Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Mr Boeing can’t speak proper.

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Mr Boeing can’t speak proper.

Old 3rd Dec 2017, 14:21
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And let's not get started with the pedantic instructors who insist on "Eng 2" but "Right Pack", when under stress. Right ENG is wrong. repeat after me, and write out 100 times.......... etc. etc.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 17:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Like a few "switches" in my Boeing... they're actually pushbuttons...
Yes, but are they "momentary action" push buttons or "alternate action" push buttons?
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 03:01
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
And let's not get started with the pedantic instructors who insist on "Eng 2" but "Right Pack", when under stress. Right ENG is wrong. repeat after me, and write out 100 times.......... etc. etc.
My airplane's packs are labeled L and R by the buttons, but 1 and 2 on the EICAS screen, so I'm covered no matter what
Vessbot is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 08:27
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed, and so are the B737's, but all i'm suggesting is there are more important things to concentrate on when training cadets than the the difference between Left Engine & Engine #1.
On a 4 pot a/c it might make a difference; horses for courses.

But then again, this is slight thread drift and not worth the energy.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 10:40
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 980
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Aside from the banter and examples, is there an actual standard for ‘handiness’ and flight deck nomenclature ?
I cannot identify a specific regulatory requirement or ‘binding’ recommendation in international standards, e.g. SAE.
I suspect that there is an overriding interpretation in regulations which allows either form provided it is consistent across the aircraft type. This might be voluntarily extended to all aircraft by a particular manufacturer, but even this could be increasingly difficult with technological advance.

Left right, one two, is resolvable, but what about three, four … yellow, blue, green, emerg. As the complexity of technology expands we might end up with a physics type naming; up down strange beauty.

A lack of conformity amongst manufacturers and/or requirements could generate significant problems for operators with mixed fleets; a potential safety hazard.
Operators have the option to rewrite drills and checklists, but emergency procedures could be difficult, requiring formal amendment of the AFM. Similarly tech and maintenance manuals would create enormous workload.

I recall an associated issue being addressed in a paper relating to a ‘dominant culture’ in aviation; any refs?
PEI_3721 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 12:19
  #26 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My company wrote and printed its own flight manuals and checklists so the same company culture and operating policies would be consistent across the fleet. And, they remained compliant with the O.E.M.'s procedures.
aterpster is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 17:08
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My company wrote and printed its own flight manuals and checklists so the same company culture and operating policies would be consistent across the fleet. And, they remained compliant with the O.E.M.'s procedures.

In a light-hearted vain: I heard stories in BEA days that, allegedly, the Trident guys tried to re-wrtie the replacement B737 manuals so their guys, converting across, would understand them. This story came from an airline I flew with who were helping with line training some BA crews in their early days of B732. They were completely bemused as to how you could transfer a 3 man crew philosophy to a 2 man crew a/c. The roles of PF/PNF were swapped about and mingled up. That other airline flew cording to FCTM. Their philosophy was why buy a new toy and change the operating instructions. You don't do t with anything else in your life. OK, it was simplistic, but.......and in a later life, as they modernised, indeed their local XAA wanted full SOP manuals.
I also flew B767 for various outfits. I was taught, first time on type, by a top of the chain training dept. 4 airlines and 15 years later (don't ask) I and a friend ventured into the clutches of fledgling B767 operator. They had B733's. The CP B767 fleet wrote the B767 SOP's My friend & I were flummoxed. Some were so non-sensical. Where had these ideas come from? It turned out the new CP fleet was a biz-jet pilot for the airline boss and ex-B707 pilot. Mystery solved, but what a mess.

Sorry for head drift, but Aperster sucked me into it on a slow night.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 21:12
  #28 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
My company wrote and printed its own flight manuals and checklists so the same company culture and operating policies would be consistent across the fleet
As did my first operator. Makes for a very easy training transition from aircraft A to aircraft C (just so folks don't think I'm in an A vs B rut). I did four conversions and the workload was reduced compared to learning a whole different protocol each time.

However, there is a significant admin and potential liability overhead associated with rewriting large scale documentation sets. Further, a simple aircraft can be made somewhat more complex to operate. In my observation, the F27 was modified to operate a bit like the jets .. so it ended up being a bit more involved than it needed to be.

I can't say just which is the best way to go .. swings and roundabouts might be the guts of it ? If one can address the high workload/stress situation in an emergency and the tendency to revert to initial training, possibly adopting the OEM way of doing things is a good place to start ?
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 22:27
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Yes, but are they "momentary action" push buttons or "alternate action" push buttons?
Switches!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 07:59
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: by the river
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What done is done:
747F: main deck Fire (indication, QRH procedure), but there are NOT fire detectors on main deck, onle smoke! Actually sometimes "frost in detectors" is enough for start cargo fire indication. Thanks mr. Boeing? I think NO, thanks mr. unknown language expert.
torghabe is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 10:05
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A team of Boeing 737 training captains visited our company. They told us of some changes being introduced on coming upgrades. They then threw the floor open to us saying, "you guys fly this a/c every day in all kinds of weather, differing environments and ground facilities. You can tell us what you think; you've more experience than us." So we tried, but more often than not were poo-poo'd without explanation. It was like asking questions to a politician and being diverted in every which direction except the one you were focused on. We asked why it was so difficult for line pilots to ask questions, for clarification, or make suggestions for improvement in Boeing's publications. We were referred to 'the company liaison pilot.' Yeah, right: deaf ears and closed doors. Too busy.
Apple have squillions of products out there and have user chat forums and customer support forums. Boeing have less than 100,000 a/c buzzing around the world and no method for the coal face operators to chat, either amongst themselves or to the company. Surely that is dinosaural in this day and age?? I wonder if the SFO B777 might have been avoided if the 'gotcha' had been discussed openly. Or is the exposure to liability too great for such a project? But is the sharing of information, especially about mistakes made by others, and experiences/incidents of other operators, not the basis of Flight Safety Foundation magazines which are circulated amongst most airlines? Is the security of dissemination of information the problem? It does seem counter productive to read accident reports and then discover that XYZ + ABC had nearly done the same thing for there same reason a few years earlier, but only the XAA or manufacturer knew about it.
This is not a Boeing thing, but an industry characteristic. In 80's I used to receive a monthly magazine from the company. It included all the reviews of major company incidents plus relevant ones from partner contributors. Very educational. Changing companies in 90's - 10's saw that education disappear. It took an accident, and 3-4 years of study, before the report taught us anything. My comment about education comes from incidents where accidents were prevented. Maybe there are companies with large enough budgets to still have an in-house dept for such publications, but further down the food chain we were often in the dark, even about in-house incidents.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 10:41
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Ain't that the truth, Rat 5...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 11:02
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Like a few "switches" in my Boeing... they're actually pushbuttons...


Yes but....one of the first things you learn when working in the Boeing Training department is that there are no buttons in the 777 or 787 flight decks.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 13:59
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spot on. If A/C designers would listen to pilots and shamelessly copy the best features of their competitor's flight deck (as graded by actual line pilots), we'd be in flight deck heaven soon. I've seen a lot of clever design details on different types which would well go together.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 14:00
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A certain company based far south of Boeing has buttons that need to be "pushed out" which means they have to be pushed so as not to be flush with the panel any more. Not a very intuitive usage of English, too.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 15:16
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My company also loves to rewrite manuals. Such that the latest change has us saying "execute" to confirm a direct-to clearance. Still haven't found the "execute" button on our Airbus...smh.
Dockjock is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 16:56
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,420
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HPSOV L
The preceding item being Fuel Control Switch adds to the tongue twisting.
Proper Boeings have "Engine start levers".

Joking aside, the path to Boeing Nirvana has lead me through ATR, Airbus and DHC territories, with every planebuilder having its own Humpty-Dumptysh ideas about how some piece of equipment should be called. I'd say Boeing's nomenclature is far from the worst and I'm not wondering anymore about having autothrottle that controls power levers or CONT CAB selector that adjusts cockpit temperature.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 17:08
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not wondering anymore about having autothrottle that controls power levers

or even the pedantic old timers who insist on 'auto throttle control thrust levers' and the prickly one about if "THRHLD" (thrust hold) is controlled by throttles or thrust levers. And when the LEFT engine is vibrating or leaking oil you shut down ENG 1. Possibly because the T-Levers came from B707 and thus they had numbers on them. If the fuselage & overhead switches came from B707 why not the T-levers as well? If things don't change they remain the same and somewhere there is a warehouse built and full in the expectation that B707 would still be ruling the world. As someone said, "nostalgia is not what it used to be."
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 17:33
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,420
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
If things don't change they remain the same and somewhere there is a warehouse built and full in the expectation that B707 would still be ruling the world.
I strongly suspect that the recent change of the engine start levers design was precipitated by emptying of one shelf in the aforementioned warehouse.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2017, 20:05
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Horsted Keynes, West Sussex.
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's always interesting observing chaps of different generations , nationalities and aircraft types exchanging notes.
One aspect of this which does have to be accepted though [however begrudgingly] is the fact that every new generation of aircraft brings with it , its own "language". It's in the pilot training packages , the engineering training packages , MEL's , POH's ,,,,,,,,,,,etc,,etc. Not to mention the exams that we all have to endure.
I remember back in 1993 , when my employer went from classic B747's to A340's . The culture shock almost caused a seismic rumble amongst the engineers , who had never heard of ADIRU's, Mode Selectors [thrust levers] Prim's , SEC's, Normal Laws , Alternate Laws,,,,,,and the rest.
One of the more humorous aspects was the engineering training videos and the robot-like mispronunciations of words that we [thought] we knew..


Having spent time in both Everett Wa. and Toulouse and having seen what melting pots they are of different nationalities , it is easy to see how this strange , eccentric and somewhat bastardised language that many of us have become familiar with has come about.
An interesting fact emerged when in Toulouse back in the late 1990s when I remarked to one of the sim. instructors about how many Chinese lady pilots were in attendance ..."Non, non non Monsieur" , came the reply. "They are not pilots , they are translators". Apparently it takes about three times longer to train some of our Asian colleagues in the sim. than it does with others who subscribe to a higher standard of English.


So , in answer to the OP's original point . I guess the manufacturers have to establish a 'middle ground' language-wise.
We know what they really mean. A fire "handle" on an Airbus is really a switch , but to subscribe to convention , they make it look like a handle.


Golly , I'm glad I'm close to retirement....
Chris Martyr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.