Originally Posted by
vilas
Take the present case a wrong assumption was made that no FCOM demands something till I posted FCOM to show indeed it does.
Vilas, honestly, you are taking this way too far to prove a point. First, this topic is not Airbus, that's clear. The assumption was corrected, which does not "delete" some companies from existence that are apparently not requiring the procedure. It is what it is. Same happens on Boeing aircraft. That's what you and I both say, there is no difference.
The whole topic here is about the limits of SOPs. I don't know your background, I do work in a training environment, and it is vital to limit the value of SOPs black on white. Instructors or check people don't need to force "idea's" as SOP. Because while the SOP do form a very solid good line of defence against "possible weaknesses" or good capabilities deteriorated by fatigue or even ego, they are not the end line in what is called threat management. Very often a company that allows SOPs to "explode" with the idea that it is the one and only form of defence against anything bad that could happen, it also has a side-effect on the "capable" that they are overloaded with a requirement to follow a set of rules, which takes away the liberty to actually think and act in the real world. Exploding SOPs usually deteriorate situational awareness. Because the mind is occupied with the SOP, not with the reality. Just something I noticed from hours on a jumpseat...
You can give tricks, reminders, helpfull notes, but if the guy uses it is his freedom. And a lot of that is related to the different characters found on the flightdeck. We all have our own way of working, one is therefore not better than the other, but our own methodology allows us to work more efficient. We are all different. Sounds more "heavy" than it actually is... sorry for that
In short: in training the SOPs are black/white. Easy. But unfortunately I have to tell someone more often than I would like that what they just did, is not an SOP. But they learned it somewhere. Which is why I referred to training deficiencies. Was it mentioned to help them? Or was it said as an invented SOP because the person correcting him had that idea?
Anyway... I'll leave it at that.