Today we got clearance from SIN GND to push from C25 facing north to release abeam C23. The ground crew tells me: "The standard procedure here is to push abeam C22."
I answered that this instruction is from ATC and I want him to push abeam C23.
The guy ignored me and pushed abeam C22...
Now because the ground crews are scared of a similar incident, another one is due to happen because they do their standard stuff even when being advised to do it in a different way...
It has been a debate amongst crews on many occasions. I'm not sure why, because it's not our area of responsibility; but...there are some airports where the SOP is, pilots ask for push back clearance. It is granted. The pilots tell the push back crew they are cleared. The push back crew then receive the push back instruction direct from ATC. No confusion or possible blame laid on the pilots. We all know that to give an instruction to one person, not in the language of either party, ask them to pass it on to another party whose language is also different is a classic start of a Swiss cheese. The process creates the holes. Why not reduce them. TEM starts on the ground. I wonder if all that holy grail stuff we are force fed, e.g. CRM, checklists, TEM etc. is also in the SOP's of others in the never lengthening chain necessary to get an a/c airborne safely and return to terra firma in similar condition. The links are numerous from rostering, baggage handlers, dispatchers, ATC, engineers, ramp handlers. The possibility of someone opening up the first slice of leaky cheese is huge.
Are only flight crew the primary target of this philosophy? Is it because the majority of accidents are logged as pilot error? What about the more numerous incidents? Are the also pilot error or an error from another link in the chain. It would not surprise me to find out many other links could do with a stout dose of TEM & CRM.