SOP's: Should we or shouldn't we?

[Geoffersincornwall]

We as an industry have an extraordinary resistance to the embracing of SOPs and much more than our FW colleagues appear to feel we have the right to chose when and what we do by way of procedures. Above all I see a regular resistance to the use of formal checklists that have been 'de-rigour' in the FW world for decades. Be it upon your own head. Read the accident reports on a regular basis and you will see what poor cockpit procedures, poor CRM and poor MCC brings - death and misery, that's what.

For the 'I know better' brigade remember those famous words - "You don't know what you don't know". I have no more confidence in 'sales-blurb' than the next guy but the stats speak for themselves.

G. :ugh:

[Epiphany]

I agree with you Geoffers.

My company SOPS's are that on coasting out we arm the floats. I do this. The SOP's of my previous company was that floats were armed below 80 kts. I did this too.

My company SOP's are that the AP's are disengaged on the ground. I do this. The SOP's of my previous company were that the AP's were never disengaged. I did this too.

My company SOP's require brakes to be applied before landing offshore. I do this. The SOP's of my previous company were that brakes were only applied after landing. I did this too.

Like you I find it irritating that people decide their own SOPS's and every time I fly with a different pilot I seem to end up debating the merits of different actions.

In any incident or accident you will be asked why you did not follow company SOP's. If you didn't you will be at fault. If they differ from the manufacturers SOP's then the company are at fault.

And I don't forget to arm floats, disengage AP's or apply brakes because I follow the checklist of whatever company I am flying for.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

I have to agree with both Geoffers and Epiphany on this .... the history of aviation is beset with all sorts of incidents that have happened to crews ...

But second guessing the RFM (or company check list) 'cos you know better than the guy that wrote it is sheer folly.

You get (very well) paid to fly the aircraft the way the company wants you to fly it ... that invariably is IAW with company SOPs which usually means the IAW the RFM and its advice ...

Sometimes that SOP causes issues that require a modification to said SOP and that is usually done by someone on a much higher paygrade than moi ... and who will then be 'in the frame' when it all turns to '****e'.

An example from my experience was the B222UT which I at one stage I flew offshore ... this little sucker had the float arm switch on the LH overhead panel right next to the No1 engine (electrical) fuel shut off valve .... yup you can guess the excitement this caused when the WRONG switch was activated on short finals and the No1 engine died instead of the floats being armed ... happily after a few incidents (which I believe did not cause any accidents?) this switch was moved and the issued resolved. That was a BAD ergonomics choice by those 'good ol boys' at Bell Helicopter.

Thus far the 139 has not to my knowledge suffered a floatation related failure and so I am happy to stick to the RFM suggestions ... I do of course reserve the right to change my mind if presented with a convincing argument to do so.

;)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Glad to hear that we are broadly on the same wavelength but I suspect that you both work within well organised companies that believe me are the exception rather than the rule. Given that SOPs are really only 'SOPs' when they are written down I see precious few folk who have the benefit of their support. Many say they have SOPs but these are more like a currently agreed protocol amongst most crews. CoPilots in particular have great difficulty delivering the goods when SOPs are in fact a variety of prejudices wrapped up as SOPs and mixed up with the Captain's own views.

SOPs should, in my opinion be developed by the senior pilots/trainers in the company and then written down and published in one or other of the Company Manuals. They need the benefit of being a controlled document and be subjected to regular reviews.

The mammoth task facing many is the introduction of SOPs to a workforce that is resistant to change. Only a well organised simulator-based course will deliver. I remember that this was the rule when I joined KLM and a substantial amount of sim time was dedicated to the process of indoctrination followed by a disciplined approach to life in the cockpit. It was hard to take at first and for some it was an unacceptable encroachment on their rights as a professional pilot. They were the ones that always knew better. I suspect we have not heard the last on this topic - maybe it needs its own thread?

G. :ok:

[Epiphany]

I know Geoffers as I have worked for some shockers. Even the 'good' operators have their dinosaurs though.

Without wanting a debate on what procedures are better/more sensible/safer etc than others I have come to the conclusion that if a company I work for have published SOP's in a Part B or checklist then I will use them.

If I think that a particular procedure is unsafe or can be performed better I will talk to the training department/Chief Pilot/TRE about it. If they agree then in might eventually be changed and the Part B/checklist amended appropriately. Either way I will follow the published procedure.

New co-pilots who come through a training program have been told that the company SOP's are the the way it should be done and it can be very confusing and frustrating for them when some pilots insist on doing it 'their way'. Do them a favour and do it the 'right' way and they will enjoy flying with you and learn.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Hear hear ... very much agree .... :ok:

[Geoffersincornwall]

I wonder how many of those 'dinosaurs' are prepared to speak up for their independence?

That said the onus is upon operators - and that means the CP - taking the trouble to write the SOPs and then get them published. Then he/she has to realise that SOPs cannot be wished into service. Talking to one of the SFIs involved with the China Airlines programme 10 years ago he said it took 5 years of sim training to either straighten everyone out or move on those that would not play the game.

If you are a CP are you ready for that kind of challenge? Not only will you gain the respect of your staff but also of your customers if you take it on and do a good job. But please, no diktats. The best way to get the whole team on board is to talk to them and hear their views then make a reasoned, logical and consistent choice. Write them carefully, proof read them carefully, publish them and then back them up with your sim training. The good ones will get the message and help you but you may eventually have to move on those that feel they are 'fire-proof, irreplaceable and untouchable'.

G. :ok:

[Geoffersincornwall]

...but is rarely provided in our industry. Better trained management would be able to argue for the resources they need to do their job effectively. SOPs should be subjected to the normal updating processes that 'controlled documents' should enjoy. Short term changes and/or immediate action to change protocols should use the Special Flying Instruction to action what is in effect an immediate Ops Manual amendment.

How many 'Chief Pilot' courses are available in the EASA Bailiwick?
How many 'Ops Director courses?

.....and I don't mean those airline oriented courses that are as much use in our industry as a chocolate teapot.

One could imagine that an Aberdeen based college would find a corner to offer courses for Helicopter Management in the Global Offshore Industry. Aimed at CP's, and ODs or those keen to prepare for advancement. Would be interesting to draft a prospectus - what would you include?

G. :ok:

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Geoffers .... it has been my experience that it is almost impossible to get anybody promoted to management to even attend CRM courses let alone any long term structured tertiary course .... :mad: good thought though .. :D

[paco]

"How many 'Chief Pilot' courses are available in the EASA Bailiwick?
How many 'Ops Director courses?"

Both are on our list, but we were requested not to run them as it interefered with those done by a national helicopter association. However, they don't run them nearly often enough, and as our other courses are more or less mature now and don't need so much work on them, our thoughts have been lately returning to the subject.

It would be interesting to see what peoples' thoughts are on what should be on them, starting with the usual Chief Pilot stuff, i.e. attention to detail, paperwork, etc.

Phil

[zudhir]

Coming back to the thread, you'll realize that, more often than not, if a lot of pilots are deviating from the laid down SOPs, then it's probably an indication that it's either impractical or flawed in some way.One needs to find out what those reasons are and change the SOP accordingly if required.

Another parallel document explaining the rationale behind the SOP would help get everyone on board. Or at least allow for some discussion to achieve a better SOP.

Quite a few times checklists/SOPs are influenced by local regulatory requirements or sometimes due to legacy of previous types flown in the company. In either case if the rationale is clear and logical, it's easy to adopt. Of course, a lot of us find it difficult to unlearn a checklist/procedure we followed in a previous company and continue doing it that way in a new setup (except on checkrides maybe!)

[Sandy Toad]

G. Wow! Luddite and now Dinosaur! I think this name calling will alienate the very people you profess to want to change.

What I saw on the other thread, despite all the head banging smileys, was not people saying they were disobeying SOPs or the RFM - only one perhaps throwing in a height limitation where there isn't one - but questions about why things were stated, what facts were available and questions about how others operated.

Questions are healthy.

Pilots (and children) respond better when told why they should do things.
This can often lead to healthy discussion and changes to SOPs.

Manufacturers are not infallible otherwise we'd never need to amend Flight Manuals and RFMs.

Why should a Manufacturer's chief test pilot with no civil experience or any idea of our role decide "You don't need that Audio Warning so we disabled it". We refused to blindly follow the Manufacturer who was relying purely on this one opinion and we had it changed back by them. (Not AW)

How many of the mistakes/omissions in the AW139 Flight Manual/RFMs were pointed out to you by Customer Pilots rather than Company Pilots?

Questions and searching for reasons why we do things should never be constrained. Debate is healthy surely.

No matter how good the SOPs, Flight Manuals, RFMs are, there will always be situations which are not covered and where Captains have to be Captains - that is what we are paid for.

I will always think about what I do in the air and discuss it on the ground.

If that makes me a Luddite or Dinosaur fine! :)

[Shawn Coyle]

Blind obedience to checklists and SOPs without some degree of ability to question is the road to madness, at least in my view.
There is at least one helicopter where the start procedure called for the ECL for the first engine to be put to the 'FLIGHT' position immediately. The problem was the rationale for the procedure was based on an earlier version of the machine that was no longer valid. Could not get this changed by the manufacturer who refused to listen to the rationale.
Second example was wording in the FM about attitude to be used at the end of an autorotation - using this procedure would result in significant groundspeed on touchdown, when removing the wording and adapting a slightly different procedure would result in zero groundspeed. Again unable to convince the manufacturer to remove the wording.
What do you in these cases? Blind adherence to the procedures would (and did) result in less than desirable results.

[zudhir]

This might make interesting reading

http://www.eimicrosites.org/heartsandminds/userfiles/file/MRB/MRB%20PDF%20bending%20the%20rules.pdf

[EN48]

Given that SOPs are really only 'SOPs' when they are written down I see precious few folk who have the benefit of their support.


Been flying for 45 years, mostly FW and more recently RW, but never for pay. Reading accident reports has made me a true believer in SOP's and in the quote above. Have developed what I call a Personal Safety Management System tailored to the owner/pilot. Did quite a bit or research on SMS's and found that virtually all are aimed at organizations consisting of tens to thousands of people and multiple layers of management. I wanted something for an orgization consisting of one person. My PSMS includes a Flight Operations Manual which incorporates SOP's, together with an integrated set of checklists, briefing scripts, and other info/documents. The core of the checklists is based on the RFM (B407) but with additions to enhance safety based on experience and expert advice from "pro's" who have reviewed the PSMS. I believe that this kind of discipline greatly enhances safety and contributes to the development of a safety "mindset" (sometimes called a "safety culture" in organizations of more than one person). Some will chafe at the discipline that this imposes, but I have a personal style that likes discipline. My insurance underwriters have reviewed this system and have made very favorable comments. The PSMS is a work in progress and is updated at least annually to incorporate new information and to improve usefulness.

I am in violent agreement with those who disagree with the "wing it" approach. Aviation seems to attract a disproportionate number of those who "know better" and I have met my share over the years.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Sandy - for any of those colleagues out there who are offended by my attempt to spice-up the debate I apologise - really.

I am disappointed by the Emergency Procedures that populate the AW139 RFM. It is as if the author never actually left the training circuit during his deliberations. The QRH could have been a star document and may get there one day. It is full of errors and editorial gaffs but could be the basis of YOUR QRH if you take the trouble to re-write it, run it past your NAA, get the tick in the box and then keep it updated. To be fair to AW the best set of procedures are those drafted to meet the demands of your specific work environment. One man's harmless engine chip-light on a 120 mile leg to the offshore platform is another's nightmare in the middle of a night SAR job. Only YOU can do that. A good ECL would be divided into Immediate Actions, Subsequent Actions and Considerations. and the last two sections should be written to meet the context of your role and 'worst case scenario'.

Shawn

I hope my comments above provide a way forward when confronted with non-sensicle content in the RFM. Write the desired protocol, get the tick in the box from your NAA or OEM and Robert's your mother's brother.

EN48

I like your approach a lot. Can you publish your material for the benefit of others maybe? Whilst working in Brazil we had to provide SMS for companies with 20+ aircraft and for companies with just one. Not easy, but our resident expert Steve Walters did a fine job and provided regular support to all of them to help get the projects up and running. Certainly it is tough for single pilot ops to work with the discipline required but good initial training backed by a sound safety ethos will help a lot.

Zudhir

Very interesting reading. It reinforces my view that it helps to get the right people in the first place but also highlights the hard work management must put in to keep the rules and procedures relevant and up-to-date. Flight Ops Data Monitoring (FOQA) will help with the supervision if managed correctly but other monitoring systems will be needed in those aircraft not equipped with CVFDRs,

One Last Point

Our colleague Nick Lappos once said I believe that "There are Pilots and there are Stick Wigglers and the difference between the two is that Pilots have the ability to demonstrate 'airmanship'." This is a very necessary quality in our business for as many of us know only too well the helicopter has not read the RFM and many a malfunction will not appear in the RFM.


G. :)

[EN48]

Can you publish your material for the benefit of others maybe?


Maybe. The Flight Operations Manual is derived (with permission) from a copyrighted generic FOM developed for light jets, and then much modified by me to fit my needs. My understanding with the copyright owner is that this is for my personal use only. I will check with him to see if he will authorize making it available to others. Also, there is quite a bit of written material in the PSMS, much of it tailored to the unique equipment configuration of a specific B407, so it would need some work to be useful on other 407's let alone other makes/models. Rather than "publishing" it, it may be more doable to send the files to specific individuals who indicate an interest (provided the number is not too large).

[S76Heavy]

I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of working for a CP who displayed signs of management training exceeding "how to work the file cabinet"..

Regarding SOPs: I like them and adhere to them, as they give a structure on how to handle different phases of flight. They also (well written ones, I give you that) give you some understanding of why you are doing what you are doing, when you are doing it.

Airmanship and captaincy may require you deviate from the SOP, which should be possible if you announce (MCC) you will do something "non-standard" and explain (time allowing) why. In that sense understanding is key to safety.

I like to be on the same sheet as the people I fly with. There is still room for individuality without inventing your own procedures; in fact I find after changing jobs that the SOPs gave me a good grasp of my new role in a new environment with new people.

The downside is that poor SOPs can be more of a safety hazard in two ways: you don't do what is best if you follow them, or you learn to disobey SOPs when you work around them.

[grumpytroll]

My thoughts after reading these posts is that the first thing needed is a definition of what an SOP is. Of course there is no wrong answer to that question. The SOP will be what the company of pilots decide it is. When I flew in the military, we had an SOP that had nothing to do with emergency procedures or how the helicopter worked. It was a guideline as to how we would conduct missions and procedures within a mission. For example the IIMC procedure. It is not spelled out in the operators manual so it is in the SOP. It was required to be briefed before every mission. If the weather was clear, blue and 22 then we could simply state: "inadvertant IMC will be done per the SOP." If the weather was down below a certain level then we would brief the actual procedure specifically. Another example: "aircraft lighting will be per the SOP." It allowed us to get through a briefing in one hour instead of two. It was every pilots responsibility to understand the SOP and the IP's ensured we all knew it. Anytime someone had a question they could speak up for clarification and the SOP was a living document that could, after much review and discussion, be changed to better serve the missions we flew. I am an advocate of a good operational SOP because once you see your fellow pilots all understand the thing, then you know you are all operating in the same manner and you all know what to expect from each other. The SOP as I see it does not challenge or attempt to repeat the operators manual. It is designed to answer mission questions while still on the ground rather that wondering what to do while in the air. I flew many years in the airlines and they have it down to a science. A good example is when doing a circling approach to a specific airport, the company had developed a standard set of guidelines about when to put the flaps to a certain degree, what airspeed to fly at any given point etc. to successfully and safely shoot the approach. You didn't have to figure it all out on a dark and stormy night. A good SOP should remain as unchanged as possible and should not include limitations, EP's or any procedures that are spelled out in the operators manual such as checklists. However, it should provide you with guidance for common situations that will allow you to complete tasks and keep you within limitations and regulations.

Cheers

[Geoffersincornwall]

Others may have equally valid views but from where I stand a good set of written SOPs will explain the protocol/procedure in clear and concise shorthand but then have an accompanying page that explains what every new pilot needs to know to complete the picture - an 'expanded' version. The former is easy for reference/learning and the latter is essential material for the newbie. The preferred dialogue should be included.

Feedback from the line is essential to keep them current and relevant and the SFI system can be used for the odd 'glitch' that means a temporary problem necessitates a variation from the Norm.

G. :)

[grumpytroll]

Yes, the SOP itself should be a simply written and understood document. The training must be thorough so that everyone understands the SOP. An expanded version is required for training and for reference when needed. Much like the aircraft checklist versus the expanded version with all the explanations in the operators manual. That is where the IP comes in to check and ensure all pilots know and follow the SOP.