Difference between POH and SOP

[Pugachev Cobra]

Hello PPruners.

I'm still somewhat fresh into this, so please bear with me.

What are the differences, technicalities, aviation authority certification procedures, for an aircraft manual (e.g. POH) and the operator/entity's SOP?

I say entity, because even basic flight schools have SOP's, althought they may not even mention the term SOP, but they surely use different settings from the aircraft's POH.

Differences like airspeeds, flight phase configurations, etc.

Who develops companies SOP's, is this closely or loosely worked with the aircraft manufacturer, the aviation authority, etc?

And, extending it a little, I can probably assume that SOP's apply also to maintenance personnel and procedures, differing from the aircraft's maintenance manual (what is the correct term for this manual?)

This has been going on my mind for a while, and surely you can clarify it to me.

As always, thanks in advance for all of your great input.

[bfisk]

The POH (AFM, Approved Flight Manual) is certified and accepted when the airplane recieves technical certification.

An operator is under most legislations required to have a set of manuals describing the operation. Under i.e. EU-OPS this requirement is clearly laid out, and the manuals covers general operations, airplane specific operations, the route manual and training requirements, among other things. Some define this whole set of manuals as a SOP, while others will call only parts of it SOP. These manuals are often based on the airplane's POH/AFM, and the manuals must be accepted by the authorities.

An accepted set of manuals (SOPs) would indicate an acceptable means of operating the aeroplane. Normally company manuals ("SOP") include a statement that effectively says that if there is a discrepancy between the company procedures and the POH/AFM, the latter takes precedence. That way, following the POH/AFM would be following SOP, and as such an acceptable way of operating the aeroplane.

[john_tullamarine]

What are the differences ..

Some thoughts -

(a) during the Type Certification process, the applicant (OEM) has to demonstrate compliance with a bunch of requirements (Design Standard - eg FAR 25 - things, general certification matters - eg noise standards, etc.)

(b) the Type Certificate is the final tick in the box certifying that the Regulatory Authority (eg FAA) accepts that the OEM has completed the task satisfactorily and eventually the OEM is able to produce and flog aircraft to achieve the end aim .. which is making a dollar.

(c) subordinate certification documents (eg AFM) contain minimum required information for operating the aircraft and are approved by the Regulator. As such they are part of the Type Certification process and sit very high in the regulatory documentation structure.

(d) the OEM usually co-opts the AFM within the POH (or FCOM, etc) with the non-AFM bits being OEM-generated useful data which is not approved as such by the Regulator. The cynic would observe that, in many cases, the OEM includes the practical minimum set of additional data which the in-house legal folk will permit to maximum the likelihood of being able to defend subsequent actions against the OEM.

Thus, the POH ends up containing a mix of approved and non-approved data. Usually there will be some sort of annotation by page defining which bits are Regulator approved.

(e) Industry and/or AOC practice will require that an individual operator generate a suite of documentation describing/defining how that operator intends its aircraft to be maintained and operated etc. Such protocols generally are described as being SOP which is a generic motherhood term capturing all those things which a crew is required to consider (and generally abide by) in operating the aircraft - some having the weight of Regulation and most being considered just "good gen". As a snapshot, SOP things will be approved (if at all - often the Regulator will on "accept" such documents which is a bit of a defacto approval process) lower down the chain within the Regulatory process (more at the coal face level, if you like) than the original Type Certification process which is very structured and rigorous in process.

Differences like airspeeds, flight phase configurations, etc

If an operator wishes to operate conservatively with respect to the AFM requirements or POH recommendations, there is no major problem in so doing. Generally, the more disciplined organisation will enter into dialogue with the OEM/Regulator, as appropriate, to tie up all the loose ends.

Typically, the OEM (if the proposed change is accepted as being OK) will issue an NTO (No Technical Objection) or similar document which basically indicates that the OEM is not concerned by the operator's proposal from a certification, engineering, maintenance, or operational point of view. While this is often seen for items within the normal procedures area, it becomes far more important for items relating to emergency or non-normal/abnormal procedures, especially when it comes to defending the operator's "non-standard" operation at the enquiry following the accident (even if the "non-standard" consideration has scant relation to the accident).

Who develops companies SOP's

You have the answer in one go, there. Some aspects of the SOP suite of procedures will either be accepted or approved by the Regulator (or, perhaps, internal operator legal advice) - such things as matters prescribed by the Regulator's AOC processes, for example.

I can probably assume that SOP's apply also to maintenance personnel and procedures

Definitely so.

The POH (AFM, Approved Flight Manual) is certified and accepted when the airplane recieves technical certification

Not quite. The AFM, which usually is embodied within the POH/FCOM (or similar document as a subset of the larger document) will be Regulator approved as part of the Type Certification process. The non-approved parts come from the OEM without Type Certification approval.

Those non-approved sections may, subsequently, receive some sort of approval tick-in-the-box within the AOC or similar process but that is quite different to the aircraft Type Certification process.

The rest of bfisk's post captures the essence of the matter.

[411A]

At one small SE Asian carrier (now quite large:}) new pilots to the 707 were handed the Boeing manual with the company logo printed thereon...and told, 'fly it this way, thank you'.

Worked like a charm.:ok:

Captain SK (Charlie) Chan was no dummy, he operated on the KISS principle.
IE: use the manufacturers methods....and, train new pilots to proficiency without exception...as, accidents are expensive.
I know, I trained some of 'em.

Worked pretty good over the years...they only had one fatal.