interview question ...Would you ever break an SOP?

[kula]

Just wondering what people thought the best answer to this interview question is...

Would you ever break an SOP?

(And if the answer is yes...under what circumstances?!)

Thanks

[redsnail]

Yes, if it's safer to do so.

Highlighted beautifully at my last recurrent.

Control jam, not evident until tried to rotate. Long runway. Aborted the take off. (After V1)

[Maude Charlee]

Whenever presented with a non-standard or dangerous situation, when compliance with SOPs would aggravate the situation.

[saucy jack]

You are on finals when an uncontainable fire breaks out in the cabin...but the tower clears you to land with a tailwind a few knots higher than Company limits.

Promise me, please, that you will land the plane! This is not the time for a go-around and 30 extra track miles to the opposite runway.

[pablo2973]

Hi from Spain , we just had a tragic MD82 accident yesterday in madrid , 153 deaths only 19 survived ( high density altitude , maximun take off weight with max fuel on board,since it was going to canary islands from Madrid), apparently ,left engine on fire after V1 ,only couple of seconds after rotation ,loss of control, and crash still in airport area , I just wonder if that is still the correct procedure , what would have happen if braking is attempted ,sure they would have crash anyway ,but maybe with lower speed and less fatalities .
Sorry for the victims and relatives

[Professor Rubik]

Interesting question Pablo made all the more real as you point out by yesterdays headline news. Indeed the incident was an absolute tragedy and I’m sure everybody’s thoughts are with those involved and their families.

Aviation learns and evolves partly through accidents. SOP’s sometimes get changed as a result of the outcome of the type of investigation that will no doubt now follow. I guess here and now so soon afterwards, isn’t really the place to do it and it’s not really for us to speculate on what happened either without proper facts etc.

All I wanted to say in reply to the point made is that there are many SOP’s but perhaps none more so ‘cast in stone’ as Take Off Safety Speeds and the strict actions that go with them. This is of course mostly because of the weights, inertia and the lack of decision making time available in the event of a situation occurring at or around V1. As such, it is critical that there are no interpretations of the rules and hence why this particular drill tends to be the one practiced over and over in the simulators.

The procedure that dictates that at or above V1 the a/c is committed to take off derives from being the best fit scenario for the majority of incidents, whereby taking the problem airborne produces a lower risk factor compared with running off the end of the runway, which is incidentally one of those things that sounds so very benign but will most probably result in a major incident in itself.
However, as highlighted by Redsnail absolute commitment to go after V1 will never suit every eventuality as the control jam situation proves. Ideally events at or around V1 would never occur, or if they did we would have sufficient time to evaluate each situation individually. Given though that this is not the case and there is not time to begin a process of logical thinking during such an event, I would retain comfort in the knowledge that the well rehearsed drills of go/no go at V1 should be maintained.

Lastly, we must never underestimate the benefit of hindsight. Had the MD82 crew aborted the take off after V1 the incident that followed would have been deemed equally as bad, even if perhaps it had have resulted in fewer casualties. However, the outcome would always be that SOP’s were breached and had the problem been taken airborne the incident may have been avoided. Sadly we now have the benefit of knowing the outcome of that decision on this occasion. We will have to wait and find out exactly what went wrong, but I personally have no doubt that their decision to go was the correct one, albeit a very unfortunate outcome.

Best wishes :hmm:

[littco]

"Would you ever break an SOP?"

In the interest of safety yes..Landing in a tailwind with a cabin fire is a good example... blatently ignoring them and thus breaking them no..

[Funkie]

As others have said, it really depends on the situation you are in at the time, but if it’s safer to do so – yes!

Some good examples have been. Another one similar to saucy jack’s:

On short finals, CATIII approach and the Captain dies, for whatever reason it’s not important. F/O’s, in my outfit are not allowed to complete the landing – trust me, below 500’ I will land.

We train these approaches in the sim every six months and fairly regularly get to do them in anger. We know what to expect, so I would say that would be a good example of an SOP which can be broken for safety reasons.

My reasons: safer to continue with an a/c perfectly capable and configured for the remainder of the approach and landing, than to execute and manage single handed a G/A and then divert….work load would be massive.

Topslide6 makes a valid point – experience. If I’d been asked that question at interview, I’d probably have said never and for interview as a newbie, that’s the answer I’d go with for the reason’s given.

If they said, “what, never?” you can always give a scenario like those above.

[Atreyu]

I think airmanship should dicate whether SOP is the safest course of action, Pilot Incap., Control jam after V1 etc all being good points where the SOP wouldn't be the best course of action.

Atreyu

[no sponsor]

Other examples: Airport request you to fly 160kts to 4 miles, your SOP says you should fly 170 to 5, so of course you will fly 160 to 4.

Or you fly a cost index of 002 standard, but you are very late, so you over-ride that and fly a cost index of 200 or .76 Mach to make up the schedule, or get home before the airport closes.

Breaking SOPs can be simple commercial decisions, commonsense or safety, and it can seem trivial.

[speedrestriction]

nosponsor, i'm not sure that your speed example is a good one - speed control is speed control, like a radar heading or a level change it requires accurate compliance. ATCOs need to know if you cannot comply with speed control whatever the reason.

sr

[saucy jack]

no sponsor has touched upon the issue of SOPs versus commercial considerations and "gethome-itis" and we know where that can lead. I consider it to be a given that commercial considerations do not override SOPs. I want the SOPs to support me against commercial/management pressure should the need arise. I do not pick and choose the ones which suit me, and I expect management to do the same.

I think what no sponsor alludes to is that we may all have (inadvertently) done it on occasion by adding, in his example, the odd .01 or .02 mach here and there. In this case it would depend on how the Cost Index issues etc. are covered in the books. In my company there is no such restriction and I choose what I want based on all factors (fuel, reserves, winds, ATC) including commercial ones.

We all want to operate punctually and efficiently but there are more important considerations...getting safely to the destination being one.

As to "common sense", in the words of one lawyer "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat, M'Lud."