The rights and wrongs of SOP's

[STAN DEASY]

Doing a quiet little survey and although I have my own ideas as to the pros and cons of SOP's, it would be non CRM of me to ignore others opinions.

So what in your eyes are the pros and cons of sop's?

Thanks

[Crossunder]

Can't think of any real cons... Extra paper work perhaps? Without SOPs, things would be a real mess, what with people coming from different backgrounds in aviation and all! But; there might be something here I'm not aware of ;-)

[keithl]

As a Sim Instr, I have seen lots of people brief "...will be SOP, OK?". Other pilot replies "Yep", but when they come to do it, whatever it is, it turns out that one's idea of the SOP is different from the other's.

So, I'd say that a disadvantage of SOPs is that they don't always mean the same thing to the same people. This is very hard to fix, as you don't necessarily realise, until you see it done, what the possible misunderstanding might be.

[Pilot Pete]

Keith

Doesn't that mean that the airline's SOP culture is failing then? The airlines I have flown in have well defined SOPs for all phases of flight and they are drilled into the pilots throughout training. This gets round the problem of two pilots having different ideas of what 'SOP' is and after all, is the whole point of having SOPs in the first place. I would argue that this is not a 'disadvantage' of SOPs, rather just bad definition/ use of them by individuals and/ or airline training departments.

I do not however advocate that SOPs are perfect. When properly compiled and used though, one cannot deny the benefit to flight safety.

PP

[keithl]

Pete - Yes, I don't disagree with that, but it is a problem of implementation. Relatively easy if you have a cradle-to-grave, or rather cadetship-to-command career path, but where I work we have quite a few pilots who've come in from different backgrounds all over the world and, for a while, they bring their previous SOPs with them.

They are taught our SOPs, and their intentions may be good, but you know that old thing about "regression" under pressure - which, in the Sim, is where I see it. Of course, I consider myself part of "the solution" - I reinforce the use of the correct SOPs. It takes time, though, and meanwhile the problem is there.

If you want to pursue this, I'll try and think of some good examples for you, but maybe that's a sufficient answer.

[Old Smokey]

My day to day working life is in a large international airline with many "fully imported" flight crews added to supplement the local operators. These imports inevitabely bring with them SOPs from their previous airlines, and, unfortunately in a few cases, the attitude that ONLY MY AIRLINE DID IT THE RIGHT WAY.

In an environment such as this, strictly enforced SOPs are not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. So too (and it's a part of SOPs anyway) is the strict application of 'word perfect' standard calls, considering that at one time there were 57 different nationalities / languages in our airline there were 57 ways to say the same thing.

Even so, this airline is a GOOD learner, and has been receptive to input from outside to any worthwhile suggestions. The Ops Manager has stated that "We may not do it the perfect way, but it's the way that we do it". I agree with him.

In a small operation, where each crew member is familiar with each other's idiosynchrasies and from the same culture, there is room for flexibility, but as the gypsies of the pilot profession are making up more and more of the rapidly developing airlines, strict enforcement of SOPs are essential.

Even within our airline's culture of strict SOP compliance, it is still stressed that SOPs may not always provide the answer, and common sense is always called for.

[rubik101]

I once joined an airline whose SOPs were written on two, yes 2 sheets of A4. Both sides I should add.
The disregard and unproffesionalism of many of the Captains and the lack of understanding and confusion, particularly among new FOs was something I would not wish to see again in this industry. It took much persuasion and time on my part to write and eventually introduce a set of SOps, (closely copied from a UK charter operator who have, in my opinion, the best laid out SOPs I have seen) which went a very long way to turning the situation around. This was done in spite of many of the older Captains objecting, along the lines of, 'I can't do what I like any more.'
I have seen the best and the worst of SOPs and believe me, if they are properly written, properly explained, properly trained and adhered to then your company will be a far safer place to work. Get good SOPs and stick rigidly to them!
Happy landings.

[STAN DEASY]

Thanks to all for your replies, they are all of use and fully support my own ideas but having different stories and accounts to support the need for SOP's only strengthens the case - please keep them coming.

[Pilot Pete]

Keith

Been a bit busy but found the time to reply. I agree with your reply (what good CRM eh?;) ) and I am sure it is a greater problem for a carrier that does employ many pilots from other airlines, especially if they have flown the same type in those other airlines.

I think there are a number of factors which add to the problem. Those already mentioned relating to definition and training regime, standardisation throughout the training staff and a culture of SOP adhearance. But other factors which will not help are cultural differences, individual personalities and recruitment policies.

I have flown the same type for four airlines and at one point (due to 9/11) I had 6 OPC checks using 4 different sets of SOPs on 757 with a conversion to 767 tagged on the end, all within a 12 month period!! You're dead right, I did have a few difficulties getting all the calls right, especially with the minimum training allocated (due to experience!) but I made a determined effort to dump all my old practices each time, just keeping hold of the experience and made a conscious effort to achieve word perfect calls. I'm still not completely there with them all, but pretty close and working on it. Perhaps though, I had an advantage in that I didn't spend half a career with one carrier and then try to change to a completely different set of calls which is another factor which I am sure makes things harder.

I still think the success or failure comes from training culture starting from the top man and filtering down through all the training staff (how often have you been checked by one captain who advocates one way and 6 months later by another who asks who taught you to do that?) which then will filter down through the whole fleet.

As for saying 'Standard' in a brief, it comes down to CRM. We only ever say that about things that we know are well defined and usually we have previous experience of (with the other pilot), like your third day in a row back to your home base as a crew, and then spend more time briefing what is going to be different.

That's my thoughts anyway.

PP

[Miles Magister]

There are some good comments here for those who are aspiring to the business should take note of. I do not like to hear the brief "SOP" all the time for the reasons kiethl so clearly pointed out. I also see people brief until they are blue in the face then forget to do it or do something different.

I prefer to hear the key points of the SOPs briefed, then if something goes wrong everyone does the SOP. In the bad case when SOPs run out, that is when good CRM culture takes over.

Good CRM helps SOPs work but I do feel that CRM and SOPs are confused as being the same thing when they are not.

MM

[Pilot Pete]

I think that is a very interesting point RTO. Trying to define a set of SOPs that caters for every eventuality is a nigh on impossible task. Very little seems to be left down to airmanship these days. Do you think it has anything to do with us Europeans recruiting much lower experience levels on to complex aircraft?

We have all come across SOPs that are a compromise, which seems to go against the grain of an SOP in the first place (like trying to get commonality across a couple of different fleets) which means that you must be straying away from the manufacturers SOPs even more.

I am sure I heard that several companies are gravitating back towards manufacturers SOPs for fear of legal repercussions should they ever have to stand in a court of law to justify why they had changed away from what the manufacturer recommended. Anyone else heard that, or is it just one of those rumour mill favourites?

PP

[Rananim]

RTO,
Well at least you found 3 good things to say about us yanks.I concur when it comes to SOP's.Less is more.Pedants dont belong in the flight deck.Nor do cowboys.You need to find a mid ground.

[FullWings]

Working for an airline which has a 'Rules for Pilots' running to several thousand of 'em, I have to agree with much of this sentiment. More SOP's a better airline does not make. (Apologies to Yoda. ;))

The real risk is to stifle any sort of original thinking. Not too bad a thing, I hear you say... However, I genuinely feel that I am employed to deal with the Novel and Unpredictable, as well as the Mundane and Practical. If I am burdened with too much in the way of regulation, it will become increasingly difficult to break free from this in times of stress or emergency.

If following SOP's led to a satisfactory conclusion in every instance, then we could easily be replaced by computers tomorrow - in effect, rule-based decision making.

The fact that we are still here, and the signs are that we will be for some considerable time, means that we ARE needed to interpret/modify/reject the textbook way of doing things on occasions. If this was not the case, consider an engine fire checklist: Why is it not done automatically by the aeroplane when something is detected, or even on the press of a single button by the crew? After all, you are just going through a set of actions and yes/no choices...

Another problem is SOP conflict. Sometimes people get themselves into difficulty by religiously following every 'rule' to it's conclusion, without thought of how several may interact to produce a result which is less than desireable. Also, most SOP's do not come with a 'priority level' atached to them - this you must work out yourself, sometimes at short notice, knowing that later someone in an office will take a few weeks to decide whether you were right or not.

Training: Obviously it's essential that crews can interact in a predictable way and can work together without any prior knowledge of each other. However, with the (cost) limited amount of training time available, the focus tends to stay on 'regulatory items' and it is very hard to come out of the 'standard/jeopardy' mode, even during a LOFT exercise. When was the last time you heard someone in the simulator say "Let's get this mother****** on the ground NOW!"? Faced with an uncontrolled cabin/cargo fire, that's what I would be doing in real life...

[MercenaryAli]

I intentionally wrote that out in full because it seems to me that many of us/you do not understand what is meant by SOP's.

First you take the Aircraft Flight Manual. You study it and incorporate what to do and what not to do into your SOP's.

Then you study each and every phase of flight form climbing into the aircraft to climbing out at the end of a flight and you write down exactly how you want the crew to work together using Check Lists in order that ANY Captain and ANY F/O will be under NO ILLUSION as to how each and every phase of the flight should be conducted.

There WILL be times when the Captain may, at his discretiion, not follow an SOP if he deems that to do so would hazard the operation of the aircraft; thus there is always a get out clause.

Once learned the SOP's of your company may save your life on the day the pressure is building and things are starting to go wrong.

Ignore them at your peril and all those who dislike or try to circumnavigate the SOP's just remember they are there for your protection and to ensure the SAFE and EFFICIENT operation of your aircraft.