When are Company SOP's Dangerous?

[saddest aviator]

Fellow professionals,
Are we in danger of loosing the plot. I have seen SOP’s develop over the years with the express aim of increasing flight safety. What a laudable aim. After all number one rule in all aviation activities DO NOT HIT GROUND .........that is unintentionally!
However in this increasingly litigious society have some companies lost the plot?
While the aircraft manufacturers are spending considerable sums on human factor research resulting in simplification of procedures , I refer to the latest B737NG checklist. Some operators however have steadily gone the other way. SOP’s for virtually every thing making the silent cockpit quickly a thing of the past. SOP’s so complicated that the only thing that curiously is’nt included is the best and most important
FLY THE BLOODY AEROPLANE Tell me I’m wrong but when does blind adherence to sops in itself ( if those sops are complicated ) become a serious flight safety hazard.
I look forward to your feedback with great interest.
Many thanks
Saddest

[rmac]

Blind obedience to anything is dangerous !

[arem]

Obedience by fools, guidance for wise men !!

[hetfield]

Fellow professionals,
Are we in danger of loosing the plot. I have seen SOP’s develop over the years with the express aim of increasing flight safety. What a laudable aim. After all number one rule in all aviation activities DO NOT HIT GROUND .........that is unintentionally!
However in this increasingly litigious society have some companies lost the plot?
While the aircraft manufacturers are spending considerable sums on human factor research resulting in simplification of procedures , I refer to the latest B737NG checklist. Some operators however have steadily gone the other way. SOP’s for virtually every thing making the silent cockpit quickly a thing of the past. SOP’s so complicated that the only thing that curiously is’nt included is the best and most important
FLY THE BLOODY AEROPLANE Tell me I’m wrong but when does blind adherence to sops in itself ( if those sops are complicated ) become a serious flight safety hazard.
I look forward to your feedback with great interest.
Many thanks
Saddest

Can you give us examples?

[Drop The Dunlops]

A few years ago when I was a First Officer, I was completing a visual approach to a North of England airfield.

There was other traffic in the circuit ahead of us and we were instructed to join a 4 mile final (1300 QNH). We were a little high so I disconnected the A/P, and asked for gear down whilst still at Flap 1. I also asked for the landing checklist to flaps, in order to get the checklist out the way, therefore enabling the two of us to have 'heads up', during the manually flown visual positioning to land i.e. good airmanship.

The reply from the Captain was that the landing checks only come with Flap 15, therefore we should not break SOP and we should delay doing them until this point.

The company had recently had a big drive to 'hit home' how important it was not to deviate from SOP's. In principle I have no problem with this, but the way that some people have interpreted this is worrying. Common Sense and Airmanship seem to have been sacrificed for fear of a sentence written in a manual.

An SOP can still fly you into the side of a mountain if you don't apply common sense. Sop's cannot be written for every conceivable situation, and it seems that the rigidity and lack of flexibilty within some operators is restricting a pilot's ability to 'think outside of the box'.

In my six years of flying I am lucky enough to have only had two major situations aboard my aircraft. Both were multiple failures that could not be covered satisfactorily by the QRH or the company SOP's. 'Seat of the pants' flying and unconventional thinking were required. Unfortunately I fear that in future we may have lost the ability to move outside the envelope to find a course of action that will get one out a hole.

Rant over...

[soddim]

Coming from a military background where SOPs were probably invented, they are nothing more than their title suggests - Standard Operating Procedures. Flexibility is essential and non-standard procedures are often used for this reason - that is why we use humans in the cockpit for goodness sake. As long as we all understand and know the standard way of operating we can choose to deviate provided that we inform each other along the way as necessary to stay safe.

The obedience of fools always causes trouble.

[Ignition Override]

Your forerunners did a spectacular job flying almost solo in twin- and four engine RAF transports/bombers from 1940-45. Not to forget the Canadians etc.:)

The SOPs then, even if worshiped at the 'altar of paper and ink', could not have prevented pilots from overriding it when needed. Those were normal procedures until over land when flak etc started a fire and engine failures.
Was the flight ops manual adhered to at the expense of survival? Abnormal situations and ATC handling happen quite often in peacetime.

Our 'Approach Check' is normally begun when 'slats/flaps 5' are extended. But if the approach is already briefed, why wait to read the details to each other when Approach Control is keeping us high on downwind for what might be a fairly short final, with various headings and we still need to identify the flying pilot's ILS freq. and comply with what might end up as a lousy, unknown intercept altitude etc? Tail de-icing must also be manually selected. The busiest time during the approach, slowing, turning and changing altitudes, is the worst time to read each other a few numbers-IF the DA is set, we have the correct ILS freq. and course window for the 'handling pilot'. With early vectors, the 'handling pilot' does not need to be any longer on the previous VOR freq, or have his course on the last enroute radial. The DA bug (decision alt.) should have been set during the descent or sooner, unless Approach asks us to use a different runway (remember-if you don't like the new option, just say "unable").The checklist can catch these at the best time.

The guys designing procedural changes at their desks at Fleet Standards etc DO NOT always KNOW what is the best time for us. A situation in a 122-seat narrowbody jet on a 30 minute leg (the 5th of the day) can change much faster than in a 350-seat widebody. Some of the 'procedure boys' mostly flew widebodies and never in a narrowbody with only two pilots. WE level off...WE twist the autopilot turn knob. In many of our planes, no computers are onboard, except for air data, EGPWS/TCAS etc. Ernest Gann has a chapter subtitle somewhere in "Fate Is The Hunter": "Books Will Not Cushion a Meeting of Metal And Rock" :ouch: , or words to that effect.

[Airbus_a321]

I agree, that too much SOP's are a safety hazard.
Nowadays aircrafts are made to make life for pilots easier. Some expanded SOP's of a lot of companies are just doing the opposite. They are able to distract from the basic: FLY THE AIRCRAFT FIRST.
Now it's FOLLOW THE SOP FIRST. This leads to some big surprises during daily operation. Not any situation can be brought into a "SOP-regulation".
In a new situation this may force some pilots at first to look for the appropriate SOP instead of looking how to react and to act to bring the a/c back into the right way.
I have the impression that in some companies, the outgrowth of the SOP's have just the function to build a memorial for the appropriate responsible department and the members of this workgroup

[James T. Kirk]

I remember a case in the sim. Our instructor’s mantra was “that’s not a recall item, use the check list”. I waited until the inevitable happened and the autopilot tripped off (it happened quite a bit in that sim) and asked the non-handling pilot for the “Autopilot disconnect checklist”. Yes folks, it’s not a recall item.
Common sense should be an SOP. Sadly it should also be more common.
Kirk out………….

[unablereqnavperf]

SOP's are a good thing but should never be used as a substitute for brains!

[mach 84]

as bigger the company is you are flying for, as bigger is the need for SOP's!
they should be a guideline how to operate and not the law. but in some instances you meet your fellow pilot to do the next sector with you for the first time and you need some sort of common language, we have 150 expats from 36 nations, so you think you can do witout SOP's? good luck!!

[haughtney1]

The reply from the Captain was that the landing checks only come with Flap 15, therefore we should not break SOP and we should delay doing them until this point.

Covered where I work with the comment "non standard" blah blah blah:ok:

[olster]

Interesting topic and the answer inevitably is not straightforward.On one hand you have to have a set of sops to cover normal and abnormal ops;the experienced pilot will say where is the room for common sense and airmanship and this has validity and relevance.However...you cannot have it all ways;in the 'brave new world' that we live in the entry level of experience has been reduced to 170 hours flight time with the prospect of (God forbid!) further reduction for the new ill- conceived MPL (my opinion) and attendant further reduction of flying experience for the future occupants of the rhs of the 737/A320 types that these tyros are supposed to fill.No disrespect intended to the future generation of pilots who are often exceedingly competent and motivated but they will be there as a result of economics,politics and regulatory incompetence(off the fence now!) and the one qualification they will not have is experience.With experience you can make the sensible 'judgement call' to modify an sop;without it you can't.The Ryanair/easy etc style ops need rigid adherance to sops,imho this is the only way the new generation of inexperienced pilots can be safely accomodated. I am worldly enough to know that north American and Antipodean ops are completely different with vastly enhanced experience levels required to fly their entry level airline jets and probably a different philosophy regarding rigid adherance to sops.Essentially you can only use common sense and airmanship if you have the experience to fall back on in the first place.

[jonseagull]

Our instructor’s mantra was “that’s not a recall item, use the check list”.
I'm sorry, but there's nothing wrong with that piece of advice. If you want to treat any checklist as a recall item when it isn't, get your story straight for the inevitable occasion you get it wrong !
And don't play games with your trainer-he will always win !!

[James T. Kirk]

So you let the aircraft roll inverted while reading the QRH? There exceptions to every rule and these should be acknowledged, even by the mighty trainer. To acknowledge these facts displays a knowledge of the real world as well as SOPs. Airline rules are important of course but the laws of physics still carry the death penalty.

[SR71]

And don't play games with your trainer-he will always win !!

Right up to the point where he crashed it.

Boy did I chuckle to myself.

Since when was it about winning?

;)

[James T. Kirk]

Here here SR71! More than a couple of nights stop in the real world I'd say.

[warmkiter]

hi guys

just a little question to everybody. why dont you like the SOP´s.? sounds like everybody who is in here wants to invent flying again by them self. most of the SOP´s and limits have been paid with a costly price, some even whith the ultimate...

sorry guys, there is nothing new to invent. flying heavy type is mostly boring. if you do it according the book its propably even a bit more boring. get used to it. or get a new girlfriend of by a new motorbike or start surfing....

our company got a new SOP that you have to be established on final in 1000´ and the previous rule was that in VMC you could be established in 500´. the youtcry was huge. some felt that they have lost a part of their human rights.

such a rubbish. i wish i were established every time before 1000´ and if we were not, something went wrong. it was still ok, but not as safe...

ok... when the book does not cover every failure, you have to get innovative, but lets be honest. when was the last time that happened to you?

stick to rules and SOP´s thats what we get paid for, i dont like to wear that silly uniformhat either, but i get paid for that too...

blue skies

L

[piloto737NG]

dear collegues, Sop,s , checks list, flows, all have been invented for increase safety, no matter who is flying the aircraft, green, yellow or red.
the real thing is to follow procedures, not to follow bad:{ habits.

[jonseagull]

James T

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

[jonseagull]

Since when was it about winning?
You're quite right SR-71, Good training has nothing to do with winning or losing, that was a poor choice of words.
and asked the non-handling pilot for the “Autopilot disconnect checklist”
But smart comments have little benefit in the sim when we are all working towards the same goal. Just bad CRM.(Now there's another topic!!)
The only QRH's I am familiar with are Boeing's and you can't go far wrong following the Recall/QRH items as laid down by them. Granted, some extreme scenarios (the sort only a cunning Sim instructor can dream of) will require some thinking "out of the box" and require airmanship (or CRM if you will). But as a rule, if it isn't a recall drill, then don't do it from memory, do it from the checklist because under stress even the simplest drill can go wrong.
Going back to the original topic, SOP's, poor SOP's can be extremely dangerous. The amount of writing in the manuals does tend to increase proportionally with the size of company. The better ones are sometimes found in small companies where everyone knows everyone else and is certain of the high standards within the workforce. As the pilot complement increases the range of abilities increases and SOP's grow. The less is written down, the more flexibility it gives crews to use their judgement but it doesn't work in a large company and sadly everyone is looking to cover their backs for the odd occasion when it goes wrong.
At the end of the day, if you find that you are working around an SOP rather than working to it, it often means the SOP isn't right and needs to be changed. A responsible training department is meant to protect line pilots from that sort of occasion.

[Squealing Pig]

Think we are starting to get a little away from the orignal topic 'Are SOPs becoming over complicated as an ass covering excercise by management ?' and not 'Should I deviate from SOPs ?' as this thread seem to be going towards.

[Wingu]

It must be remembered that SOPs are factored to the lowest common aircrew denominator.

SOPs are essential but also have limitations & can be dangerous to the unwary.
SOPs cannot cater to every situation.

Just maybe, the outcome of the tragic Swissair Halifax accident would have been avoided had the crew concentrated on basic airmanship rather than blindly following the SOPs.

[4Greens]

As a starting point SOPs/Checklists set down by the manufacturer should be adhered to; this if nothing else gives legal protection. The problem starts when these are added to or changed by various fleet managers without reference to the manufacturer or other operators. Boeing instructor pilots are continually amazed how different airlines can fly standard Boeing products in completely different ways.

On a lighter note, I have a theory that changes are only made to standard procedures as the result of a stuff up by a management pilot!

[jondc9]

MACH 84 is quite right

SOP's are a requirement for a common place to start the flying process. How else can a brand new f/o and a seasoned captain monitor each other's performance on the first flight together, down to mins?

IF your company SOP's are rotten, then report the problem. It is very nice to also include a solution.

My company has a very interesting callout SOP during an ILS approach

1000' (above the airport)

500' (above the airport)

100' (above minimums)

"minimums"


nice huh?


except at a couple of airports where the minimums are 1100' above the airport!

100 above
minimums


1000'

500'



so, I said, how about referencying all calls ABOVE PUBLISHED MINIMUMS?

management couldn't understand


you all be careful out there!

jon

[James T. Kirk]

J. Seagull, you refer to “smart comments” in relation to the Autopilot disconnect checklist. I am to infer from this that you are unfamiliar with the Autopilot disconnect checklist? You will find it in the autoflight section of the 737 QRH. It is an example of a case where departure from the SOP of only recall items to be done by recall is indicated by common sense. In fact to do as the SOPs dictate in the case I described would be illogical to the point of stupidity. I find it amusing that my exact adherence to the instructor’s instructions are described as a smart comment even though it did demonstrate the above point.

Errors or at least grey areas in the Boeing manuals are mercifully rare but when airline operations management start inventing things then errors, ambiguities and conflictions can really start having an effect. The answer of course is to know the books inside out rather than to ignore them. When these anomalies are found then they must be corrected, good luck by-the-way with getting the experts to even consider a change. You must be aware that there may be a time when you will be required to do the right thing and you have been trained to do just the wrong thing. I heard an instructor telling a group of pilots once that the correct recovery from a jet upset involved rolling completely inverted and pulling through. We’re only human, even the trainers. We all make mistakes. But the loss of life that would have resulted from a pilot following that instructor’s advice would have been appalling.

Mr. Seagull, keep on aviating, keep on navigating and remember that part of communication is listening.

[Nick NOTOC]

The reason for SOP's are to provide guidelines toward safe and efficient operations in such a way that all pilots know what is happening etc..
Obviously therte is no SOP that should you stop from doing your basic duty, namely flying!
too often the management create SOP's that are aimed efficiency and that kind of forget the fact that the pilot has some knowledge, skill, experience and intelligence which would allow him/her to make a safe and efficent operation. eg. release of cabin crew as soon as flaps are set to zero (I think we should obviously consider Wx as well, to say the least)

In my opinion the SOP's should be made (suggested) by all operating crew. SOP's the the ultimate way of sharing experience and thus preventing re-occurrence of certain F'up's. Finaly we should not mistate those little rules that we as individuals use to stay in the loop, those are not SOP's and should not be tought as such (too ofter instructors seem to do so)

Lets suggest to our management to open up the doors for positive discussion regarding the SOP's but stick with them until they are changed.

Nick

[stator vane]

for a positive discussion???

hah. i haven't heard such a contradiction of terms and ideas in a long time!

i also love it when the other pilot is so adamant about the callouts, that he/she walks all over an ATC transmission to OUR aircraft!!! if they would just pause and, then make the call out, it would be a lot safer. waiting a few seconds before the passing 10,000 or BKY active, a thousand to go, or even flaps 1....

it all stems from the "religious" instructions from the training captains and checkairmen.

and it is so funny to hear that those same checkers and trainers are pretty much "normal" when they are not checking or training.

but they don't have the integrity to "see through" those margins when giving checkrides to other captains.

[brain fade]

Some folk are so dead set on getting every call out spot-on and every tiny bit of the day TOTALLY standard, that they have little spare capacity for absorbing what's going on around them.

Also there are some poor dolts who'd be bloody lost without the company teling them when to put the wheels down or pop some flap.

They are STANDARD op's. Should be varied to take account of NON-STANDARD conditions.

Also 'SOP's' IMHO should not be used to 'Dumb down' the operation to the point where fuel and time and money are wasted, simply so the weakest pilot in the company call still pass muster!:mad:

[saddest aviator]

Some interesting discussion points have been raised for which I thank you all
SOP's are obviously necessary in our increasing complicated environment,but where should the line be drawn? Covering the arse of management,who are so fearful of crew errors causing an accident that ever more complicated SOP's are drawn up turning us all into robots. The ever present danger of this policy is to reduce a crews situational awareness to such an extent that an incident becomes more not less likely.Deviating from manufacturers SOP's should be only done with great care and caution and constantly be reviewed as to the effecacy of such changes. If the principle of management is to enable blame to be distributed in the event of an incident that that is clearly the wrong avenue to go down. SOP's should be used for one reason only.
TO PREVENT AN INCIDENT HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Where they are used as an arse covering procedure by airlines then they are very likely to be barstadised to such an extent as to potentially cause the very incident that they are designed to avoid.
Keep the posts going fellow professionals, your differing opinions are very useful
SA

[Sir Thomas]

I like SOP's , let me make that clear, I think they are a fantastic thing that make my day a lot easier when flying with someone I don't know.
Unfortunately, a lot of our SOP's seem to have very little to do with a good safe, efficient common sense operation of the aeroplane and rather more with "management stress control".
I personally haven't "been there , done that" or a wealth of experience but I find myself alarmed at what seems to be ever increasing dependency on SOP ( and also on automatics for that matter, but dont get me started!) , by what is supposed to be a community of highly professional people trained to think and act on what they feel is the best course of action.
Yes, in 99% of events SOP's do fine , but I can't help but wonder why managers everywhere seem to think that the other 1% either won't happen because of SOP, or that we'll somehow -even though we're never allowed to do it-, still be able to deviate from rote obedience to the well oiled thinking machine with real handflying skills that was the pilot of yesteryear...
As ever I'll end by saying I am probably talking utter nonsense so just don't waste to many words on my post if U vigorously disagree;)
Cheerio

[UP and Down Operator]

I must say that i find this thread a bit worrying. I fly in a medium size company where everybody knows everybody, and often on so intimite details that you can't tell about it to your wife when home :E
We do have SOP's to cover for most cases, (flyingwise that is) but the company in general have the attitude that there must be room for the individuals. This have done so that half the workforce now develops their own SOP's, with the same excuse as used by a lot of people in this thread: "you can only cover 99% with SOP's. If you don't deviate in the last 1 % it will get dangerous".

What a load of crap guys!!!

I agree about the 1%, that when the **** hits the fan and the SOP's no longer cover, then fly the bloody thing and save the lives onboard, do what is required and get the thing on the ground asap. - I will never question the deviation from SOP when it is NEEDED in the interest of SAFETY. - That is even required by law.

I just find it amazing - as said by another before - that so many tries to intervent flying all over again. How many times are you guys in situations in daily flying where it is nessesarry to deviate due to safety of the a/c? And when you do, is that not actually covered by most SOP's anyway?When everybody starts to deviate because "we are trained to think and act as pilots, and we know much better than the procedures, - and, - sadly that someone sticks to SOP's just to cover their arses", then everybody is working away from each other and who knows whereabout you are and what you are doing??

I am not religious with the books at all, but i often fly into very difficult places in bad wx, and it is just a nightmare with a Captain that knows much better than the books. Experience is good, and mixed with good airmanship and crm I will claim that 999 out of 1000 flights can be done safely without having to be the new Chuck Yeager as so many seems to try and be. And if the company want to be configured in 1000' above, then what is the problem?? - I really dont see it. We also have a term with us stating " non-standard...bla bla bla " and that is still within the SOP's if it is used in the correct manner. So that gives room for different scenarios with busy approaches ect ect. They pay you to do a job and you accepted that when you signed the contract.

We are robots guys. If you want to FLY, then join the military or by yourself a biplane, because now when in the civil world with 200 paying pax in the back, then it is not about having fun enroute. It is about being a busdriver bringing self loading freight from A to B in the safest possible manner. THAT is what you get paid to do.
As I see it, then yes, break every SOP written in any books if that is what is required to come down in one piece. But if you became pilots to have freedom and manouvrespace as individuals, then you are 30 years too late into this business. May i suggest to convert to become building contractors then. They can intervent new methods as they go along , - not pilots :hmm:


And Now I will have a massive attack for this post from 200 new testpilots :}



"climb higher, we can almost make it"

[James T. Kirk]

No attack from me, you've just missed the point. The discussion is not about whether or not SOPs are a good idea, the original question asked (to paraphrase) are modern SOPs helping safety?

Let me ask a question of my own: If SOPs change (which they do frequently) then surely we can agree that the out-going SOPs were imperfect. If they were imperfect and those before the last iteration were imperfect then can we really believe that the current ones are perfect? What are we to think when the next update is published?

SOPs and the manuals that contain them are constantly evolving entities. 99% of the time they are the result of a genuine effort made by flight ops departments to increase safety and efficiency. In other rare instances they have a certain amount of personal ego behind them. Either way mistakes can occur. Are we all familiar with an accident which happened in the midlands in the 80s? A new aircraft type and new SOPs from a new management pilot keen to assert his authority. This new SOP stated that thanks to the new EFIS flight deck the pilots knew all they needed to know about the aircraft and the flight deck door should remain closed. Any communication through the flight deck door would only serve as a distraction to the pilots from the task of flying the aircraft. The CAA asked the company to change this SOP and described a scenario where everyone on board would know which engine had failed except the flight deck crew. The company refused to change the SOP. The CAA then directed them to change the SOP on pain of AOC revocation. During the period between this direction and the next manual update the exact scenario occurred. This SOP contributed to the death of 47 people. I think that is rather pertinent to the original question.

The last contributor seemed to think that those who don’t follow the SOPs consider themselves as “the new Chuck Yeager”. I do know the type to whom he refers but writing off all those who recognise a ropey SOP as Yeager impersonators does rather miss the point. He and others have said that operating transport category aircraft is boring. I’d like to say that that’s just how I like it but in fact I don’t find it boring at all. Standard operations are key to good crew coordination which is in turn key to safety. However when a flawed SOP creeps into the manual then blind adherence is wrong. If the autopilot trips off then fly the plane don’t grab the checklist. If you’re not sure which engine’s quit then ask those who can see it no matter what some manager once said.

Kirk out……….

[4Greens]

Wish the correspondents, who have posted after me, would read my post

[Few Cloudy]

Just to clear a point, there is a check list, then there is the standard operating procedure (SOP).

Companies are allowed to alter the manufacturers' checklist, provided all the points are safely covered. Mostly they stick to it.

The SOP is what happens outside the checklist and varies greatly from company to company. Now and then a (non checklist/QRH item) bad situation arises which makes the flight managers think hard and put a new item in the SOP. Unfortunately the reasoning for this gets forgotten over the years and other operators either don't have it or have dealt with it a different way.

After a time the SOP gets unwieldy and unpracticable.

I think this is a very good thread, having been in the position of writing SOPs myself and suggest that an operators' SOP meeting should take place to rake over these items and boil them down to a mininum. The manufacturer should also be involved in this process.

FC.

[UP and Down Operator]

The last contributor seemed to think that those who don’t follow the SOPs consider themselves as “the new Chuck Yeager”.
Kirk out……….

The correction regarding me turning the subject is taken, and I admit that i got carried away by reading some of the previous postings.
However, - just to clarify, then i did not state that those who do not follow SOP's are all Chuck Y'gers, I was more referring to some of the previous comments here from people whom sounds like SOP's are the worst thing around.

4Green: I did read your post but don't know what to say to it??

Have a nice weekend all :ok:

[nnc0]

Saddest,
Twice now you've mentioned following manufacturer's SOPs as being the safest policy. Having written or contributed on a number of AFMs, SOPs, FCTMs, QRHs and tinkering a bit with MELs for 3 major manufacturer's and for 1 large legacy carrier on at least 4 different types (Douglas Beoing, Airbus and Bombardier) I would be very careful with offering such advice.

The truth is that they're often full of errors and despite all the checks and balances some doozies do actually end up in the lap of crews. Believe me - absolutely nothing out there from the manufacturer's is gospel. It depends on the manufacturer but generally the AFM and the FCTM are probably the most reliable (error free) sources of operating info but neither, on their own, or in unison, can assemble a good SOP for practical real time scheduled commercial carrier operations. I think if you reviewed the opening comments in any AOM or FCOM SOP section you'll find that unlike in an AFM, the procedures given there are only recommended and further to that point I might add, in no way absolve the carrier from liabilty in the event of a accident.

That brings me back to your original question.

when does blind adherence to sops in itself ( if those sops are complicated ) become a serious flight safety hazard?

I think most would agree it's when airmanship is taken out of the equation.

Why some carriers go beyond that and micro manage them is beyond my own personal experience. Perhaps it's the variety of equipment, the mod status of each aircraft, operational neccessity, sometimes the inspectors/regulators are a little too by the book or anal, etc, - there's a myriad of reasons.

Perhaps also it's the nature of the crews and a function of their average training or experience related to the carrier itself . I could see where that might lead to a bit too much info in the SOPs and take some control out of the crews hands. In some cases it just might be well warranted though. The example that springs to mind is a retired colleague on a training contract on 744s for a bunch of folks who rode bicycles to work. Perhaps he was exaggerating bet their adventures (mis?) are well documented here on PPRUNE.

My last point is that SOPs are not static. They continuously evolve and strive to maintain a balance of too much info vs not enough for all of the crews. In a larger carrier the level of airmanship above a certain minimum ability varies quite a bit. Not everybody is ex USN or RAF or has 10 yrs on type in the left seat. Good for you if you're above the curve but you have to recognize that the newly transitioned F/O is just of his/her check ride and has limited line experience on type. You need for for him/her to maintain situational awareness and understand what you're doing. For that case an expanded SOP is one of his/her primary training tools.

In the end safety and avoiding liabilty is best achieved by balancing experience and knowledge against accepted practice and training. Airmanship and SOPs. Neither is foolproof and covers everything but in unison, getting the balance right goes a long way to making sure there aren't any headlines and board hearings.

[nnc0]

As a starting point SOPs/Checklists set down by the manufacturer should be adhered to; this if nothing else gives legal protection. The problem starts when these are added to or changed by various fleet managers without reference to the manufacturer or other operators. Boeing instructor pilots are continually amazed how different airlines can fly standard Boeing products in completely different ways.
On a lighter note, I have a theory that changes are only made to standard procedures as the result of a stuff up by a management pilot!

Please read my last post. Manufacturer's do make mistakes. Operator diligence in proof reading anything before general distribution to line crews is always required. I won't identify specific examples but think in terms of how documentation is produced and the process. The ACME aircraft chief pilot isn't sitting in a back room writing out procedures that make their way directly to you. He will obiously have input but so do the engineers, the systems folks, the e-docs people with their databases etc and other assorted groups. There's always a weakest link in there and a bunch of meddling and in the end you may someday find yourself using a relight or tailpipe fire procedure on your PW engine(s) ultimately put together by somebody who was sure you had GE's. You'll also find the number of manufacturer errors increases drastically following mergers or when getting aircraft on the used market when equipment specs might not be quite correct or up to date.

I won't say which manufacturer makes the least errors but I do think The Boeing folks probably do the best job I've seen in achieving consistent policies across the different carriers. That's not to say they're any better at writing error free SOPs but in my experience they work with carriers much more effectively and they're much more hands on. Better and more consistent customer service I suppose you could call it. Then again, maybe their brand of customer service just worked better with our people and our way of doing business. I should add that I don't have half as much experience working with Airbus people but I do respect their expertise and support efforts. In a few more yrs I might even change my mind.

As for the different ways they're (Boeing) amazed, they've taken steps to lessen that. When I left they we had just finished some QRH focus group work and it was amazing the way different languages interpreted the same sentence in English. As a simple unilingual type, it was quite an eye opener and a real shock to see the different interpretations in some rather sensitive situations of something I thought was quite straightforward and clear. Although I haven't seen it implemented in practice the push at that time was to introduce standardized symbology/icons and phrasing along with a fault tree process flow into the QRH. I'm not sure how far they got with it though but in re-reading Saddest's original post I suspect some of that is working it's way into the system.

As for management pilot mistakes leading to SOP changes - Think lowest common denominator and then factor in monthly duty times.

[slamer.]

How-bout we factor in 400+ pax, 1 billion $ of risk, the companies reputation, and ....... some terrain.

It's the Companies prerogative to have their aircraft operated in a conservative manner..... we are paid to do that. I am yet to see an SOP that advocates risk taking (no tall stories please).

If you want a bit more freedom "buy" your own aircraft

[Rananim]

THeres good flying and bad flying.Aviation survived for many years before the introduction of CRM and SOP's.Good flyers might break SOP's or infringe the tenets of CRM when required but they're still good.Bad flyers might never break SOP's and be everyone's buddy-buddy but they're still bad.

[Clandestino]

SOP's should be used for one reason only.
TO PREVENT AN INCIDENT HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Where they are used as an arse covering procedure by airlines then they are very likely to be barstadised to such an extent as to potentially cause the very incident that they are designed to avoid.

Almost exactly what I meant to say. I'll just add that overgrown SOPs are not dangerous per se. They can be so hard to know and follow that crews get demoralized and decide not to follow SOP at all, because they feel it's all rubbish. And when proverbial hits the fan, guess whose nether regions will be well covered and who'll get the blame - posthumously, at the worst.

[brain fade]

As a very well respected ex mil helo training Captain said the other day:

You've got to be good, to be gash!:ok:

[madtrap]

This is all very interesting. As an airman, trainer and checker over the last four decades, I've been watching the evolution of CRM discussions with mounting interest. Robert Helmreich, a Professor of Psychology at the U of Texas (since Pontius was a Flight Cadet, according to his bio), with a specialty in human factors research, is an amazing source of eye-watering intel. I recommend 'googling' him for those who have not been so advantaged.
I've always been at least bemused by his perennial observations that pilot/aircrew members from the British Commonwealth have a tendency to 'wing it' (competently) when it comes to procedural matters. In latter years he has acknowledged that airmen from the United States have tended to fall into that illustrious grouping as well.
The upshot of this is that societies where individual strengths and initiative are valued tend to be weaker on strict procedural issues, while societies which are more dogmatically traditional and hierarchically structured tend to put greater emphasis on dogmatic procedural adherence.
In any event, the polemic on this issue is healthy interchange, and the corporate and individual experience input is healthy and entertaining as well as educational.

[Nick NOTOC]

If you put a group of musicians together and let them make music, without any rehearsal in general it will be messy, but the creativity may be genius, unfortunately however only too often it becomes just a big mess in which many errors are made.
I rather listen to music played by musicians that have rehearsed and follow agreed arrangements.
Flying an airplane is not that different.

Nick (Mozart) Notoc

[DesiPilot]

Reminds me of something a very wise man said:
Is a standard procedure standard because it's in the manual and everyone complies or is it standard because everyone f*ck's it up the same way everyday?

[bubbers44]

SOP's are important for hearings. Make sure you can show you adhered to them even though you feel the need to deviate for common sense reasons to make the flight safer. One day landing at Portland, Ore. I added 20 knots because of expected wind shear on short final with a gusty 25 + knot direct crosswind. We lost 20 knots at 50 feet and with a quick increase in thrust landed normally. A United 727 landed right behind us and looked like they got both wingtips and almost left the runway using SOP's. The second touchdown on the nosegear and one main gear probably put it in the hangar for a few days.

[Ignition Override]

Many or most SOPs were created many years ago in order to avoid this problem: for a given First Officer, how will Captain Hot Shot, for a new FO or FE, run "his" flightdeck? How about Captains Normal, Humble or Meek? Who knows? What could the FO expect thirty years ago? And in a larger type of jet, how different will the operation be? Unique styles and hard-heads, bloated, or delicate egos were major reasons (never mind the image for the young, pretty cabin crew back then...). During a serious abnormal situation it is no time to be guessing about the so-called standard stuff and just how two or three crewmembers should coordinate duties.

Over twenty five years ago a C-130 crew from an operational Little Rock squadron crashed after they spent a while at an airport analyzing a propeller governor malfunction (Fort Campbell?). Even if they had first selected mechanical on the governor, a fairly prompt engine shutdown (feather, de-couple, pitchlock etc)and landing might have ended their problem in a safe manner. In the Navy P-3, both 2P and PPC pilots memorize a large chart (4 columns, each with about 8 squares per column) in order to deal with various prop and Allison engine malfunctions, because they can be hours from land.
And due to the ValuJet DC-9 crash (and the MD-11 at Halifax?), when we now train for sudden smoke in the cabin or c0ckp1t, we tell the FO to fly, put on mask and goggles, head immediately to the nearest suitable airport and attempt to go thru the full emergency checklist. But (!), if it is a short distance to the airport, priority is to get the plane safely on the ground with flaps 40 and landing gear down etc-even if we have too little time to finish the emergency checklist.

Survival is more important than total compliance with a long complex set of procedures IF both pilots are needed to prepare NOW for an unfamiliar, possibly hazardous airport (Wyoming, MT or Vermont...) and/or demanding instrument approach etc. In a two-pilot c0ckp1t, the flying pilot (solo) can only do so much.
This can be an extreme example. If we die, we won't find the chance to be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" (i.e. football).

How important is your "delicate pink body" or those of your family? Your passengers?:ouch:

[birdonthewire]

S-O-Ps cover standard operations and usually very well too.

In a non-standard standard ops or a situation not covered by the QRH, you use Airmanship-O-Ps.

How and why you apply those, now there's a whole other thread!

[AHRS]

Rananim.quite apt! Obsession with SOP could lead to the kind of obsessions that distract from the primary task of flying and ending up in a CFIT.SOP are there to promote safety and not to increase workload and dull Pilot's reflexes from removing the flight from an undesirable situation.Actions which breach SOP can be taken confidently once communicated and then accounted for later at a safer flight phase.Lets adhere to them but not be chained to them I say.


THeres good flying and bad flying.Aviation survived for many years before the introduction of CRM and SOP's.Good flyers might break SOP's or infringe the tenets of CRM when required but they're still good.Bad flyers might never break SOP's and be everyone's buddy-buddy but they're still bad.

[777SandMan]

:{ When working for an outfit with cockpit crew from all over the globe, SOP's are supposed to make operations safer and more "standard". Where do you draw the line between keeping operations safe and an overload of complex procedures! Fuel policies that laywers would have difficulty in understanding - not to speak about duty regulations!

[Airbus_a321]

SOP are there to promote safety and not to increase workload and dull Pilot's reflexes from removing the flight from an undesirable situation.
Excellent statement !!!
This is the O N L Y reason for implementing any SOP's, but nothing else.

[bomarc]

Nick NOTOC
May I add to your excellent view on comparing music and flying?

Having done both professionally, may I suggest. A well rehearsed, technically competent band with excellent arrangments for the music is fine in and of itself.

Almost perfection in each and every event.

Add to that the ability to improvise, with the confidence of a steady beat from the drums and rhythym section make the one taking off on a solo to really do a great job.

So too in flying. Most of the time, we should be providing that "steady beat" of what is to be expected and following the fine arrangments ( READ SOP_)...when something not covered by the SOP, THE MAN with the PLAN should takeoff (soloing as it were) with the confidence of his sidemen backing him up.


But more practice on the SOP means more confidence in a desperate situation.

[silverhawk]

What about when the old fogey from the CAA decides you now need a call at FL200 and FL300? For what? Anyone worth their salt has actioned some drills at FL100 wether their company SOP calls for it or not.

Superfluous SOPs only detract from the whole ethos. If one item is deemed to be questionable, then all items become suspect by default.

Just because eons ago some old fart used to have to retard the throttles on their Viper engines in the climb and used FL200 and 300 as a reminder does not mean modern equipment needs to be governed by rules that are irrelevant.

To my friends who are old farts, I wish I'd flown in your era when pilots were better skilled and very much more respected.

[Centaurus]

99% of the time they are the result of a genuine effort made by flight ops departments to increase safety and efficiency
Genuine effort or personal opinions - therein lies the rub.
The problem is that a fair proportion of some SOP's are superfluous. To gabble a mantra such as "Auto-pilot engaged - Alt Hold engaged - Altimeters agree one two three all 1013 - I have VHF 1 my side - you have 121.5 your side - FD on heading both - Putting my seat back NOW -
I mean, for Christ sake we all have two eyes and it is obvious even to blind Freddy that continuous rote talking is not necessarily a good thing.
Now I made up that earlier lot but it is typical of some operators that unless you annunciate everything you do apart from scratching one's private parts (male or female) - then the operation is unsafe. And then there is the regulator who likes to sound important by insisting little things of his own personal preference is in print as an SOP.
The 737 FCTM at page 1.1 makes a reasonable point when it says "Conditions beyond the control of the flight crew may preclude following a maneuver exactly. The maneuvers are not intended to replace good judgement and logic".

In another life I was PNF during a straight in NDB approach into a Pacific island runway length 5600 ft. The Boeing FCTM recommended gear down flap 15 and 150 knots until runway sighted then land flap as needed. It was heavy rain and low cloud and the DME worked fine for a change. The MDA was 700 ft but the vis meant we were never going to get flap down and stabilised by the time we spotted the runway IF we stuck to Flap 15 until visual. Sure enough the SOP pedantic in the LH seat had to go around when we broke visual too late to land - all because the book said stay at Flap 15 and 150 knots until visual.

We did another circling approach and despite the lessons of the earlier GA the chap still stuck rigidly to same flap setting and speed and the inevitable happened - we went around and this time we diverted 550 miles to our alternate which had no DME and an NDB 8 miles from the runway and it was raining when we got there on min fuel. All he had to do was dirty up at the original airport and we could have been stabilised nicely in time for becoming visual.

But this clown stuck rigidly to the company SOP and no deviation. He was no ace I tell you, as soon after he burnt out the brakes on a 737 with an unnecessary high speed abort on a 11,000 ft runway all because the SOP said max braking until aircraft comes to a stop. The aircraft stopped with 5000 ft to spare. The fusible plugs did their job and the red hot brakes welded on when he parked them...

[Atlanta-Driver]

" Deviations from the Standard Operating Procedures are allowed if, in the opinion of the Commander, it will result in a safer and/ or more efficient Flight Operation. Deviation shall be properly briefed and understood by ALL Flight Crew Members. "

That from more than one SOP manual.

[paco]

SOPs are certainly a good thing, but excessive attention to them brings to mind the point of Political Correctness - it is not to be PC, but to be seen to be PC.

When SOPs come under that umbrella is when they become dangerous.

Phil

[turtleneck]

the problem sets in as follows: as an old fart you get checked/trained by new, young and eager farts who have never seen anything else but the outdated and a..covering sop's made up by older farts long gone. they know nothing else and so they have to stick to them religiously. try to deviate as described by airmen above, for the good of safer flight, and you will get hit. you try to explain and discuss, but the only thing you see are big, empty eyes where sopsopsopsop is written all over them. thats modern aviation in a lot of outfits nowadays. the old farts say so what, the new farts continue their religion and all will live happily ever after.

[JJflyer]

Turtleneck

Unfortunately you are so very right. I have been hit as you say. Perhaps I was lucky to work my way up to large aircraft in a way that I had something to compare SOP's with.
A kid with 250 some hours total time straight out of a school sitting in a large jet has nothing but the SOP's to fall back to. But to follow something mindlessly is just plain simple stupid. Will you jump into a well if I tell you to? I doubt there are many takers.
What strikes me as suprising is the willingness of every new DFO, Chief Pilot or Fleet Captain to try to leave their mark into the paperwork and the first things they attack are cheklists and SOP's. Trying to re-invent the wheel me thinks.

JJ

[rubik101]

My observations on SOPs, for what they are worth;
Reading through the accident reports attributed to Pilot/Crew Error mentiones failure to follow Company SOPs as a contributary factor in the vast majority of cases. Adherence to SOPs would mean many lives saved over the years. When the report mentions adherence, they often qualify it with the word 'strict'. I bow to the AIB and their extensive knowledge so would advise 'strict adherence' as being your safest bet, in all and every situation, normal or abnormal.
Many years ago I joined an airline whose SOPs amounted to two sides of A4, and not so closely typed at that. They had never had an accident nor any serious incident but that didn't make them safe in my eyes. When my Check Captain retracted the flaps from 15 to 5 immediately after he had raised the gear for me after a performance restricted Take Off, he explained to a very surprised and somewhat scared Captain under training that; 'we don't need all that drag'. Needless to say, I struggled against ignorance and redneck indifference over the next few years to slowly introduce Boeing SOPs to the company.
If your attitude to your company's SOPs is that they get in the way of your ability to conduct the flight with the freedom and joi de vivre you previously enjoyed then you are the very pilot who needs them the most.
SOPs will save you and your colleagues from the grasping hands of ignorance and arrogance, coulped with bad procedures and lax discipline. Ignore them at your peril.
That is not to say they are perfect. Too often I see procedures that have pilots stating such idiocy as 'Indications Normal', or 'Two Reversers' (on a twin). Just what is the reason for stating that what we expect to occur has in fact occured? Anomalies or abnormalities should be stated, not normal operations of systems.
In spite of such inadequacies, I still urge you to follow SOPs, strictly. If you want to fly any othert way, persuade your colleagues and Management that your way is better, safer and less silly than the present system.
Happy Landings and :ok: a safe and standard 2007

[Chimbu chuckles]

I bow to the AIB and their extensive knowledge :hmm: so would advise 'strict adherence' as being your safest bet, in all and every situation, normal or abnormal.

rubik that would assume that the 'men in black' know what they are talking about when it comes to what consitutes 'good SOPs' and strict adherance thereof...in 26 years of aviating from single engine Cessnas to widebody Boeing I have actually only met one or two individuals who actually meet that criteria AND who work in AIB.

I am sure however that more than 'one or two' exist....in fact I would be prepared to accept the number might actually approach double figures when all AIBs world wide are taken into consideration.:ugh:

[yrvld]

I've had the opportunity to fly both in western and eastern "type" companies, both with their sop's and lack of sop's for some of them, all formed with a variety of pilots coming with widely different backgrounds, education and experience levels and I can say sop's are good, they are wonderful as long as they have been developed with consideration to the respective type of operation and workforce characteristics by the operator.
They usually enhance safety and if used properly set the tone for good cockpit atmosphere and CRM. But THEY ARE NEVER A SUBSTITUTE FOR GOOD JUDGMENT AND AIRMANSHIP. as simple as that.
happy new year!

[turtleneck]

and just who is the judge of what good airmenship is?? mostly these judges are within the very same company the very same non lateral thinking guys. to them good airmenship is religious sticking to what has been declared company sop's, and we are back to square one.

[Ignition Override]

YRVLD: There appears to be a paradox. Airmanship and common sense?

My comments on a previous page were attacked as not so smart when I suggested that SOPs should also conform to experience and judgement.
If following a yellow 'safety' line will possibly result in your left wing hitting either the wall or luggage carts and leftover ground equipment, are many pilots on YOUR side of the Atlantik taught that the line must always be followed, for example, even when taxiing into gate B-40 at Newark (EWR)?

When you hear first-hand from other pilots that a certain Montana mountain airport can quickly develop unforecast fog from a nearby lake, or a sudden light snow shower (the control tower will be closed...no snow plowing possible..), SOPs do not require that you TELL Dispatch (aren't you the Captain?) to add extra fuel for a return over the mountain to a nearby airport.

[Ladusvala]

Rubik, I believe the reason for stating that what we expect to occur has in fact occured is that we should not forget to check it and thereby not notice/discover a problem in time. For example the "speedbrakes up" call in the B737. However these calls has to be limited to the most essential systems.
I try my very best to follow SOP´s but I also like the following:
Temporary deviations from the Standard Operating Procedures are allowed if, in the opinion of the Commander, it will result in a safer and/ or more efficient Flight Operation. Deviation shall be properly briefed and understood by ALL Flight Crew Members.

[yrvld]

IGNITION OVERRIDE: Although I am not familiar with EWR, I see what you mean and you are probably correct about following the yellow line.. Now, about the mountain airport example, there are alot of those in Europe too and what you described can happen in alot of ill equipped eastern european airports, some of them in the mountains. And of course, you as a captain WILL take more fuel, written in the sop or not. That's first common sense and there is no paradox in putting common sense toghether with good airmanship and sop's.

TURTLENECK: I see your point, but in the end, the judge of your good airmanship is the outcome of your flight. And all that happened in between you getting in that plane and getting out of it. Has the flight been treated professionally by you and your crew, has it been safe, comfortable for it's passengers, have you and your crew applied companie's sop's at all times and deviated from it when needed with proper briefings and correct understanding of the reasons for those deviations? Even more so, have all this been done in bad wx? Then you've used good airmanship. And I belive even most of those non lateral thinking guys will think the same.

rgds

[WRC]

I've been asked quite a few times by other pilots and students about my interpretation of SOP and adherence to them.
I tend to liken SOP to the Green Arc on (pre NG) intruments. Operations within the arc provide a generally stress free pleasent flying envirnment. Actions expected and understood by all involved.
If circumstances require one to action outside the Green Arc in the Yellow band we will not immedietly self destruct, but we'd best have a very good reason for going there and be sure both the reason and action are well understood by all involved. The Red Arc would be Negligent, Malicious and suicidal flying (ass kicked out the door if you survive stuff).
All that said, like the guage, it's only as good as it was made. I'm quite lucky in that our SOPs are well thought out, logical and easy to follow but I do understand some airlines SOPs are subject to political interference (internal and external) and wierd personality inputs.

[Dirty Mach]

I remember back in flight school an instructor who took a friend of mine into a private room next to the ops room after an ... ermmmm... interesting flight. Through the thin walls we all heard the chewing out, including the phrase "You FLY THE BL***Y AEROPLANE or you'll be a smoking hole in the ground, checks complete!"

I thought it was good advice

[boeingdream787]

Hear Hear........Checklist complete!!