Airline/Manufacturer differences

[farbre]

My airline recently appointed me to be in charge of all the documentation (i.e. FCOM/FCTM/OMs).
I'm curious how other airlines handle the documentation when the SOP differs from the manufacturer's recommendations. For example, we insert a few pages at the beginning of the FCOM listing the differences and linking to the relevant section(s), but I'm wondering if maybe there's a better way.

[latetonite]

You copy it from another airline, and put your airline's header above it. That is what they all do.

[john_tullamarine]

.. but, perhaps, a little more seriously ..

(a) the OEM's stuff may not be perfect but it's supported and greatly simplifies the operator's workload and documentation QA overhead.

(b) pinching someone else's stuff, generally, is cheap but silly as you also pinch any inappropriate stuff within their documentation. Either you have to amend that or wear it ?

(c) at the Enquiry .. perhaps you have an advantage by relying on the OEM stuff ?

(d) having worked with/for operators who varied from do-it-yourself to straight OEM, I know which makes more sense to me.

(e) SOP differences ? .. sometimes necessary and appropriate but, often, just the product of ego. How many of us have worked for airlines where a long term Type suddenly gets a major documentation makeover coincident with the appointment of a new Fleet Boss ? I fondly recall, long ago, an ex-Fleet Boss, when visited for a beer at home by the then Fleet Boss, had the embarrassing situation of the current Ops Manual's being used as his front door stop ... tells a story, I think ?

[piratepete]

BOEING/AIRBUS vrs SOPs

JT, you are totally correct.In earlier parts of my career, especially when I started to be in control of designing SOPs (CP, FTM, DFO positions etc), I was stuck in a mindset of not having an open mind to new ideas, also blind loyalty to one way of doing things, based on where I got my first jet command.Over the years ive realised the folly of a closed mind, also have put my ego in a drawer, and promote the concept of using the Manufacturers procedures etc basically unchanged as much as possible.

However sometimes it can be useful to "borrow" someone elses SOP template, but with appropriate corrections to bring them inline with current thinking.One very good carrier for example refuses to accept the term PM in its SOPs and still continues with the generally superseded PNF a less useful description of the role of the pilot not actually flying the airplane.Ego/closed mind at work there.Pete.

[john_tullamarine]

d'accord.....

[MarkMcC]

I work lots with helping different customers adapt to their 'new' aircraft and find the comments in this thread to be spot on. Especially on the military side where the leap is often from rather 'well-worn' equipment to modern the old habits and 'we've always done it this way' mentality is hard to break.

We do a much better job these days of making sure that the Aircraft Procedures on the manufacturer's side are suitable for line operations, and there is a lot of thought put
into their implementation. I would say that 95% of customer ideas for SOPs that differ from the manufacturer's recommendations disappear after a good explanation as to why the system was designed that way. You know, those conversations that end in, 'Oh.....I didn't realise....' Certification has a much longer reach these days as well...

In any case, if you want a unique procedure then the best route is to obtain a letter of 'No Technical Objection' from the manufacturer through their publications department. This ensures that you're not impinging on any certification or technical standards of which you may not be aware and also won't void any repair/overhaul agreements. These requests get some technical oversight as well and I would recommend that you include at least an index to, if not a copy of, all No Tech Objection notices in your publications.

[GlenQuagmire]

I have no idea why companies have SOPs that differ from the manufacturers SOPs. I don't know of a single situation where a company SOP that differs from the manufacturer is justified. Has anyone got an example? And if it exists, why isnt it fed back to the manufacturer so that they can evaluate it and change it.
While I'm on a rant, why do OPC's even exist? What are they for? I get that theres a slightly different load of hurdles to get over and hoops to jump through but whats the point? Surely I'm supposed to operate in accordance with the SOPs on the LPC too? Why don't I just do an LPC every 6 months?
The biggest advantage of having exactly the same SOPs as the manufacturer is that you stroll out of the sim after your type rating with an LPC/OPC and don't have to go through all the junk of having some poor sim instructor go through all the bull**** of pretending to learn your specific way of doing things. And its very tough for the authorities to argue with. If you do everything the way the manufacturer says, the authorities are happy, the insurance companies are happy, training and testing is easy, you can use freelance crew easily, how nice is that!

[piratepete]

CONTEXT

Glen,
The manufacturer makes then TESTS the machine.However the experience of using the machine on a daily basis in real time in the real world is conducted by the OPERATORS.Operators dont have time to down tools and have a nice, drawn out discussion on many issues and have to REACT to issues in real time.Of course later this can happen, but , for example, can you give me a name of a BOEING/AIRBUS test pilot with say 12-15000 hours of actual in-service experience on a specific type? These kind of people only exist within the operators.They typically start off using the makers guidance then refine refine refine this guidance based upon real world experience.Peter.

[GlenQuagmire]

I know how it works an its completely arse about face! All manufacturers issue manuals which carefully prescribe a sensible set of SOP's for end users to adopt but for reasons known only to themselves they feel that they know better and will tweak and fiddle to make their own set of rules unique to their airline. Which is totally bizarre. What they should do is feed back the way things work and get the manufacturer to collate the input from all their end users and the manufacturer should refine the procedures which the end users then stick to. That way every end user will trend towards best practice and the manufacturer will refine their products towards what the end user wants.
Which SOP that is different from the manufacturers SOP is the one in your operation that makes your operation just that little bit safer? If it exists, why are you not sharing it with everyone else that operates your type? Through the manufacturer like it should be! (I'm using "you" generically, not specifically but I am interested in which particular SOPs are so important that they need to be different to what the manufacturer reccomends)

I can't give you the name of any Boeing or Airbus test pilots because I don't know any but I met an ex Bombardier test pilot who had done a lot of the development and test flying on the Global express (the type I fly) and he had 10 years of airline experience following his air force flying and interspersed his test flying with Bombardier with line flying a corporate jet.

In the corporate world, SOPs tend to develop in a company because of cock ups and patches get put in place to avoid them happening again. Usually this is because there was a departure from the manufacturers SOPs in the first place. Or a new chief pilot wants to make his or her mark on a company so says "do it like I do it because its the best way".

Whats the justification for SOPs being different in different companies? Surely that means they're not standard doesn't it?

[Winnerhofer]

Le Bordel

Now why do airlines do that? Why? Why deviate from the manufacturer's guidelines? Too clever by half? Gilding the lily? Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse and ESPECIALLY airlines who refuse ENGLISH as the norm!! Oui, l'exception culturel...courtesy of la Loi Toubon.
Diammetrically-opposed FCOMs between AF and IT pre-merger...yes, they didn't quite agree on how to fly the A320...
Now, just look at AF and LX FCOMs on UAS...vive la différence...
Mais nom de bleu, je préfère les suisses même s'ils se lèvent tôt mais se réveillent tard! (for God's sake, I prefer the Swiss even if the rise early but get up late!).
Ah, LX bans EXPED for example by removing P/B and placing a mini-placard maybe because they're anally-retentative.
Somehow, it's more on Airbus that FCOMs deviate compared with Boeing.

[Rick777]

I flew for a major U.S. Airline and after retiring worked for a major aircraft manufacturer. The manufacturer's checklists and procedures were based on safely operating the airplane. The airline checklists and procedures were based on safely and efficiently using the plane in line operations. Non-normals were the same, but normals were very different. Checklists were designed more to get the plane going and were much more efficient for line ops where things tend to change a lot at the last minute.

[FlyingStone]

I don't know of a single situation where a company SOP that differs from the manufacturer is justified. Has anyone got an example? And if it exists, why isnt it fed back to the manufacturer so that they can evaluate it and change it.
While I'm on a rant, why do OPC's even exist? What are they for? I get that theres a slightly different load of hurdles to get over and hoops to jump through but whats the point? Surely I'm supposed to operate in accordance with the SOPs on the LPC too? Why don't I just do an LPC every 6 months?

1. Sometimes you need an SOP change now, not in 2 years after manufacturer has done "extensive" risk/benefit analysis and in the end it turns out they don't think your change is neccessary, even though you have problems on daily basis.

2. Manufacturer SOPs take into account somewhat standard operational environment. Some airlines operate in quite "sterile" environment, while others in very hostile one - and the SOP should and usually does reflect that. If you ever fly in a war zone during night, I'm sure you wouldn't want to have your landing lights on below FL100, right? Or if you operate a 737 in a desert, I'm sure the last thing you want is a master caution just before V1 due to window overheat - because you turned on Window Heat 10 minute before departure as per manufacturer SOP, even though is 50°C outside.

3. Under EASA, unless specially approved for reduced training, you need to do two OPCs per year (OPC has validity of 6 months), one of which is normally combined with LPC.

[DeafOldFart]

small example

Schleicher Ka 13 gliders have original manufacturer figures for cockpit loading, calculated to allow the wing to fly efficiently as a sailplane.
Structural calculations show that a higher AUW is safe, but it becomes a toboggan, descending at higher airspeed and sink rate...
So there is a difference between BGA dispensation loadings, and design loads....
If/when the elevator or linkage fails, who carries the can....the manufacturer has clearly stated the design loads.
I took a Ka13 to a reputable workshop, and assisted in the C of A work.
Subsequently it was sold as salvage, due to rot in the wing spar near the airbrake box.
The accident didn't happen that time....
Demonstrated loadings may exceed calculated loads, and vice versa....

[Linktrained]

My employers had seceral ETP students flying with us as " U/T F/Os" to see what Ordinary flying was like, with average crews, ie. not all of us perfect ! ( I just hope that I was not used as " the bad example.")

Some years later I was appointed the " Fuel Economist" for the FOUR fleets who naturally used four different ways of showing their crews the cost of fuel , then rapidly increasing. ( Old pennies per gallon, percentage of home base cost and two others better now forgotten.) Each fleet knew that they had the only proper way.

No one fleet could be favoured. A NEW way was imposed ( by the Fuel Economist ) listing fuel as £20/ tonne for example. To preserve commercial secrecy a small fudge factor was applied so that anyone else would not know. Purists might haggle that S.G. should be applied too !
LT

[Centaurus]

My former company bought a couple of Boeing 737-200's in the early 1970's. Crews were sent to Boeing for type rating training. A Boeing test pilot then returned with the first crew to aid their introduction into service. He wrote the first FCTM as it turned out.

The chief pilot of the day decided to add a few more items into the original Boeing produced checklist. He thought this was a good idea from other types he had flown. These included several items he felt needed to be tested for serviceability. One example was turning off the anti-skid selector to ensure the caution light came on. The globes had already been checked via the three-way Lights Test switch.

After a few trips the Boeing test pilot told the chief pilot that by adding more items in the pre-start set up he had invalidated the principle of a two pilot cockpit. Any more than a researched number of items and that included switch selections and eye movements, then a flight engineer was needed like the 727. That is why the 737 had more automated items (auto-pressurisation for example) than the 727 in its design to minimise pilot operated switch selections. In addition, Boeing had designed a certain scan flow and that had been invalidated by the extra items the CP had decided would be a good thing.

It is a pity the days of the silent cockpit have gone and replaced with the perception of the more talking the safer it is. Boeing used the term "verify" which means what it says. Now "verify" is used to verbalise rather than look or observe without talking, in some aircraft types (not necessarily Boeing). The result is often a significant increase in superfluous chatter on the flight deck; much of it stating the obvious. Much of it also, for arse covering via the CVR

[farbre]

Sometimes differences are necessary. Sometimes they are ill advised. But in any case they exist.
My question was, how does your company document them technically speaking? Footnotes at the bottom of the relevant FCOM page? As separate document? Something else?

[GlenQuagmire]

My company has an OM and the part B dictates the companies SOP's.
No changes are made to the FCOM (which is annoying because you can be carrying two documented ways of doing things). Also, I've worked for a variety of business jet operators and they are happy to trim and prune SOPs for normal ops but always leave abnormal and emergency situations as the manufacturer suggests.

[Linktrained]

As a P.S., TWO of the ETP students thanked ME !

Sometimes one can take some elements of what had been found on earlier aircraft.

Our Chief Pilot ( a Long-haul man) wondered why his two short haul fleets seemed always to fly the same way , apparentlly regardless of todays conditions of wsight and weather...
" Why don't they fly TUDAY'S Aircraft ?"

An earler observation that the Hermes 4a normally climbed for 32 or 33 minutes to initial cruising level from most near sea level airfields might be helpful. ( NO performance information was available to me. Rumour had it that any such information was safely locked in the London office (opposite Harrods)

Graphs showing Optimum Altitude for weight and temperature were prepared and issued for each or the two short haul fleets with some a little lower ( a shorter climb time) for the shortest routes.

Many of the initial crews for the short haul fleet had flown (as I had ) on the cross Channel car ferry, where cruising levels were fixed,,, at !000ft. from Lydd tu Le Touquet and then 1500ft back. to Lydd. To Ostend, Calais and Dinard we used different heights,

( The A/P could not be used below 1500 ft And up to 12 round trips in a day meant that we got a fair amount of practice.... Ideal for Newbies in either seat.. PF was normally in the Left seat. ... If he were incapacited, seat changing ii flight would have been difficult. Think of a llarge body in a cramped space...)



Much later I was able to ask the Makers perfomance people at their base " How do you define Long Range Cruise on these, your aircraft.?" They said " When your climb has decreased to 100 ft/min."

.. But we carried no drop out oxygen, so that was that !
LT

.

[Linktrained]

CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE

We did up to TWELVE SECTORS per day ( NOT "round trips")

Sorry... Human errror.
LT