Page 1 of 1

Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:34 pm
by smartt1982
What is the actual Boeing philosophy in relation to the use of Non Normal Cx Lists, even though we have instructions on the use of the check list we still have different pilots coming up with different ways of doing things, I know of course that the end result still gets accomplished but I am sure Boeing had a particular method in mind when they came up with these cx-lists! It would be nice to know the correct way of doing them.

For example on the engine failure/fire on Take, we have this in our QRH, I have added my question in Caps just to differentiate.

PFverifies or selects HDG SEL and calls "STATE
MALFUNCTION."
PM must re-confirm the failure by crosschecking the engine
indications out loud.

WOULD YOU RECHECK THE ENGINE INDICATIONS OUT LOUD IF IT WAS A FIREBELL OR WOULD YOU GO STRAIGHT THE BIG RED LIGHT AND IGNORE CALLING OUT ENGINE INDICATIONS. WOULD YOU STILL CALL OUT (ALL THE INDICATIONS?) MY OPINION IS THAT YOU WOULD STILL DEFINITLY CONFIRM/CALL OUT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DEALING WITH, EVEN THOUGH THE CX-LIST IS
THE SAME, THOUGHTS/OPINIONS? (WHAT ABOUT WHEN THIS HAPPENS DURING AN RTO?, STILL CALL OUT ALL ENGINE INDICATION WHEN STATING MAL EVEN WITH THE FIRE SWITCH ILLIMUNATED?)

PM will call out the specific failure e.g., "ENGINE FLAMEOUT,
NUMBER 1/2 ENGINE." The PFshall confirm this.
• If memory items are applicable, the PF must call for the correct
QRH NN checklist by title, e.g., "ENGINE FIRE SEVERE
DAMAGE OR SEPARATION MEMORY ITEMS."
In relation to the deferred Decent and Approach Cx-list that exist for certain situations

I have another query. On a normal decent/approach, the PF would have handed over control to his PM and carried out his approach brief/set up everything, after this he again takes control and calls for a decent cx-list (I realise that this can be different depending on airline) but my question is in relation to when it says

“The pilot flying or the pilot monitoring responds to the deferred normal checklist items
based on each crewmember’s area of responsibility”


Is that the area of responsibility when he/she set it or now at the moment of the cx-list. For instance on a normal decent set up, pf would set auto brake and minimums etc and on the cx list, pf would respond to the challenge of these items, surely that would not change for deferred descent/approach cx-lists as they contain items that are common to both? Again thoughts


When there are deferred items, the Deferred Items section of the non-normal
checklist will include the Descent, Approach and Landing normal checklists.
These checklists should be used instead of the usual DESCENT, APPROACH and
LANDING normal checklists. If a normal checklist item is changed as a result of
the non-normal situation, the changed response is printed in bold type. The pilot
flying or the pilot monitoring responds to the deferred normal checklist items
based on each crewmember’s area of responsibility. However, during the deferred
Landing normal checklist, the pilot flying responds to all deferred normal
checklist items.

Also in relation to the actual non Normal Cx List

Thrust lever
(affected engine) . . . . . . . .Confirm . . . . . Close

Would you say "affected engine" or "No 1/2" or even "affected engine No1/2"

Any Boeing Pilots out there willing to advise on this, would be greatly appreciated

[Edited 2012-06-15 15:09:39]

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:44 pm
by Dogbreath
The following answers to your questions are my opinions (having flown the B747 and B737) gained from my company's SOP. Obviously your company's SOP's will dictate what you should do.

In answer to your first question. If the malfunction is an Engine Fire, then there is no reason to call out the engine indications, as the only action is to shutdown the engine using the Engine Fire, Severe Damage or Separation Checklist (obviously at the appropriate stage in the climbout flight path - as that engine may still be producing normal thrust). To me it's irrelevant what the N1, N2, EGT or other engine indications are doing as if it's on fire, there is only one conclusion and that is to shutdown the engine, isolate certain areas by the pulling of the fire switch, and discharging the fire extinguishing agent into the nacelle.

Jumping to your last question regarding the naming of the affected engine. The PF will ask the PM to state the malfunction. You will then ensure that the correct engine is identified and call out "Number 1 Engine Fire" or "Number 2 Engine Fire". The PF will then verify that this is the correct analysis and call for the correct checklist. When it comes to:
Thrust lever
(affected engine) . . . . . . . .Confirm . . . . . Close

You would say, " Thrust Lever Number One Engine" (assuming it is the number one engine). At the same time placing your hand over the Number one thrust lever. The PF will then say "Confirmed". You then close the thrust lever to idle, stating "Close".
The same procedure goes for the Start Lever and the Engine Fire Switch.

Your second question regarding Deferred Checklists. In my company the PM will read out the deferred checklist items and respond to all of the items. The PF will not respond to any of these items, but monitor the switch positions or aircraft state with each call. That may be different to other airlines. It is only the Deferred Items landing checklist that the PF will respond, and respond to all of the items in this last phase of the checklist (as stated in your post).

Safe flying.

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:02 pm
by futureualpilot
Perhaps to confirm what is happening. Alarm systems do give faulty indicators at times, and double checking your instruments is a good way to verify what is happening. No reason to shut down a perfectly functioning engine if the indication is faulty.

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:06 pm
by BoeingGuy
Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
What is the actual Boeing philosophy in relation to the use of Non Normal Cx Lists,

What you quote are not the exact Boeing published QRH NNP. They appear to be something that was greatly modified by the customer.

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
I have another query. On a normal decent/approach, the PF would have handed over control to his PM and carried out his approach brief/set up everything, after this he again takes control and calls for a decent cx-list (I realise that this can be different depending on airline) but my question is in relation to when it says

“The pilot flying or the pilot monitoring responds to the deferred normal checklist items
based on each crewmember’s area of responsibility”

Again, this is not something that Boeing issued. It appears to be a customer's (probably BA) unique guidance.

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:10 pm
by Dogbreath
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 2):
No reason to shut down a perfectly functioning engine if the indication is faulty.

Absolutely! I agree totally. However an engine fire may or may not give any unusual engine parameter indications. And again as I wrote if the engine fire warning sounds, the engine requires shutting down. Are you telling me that if the fire warning system is activated and there are no unusual engine indications - you would leave the engine running? I'm no stunt pilot but I wouldn't be flying along with an engine fire warning just on the off chance it's a faulty indication.

Now the topic of the post was for an engine fire indication. If the fire warning was intermittent or illuminated/sounded once, then sure further investigation may be warranted, however it has been known for actual engine fires to damage and affect the fire indicating system, so I personally would still be thinking about a shutdown. Of course, every situation is different and there are other factors to influence your decision making, such as terrain, weather, performance, etc.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 2):
Perhaps to confirm what is happening.

Again are you telling me that an engine fire must result in some other malfunctioning system that is indicated on the MFD?

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:48 am
by smartt1982
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 3):
What you quote are not the exact Boeing published QRH NNP. They appear to be something that was greatly modified by the customer

Where could one go to find the manuals, for any Boeing that is to see what they say?

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:30 pm
by BoeingGuy
Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 5):
Where could one go to find the manuals, for any Boeing that is to see what they say?

Boeing has a web site called MyBoeingFleet for customers to access their own manuals that Boeing creates for them. I don't think I can't post the QRH checklists here. I believe they are considered Proprietary Information, so I cannot and will not post anything that isn't publicly available info.

When in doubt, I error on the conservative side by not posting something, to keep myself out of trouble - and employed.  

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:03 pm
by tdscanuck
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 6):
I believe they are considered Proprietary Information

They are. They're also considered unpublished work with all permissions/rights/etc. retained so you don't even get fair use copyright exemptions on them.

Tom.

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:58 am
by smartt1982
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 6):
When in doubt, I error on the conservative side by not posting something, to keep myself out of trouble - and employed.

Should I delete my previous posts with the quotes then do you think?

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:45 pm
by Alias1024
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 2):
Perhaps to confirm what is happening. Alarm systems do give faulty indicators at times, and double checking your instruments is a good way to verify what is happening. No reason to shut down a perfectly functioning engine if the indication is faulty.

If you get a fire indication on an engine you're almost certainly going to shut it down. About the only time you wouldn't is if the other engine is already shut down and the engine on fire is still producing thrust.

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:29 pm
by BoeingGuy
Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 8):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 6):
When in doubt, I error on the conservative side by not posting something, to keep myself out of trouble - and employed.

Should I delete my previous posts with the quotes then do you think?

I don't care what you do. That wasn't the point. Guess what company I work for? I won't violate the rules by posting Proprietary information. I can't speak for your company's rules or what you choose to post.

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:35 pm
by smartt1982
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
don't care what you do. That wasn't the point. Guess what company I work for? I won't violate the rules by posting Proprietary information. I can't speak for your company's rules or what you choose to post.

No I completely understand, I would really love to be able to pick your brain (i.e. learn as much as I could from you) with regards to Boeing stuff, but that is not really a possibility.

Cheers

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:16 pm
by BoeingGuy
Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 11):
No I completely understand, I would really love to be able to pick your brain (i.e. learn as much as I could from you) with regards to Boeing stuff, but that is not really a possibility.

Thanks. I appreciate the implied compliment. Sure you can pick my brain. I just can't (if I want to keep my job) post inappropriate or Proprietary information. I'm happy to help out when I can, and post publicly available info anytime. For example, I can talk in generality about Boeing's checklist philosophies. I just can't cut and paste an actual QRH from the internal Flight Ops server.

You'll note that I gave an extensive overview of how thrust derates work, and how they may differ by model, on another Tech Forum thread. To the best of my understanding, that's okay to post. That's not secret information.

RE: Boeing Philosophy - Non Normal Cx Lists

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:14 pm
by smartt1982
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 12):
For example, I can talk in generality about Boeing's checklist philosophies
Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
%u201CThe pilot flying or the pilot monitoring responds to the deferred normal checklist items
based on each crewmember%u2019s area of responsibility%u201D

Is this again something that appears to be changed from the original Boeing way? It is just that on a normal Decent/approach cx-list, the non flying pilot would call out the challenge and the flying pilot would call out response (even though things such as autobrake et are not in his area of responsibility at that moment but have been set when he handed over control to set up +Brief, my questions is, surely this is the same for the deferred decent/approach cx-list or what do Boeing mean when they say "based on area of responsibility"? i.e. at that exact moment or is it whatever pilot who had set it e.g. during the brief.

Many Thanks for the great info so far and I completely understand the position you’re in.