Checklist question (removed from other thread)

SteveC

SteveC

"Laconic"
Staff member
Autothrust Blue said:
…
Also me when I see "seat belts/shoulder harnesses" on a 121 normal checklist but anyway.
Click to expand...

Curious - how much leeway do 121 carriers have to deviate from manufacturer’s checklists? I know when we customized checklists 135 we were basically told we could add to the manufacturer’s (and to some extent reorganize things a bit), but removal of anything would probably be denied.

I presume with 121 resources, both internally and working with the manufacturer, they could customize a lot more than we were allowed to do.
 
SteveC said:
Curious - how much leeway do 121 carriers have to deviate from manufacturer’s checklists?
Click to expand...

As much as your POI/CMO will give you. Since they have existed, Training departments have always thought they were smarter than the OEM and would redesign checklists and procedures to either match previous airplanes (commonality!), or their favorite airplane. Manufacturers make planes to be flown a certain way, and when you don't fly them that way it generates extra work for the pilots and reduced safety margins.

About 6 years ago Airbus generated a common set of standards for all of their in production aircraft (32X, 330, 340, 350, and 380). No matter which plane you fly the callouts, procedures, checklists, and manuals are all set up the same way. It uses best practices and allows for faster updates when something changes. We just switched to full OEM procedures (other than delayed implementation of FOs taxiing) on both our NB and WB airbus fleets. There has been a fair amount of pushback (mostly from captains not wanting to do walk arounds and not understanding the difference between CM1 and PF) but overall it's going to be a beneficial change.
 
BobDDuck said:
As much as your POI/CMO will give you. Since they have existed, Training departments have always thought they were smarter than the OEM and would redesign checklists and procedures to either match previous airplanes (commonality!), or their favorite airplane. Manufacturers make planes to be flown a certain way, and when you don't fly them that way it generates extra work for the pilots and reduced safety margins.

About 6 years ago Airbus generated a common set of standards for all of their in production aircraft (32X, 330, 340, 350, and 380). No matter which plane you fly the callouts, procedures, checklists, and manuals are all set up the same way. It uses best practices and allows for faster updates when something changes. We just switched to full OEM procedures (other than delayed implementation of FOs taxiing) on both our NB and WB airbus fleets. There has been a fair amount of pushback (mostly from captains not wanting to do walk arounds and not understanding the difference between CM1 and PF) but overall it's going to be a beneficial change.
Click to expand...
Not all manufacturers, aircraft programs, training departments and POIs/CMOs are created equally in this regard. (Bombardier…)

SkyWest very dutifully ‘standardized’ the Standard Operating Procedures Manuals for commonality between the E-Jet and the CRJ circa 2015, except 1) the checklist headings aren’t even the same between the two fleets and 2) the PF and PM callouts are exactly reversed for many phases of flight. Naturally, the dumbest stuff from each airplane wound up in the others’ books.
 
probably not entirely answering your question, but a few years ago someone had determined that we had strayed too far from Boeing with our procedures and we moved back to the way they do things.

Then two months ago in training the instructor was saying that because we are the largest 747 operator we can just tell Boeing what changes we want and they’ll do it.

So…shrug
 
Screaming_Emu said:
probably not entirely answering your question, but a few years ago someone had determined that we had strayed too far from Boeing with our procedures and we moved back to the way they do things.

Then two months ago in training the instructor was saying that because we are the largest 747 operator we can just tell Boeing what changes we want and they’ll do it.

So…shrug
Click to expand...
Checklists are funny things. Originally written by lawyers if you ask me.

If the first memory item of a V1 cut is “maintain directional control” it has to be written by a lawyer.

Not all airplanes have that. But some do. Do I not have to maintain directional control if it isn’t listed as a memory item?
 
SteveC said:
Curious - how much leeway do 121 carriers have to deviate from manufacturer’s checklists? I know when we customized checklists 135 we were basically told we could add to the manufacturer’s (and to some extent reorganize things a bit), but removal of anything would probably be denied.

I presume with 121 resources, both internally and working with the manufacturer, they could customize a lot more than we were allowed to do.
Click to expand...

Lots. But, of course, with FAA approval.

Mostly because of cost savings in training. The mad dog checklist was YOOJ but, except for # of items very much like a highly-automated Airbus checklist with some minor exceptions.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
probably not entirely answering your question, but a few years ago someone had determined that we had strayed too far from Boeing with our procedures and we moved back to the way they do things.

Then two months ago in training the instructor was saying that because we are the largest 747 operator we can just tell Boeing what changes we want and they’ll do it.

So…shrug
Click to expand...

So, you are to the 747, what SWA is to the 737, in terms of having sway with Boeing.
 
BobDDuck said:
Since they have existed, Training departments have always thought they were smarter than the OEM and would redesign checklists and procedures to either match previous airplanes (commonality!), or their favorite airplane.
Click to expand...
Training depts and I think the higher up standards guys. For years at Brown we didn't trust VNAV to stop at descent restrictions and would have to reset the MCP for every stepdown. That's how I learned it when I came to the 75/76. It had to have been like this when they started the 75/76 program at UPS but I'm sure Boeing didn't design the automation to be used that way. Then one day, somebody in standards decided what we were doing was stupid and we should just let VNAV do what it was made to do. And it worked great. The longer I was on that fleet the more and more I saw us change procedures back to how Boeing wrote them. We also did a bunch of really stupid stuff along the lines of one crew •s and now we all have to wear diapers.
 
CoffeeIcePapers said:
Riding in various jumpseats, it’s wild how much variance there is in Airbus procedures and checklists.
Click to expand...
Yup!

Technically, if you really think about the ‘dark cockpit’ concept, you really don’t need checklists at all. Just follow the memo’s!
 
CoffeeIcePapers said:
Riding in various jumpseats, it’s wild how much variance there is in Airbus procedures and checklists.
Click to expand...


I was sitting in the United 737 jumpseat, those guys were touching the trim air switch on and off waaaaaay more than we ever do (which is basically never). Seemed like every generator transfer they had to turn trim air off then on. Eg, ground power to APU. APU to engine gens.

Double you tee eff?
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I was sitting in the United 737 jumpseat, those guys were touching the trim air switch on and off waaaaaay more than we ever do (which is basically never). Seemed like every generator transfer they had to turn trim air off then on. Eg, ground power to APU. APU to engine gens.

Double you tee eff?
Click to expand...

At least they didn’t do a standby power check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top