New B737 Procedures and QRH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Between the oceans and the mountains
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New B737 Procedures and QRH
As Boeing has came out with a new procedures (Normal, and Emergency) to streamline all series of the B737's, new AOM's (FCOM's) and QRH's have been sent out to all operators who choose adopt the new procedures. The question I have is that at my friend's company who still follows the old procedures (both Normal, and Emergency), without any notification to the flight crew and training department, one day decided to place the newly revised (new procedures of course) FCOM's and QRH in all the aircrafts and got rid of all the old ones. Is this legal? Pilots are still following the old procedures with no written references on the airplane what so ever. There has been several changes in the QRH with regards to many recall items, but the pilots are still following to old recall items, and of course, there are no written references of the old procedures on board any more! Thank you in advance for kind advise and wisdom.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
new b737 procedures
hello cfit,
i wish my company would go to new boeing std b737 procedures to morrow. its a pilots nirvana. much simplier checklists, much less talking, only speak up if something is ABnormal, etc. ... the "kiss" principle: "keep it simple stupid".
it will always remain a mystery to me why all those chief pilots in the world want to reinvent the wheel & write their own procedures. i have flown the same aeroplane in different companies & always had the impression to convert to a new type rating. i have even known a cp, who himself was still in a conversion course, starting to rewrite flight manuals & producing 4(four) jeppsize (5 inch rings)manuals, as where the manufacturer had provided only 2(two).it is interesting to note that, years later, when i was in same conversion course as said cp, i used the original manuals as a study guide & obtained far better exam results than my poor fellow colleagues who used the much more complicated rewritten manuals.
i think the aircraft manufacturer is supposed to know his aircraft best, receiving over the years, inputs from operators worldwide, while at the same time of course, not neglecting inputs from their own testpilots/engineers. but how do you convey this message to your cp, without risking all kind of wrath's come upon you? anyway, the chances that your message is heeded are as great as though the Queen had announced that henceforth she would be known as Gladys(borrowed this last expression from capt. ken beere, bluff your way on the flight deck).
but cfit, in your case, i agree, it would have been more sensible to preannounce the changes by flightcrew notices & brief/sim sessions.
i wish my company would go to new boeing std b737 procedures to morrow. its a pilots nirvana. much simplier checklists, much less talking, only speak up if something is ABnormal, etc. ... the "kiss" principle: "keep it simple stupid".
it will always remain a mystery to me why all those chief pilots in the world want to reinvent the wheel & write their own procedures. i have flown the same aeroplane in different companies & always had the impression to convert to a new type rating. i have even known a cp, who himself was still in a conversion course, starting to rewrite flight manuals & producing 4(four) jeppsize (5 inch rings)manuals, as where the manufacturer had provided only 2(two).it is interesting to note that, years later, when i was in same conversion course as said cp, i used the original manuals as a study guide & obtained far better exam results than my poor fellow colleagues who used the much more complicated rewritten manuals.
i think the aircraft manufacturer is supposed to know his aircraft best, receiving over the years, inputs from operators worldwide, while at the same time of course, not neglecting inputs from their own testpilots/engineers. but how do you convey this message to your cp, without risking all kind of wrath's come upon you? anyway, the chances that your message is heeded are as great as though the Queen had announced that henceforth she would be known as Gladys(borrowed this last expression from capt. ken beere, bluff your way on the flight deck).
but cfit, in your case, i agree, it would have been more sensible to preannounce the changes by flightcrew notices & brief/sim sessions.
Last edited by blackmail; 2nd Feb 2006 at 05:34.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cfit
I have seen similar cases as well and I am not at all impressed with how some airlines deal with the dynamic change which manuals are constantly exposed to. Having said that I appreciate the fact that it can be difficult to keep up with a myriad of rules and regulations, but imposing a complete change of SOPs should be covered in company notices at the minimum (preferably ground based classroom training). It is vital that the crewmembers are on the same page when the flight "departs from normal operating parameters" ( or when the $hit hits the N1), anything else could result in loss of fare paying passengers lives.
Assuming he is operating in a JAA member state, your friends company practise is probably in breach of 2-3 jar-ops rules; I'll quote the one I find the most appropriate.
SUBPART P
Just remember that the regulations may state one thing, but CAA approvals and dispensations are overriding. Your friends company is most likely covered. Does your friend have an operational base captain he can talk to and discuss the problems he is experiencing on the line? I'm afraid this looks like another example of pilots having to adapt to the shortcoming of their administration, and things will sort themselves out after some time.
I have seen similar cases as well and I am not at all impressed with how some airlines deal with the dynamic change which manuals are constantly exposed to. Having said that I appreciate the fact that it can be difficult to keep up with a myriad of rules and regulations, but imposing a complete change of SOPs should be covered in company notices at the minimum (preferably ground based classroom training). It is vital that the crewmembers are on the same page when the flight "departs from normal operating parameters" ( or when the $hit hits the N1), anything else could result in loss of fare paying passengers lives.
Assuming he is operating in a JAA member state, your friends company practise is probably in breach of 2-3 jar-ops rules; I'll quote the one I find the most appropriate.
SUBPART P
JAR-OPS 1.1040 General Rules for Operations Manuals
(...)
(g) An operator shall ensure that the Operations
Manual is amended or revised so that the instructions
and information contained therein are kept up to date.
The operator shall ensure that all operations
personnel are made aware of such changes that are
relevant to their duties.
(...)
(...)
(g) An operator shall ensure that the Operations
Manual is amended or revised so that the instructions
and information contained therein are kept up to date.
The operator shall ensure that all operations
personnel are made aware of such changes that are
relevant to their duties.
(...)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some company's books are better than the manufacturers books, some are worse.
Sometimes the books are also changed to standardize things across the different fleets that the company may have from different manufacturers.
Sometimes the books are also changed to standardize things across the different fleets that the company may have from different manufacturers.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing's new procedures are in my opinion a disaster waiting to happen.
My airline simply refuses to uses them for this reason.
some examples:
*On pushback, one arms the auto-throttle. It only takes one distracted crewmember or a "slip of the finger" to push the TOGA buttons on the throttle quadrant and voilą! engineer sucked in engine or aircraft into terminal,...
*Instead of "Speed 22O", one now should say: " Set FLAPS UP speed". Well, NEVER say FLAPS UP untill you want them UP at that point. It only takes one inexperienced pilot to raise the flaps completely when ordered to increase the speed.
Very bad Boeing. These new procedures are rubbish and are a result of not thinking.
My airline simply refuses to uses them for this reason.
some examples:
*On pushback, one arms the auto-throttle. It only takes one distracted crewmember or a "slip of the finger" to push the TOGA buttons on the throttle quadrant and voilą! engineer sucked in engine or aircraft into terminal,...
*Instead of "Speed 22O", one now should say: " Set FLAPS UP speed". Well, NEVER say FLAPS UP untill you want them UP at that point. It only takes one inexperienced pilot to raise the flaps completely when ordered to increase the speed.
Very bad Boeing. These new procedures are rubbish and are a result of not thinking.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
new b737ng procedures
hello despegue,
i agree that the two remarks about the b737ng procedures :A/T arm during pushback & the set flaps up speed call, are weak points & should be revised, but it doesn't mean that the whole thing is not good. you are a little severe here.
i agree that the two remarks about the b737ng procedures :A/T arm during pushback & the set flaps up speed call, are weak points & should be revised, but it doesn't mean that the whole thing is not good. you are a little severe here.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: at FL370
Age: 57
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New B737 SOP
We are flying the new SOP since a few months now and there are indeed several items that could be better, including the A/T (I still wait until lining-up) and the Set Flaps UP speed.
Other items are Landing Lights (the captain as PF may not touch the switches, hrrrrrr...!), starting the Engines (both pilots do this together...??), arming speedbrakes by the F/O while he is PF, also setting the Standby ALT by the F/O when he is flying, etc...
But there are also some improvements, such as low workload during taxi.
I have made a powerpoint briefing that you might find useful : http://www.b737mrg.net/downloads/newB737SOP.pps
Other items are Landing Lights (the captain as PF may not touch the switches, hrrrrrr...!), starting the Engines (both pilots do this together...??), arming speedbrakes by the F/O while he is PF, also setting the Standby ALT by the F/O when he is flying, etc...
But there are also some improvements, such as low workload during taxi.
I have made a powerpoint briefing that you might find useful : http://www.b737mrg.net/downloads/newB737SOP.pps
The new procedures have good and bad points, but after 40 years in service the 737 checklist should not be acquiring any bad points. I would expect (hope) Boeing to tweak these procedures in due course after in-service feedback.
For another explanation of the procedures and comparison with the old checklist see
http://www.b737.org.uk/nnp.htm
Hope it helps
S&L
For another explanation of the procedures and comparison with the old checklist see
http://www.b737.org.uk/nnp.htm
Hope it helps
S&L
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: FL 410
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainSandL and B737MRG, any chance either of you gentlemen could PM me or post any details of the Fuel section NNC for changes that might affect the thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209147) I started on a fuel leak scenario?
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These checklists have been written for brown cockpit commonality. The unfortunate thing is there is no EICAM on the NG and I feel they are pushing their luck somewhat thinning down the procedures so much. So little money was put into the classic to NG upgrade that stupid systems such as the pressurisation were overlooked and that has since cost lives! Another very weak system is the instrument comparator system that was designed for triple IRS systems such as the 777. Very subtle instrument failure flags on both sides of the cockpit which means you are the voting ADIRU. Helios lawyers should have a field day with this one as it was sooooooo predictable.
Common Seattle work with the airplane you designed, not the one you should have designed!
Common Seattle work with the airplane you designed, not the one you should have designed!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: globally
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and imagine, how stupid it is for contract pilots to face all different kind of procedure to fly exactly the same airplane...
old procedure, new procedure, new and old mixed, old company adjusted, new company adjusted...
in my oppinion this is safety relevant and potentially dangerous! ALL operators should operate the same aircraft, exactly the same and only one way. no confusion, safety first..
old procedure, new procedure, new and old mixed, old company adjusted, new company adjusted...
in my oppinion this is safety relevant and potentially dangerous! ALL operators should operate the same aircraft, exactly the same and only one way. no confusion, safety first..
