When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?

[IFLY_INDIGO]

There is no end to knowledge, be it any subject.. Sometimes I wonder do I know enough to be safe in the flight deck? Is passing the checkride enough? Is the checkride syllabus ideal to ensure that one would pull the aircraft out of all troubles? Is it possible to lay down on paper number of items besides common sense that a pilot must know at least?

[Tmbstory]

IFLY INDIGO:

You Learn and will continue to Learn, all your flying life. If you ever get to the stage that you think you know it all, beware.

[Blinkz]

The day you don't learn anything when you go flying is the day you've become complacent.

[BOAC]

You need to define "safe in the flight deck" since the answer ranges between first ever solo flight and never, depending.

[PantLoad]

When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?

When you master the SOPs....to the point where you practice them
even when distracted, when there is an 'abnormal', when you're tired,
when you're flying with someone who doesn't practice the SOPs, or,
worse yet, has contempt for them.

When the SOPs become natural, normal, the only way....i.e.
you don't how to and cannot fly any other way, other than by
the SOPs.....

Then, you can say you're safe in the cockpit....

[despegue]

when you can and will follow SOP, know the REASON for the SOP AND know when/how to deviate from them when/if AIRMANSHIP dictates so.

If you do not know how to operate without the help of an SOP, you are not ready to be PIC. It is all about AIRMANSHIP.

[bubbers44]

That's neither necessary nor helpful - JT

[Ex Cargo Clown]

When you recognise that rules (SOPs) are for guidance of the wise, and obedience of fools.

99.999999% of your aviation career you will and should follow SOPs, it is that 0.0000001% ocassion that you need your experience. Blindly following SOPs is an invitation to trouble.

It's a little like driving, if I'm in a 30mph area and are going through a crossing and yet see a car pull out through a red light, then instantly my experience and instinct take over, if that means me accelerating to avoid them, so be it, even if it takes me over the speed limit. It would have breached my "SOP" but I won't be in hospital, or worse.

[PantLoad]

Maybe a start of a new thread.

When, in your aviation career, has the SOP NOT
been the proper course of action? Please describe
the event in detail, citing the applicable SOP, what
you followed, instead, and the outcome. What, do you
feel, would have been the outcome if you had followed
the SOP?

This is an honest question....no motives, here. We
can talk about this, openly.

Further thought....who wrote the SOP you thought was
inappropriate? Was it the manufacturer, someone in
your company? Just thinking about this....

Any comments/thoughts?????

Honestly, I'm trying to remember if and when and how
the SOPs did or didn't serve me well.

And, when you come up with an experience where the
SOP was the incorrect path to follow, describe why, and
describe what and how, a revised SOP would better
address the experience you had.

OK? Fair enough?

[bubbers44]

SOP's are important but pilots also have to use good judgement so SOP's don't kill them.

[PantLoad]

Bubbers44, et. al.,

Honest question.....take time to think back, all the
years and all the thousands of hours....think back,
and answer the question.

You know, this discussion may have far reaching
implications. Maybe we will, at some point, agree
that certain SOPs are not correct. Maybe we'll
look at the rules of flying from a new perspective.

Let's all go into this with an open mind.

While I type this, I'm thinking back to all the accidents
that gave birth new SOPs.

Let's think beyond the obvious. i.e. make one rule/
regulation: "Thou shalt not crash." I think we'll all
agree we need more than that.

A twist to the discussion....look back in your
experience. When have the SOPs saved your XXX.

Volant model....stand by for revision!!!!!!!


Please try to stick to the topic and not attack my
young age and inexperience level.

No offense taken.....seriously, no offense taken....

[3holelover]

Sir, if you're not just fishing, and not trying to spout a pantload for fun.... then you ought to consider why it is people are chosen to fly airplanes rather than computers.
If what you seem to be saying were ever to be so, there would be no use for humans in the cockpit at all. ....and there aren't many of us who believe that to be the right course.

[alf5071h]

When you can interpret every situation without mistake, and if the situation is correctly identified, choose an appropriate course of action.
Such knowledge takes a lifetime to accumulate.

However, safe operation can be achieved in limited circumstances (the absence of unnecessary risk), providing that the operator has sufficient knowledge and skills (know how) to execute specific tasks and use safe guards to identify and recover from error, but most important to be aware of one’s individual limits in knowledge and know how.
And even then, you can be wrong ... ... not safe enough.

Errors in Aviation Decision Making. (www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/papers/seattle_hessd/judithlynne-p.pdf)

[PantLoad]

Great posts, so far, but please think back to
situations when following the SOP would have
been a bad idea. Or, when a situation occurred
for which there was no SOP.

Example, the United DC-10 accident in Sioux City....

Also, have a look at the Volant model....at some point
when you were in the yellow or red....what brought you
back?

Cite specifics, please. Get as detailed as your memory
allows.

[3holelover]

Hmmmmm?:cool:

[despegue]

ok, here just one real life example:

Landing at airport daylight in Africa, daylight, VMC but with thunderstorms approaching, 2 other aircraft on "freq" but no idea where they are as they don't seem to know either, useless ATC:rolleyes:...
On final at around 1000', visual with runway, no terrain issues: GPWS warning: terrain terrain pull up...

SOP: GPWS warnings on final must result in an immediate go-around.

So... what do you do? discuss ahead!:}

[cwatters]

Retract the wheels so you don't leave black marks on the one below you. Check the one above has done the same for you :-)

[grounded27]

When aircraft become completely automated.

[alf5071h]

grounded27, “When aircraft become completely automated.”
… to the point of having no knowledge whatsoever - ignorant.

[Machinbird]

When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?

Simply put, when you can recognize that the current situation is beginning to put you in a box that has few viable options and you know what to do to increase the viable options, and when to do so.

Another name for this is airmanship.

[bubbers44]

If you are the captain you can feel safe in the cockpit if you feel confident in your decisions because of your experience and aircraft knowledge. Sometimes decisions involve variables that can change like weather and multiple failures so you must always be prepared to change the plan if conditions require it.

FO's need to feel comfortable in the aircraft and not ever need the captains assistance in my opinion. They should fly like they are the captain and not let the captain make all of their decisions for them. Most of my FO's did that but with a few I didn't feel it was safe to take a restroom break.

[overun]

airmanship coupled with STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.

One has to know what the other guy is doing, simples.

[PantLoad]

Please try to keep to the point, everyone.

Thing back to specific examples....be as detailed as
possible.

[Admiral346]

Please try to keep to the point, everyone.

What point, your point?

The topic is When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?

and the posters are sticking to it.

Sorry, but you make a pushy impression, as if you were fishing for stories...

[grounded27]

Foolish questions are deserving of foolish answers.

[bubbers44]

OK Pantload, my neighbor thinks automation is the only way to fly an airplane because a computer can fly better than a pilot. He also believes SOP's are the only way to go and he is an airline pilot. Are you happy?

I do argue with him a lot but you don't want to hear any more of my version of the story. I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody.

[PantLoad]

Retired, too...

So, the question is: When, looking back in your experience,
has following SOPs been the wrong course of action?

The relevance of this topic is to my response to the initial
thread....

If you found automation as the culprit....and the use of
automation was your SOP....please share this...

Be as detailed as possible.

[grounded27]

OK Pantload, my neighbor thinks automation is the only way to fly an airplane because a computer can fly better than a pilot. He also believes SOP's are the only way to go and he is an airline pilot. Are you happy?

I do argue with him a lot but you don't want to hear any more of my version of the story. I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody.

I made a comment that the day that a pilot will be safe in the cockpit was when aircraft were fully automated, a bit tung and cheek was the intention. Goes to the old joke about the dog and pilot in the cockpit we have all heard. Bottom line is with modern Jet's Airbus in particular that are designed with flight envelope protection and require the pilot to follow SOP's and in only an emergency push the (oh **** button) there is some credence to the statement.

The fact is that piloting skills are hard to maintain these days. Reactive memory function to adverse flight situations are first driven by SOP, selected pilot flies the aircraft while the other has to look up what to do is the norm. The larges factor is liability driven by bean counters resulting in more automation and less traditional airmanship. This trend shall continue.

I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody

SO true but pilots are trained as employees (aircraft operators) first these days and airmanship gets lost, not week in most cases just victims of the system. Aircraft manufacturers will continue to cater to the needs of the airlines they sell to in the venture of creating the perfect aircraft that will not crash and will respond to any emergency automatically. It is hard for pilots to accept the fact that their skills are being replaced by software and hardware, but it is the truth.

[Atlas Shrugged]

When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?


There is something inherently insane in dashing around in an aluminium tube a few miles above the surface of the earth at over 400kts. NEVER, EVER take it for granted and NEVER think you've got it all sorted because just when you do, it WILL bite you very hard on the arse.

[Jetpipe.]

when will you be 100% sure you wont spill any coffee on your shirt again??? :E

**** happens and you can never be 100% safe!!!

[Right Way Up]

Pantload,

Hopefully most people will have no need to diverge from SOPs, but most certainly a good Captain will consider it if required.

Examples I can think of:
1) Departure from an airfield which is below single engine auto land approach minima (haven't mentioned specifics as mine would be different to US regs). You get a engine fire that won't go out. I most certainly would land below minima.
2) My type tells you to close the fuel xfeed if the fuel in both inner tanks goes below 750 kgs. With single engine and confirmed no fuel leak I would ignore that ECAM procedure.

I hope that in my career I have no need to disregard an SOP but I am ready to if the situation dictates. Now pilots who wilfully and constantly ignore SOPs because they know better, that's a different subject.

[PantLoad]

Right Way Up....thank you.

So far, we have GPWS from aircraft below, land below minima
if on fire, and open the fuel crossfeed (assuming no fuel leak).

OK, anyone else?????

Can anyone give specific incidents where not following the
SOP was the prudent thing to do? Or, to put it another way,
does anyone have a story to tell where, if the SOP were followed,
an unfavorable outcome would have resulted?

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Pantload,
if the SOP were followed, an unfavorable outcome would have resulted?
There will be many examples where the unintelligent application of the SOP will result in unfavourable outcomes. e.g. the coal train with a brake fire:

The fire was noticed by the "alert" crew who performed the SOP "Stop the Train".
Unfortunately, the train was brought to a halt with the burning truck in the middle of a wooden bridge. The bridge caught fire and eventually collapsed taking the rest of the coal train with it. The picture I have shows the very last truck just on the edge of the bridge.
The more intelligent application of the SOP would have been to stop the train about 100 yards further down the track.

http://www.merrowresidents.org/pprune/coal%20train%201.jpg
http://www.merrowresidents.org/pprune/coal%20train%202.jpg

[bubbers44]

Went to San Jose, Costa Rica in a B757 and landed up in the mountains with a 15 knot tailwind with about 8,000 ft of runway. This was legal because our SOP for this airport allowed it because of the difficulty in circling with normal low ceilings.

We come back to Miami at sea level with 13,000 ft of runway and are cleared for a close in right base entry to short final landing east with a storm approaching from the west prohibiting us from doing the ILS and will soon close the airport. On final they report a 15 knot tailwind, our limit is 10 so we land anyway and turn off at midfield. The option was to divert to Orlando for a few hrs. Not life threatening but shows how SOP's are for the company's benefit, not common sense. They also protect pilots that can't protect themselves.

[Piltdown Man]

You can never know enough to be totally safe because even if you knew everything there are too there are too many unknown external variables to deal with. However, the amount of knowledge required to be "safe" depends on the person and the environment in which they fly. Somebody flying a modern simple aircraft close to civilisation in the first world country does not have to be as knowledgable as someone operating an ancient flying wreck for a bunch of shysters in the third world. Luck can replace knowledge only for so long.

[IFLY_INDIGO]

I had a severe windshear encounter on approach once. fully configured. for more than a minute we struggled with it chasing the FD bars, following the airbus proc, not changing config and keeping wings level. twice airspeed went into red pole. I was worried about the life of flaps which were full. finally, when next time airspeed shot up in the red pole I ordered 'flaps 3'. we got extra room for airspeed to vary. altitude was more or less same. next time speed shot up, we took gear also up. we could climb a bit but still It seemed like never ending windshear. so we initiated turn to right by 45 deg and after a few seconds we were out of that nasty zone.. I realised how nasty windshears could be.. after all, wings are meant to develop lift in smooth air only... I think coming out safe out of windshear is matter of shear luck. windshear is a condition when aircraft is no more flyable.. it is just that powerful engines keep pushing us forward..

[Rananim]

I honestly believe there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to SOP's.A good pilot will use his/her best judgement when it comes to SOP's.Restricting yourself to a rigid and literal guideline when in a constantly changing and dynamic environment is unwise.Kind of like CRM.An authoritarian(undesirable in CRM terms) pilot may well perform brilliantly under pressure and save hundreds of lives.Likewise,a "people person" who scores great on those psych profile tests may kill everyone on board.We just cant know.No hard and fast rules.
Willful disregard of SOP's is incorrect but thinking outside the box and airmanship is certainly not.Airmanship can diverge from SOP's.Nitpickers who trade airspeed for altitude after engine failure when VMC(Chicago-this one changed the rulebook..if you have V2+20 keep it!).A pilot(especially a Captain) who checks only those pre-flight items as laid down in the SOP manual as being his area of responsibility(Helios-Pressurization mode selector).A pilot who shuts down an engine prematurely after entering volcanic ash to prevent damage and facilitate a later relight(BA).A pilot that doesnt descend at Vmo to the nearest airport when a source of smoke is not immediately identified(Swiss-again this changed the rulebook but nothing new to airmanship).A pilot who can brilliantly adapt to a situation for which there is no SOP or even a checklist(Sioux city-Qantas turning off all ADR's ..not in any checklist or SOP!!).A pilot who is wary of any SOP that forbids the non-use of the AFDS or any part thereof.Automation complacency/confusion is a big killer.A pilot when told by ATC to "expedite" leaving the runway doesnt because the taxi speed limit will be infringed.A pilot who doesnt put every single bloody light available to him when taking an active runway because the SOP says only "when cleared for takeoff".

It boils down to common-sense,experience and knowing what you're doing.But they cant write a manual for that so instead they write a manual for the lowest common denominator.Its a guide.An important tool.But by no means a panacea.As an airline Captain,you need more,much more.

[bubbers44]

Rananim, i recently completed a complete career with a major airline and agree with you totally. All the comfort feely, feely stuff is nice but CRM and SOP's only work part of the time. Common sense will work most of the time.

[thermostat]

SOPs are there to keep all crew members on the same "frequency". However what I found during my career was the "know it all" chief pilots who insisted in changing SOPs from the manufacturer's recommendation to their own. Here are pilots who had nothing to do with the design, building, flight testing and certification of the aircraft but thought they knew more than the manufacturer.
One case in point was the introduction of a procedure that was different to the manufacturer when capturing the GS from above. The "new" procedure caused chaos when approaching the FAF and had the 'plane reaching for the skies at a time when the pilot was attempting to do an approach to LAND. When I e-mailed the manufacturer to clarify the result of this "new SOP" they said " It is why the SOP says to do it that way". They knew what would happen if you changed the published procedure. Quite frankly I am appalled that the governing bodies in each country allow airlines to do this. They should insist on the airlines presenting proof that the new SOP is essential for the safe operation of the aircraft and that it is better that the original manufacturers SOP.

[gusting_45]

"When will you know enough?". Never. But be cautious regarding what you know. There are no shortage of know-it-all clever-arses out there whose brains are full of useless sh1t. And boy oh boy do they never tire of letting you know how much they know. To which my response is invariably, "Give me any conceivable scenario in which that information could be operationally useful to me in conducting and ensuring a safe flight" The response is almost invariably never, if it's not never then I have learned something useful which is good.

Regarding slavish compliance with SOPs, deviate, if safe to do so, whenever the situation is Non-Standard, assuming that your fellow crew are with you and happy with the non-standard proposal. That's the whole idea of SOPs, they are appropriate when the situation is standard and are inappropriate when the situation is not. The debate doesn't need any further justification. Lastly on this topic, I once worked for a freight airline operating 4 completetly different fleets. Our chief pilot decided that 3 fleets should have their SOPs re-written to match the logic and layout of the senior fleet even though 4 separate manufacturers were involved. Consequently and inevitably the Junior fleets SOPs were rubbish being laced with errors and inappropriate actions.

[overun]

Time for me to shut up,l think.

[compressor stall]

Was talking to a captain who told me his cadet FO told him one day that, "In my experience, experience counts for nothing."
:ugh:

[overun]

Sure you`re right.

ls english you`re first language ? it`s certainly not aviation.

No worries sunbeam.

[bubbers44]

In his experience as a cadet experience meant nothing for one reason, he had none and he was invincible at his age. Experience will easily, in most cases, take you through trouble with no problem. We were probably all dangerous when we were young and foolish. I know I was. I was doing solo spins in an Aeronca 7AC with 7 hrs total time. Didn't know at the time it was stupid. Art Scholl, the well known aerobatic pilot was in charge of our flying club and had a fit when I told him what I was doing thinking I was just learning how to fly. He later let me teach his aerobatics course when I got my instructors rating. I flew his airplane to his air shows so could teach myself aerobatics to and from with a book.