But what do you think of SOPs
The answer to this question is similar to the question on CRM;- it all depends what you mean by SOPs. Some thoughts ….
Often the normal operating checklists or manufacturer’s abnormal and emergency drills are incorrectly defined as SOPs. However, excluding these, which are predominantly but not exclusively associated with systems, the focus of SOPs has to be on the practical ‘how to’ and procedural aspects of flying and managing (operating) the aircraft.
SOPs should provide a common basis all aircraft operations; they are normally associated with specific situations or circumstances, which in extreme circumstances might overlap with the abnormal or emergency drills.
SOPs provide the standard for aircraft operations and should aid the crew’s thinking in a given situation (provide options for action if there is a choice), but they must not be so restricting such that deviation from the standard in similar but not identical situations is prevented.
Thus a critical issue in using SOPs is the assessment of the situation. Normally with correct situation assessment the applicable SOP is obvious, but in error, crews might make an incorrect selection or deliberately ignore an applicable SOP. Alternatively if the crew incorrectly asses the situation it may appear that there are no SOPs or they select an inappropriate one based on the false situation assessment. Therefore many problems with the use of SOPs originate from the combination of situation assessment and human behaviour.
Generally we think of SOPs as written guidance, but there is also a need to have a wide range of unwritten or personal SOPs to contribute to safety, this is (in part) experience. The processes of situation assessment and judgement for these ‘SOPs’ need to be within every pilot’s airmanship; good airmanship should improve the problems of SOP selection and implementation.
SOPs are valuable tools for monitoring, they (should) define the boundaries of safe flight thus they can be used to determine a point of intervention, either by the PF or by the PNF (pilot monitoring), e.g. stabilized approach – the PM knows at what speed deviation a call has to be made, the PF should then know why the call has been made, good crew co-ordination, harmonization, etc.
SOPs must be SMART:-
Specific,
Measurable,
Achievable,
Relevant, and
Timely
A procedure has to:-
Have a clear and acceptable aim,
Have a scope which matches its purpose,
Be precise, leaving no room for doubt about its application in any possible case (no loopholes),
Be certain to achieve the purpose, without undesirable side effects.
SOPs should evolve; they must be continuously reviewed, checked and tested. A good method of achieving this is to give line pilots ‘operational’ ownership of SOPs, encourage reports on the applicability and use of SOPs in a range of situations. This is essential safety reporting and feedback to identify situations, threats, or errors, where either an existing SOP did not work or where one is required.
But what do you think of SOPs …