737 Checklist Policy Assessment
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 Checklist Policy Assessment
It must be two years since Boeing made a major change to their Boeing 737 checklist policy in regards to areas of responsibility, scan flows and so on.
By now I presume that most operators have incorporated those recommendations into their FCOM's. I am curious to find out if people prefer the "old" procedures over the new and vice verca and the reasons why.
There can be little doubt that the work load of the first officer from pre-flight procedure right through until the completion of the shut-down checks has increased significantly. Previously the workload was evenly shared between left seat and right seat. The current preflight and before start procedures have the first officer stretching across the cockpit to cover some of his switch flicking while the captain seems to sit back and watch with interest or impatience or both. Certainly in the simulator one observes more mistakes or missed switching under the current Boeing policy than previously.
What was a commonsense sharing of scanning tasks in previous years of 737 operations seems to have degenerated into a one man band operation by the fellow occupying the right seat. IMHO the major flaw in the current Boeing checklist policy is the first officer not only reading the checklist challenges to his own actions but that he responds to his own challenge. The long established policy of one pilot challenges while the other pilot responds is no longer in vogue. I could never understand why Boeing chose to change a perfectly sound scanning and checklist system by captain and first officer, to a hotch potch of arm stretching and dare I say illogical checklist policy where the first officer actions practically every switch in the cockpit then whips out a paper checklist and talks out aloud to himself while the captain busies himself on perceived more important matters.
By now I presume that most operators have incorporated those recommendations into their FCOM's. I am curious to find out if people prefer the "old" procedures over the new and vice verca and the reasons why.
There can be little doubt that the work load of the first officer from pre-flight procedure right through until the completion of the shut-down checks has increased significantly. Previously the workload was evenly shared between left seat and right seat. The current preflight and before start procedures have the first officer stretching across the cockpit to cover some of his switch flicking while the captain seems to sit back and watch with interest or impatience or both. Certainly in the simulator one observes more mistakes or missed switching under the current Boeing policy than previously.
What was a commonsense sharing of scanning tasks in previous years of 737 operations seems to have degenerated into a one man band operation by the fellow occupying the right seat. IMHO the major flaw in the current Boeing checklist policy is the first officer not only reading the checklist challenges to his own actions but that he responds to his own challenge. The long established policy of one pilot challenges while the other pilot responds is no longer in vogue. I could never understand why Boeing chose to change a perfectly sound scanning and checklist system by captain and first officer, to a hotch potch of arm stretching and dare I say illogical checklist policy where the first officer actions practically every switch in the cockpit then whips out a paper checklist and talks out aloud to himself while the captain busies himself on perceived more important matters.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A37575, I agree whole-heartedly with you. I find I cannot add to any of your great observations. As a single NG aircraft operator, there is no ergonomic logic when preparing for the first flight of the day from an away base. Very reminiscent of the Brit ergonomics when they were still in the business.
