B737 recall items execution
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737 recall items execution
Hello.
Is it any Boeing 737 airline out there that requires the following: ?
In case of any failure requiring an NNC, the PF has to recite loudly and with the exact QRH wording, the applicable recall items (while flying the airplane).
The PM does not do any action until he/she hears the respective recall item "dictated" loud by the PF.
The above goes for ANY NNC that includes recall items.
On top of the above, the worksplit in case of any failure or emergency is: The PF flies and commands loudly as described above
The PM does the radio.
I am new to the airline requiring the above, but quite experienced on the 737 and I have never seen or heard of such procedures before.
The airline's instructors' explanation is the QRH says the recall items are done under the direct supervision of the PF (which is true, but in my opinion does not imply the PF has to verbally dictate every item loudly and with the exact wording to the PM). The direct supervision (as I see it) is the PF keeping an eye on the recall items completion and confirming the items while the PM does the maneuvers in it's area of resp.
Any comments please? Do you think such procedures are safe? Do you have similar in your airline?
Is it any Boeing 737 airline out there that requires the following: ?
In case of any failure requiring an NNC, the PF has to recite loudly and with the exact QRH wording, the applicable recall items (while flying the airplane).
The PM does not do any action until he/she hears the respective recall item "dictated" loud by the PF.
The above goes for ANY NNC that includes recall items.
On top of the above, the worksplit in case of any failure or emergency is: The PF flies and commands loudly as described above
The PM does the radio.
I am new to the airline requiring the above, but quite experienced on the 737 and I have never seen or heard of such procedures before.
The airline's instructors' explanation is the QRH says the recall items are done under the direct supervision of the PF (which is true, but in my opinion does not imply the PF has to verbally dictate every item loudly and with the exact wording to the PM). The direct supervision (as I see it) is the PF keeping an eye on the recall items completion and confirming the items while the PM does the maneuvers in it's area of resp.
Any comments please? Do you think such procedures are safe? Do you have similar in your airline?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overkill. That's all I can say. Obviously, their reasoning must be that this will ensure the recall items to be executed correctly. I can think of several occasions where this would be detrimental to safety.
1: Recall items + contingency procedure/emerg. turn.
2: Emergency descent
3: Situations where you're unable to hear the other guy.
4: Everything else that require the PF to revert to the basics. Namely; Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The recall items should be done (by PM) while PF is at stage one...Aviating.
It sounds like one guy with a brilliant idea, has managed to convince your training dept. with something that Boeing did not intend when they designed their procedures.
1: Recall items + contingency procedure/emerg. turn.
2: Emergency descent
3: Situations where you're unable to hear the other guy.
4: Everything else that require the PF to revert to the basics. Namely; Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The recall items should be done (by PM) while PF is at stage one...Aviating.
It sounds like one guy with a brilliant idea, has managed to convince your training dept. with something that Boeing did not intend when they designed their procedures.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you.
this is what I am thinking too. Trouble is the company is absolutely convinced this is according to Boeing, simply because the QRH phrase " All actions must then be coordinated under the captains's supervision and done in a deliberate, systematic manner", thus completely missing the point.
The term "supervison", in the company's oppinion, means reciting aloud (while flying the aircraft) of the recall items.
The whole thing goes (in my opinion) against the rest of the QRH philosophy and against common sense. The PF is more focused on actually reciting the exact! wording of the QRH recalls instead of flying the airplane.
Some more opinions on the matter, pls.
this is what I am thinking too. Trouble is the company is absolutely convinced this is according to Boeing, simply because the QRH phrase " All actions must then be coordinated under the captains's supervision and done in a deliberate, systematic manner", thus completely missing the point.
The term "supervison", in the company's oppinion, means reciting aloud (while flying the aircraft) of the recall items.
The whole thing goes (in my opinion) against the rest of the QRH philosophy and against common sense. The PF is more focused on actually reciting the exact! wording of the QRH recalls instead of flying the airplane.
Some more opinions on the matter, pls.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having trained pilots for about a10 different airlines using Boeing based SOPs, I have never seen one that requires the PF to state the required action, just to monitor it.
The usual procedure is:
PF to request the desired checklist (e.g. Engine fire checklist)
PM to state his intended action (including identifying the requisite lever/switch/button)
PF confirm the identification and intention
PM to accomplish the action
PF to monitor the action
Asking the PF to call out the action makes no sense - as the chap with the highest workload, he is more likely to get it wrong.
As for requiring it to be word perfect, that's a nice idea but unlikely as (under pressure) small slip-ups are almost inevitable. As long as the gist and intent are clear and unequivocal that's enough.
They are getting "supervision" mixed up with "dictation". I'd love to know which airline this is.
The usual procedure is:
PF to request the desired checklist (e.g. Engine fire checklist)
PM to state his intended action (including identifying the requisite lever/switch/button)
PF confirm the identification and intention
PM to accomplish the action
PF to monitor the action
Asking the PF to call out the action makes no sense - as the chap with the highest workload, he is more likely to get it wrong.
As for requiring it to be word perfect, that's a nice idea but unlikely as (under pressure) small slip-ups are almost inevitable. As long as the gist and intent are clear and unequivocal that's enough.
They are getting "supervision" mixed up with "dictation". I'd love to know which airline this is.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there is- the only one that you're working for...
And I..
.....but I think that way of doing NC will change in the near future, as it comes from a wrong interpretation of the QRH ...
And nice nickname, byt the way...
And I..
.....but I think that way of doing NC will change in the near future, as it comes from a wrong interpretation of the QRH ...And nice nickname, byt the way...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there is- the only one that you're working for...
And I.......but I think that way of doing NC will change in the near future, as it comes from a wrong interpretation of the QRH ...
And nice nickname, byt the way...
Give me a call when you can...
And I..
.....but I think that way of doing NC will change in the near future, as it comes from a wrong interpretation of the QRH ...And nice nickname, byt the way...
Give me a call when you can...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked there for a while. What a shame. There is no excuse for such an unsafe "interpretation" of the qrh other than the incompetence of some arrogant so called instructors. Double that with the fear to say something of most pilots and that's what u get operations based on invented procedures.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for your answers. Seems I am not crazy and indeed such interpretation of the QRH is unheard of and probably a little stupid (not to say dangerous).
Once more, thank you for your opinions.
Once more, thank you for your opinions.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yrvld, good point. But like any other disease there is a cause to this. I am afraid that the blame is not only on the arrogant instructors. I would like to see them as good professionals but on the dark side of the force. As in any incident there are multiple causes and in the mix there are management, pilots and CAA. It is not possible having such an unsafe procedure the management of the company not to say a word. As in any other process malfunctions can happen but they should be detected in good time. The quality department should have detected by now all the flows in the process. Where was the safety dep. till now? And pilots? For some peculiar reason they preferred to adopt whatever it was given to them? What about the CAA which is, in my opinion, the main suspect for all the evils in this country? They should be the last fence in detecting an unsafe act. Unfortunately one of their instructors promoted these procedures.
Fear to say something – Unfortunately yes. Communication is the main factor in promoting safety...and there is none. From the very top management the message was: do not say anything ...do not comment on what is happening here
Alexban – hopefully something would change in the near future; probably the procedures but not the mentality, although I would like to.
Let the force be with you
Fear to say something – Unfortunately yes. Communication is the main factor in promoting safety...and there is none. From the very top management the message was: do not say anything ...do not comment on what is happening here
Alexban – hopefully something would change in the near future; probably the procedures but not the mentality, although I would like to.
Let the force be with you
