RAT 5
The notion of "SOPs" has recently, (last decade or so), been taking its cue or borrowing its meaning from SMS & the audit process, which, in my view, are substantially different (and at odds with) the original notion behind SOPs.
By this I mean, SOPs, a) used to be a great guide especially doing memorized abnormal/emergency drills and, b) a huge safety improvement over keeping notes on how each captain one flew with liked things done, which I recall doing in the early days.
That changed after a fatal accident resulted from two different ways of arming the spoilers which killed 109 passengers & crew. That's when the notion of SOPs (and their enforcement) was adopted at that air carrier.
Today SMS and the audit process have emphasized documentation and equivalence in terms of performance. An audit process checks what is written and audits what is done, and if it is not done precisely the way it is written there is a "finding", which must be responded to within a certain time period.
In aviation, such narrowness is a problem.
As with all good ideas that are overtaken by perhaps well-intentioned, over-enthusiastic adherents or those who are satisfying their superiors, the audit process clamps down the SOP process such that a perceived and real need to deviate from SOPs say, in an emergency, is assessed as a "failure" rather than an understandable need to act.
This is particularly a problem today with the profession and standards so dumbed down as to actually need such a rudimentary reaction. But the audit process discourages & even punishes thinking and acting according to one's experience.
I would be the first to state that audits are a necessary process within an SMS environment and that strict adherence to SOPs IS a necessary requirement when flying transport aircraft.
But a slavish adherence to SOPs in the face of circumstances which demand an alteration of SOPs actually increases risk of an accident.
Of course, such an approach requires experience, in-depth knowledge and that old-fashioned concept known as "airmanship". There is less of that today, so strict adherence, with little expectation of thought, is the requirement and that's what audits focus on.
One cannot account or quantify thought or even creative imagination in such a system, yet aviation is as much if not more an art than science.
Another thing - the notion that the aircraft commander IS the legal commander responsible for the safety of the flight, and in the end is the sole decision-maker on board the aircraft is gradually being made subservient to the audit process where such authority is "modified". Certainly the commander must answer for each and every action, but the assessment of such action must be based upon a broader set of "rules" than mere standard documentation.
These are subtle human factors issues as much as they are structural issues within a changing aviation system which is finding itself needing to be less accommodating to the notion that SOPs are more of a guide than a strict rule, simply because many pilots today don't know the difference. Such rapidly-growing aviation systems as we are seeing are a known factor in increased risk simply because training systems can only convey the basics while only time-in can provide the necessary experience to be an airline pilot.