FlightDetent,
Unfortunately in modern times we have to consider semantics. ‘Rules are rules’, often associated with legalities, then this view misapplied to all ‘procedures’ without thought and understanding.
Operations must start from an understanding of the situation, check, adjust understanding not procedures; Pprune questions often assume or fix the situation and context; they assume understanding.
A view from another forum:-
“Emergency and Abnormal drills (red / amber issues - actions must do), manufacturer (OEM) originated; ask before changing.
Standard Procedures - operational techniques, ideals, OEM or operator originated; often require adaption to the situation encountered.
The resultant ‘gaps’ between written procedures and adaptive outcome reflect normal operations. There will always be gaps in successful operations; identified after an event, hindsight. A gap is not error.
The outcome of everyday operations are uncertain, variable; crews will have to adapt to achieve a successful outcome - bridging the ‘GAP’.
If the gap is perceived as too large, then check the imagined operational objective, the activity goal, situations which crews are experiencing, the extent of adaption required.
Risk is the amount of uncertainty crews are expected to manage - the ‘GAP’.
Look at normal operations - WAD, write procedures (WAI) based on this; adjust the imagination not the crew.”
From the speakers notes in Airmanship:-
“Airmanship is the ability to act wisely in the conduct of flight operations under difficult conditions.”
“With growing experience Airmanship may grow and blossom into a comfortable protective cloak, resting light upon the shoulders, worn perhaps with pride, but never in vanity, but never giving the protection of 2 inch armour plate.”
With notes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dt57h800ee...draft.PDF?dl=0