I say again....
ACMS:
I think you made my point. They are spread out in manuals and on the computer and do not constitute SOPs. They are "Best practices", techniques and methods. They need to be written in FCOM 3 in a rational and orderly way. As they are at many airlines today. You have been here awhile maybe you should get a copy of a N. American airlines SOPs and you would see the difference.
There are plenty of top blokes who write a ERAS reports for a sucessful ride which end up failing the JFO or Command candidate when the reports go before the star chamber. I would be embarassed to say I was in CX check and training. The failure rate in this company is attrocious. That does not even take into account the number of people who get knocked back before they even get a course. When you put your name in the hat for command you have a 50% chance of making it through all the hoops. When you do your JFO upgrade you have a 75% chance of being held back at least once. Whether you make it or not is largely due to who you are checked by. Some of these failures occur as a result of your overall file. A file made up of all of your checks and sims. So each negative mark no matter how unjust adds up ( or can). So the SOPS are a factor because they are not pedantic enough, and yet the checking is extremely pedantic. I can't believe that the company is happy paying for all these extra courses.
So ACMS do you think that the failure rate is acceptable ? Do you think that this problem will go away as we expand and hire more pilots from around the world ? Can we be a little more open minded about analysing the problems than "well it is better than when I was on the L-1011" or "the info is there you just have to llok for it!"?
This is a good job once you accept that command is not guaranteed and your career depends on luck of the draw. It could be a great job.
I hope we hire lots of N. Americans. They usually speak their minds and have valuable experience.