I’m on the same page as Lyman.
What’s dangerous about this territory? Safety does not care about culture or political correctness. Anything not working to enhance safety should be named, be it even social culture. If you can’t cope with that, leave this profession, because you start being a liability to safety.
We should be allowed to point out weaknesses in company culture or manufacturor design without having the usual suspects to start trash up the discussion with their lobbying bs or the other protagonists bringing up political correctness to shut it up.
Genuine safety has little to no space for such oversensibilities.
On another note, I am with piltdown man concerning the SOP/briefings overkill of today. SOPs are necessary, but not for every obvious little move in the cockpit, please.
And the modern briefings ……. They end up like life of an old couple: She’s constantly babbling the same stuff she has for the last thirty years, and he’s constantly uttering “yes dear” without listening the last thirty years.
Our constant “checked, checked, checked” is no better.
Stick to the differencies, to the unusual threats and you will have my full attention.
Stacking up the AOMs with more and more SOPs just to cover any CP or company lawyers is another nuisance. It rarely enhances safety, on the contrary, it increases workload in the cockpit and is counterproductive.
You can call a runway three times and have it confirmed by the PNF another three times, if its paired with todays a$$ covering, "standard call and don't you dare get one word wrong in the phrase" mentality there will be just as many runway incursions if your mind is stuck in the AOM instead being outside in real life.
That seems to get lost.
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 26th Dec 2012 at 05:21.