Spy in the cab

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Just curious just how many executive / corporate / charter aircraft have the spy installed.

Listening to some of the reporters, and reading the filed reports, I am concerned that these are actually detremental to safety, and not assisting the safety culture.

One operator, is being given many "exemptions" for their based or local airports, ie where they conduct shortened procedures, that they have two sets of ops procs, those reportable, and those not.

Another is filing these pre reports almost 50% of the flights, due to the datums being totally impractical.

And yet another has no mandated equipment installed.


Discuss.

glf

[machone]

Which spy in the cab do you refer to Cabin Crew, FDR, Copilot ?

[weido_salt]

Not quite sure what you're on about here.

In a very populous country in Asia, the authorities pull all the CVR's and FDR's and download them, just to have them read if they want to finger someone. This is not about safety at all, which was what the apparatus was designed for.

The unions there are so :mad:ing stupid, they go on strike to rid themselves of a few foreign pilots but put up with this imbecilic nonsense. :ugh:

[Pilot Positive]

Not sure there are many in Europe (if any!)...especially at the VLJ end. Perhaps too costly to install and to develop the safety management systems required for monitoring...

[Empty Cruise]

To those who have never flown under a OFDM programme, I can only recommend it! Ours was based on automated QAR downloads after every sector and helped the operation in question buck a trend of high-energy approaches. A trend was spotted and something done about it, in the form of changed procedures.

CVRs - now that's a different kettle of fish, since you might be tagged for what you say rather than what you do... although after Buffalo, you might start wondering if we need to be babysat there as well :rolleyes:

In short - it's only a problem for those who cannot or will not fly in accordance with the SOPs. If the company has no SOP - well, true, then it's a pointless execise ;)

[fastjet45]

In short - it's only a problem for those who cannot or will not fly in accordance with the SOPs

I think you have answered the question, this a big problem in the Bizjet world some operators seem to think that the rules don't apply to a business jet AOC. :hmm:

The sooner FDM is brought in across the board the better, especially with operators using foriegn bases were the crew disappear for weeks at a time doing what they want, or so they think! :ok:

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Example of the conflict of SOP's.

SOP is 160 kts on approach.

ATC request 180 kts, do you a) say sorry not able, good answer, but perhaps a 360 is now in order, or say b) yes, no problem.

Geneva ATC, hold you high down wiind, then give you slam dunk, (they do ask if you are able, so only slight pressure).

Moscow, give you ILS, but forget to tell you GS is intermittant.

ILS on main runway, then slipped to parallel, box makes big bang now.....


As to Ops Manuals, in general these are written for Big Airline operations, and are not practical for corporate operations. SOP's come from The FOM and Company Manuals, and should be practical for the crew to implement, and not just a box ticked.

glf

[CL300]

There is no conflict between FDM and clearances deviation. If you deviate you file a report of the why and when, this is it ! If your Sops states 160 kt in approach, on my opinion they are too restrictive and innapropriate; SOPs are a framework to achieve goals, embedding techniques in sops just bring deviations in.
As a crew we are paid to make decisions, SOp's should cover 90% of our flights, the other 10% are specific airspace/airport/ whatever. And we file reports. Sops do not apply at Cat B/C airport as such, since there is specific configuration.
FDM is there to analyze tendencies, drifts, on crew performance or behaviour. It is very difficult for an operator to have in the same time the reactivity to correct innapropriate behaviour in a constructive manner and to have enough oversight to understand the in and outs of an event.

The systems are embedded, it is tedious work to make it happen in an open environment, it is difficult to trust the system at the beginning ( I was very skeptical at first); but it is like CRM, it does work...

[Pilot Positive]

SOPs are a framework to achieve goals, embedding techniques in sops just bring deviations in.


As my old TRI use to say "SOPs are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men..."

[PPRuNeUser0215]

As to Ops Manuals, in general these are written for Big Airline operations, and are not practical for corporate operations. SOP's come from The FOM and Company Manuals, and should be practical for the crew to implement, and not just a box ticked.

If you work for a company with an OPS manual written for big airlines then obviously your employer has paid money for that. It is probably because he wants you to do whatever the book says.
Now if they are not appropriate to your operation then why don't you help in offering better ones by getting involved with the guy who is responsible for it ? (Standard's captain or equivalent). If your approach is reasonable, your knowledge adequate, I would be surprised if you weren't getting a few changes through.

Then what I don't understand in your examples is why would your company go to the expense of installing FDMs on board if they don't want you to follow a series of normal operating procedures ?
And if they do want you to follow it ? Why don't you do ?
And if you don't for some valid reason why would your company not be happy with your explanation ?


As for the 160 kts during approach, I am a little bit intrigued. When are you supposed to reduce to that speed ? Most common operation these days, is 160 kts Minimum til 4 DME often by ATC request, publication in the first pages of the Jepps for that particular airport or due to the low drag technique promoted by airports and operators alike.

Cheers.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

But out here the ops manual is the ops manual for almost the entire country.

Also CAP 359? was written for BEA / BOAC and we all had to observe it, especially the FTL section that was almost unworkable in PA31 operations....

The companies have no option but to install the equipment, and as such are also battling up the same slope.

I flyboth G450 and G5 which have this installed, even with less than 19 seats (which I understand is the current trigger point).

On the G450, the private owner insists that we make the usual expeditions arrival at his home base, but we have to refuse his kind offer......
The aircraft is AOC operated, and flown very often for the owner alone on board.

I am sure they are happy with the explanation, but come the safety audit, there are many cases of excedences, and someone gets the blaim....

160 is our SOP, and as such we must reduce to this to classify as stable approach......

Thats life...glf

[PPRuNeUser0215]

The companies have no option but to install the equipment, and as such are also battling up the same slope.
Ok I see.

But out here the ops manual is the ops manual for almost the entire country.
Is there a way to have your very company Ops Manual approved by the Authority (an amended version of the generic one) ? for exemple if you fly a type not flown before in this country, you would be the 1st company to need a Part B approved for this type ? How would you do that ?


160 is our SOP, and as such we must reduce to this to classify as stable approach......
In JarLand sorry, EU-OPS land, the stable approach criteria have to be met by 500 feet (Must). A speed as such is not required (no exact number such as 160) but a Vref + a number gives you, your max speed at the 500' in order to "qualify" as stable (yeepee!!!).

Where about are you ?

PS: Quite right about the sun ;)... Rain here today but I was on my boat :ok: having a beer ;) anyway.