Boeing 737 checklist policy - Confusing or is it just progress?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ManaAda ,each of the crew members should check any switches position, no matter in which area of resp the switch is.
The one who has it, should move the switch and give the response,but the other one should check if right.
So ,your example ,is an example of a crew not doing the check properly..it may happen no matter how the check is written,the new or old way.
For ex: the FO leave the switch to manual ,and the cpt ,who should answer the check (old version check ) , knowing 'by memory' the check ( as we all do,after some time ) ,says 'CHECK' ,or 'AUTO' ,without looking. The FO ,who was responsible for that switch, doesn't bother to look again and goes on with the check. It is possible ,right?
BelArgus - no question, 3 brains and 3 pairs of eyes are better than 2. But then again, on older plains we flew we had 4 or even 5 crew members...much better,right ?
Now,try to compare the level of automatization between such old planes and new ones. You are fortunate to have the third crew member,but I think it's a mistake to disregard the manufacturer's procedures.
Most of those procedures are made as a result of cooperation with client airlines..I've seen some of our suggestions incorporated in the QRH or the FCTM.
Most resistance to the new checks is met with the old, experienced pilots.Why?..cause we know better how to fly the plane..the way we've learned it was the right way..It's human nature.
I've seen funny situations like: hey, don't touch the lights ,those are mine ...or ..I would select the fuel pumps,those are important items,the cpt should do those....after a while they all learned the new way,and now feel familiar with that.The FO does most of the preflight switches now, while the cpt monitors and crosschecks. What's wrong with that?
The one who has it, should move the switch and give the response,but the other one should check if right.
So ,your example ,is an example of a crew not doing the check properly..it may happen no matter how the check is written,the new or old way.
For ex: the FO leave the switch to manual ,and the cpt ,who should answer the check (old version check ) , knowing 'by memory' the check ( as we all do,after some time ) ,says 'CHECK' ,or 'AUTO' ,without looking. The FO ,who was responsible for that switch, doesn't bother to look again and goes on with the check. It is possible ,right?
BelArgus - no question, 3 brains and 3 pairs of eyes are better than 2. But then again, on older plains we flew we had 4 or even 5 crew members...much better,right ?
Now,try to compare the level of automatization between such old planes and new ones. You are fortunate to have the third crew member,but I think it's a mistake to disregard the manufacturer's procedures.
Most of those procedures are made as a result of cooperation with client airlines..I've seen some of our suggestions incorporated in the QRH or the FCTM.
Most resistance to the new checks is met with the old, experienced pilots.Why?..cause we know better how to fly the plane..the way we've learned it was the right way..It's human nature.
I've seen funny situations like: hey, don't touch the lights ,those are mine ...or ..I would select the fuel pumps,those are important items,the cpt should do those....after a while they all learned the new way,and now feel familiar with that.The FO does most of the preflight switches now, while the cpt monitors and crosschecks. What's wrong with that?
far better situation than madly pulling fire handles , closing down engines and cocking up just because it "used to be done from memory
A competent crew should have no trouble at all remembering the few essential items needed to complete the Evacuation checklist. After all, most pilots have very little difficulty in remembering the many meteorological codes in a TAF... so why should they have difficulty in the Evac checklist?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus again just because there has been "35 years" of doing it one way doesn't mean that a change, yes change, is a bad thing or blow me down a good thing.
I hardly see the similarity of decoding the TAF in a pre flight briefing room, to having to possibly execute a drill from memory in a high pressure enviroment after the initial shock of the event that has just occured as tangible.
Again the time to locate the checklist and to reference it in my opinion is a good thing.
Enough said.
I hardly see the similarity of decoding the TAF in a pre flight briefing room, to having to possibly execute a drill from memory in a high pressure enviroment after the initial shock of the event that has just occured as tangible.
Again the time to locate the checklist and to reference it in my opinion is a good thing.
Enough said.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Challenge and response involves both pilots in an active way. Yes, it's still possible to miss items, but the system was better than what we have now.
We have aready had one incident in my airline as a direct result of the new procedures.
Can other Boeing drivers confirm that this is the way it's done on 74, 75, 76 and 777 fleets? FO does, reads and answers most preflight actions with the captain only responding to a few items?
We have aready had one incident in my airline as a direct result of the new procedures.
Can other Boeing drivers confirm that this is the way it's done on 74, 75, 76 and 777 fleets? FO does, reads and answers most preflight actions with the captain only responding to a few items?
