SCARY. I read here there are so many SOP disciples. No deviation, no rebels. I've flown for a shed load of airlines, and sure enough, as has been told here, the CP decides the SOP's. They have been so varied. That is often one person's opinion. I've come across so much dross as to be painful. Some here quote some moments. CP is not GOD; they sit on the ground; you take the beast into the ether. The SOP's are norm and a minimum. If you feel you'd like to make an extra test to make you feel comfortable with your a/c, and it is according to the manufacturer's allowances, then who is to say you are wrong?
If an extra safety check proves to be negative, inconvenient, and you are chastised for it then you know the true attitude of you company. Time to beware.

Funny, I normally use the press to cancel on one side for the engine/wheel well fire test, and then use the other press to cancel button for the cargo fire test so that I check both. :)

When do you check the "Bell Cutout'?

Completely agree with you, Rat. But like I said, where do you draw the line? Do you lower the flaps every transit and check for bird strikes? Do you check the landing and taxi lights before each night sector? What about the anti-ice?

How many of these "extra checks" will potentially reduce the chance of death or injury, or aircraft damage?

Boeing and the operator decide which checks are important enough to be conducted each flight and which are not. Maybe they're not always right, and they do tend to change from time to time - for example I recall the crew oxygen check going from every transit - to just each crew change - and back to every transit again a couple of years later. Don't know if that was Boeing or just my operator but the point is there are people looking at these things from time to time and making risk assessments versus the time required to conduct these checks and turn the aircraft around in a commercially viable time frame.

I guess the ugly truth is also that they would actually prefer less-important things to be not discovered until a maintenance check is conducted so they actually have time to fix it which would otherwise impact on a short transit. My goodness, did I just suggest that? :sad:

If I was a CP (which I never have been and never will be), I doubt I would be chastising crew for extra vigilance - within reason... ;)

Edit: I am fortunate enough to work for a very good operator with good maintenance ethic. If I didn't I might have a slightly different attitude.

Derfred: I agree with your suppositions. There is not black & white, right or wrong; sometimes. I've flown for differing quality C.P'.s Therefore some were excellent, some less so. Same a/c very different SOP's; all approved by both various XAA's & manufacturer. No SOP's were without comment. I can take a selection from 8 operators and arrive at an excellent set of SOP's, but none of them had the straight flush of SOP's individually. And all were reluctant to listen & learn from others. As a result their pilots, who were home grown or long servers, believed that here was the be all & end all of how to do it. It was most frustrating but one had to live wit it.

No Snark Intended, but...
 

Professionals accept personal responsibility, especially for potential safety issues. If a particular item is of concern to you, on a particular day and airplane, why not just CHECK IT yourself, assure yourself that all is properly functional and more on. If some item become a regular cause of delay, document multiple specific instances and pass it up the line. When something goes amiss at the wrong time, you do not get to jump out early; your fanny rides the SOB to termination of flight just like everyone else. IMO, a damn good question! :ok: