EK Boeing non normal checklist changes
Thread Starter
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: Middle East
EK Boeing non normal checklist changes
Now the debate and confusion over the infamous evacuation checklist has been resolved, CM1 and CM2 positions added. Area of resposibility clashes who does what and when finally sorted out. How nice to have a final answer now, and not have to sit through another PPC or pre-flight briefing listening to every TRI/TRE or line Capt with their own interpretation, and having to remember it.
The best part is now "The need to manually raise the speedbrake lever during a rejected takeoff has been removed as the speedbrake is designed to automatically deploy with the selection of reverse thrust"
Good luck with now unlearning your years of ingrained second nature response to an RTO!
Using a popular word of our FOM we "MUST" dance the EK way.
Till they change it again, and again, and again. We dance not fly.
The best part is now "The need to manually raise the speedbrake lever during a rejected takeoff has been removed as the speedbrake is designed to automatically deploy with the selection of reverse thrust"
Good luck with now unlearning your years of ingrained second nature response to an RTO!
Using a popular word of our FOM we "MUST" dance the EK way.
Till they change it again, and again, and again. We dance not fly.
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: Auckland, New Zealand
At last we now seem to have a training manager who seems inclined to disseminate the information to the line pilots properly through the appropriate channels, instead of a secret memos to trainers to be passed on at PPCs.
Hopefully this is the beginning of better things from the training division!
Hopefully this is the beginning of better things from the training division!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From: East Anglia
As we used to say in Gf....We will do the B767 tail pipe fire drill acording to the amendment to the amendment to the amendment...I er think?
Later the issuer simply gave up...as Boeing said the engine design was not the same as the L1011 and thus no tail pipe drill was needed.
The paper work this lot generated lost the world another rain forest!
Later the issuer simply gave up...as Boeing said the engine design was not the same as the L1011 and thus no tail pipe drill was needed.
The paper work this lot generated lost the world another rain forest!
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 3
One of the local FOs put it to me rather well some years ago. "SOPs? We don't have SOPs in EK. We have VOPs - variable operating procedures."
Have to say that cleary labelling the assigned duties in the evac. proc. is a move in the right direction. As for the speed brake handle: I'd be willing to place a bet that this will change - again - some time in the future.
Have to say that cleary labelling the assigned duties in the evac. proc. is a move in the right direction. As for the speed brake handle: I'd be willing to place a bet that this will change - again - some time in the future.
