Thanks
Then it makes more sense
Originally Posted by swh
(Post 11229735)
Some of the changes would not seem that obvious if you only fly the A320 series, however these SOP changes are across all types, the CM2 power up flow makes more sense when on the A380 or A350 which has integrated OIS, CM1 would be getting the techoog and OIS setup.
The SOP has to be consistent enough to allow MFF, CCQ, and CTR where applicable. Longer term I would see the A320 moving towards having blade servers and avionics living as applications on these blasé servers like the A380/A350 instead of individual LRUs like the A320. I would see the future cockpit be more like the A350. |
Thanks for the docs FlightDetent . The one with the explanations makes for interesting reading.
While I concur that some of the items that were modified or added are curious (i.e: wing lights, seat belts deleted from cockpit prep, but kept for parking check), I particularly like the "taxi" check. That before takeoff check was a nightmare... As for the other items that I may consider that were necessary but were deleted, I do believe that a manufacturer with more than ten thousand aircraft in service would know better than a line pilot before performing and publishing such a critical change as their checklists. So I've trusted them on this one, and whenever I'm in doubt of forgetting something, I perform the old checklist in my head... A habit I expect will be made redundant over time. P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did? |
Originally Posted by Escape Path
(Post 11229978)
Thanks for the docs FlightDetent .
P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did? |
P.s.: Don't you think it's a bit ironic that deleting the checklist that contains the check of raising the gear now makes you double and triple check that you did? That's why pretty much the only things on the checklist are things that will affect safety. |
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 11230022)
We still don’t use the new checklist but I don’t see why you need to double or triple check. Just one quick look at the landing gears indicator is enough. I guess it’s just a matter of adaptation. In my previous job where we were flying all sort of old high performance twin pistons with no Ecam memo or gears warning ( some of them it was broken) we were not using any checklist. No operators were using them as they are horrendously way too long. Just one Mnemonic for departure and final. Never had any issues. =) Mnemonics are so underrated IMHO.
And I think it's a good thing; technology improves so things can be done differently. I remember the DC-9/MD-80 checklist for the first flight of the day was something like a 3 page ordeal... I can only imagine it would likely be easier (procedural-wise) to start the Lunar Module on the Apollo ships |
We never start the Apu at that time anyway, so it’s always an sop breach
|
Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.
|
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 11231764)
Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.
|
Originally Posted by MD83FO
(Post 11231200)
We never start the Apu at that time anyway, so it’s always an sop breach
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 11231764)
Less checklist items are better as there are too many disruptions for a long checklist to be worthwhile. The downside is that some pilots will still try and do them from memory and respond automatically instead of being an actual check of the system. I don't get why the gear pins and covers needs to be in the cockpit prep checklist for an NB. This one size fits all for NB and WB is always a compromise. On a NB if you are doing a 4-5sector day restating that the gear pins and covers are removed just makes it an automatic response. Overall though I give it two thumbs up.
|
I don’t understand how an aircraft thats 30+ years old still need sop updates
|
Originally Posted by Gwolf90
(Post 11232057)
I don’t understand how an aircraft thats 30+ years old still need sop updates
I still concur with those who say it's not necessary to have gear pins and covers checked every time in a NB aircraft doing 30 min turnarounds... |
Originally Posted by Escape Path
(Post 11232177)
I still concur with those who say it's not necessary to have gear pins and covers checked every time in a NB aircraft doing 30 min turnarounds... |
This highlights the problem with OEM SOP. Airbus has to make a one size fits all SOP, but we know that can’t be ideal for everyone.
The obvious fix is to have each company tailor the SOP to meet its specific operational requirements. The problem with that is that every new training manager thinks his technique is an operational requirement, and we wind up in a situation like my company has, where our SOP bears no resemblance to the manufacturer’s. |
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 11232208)
That’s true.. Obviously if you checked these items at the first flight of day, unless maintenance needs to change a tyre or something, you know the pins and covers are still on board on the following sectors..Lol
|
Good point. We don’t in our outfit. But I see what you mean after watching this serious incident..
|
Originally Posted by pineteam
(Post 11231839)
I always make sure that the 3 pins are on board as part of my flow.............It always makes me smile when we do the checklist and when the FO reads: Gears pins and covers and turns his head back to pretend to check...
|
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 11232487)
I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit ! :)
Check Airman has got it on point. |
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 11232325)
technique is an operational requirement, and we wind up in a situation like my company has, where our SOP bears no resemblance to the manufacturer’s.
Agreed, OTOH, that push for super-standardisation across the production models has created some ugly skeletons in the narrowbody book. |
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 11232580)
A.k.a 'smarter than Airbus'.
Agreed, OTOH, that push for super-standardisation across the production models has created some ugly skeletons in the narrowbody book. |
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 11232487)
I must be the only guy who looks to see if any pins/locks or pitot covers are actually installed on the landing gear or probes, rather than looking in the cockpit ! :)
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.