Recommendations for developing effective SOPs

[denokan]

Dear colleagues!

My name is Denis Okan, I am B737 CFI/TRE flying for S7 Airlines in Russia.

If nobody minds I would like to introduce a project of an advisory circular which has been created in ICAO workgroup.

The document provides recommendations to operators how to develop, implement and mantain SOPs in order to be effective. It encourages the importance of SOPs as a provider of effective X-Check and gives the needed explanation. It provides a standard SOP template (very similar to the FAA SOPs AC 2002, which has been used as a guide to create the doc). It contains several SOPs examples, e.g. Stabilized Approach or Briefings.

Finally it gives the modern view on how to create the best readability (and usability) for the end users - pilots.

It it still under development, though is very ready for the first release. It was introduced on the ICAO IERST 07 conference which was held in October, in Paris.

I will be very glad if recieve some comments and/or suggestions /corrections from your points of view.

This is a traslation into English (the doc has been created in Russia) done by myself (as the leader of the project). Engish is not my native language, so, you may help me finding out mistakes.

You may download the doc from the Google disc (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6L2aJlawuDcUkRjODI2T05saFk)

In order to understand the prehistory of the doc may be you want to read my text for the ICAO presentation (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6L2aJlawuDcc2QxWlU5anpCWnc)

FLY SAFE!

[john_tullamarine]

Both hyperlinks indicate a need for permission to access ?

[denokan]

Both hyperlinks indicate a need for permission to access ?

Sorry for that!

I've just opened the access. Happy New Year!

[+TSRA]

denokan,

Thanks for the links! I'm actually smack in the middle of updating some SOP's at my current operator and always on the hunt for ideas that improve the use of the manual for our pilots!

I'll PM you with any ideas that come through!

[denokan]

denokan,

Thanks for the links! I'm actually smack in the middle of updating some SOP's at my current operator and always on the hunt for ideas that improve the use of the manual for our pilots!

I'll PM you with any ideas that come through!

Thank you for the response! Looking forward for the ideas!

[safetypee]

Dennis, congratulations (and commiserations) on working on a much needed but challenging task.
Please note that because negative critique is easier, this should not detract from the overwhelming positive aspects of the draft.

Also note that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, just as it is impossible to provide an SOP for all situations. This is an essential point in providing guidance for developing an SOP, thus should be stated early in the document.

Comments:
Title ? – Guidance for developing, implementing, and updating of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

Ch 1.1
Mental model, “This shared model, in its turn, is based on SOPs”. I would strongly disagree; it is most importance to first understand the situation, then relate a course of action to a SOP, and continually revise the situational understanding and thus relevance / progress of the SOP. i.e. do not use an SOP to create understanding.
Refs for “non compliance” /SOPs
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020063485_2002103814.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/doc/242656679/ICAO-Orasanu-Decision-Making-on-the-Flight-Deck
Assessing Procedures (OGHFA BN) - SKYbrary Aviation Safety (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Assessing_Procedures_%28OGHFA_BN%29) (and links)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/37230102/Procedures-Inproving-Compliance-PAT-v2
SOPs - SKYbrary Aviation Safety (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/SOPs)

Beware the root source of any references; e.g. FSF might not be completely independent, FAA follow FSF, both of which may have Boeing influences; c.f. “Dominant Cultures”.

Ch 2.1
“Crew resource management (CRM) is not effective without adherence to SOPs.” Debatable; CRM might enable the key activity in situations where there are no SOPs.
Beware overreliance on monitoring / crosschecking, these are good defences but often fail during high workload periods when they are most required. Aeroplane State Awareness during Go Around (http://www.bea.aero/etudes/asaga/asaga.php)

“..make possible for each crewmember to”, instead of ‘always know what s/he is going to do’, use what s/he should be going to do … thus this becomes a basis for error checking and coordination; don’t pre-empt someone else’s thoughts and actions.

--------

The goal should be to provide a generic guide to SOPs, but this could be difficult without using specific examples, which should be chosen carefully by considering the point being made, and thus where to positon the example in the text.
Thus Ch4, Stabilised Approach could be misplaced and ‘irrelevant’ (debatable); also it might not be a good example because of the variable scenarios, impracticability, conflict with other safety initiatives (e.g. deceleration required to achieve TCH speed) – discussed in the presentation text.
When using an example, is it to be based on scenario, process, or limit.

4.3 Expansion can add complexity; try to use ‘if – then’ processes, avoiding ‘except’, ‘or’, … e.g. RTO; if engine (system) fail and speed (+- V1) then stop / go; (but which comes first ‘fail’ or ‘speed’?). Minimise judgemental processes by defining what an engine (system) failure is, i.e. two gauge indications, or a gauge / lamp / system indication – remove subjective assessment, e.g a ‘bang’.

What is the primary purpose of a ‘call out’? Is it to direct attention to an urgent issue or just to provide information? It’s often better to include the action required rather than just the ‘error’.

You have taken on a challenging task; the current draft falls between specific procedures and generic operations manual. There are many examples of how operations manuals are written; the difficulty is in identifying the good ones.
IIRC Airbus used to publish an example Ops Manual and SOPs.

Also reconsider what has been or will be written; is this against a background of the human as a hazard or as a valuable resource in need of guidance?

[denokan]

safetypee, thank a lot for you critics and suggestions.

Up to this moment you are the first (even though this draft document has been sent to many operators within Russia and CAA worldwide) who sent us such a wide analysis of the document!

We will read your comments carefully!