this could be increasingly difficult with technological advance.

Left right, one two, is resolvable, but what about three, four … yellow, blue, green, emerg. As the complexity of technology expands we might end up with a physics type naming; up down strange beauty.

A lack of conformity amongst manufacturers and/or requirements could generate significant problems for operators with mixed fleets; a potential safety hazard.
Operators have the option to rewrite drills and checklists, but emergency procedures could be difficult, requiring formal amendment of the AFM. Similarly tech and maintenance manuals would create enormous workload.

I recall an associated issue being addressed in a paper relating to a ‘dominant culture’ in aviation; any refs?

[aterpster]

My company wrote and printed its own flight manuals and checklists so the same company culture and operating policies would be consistent across the fleet. And, they remained compliant with the O.E.M.'s procedures.

[RAT 5]

My company wrote and printed its own flight manuals and checklists so the same company culture and operating policies would be consistent across the fleet. And, they remained compliant with the O.E.M.'s procedures.

In a light-hearted vain: I heard stories in BEA days that, allegedly, the Trident guys tried to re-wrtie the replacement B737 manuals so their guys, converting across, would understand them. This story came from an airline I flew with who were helping with line training some BA crews in their early days of B732. They were completely bemused as to how you could transfer a 3 man crew philosophy to a 2 man crew a/c. The roles of PF/PNF were swapped about and mingled up. That other airline flew cording to FCTM. Their philosophy was why buy a new toy and change the operating instructions. You don't do t with anything else in your life. OK, it was simplistic, but.......and in a later life, as they modernised, indeed their local XAA wanted full SOP manuals.
I also flew B767 for various outfits. I was taught, first time on type, by a top of the chain training dept. 4 airlines and 15 years later (don't ask) I and a friend ventured into the clutches of fledgling B767 operator. They had B733's. The CP B767 fleet wrote the B767 SOP's My friend & I were flummoxed. Some were so non-sensical. Where had these ideas come from? It turned out the new CP fleet was a biz-jet pilot for the airline boss and ex-B707 pilot. Mystery solved, but what a mess.

Sorry for head drift, but Aperster sucked me into it on a slow night.

[john_tullamarine]

My company wrote and printed its own flight manuals and checklists so the same company culture and operating policies would be consistent across the fleet

As did my first operator. Makes for a very easy training transition from aircraft A to aircraft C (just so folks don't think I'm in an A vs B rut). I did four conversions and the workload was reduced compared to learning a whole different protocol each time.

However, there is a significant admin and potential liability overhead associated with rewriting large scale documentation sets. Further, a simple aircraft can be made somewhat more complex to operate. In my observation, the F27 was modified to operate a bit like the jets .. so it ended up being a bit more involved than it needed to be.

I can't say just which is the best way to go .. swings and roundabouts might be the guts of it ? If one can address the high workload/stress situation in an emergency and the tendency to revert to initial training, possibly adopting the OEM way of doing things is a good place to start ?

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes, but are they "momentary action" push buttons or "alternate action" push buttons?
Switches! :)

[torghabe]

What done is done:
747F: main deck Fire (indication, QRH procedure), but there are NOT fire detectors on main deck, onle smoke! Actually sometimes "frost in detectors" is enough for start cargo fire indication. Thanks mr. Boeing? I think NO, thanks mr. unknown language expert.

[RAT 5]

A team of Boeing 737 training captains visited our company. They told us of some changes being introduced on coming upgrades. They then threw the floor open to us saying, "you guys fly this a/c every day in all kinds of weather, differing environments and ground facilities. You can tell us what you think; you've more experience than us." So we tried, but more often than not were poo-poo'd without explanation. It was like asking questions to a politician and being diverted in every which direction except the one you were focused on. We asked why it was so difficult for line pilots to ask questions, for clarification, or make suggestions for improvement in Boeing's publications. We were referred to 'the company liaison pilot.' Yeah, right: deaf ears and closed doors. Too busy.
Apple have squillions of products out there and have user chat forums and customer support forums. Boeing have less than 100,000 a/c buzzing around the world and no method for the coal face operators to chat, either amongst themselves or to the company. Surely that is dinosaural in this day and age?? I wonder if the SFO B777 might have been avoided if the 'gotcha' had been discussed openly. Or is the exposure to liability too great for such a project? But is the sharing of information, especially about mistakes made by others, and experiences/incidents of other operators, not the basis of Flight Safety Foundation magazines which are circulated amongst most airlines? Is the security of dissemination of information the problem? It does seem counter productive to read accident reports and then discover that XYZ + ABC had nearly done the same thing for there same reason a few years earlier, but only the XAA or manufacturer knew about it.
This is not a Boeing thing, but an industry characteristic. In 80's I used to receive a monthly magazine from the company. It included all the reviews of major company incidents plus relevant ones from partner contributors. Very educational. Changing companies in 90's - 10's saw that education disappear. It took an accident, and 3-4 years of study, before the report taught us anything. My comment about education comes from incidents where accidents were prevented. Maybe there are companies with large enough budgets to still have an in-house dept for such publications, but further down the food chain we were often in the dark, even about in-house incidents.

[Capn Bloggs]

Ain't that the truth, Rat 5...

[Spooky 2]

Like a few "switches" in my Boeing... they're actually pushbuttons... :confused:



Yes but....one of the first things you learn when working in the Boeing Training department is that there are no buttons in the 777 or 787 flight decks.

[Alpine Flyer]

Spot on. If A/C designers would listen to pilots and shamelessly copy the best features of their competitor's flight deck (as graded by actual line pilots), we'd be in flight deck heaven soon. I've seen a lot of clever design details on different types which would well go together.

[Alpine Flyer]

A certain company based far south of Boeing has buttons that need to be "pushed out" which means they have to be pushed so as not to be flush with the panel any more. Not a very intuitive usage of English, too.

[Dockjock]

My company also loves to rewrite manuals. Such that the latest change has us saying "execute" to confirm a direct-to clearance. Still haven't found the "execute" button on our Airbus...smh.

[Clandestino]

The preceding item being Fuel Control Switch adds to the tongue twisting.

Proper Boeings have "Engine start levers".

Joking aside, the path to Boeing Nirvana has lead me through ATR, Airbus and DHC territories, with every planebuilder having its own Humpty-Dumptysh ideas about how some piece of equipment should be called. I'd say Boeing's nomenclature is far from the worst and I'm not wondering anymore about having autothrottle that controls power levers or CONT CAB selector that adjusts cockpit temperature.

[RAT 5]

I'm not wondering anymore about having autothrottle that controls power levers

or even the pedantic old timers who insist on 'auto throttle control thrust levers' and the prickly one about if "THRHLD" (thrust hold) is controlled by throttles or thrust levers. And when the LEFT engine is vibrating or leaking oil you shut down ENG 1. Possibly because the T-Levers came from B707 and thus they had numbers on them. If the fuselage & overhead switches came from B707 why not the T-levers as well? If things don't change they remain the same and somewhere there is a warehouse built and full in the expectation that B707 would still be ruling the world. As someone said, "nostalgia is not what it used to be."

[Clandestino]

If things don't change they remain the same and somewhere there is a warehouse built and full in the expectation that B707 would still be ruling the world. I strongly suspect that the recent change of the engine start levers design was precipitated by emptying of one shelf in the aforementioned warehouse.

[Chris Martyr]

It's always interesting observing chaps of different generations , nationalities and aircraft types exchanging notes.
One aspect of this which does have to be accepted though [however begrudgingly] is the fact that every new generation of aircraft brings with it , its own "language". It's in the pilot training packages , the engineering training packages , MEL's , POH's ,,,,,,,,,,,etc,,etc. Not to mention the exams that we all have to endure.
I remember back in 1993 , when my employer went from classic B747's to A340's . The culture shock almost caused a seismic rumble amongst the engineers , who had never heard of ADIRU's, Mode Selectors [thrust levers] Prim's , SEC's, Normal Laws , Alternate Laws,,,,,,and the rest.
One of the more humorous aspects was the engineering training videos and the robot-like mispronunciations of words that we [thought] we knew..:O


Having spent time in both Everett Wa. and Toulouse and having seen what melting pots they are of different nationalities , it is easy to see how this strange , eccentric and somewhat bastardised language that many of us have become familiar with has come about.
An interesting fact emerged when in Toulouse back in the late 1990s when I remarked to one of the sim. instructors about how many Chinese lady pilots were in attendance ..."Non, non non Monsieur" , came the reply. "They are not pilots , they are translators". Apparently it takes about three times longer to train some of our Asian colleagues in the sim. than it does with others who subscribe to a higher standard of English.


So , in answer to the OP's original point . I guess the manufacturers have to establish a 'middle ground' language-wise.
We know what they really mean. A fire "handle" on an Airbus is really a switch , but to subscribe to convention , they make it look like a handle.


Golly , I'm glad I'm close to retirement....:ok:

[mrfox]

We know what they really mean. A fire "handle" on an Airbus is really a switch , but to subscribe to convention , they make it look like a handle.



Its a (guarded) pushbutton on the bus, and labeled as such. :)

[bluesideoops]

But, does it have a covfefe handle, that's the really relevant question!

[JammedStab]

I will leave with my favourite Electronic Checklist QRH double negative from Airspeed Unreliable:

“Airspeed cannot be trimmed to the desired pitch attitude:”
Select option: Yes / No

It turns out that Mr. Boeing can speak proper on this particular item.


If you look in the QRH for the exact same sentence, it is worded differently and says quite clearly:
If the aircraft cannot be trimmed to the desired pitch attitude

The ECL structure is sometimes different than the QRH structure. If there is any doubt for an important item like this.....one could potentially clarify things by referring to the paper QRH(if still onboard or in your ipad).

What done is done:
747F: main deck Fire (indication, QRH procedure), but there are NOT fire detectors on main deck, onle smoke! Actually sometimes "frost in detectors" is enough for start cargo fire indication. Thanks mr. Boeing? I think NO, thanks mr. unknown language expert.

There is an old saying...where there's smoke, there's fire.

That being said, while I haven't seen frost in the main cargo deck I have seen plenty of fog(and there can be huge amounts of it) from descents into warm humid air which can easily set off the alarm in at least one type of converted 747 and in Boeing-built 747 freighters as I have seen it in both(on the ground after landing fortunately). Strangely, only one of the types mentioned actually recommended turning up the lower lobe heat at top of descent to prevent this from happening.

And then try cancelling the fire warning siren. It keeps coming back on.