Thanks
Then it makes more sense

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?

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 that is the crux of the of the changes. Getting pilots to think again, getting them back in the loop.

That's why pretty much the only things on the checklist are things that will affect safety.

It's not that is needed, but old habits indeed die hard. In the back of your head, you know you lost a safety net if you forget to raise the gear (even though I haven't done such thing in all of my years of flying retractable gear aircraft), so you check again. But in the end, I concur with compressor stall , the thing with all changes is that they make you think, they get you out of robot mode, which can be a dangerous thing in the right (or wrong) day.

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.

The obvious solution is to avoid 4 and 5 sector days. 1 or 2 sectors is/are quite sufficient, wouldn’t you say?

Mind you! in almost 8 years flying Airbus, at home base I never came to the plane with APU not running. We don't use GPU unless APU is U/S. Maintenance always starts APU before crews arrive to the plane. Crazy I know.. :}


I always make sure that the 3 pins are on board as part of my flow regardless if I'm PF or PM. We have one of our aircraft who took off with the nose gear pin still inserted and have to return back as they could not retract the nose gear.. Embarrassing but it happened. 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.. On the newest A320 where the pins are located behind the captain, it's impossible to see the 3 pins are actually on board unless you stand up open the compartment and check inside.

I don’t understand how an aircraft thats 30+ years old still need sop updates

Well, that same aircraft has had extensive modifications during its lifespan; the technology and the regulations have changed in those +30 years and, certainly, people have come up with new ways to save fuel, hence new procedures.

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...

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

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.

Unless you operate to airports that recommend refitting pitot covers on short turnarounds due wasps. Admittedly not many of those places about.

Good point. We don’t in our outfit. But I see what you mean after watching this serious incident..

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 ! :)

I know! Funny thing is, if you missed them on the walkaround, I hardly think an item on a checklist that (on a NB in mentioned short turnarounds) is answered to almost by reflex (cause they're always on board, save for the mentioned cases) is going to prevent you from taking off without them.

Check Airman has got it on point.

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.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but that’s small potatoes compared to a training department that tries to standardise SOP across models from different manufacturers!

I hope not! I’m definitely checking these items carefully during walk around. But when the other guy is doing the walk around I check in the stowage to make sure the 3 pins are there in case he missed them. We don’t normally use pitot and static covers tho.

LANDING GEAR PINS AND COVERS
 

So for clarification, from FCOM:

* GEAR PINS and COVERS................................ CHECK ONBOARD and STOWED | PM
Check that the covers and the three gear pins are on board and stowed.

And from FCTM:

GEAR PINS & COVERS...................................................... ................................................ REMOVED
The PF confirms that the gear pins and covers were checked removed (e.g. during the walkaround).
The PF announces “REMOVED”.

How can the PF confirmed that the pins and covers were removed when these items are not part of his flow? I always check but it’s the PM responsibility and unless the PF go and check also, he is only assuming that the PM did his part correctly.

Walkaround.

But the walk around is performed by the PM.:zzz: Or the PF assumes that if the PM did the walk around then the pins and covers are removed I guess?

Ooops, screwed that. (company SOP).

IMHO the main reasons airlines go for manufacturer's checklists rather than own procedures are money saved on devising and revising own procedures and reducing liability. If line crews have to put up with less than optimum procedures doesn't bother those in charge.

Can't speak for Airbus but some aspects of original Embraer E-Jet checklists are ill suited for a multiple sector operation and some redesign would allow for a more streamlined ops. E.g. the company checklist on a previous airplane was designed to minimise the number of items to be checked between closing of doors and pushback. Some manufacturers publish separate procedures for optional equipment or optional procedures (such as RNP approaches) which airlines using them frequently might want to include in their normal checklists.

I also knew an airline that would use similar procedures on all their planes to ease transition between models. It's a common topic in training that people "fall back" to previous airplanes' procedures under stress (e.g. go-around callouts, calling out malfunctions).