Reminds you of what?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my experiences it seems those with the most axes to grind are usually the ones most guilty. And yes, it comes down to AIRMANSHIP and PROFESSIONALISM. And once again, in my experience it comes down to those claiming to have it are generally those so far removed from it.
Interesting to read the Aussie bashing.... No matter as next week it will be the Americans, then the English, then the European (sub-divisions)...
So, what's wrong with following the damn SOP's or rules and regs as laid out, as you signed up for, as you requested to do when you joined an airline, as you are bound by law to do? So very many SOP's in companies I have been involved with or have read into have SOP's that I completely disagree with. It is not my arrogant right to just do what I want and place my fellow pilot in an awkward position to have to correct me. I do not have the arrogant right to pick and choose which procedures I follow and which I ignore, even if I disagree with them due my perceived "common sense". If in my opinion it came down to a safety matter then follow the correct protocol and report it with a solution in order to try to have it changed and therefore (hopefully) create a safer procedure.
How many times do we hear "Just follow the SOP's and you'll always be protected..." Rubbish. That's all well and good until 90% of cases where we get "The SOP's say this or that, but this is a better way of doing it...." or "If you read the SOP's the correct (ie "MY") interpretation is...." What complete arrogance.
Same with RT. I posted a thread a while back stating that RT is a dying art of aviation. Q codes, meters vs feet as well as RT, etc, etc are all laid out by the rules and regs YOU asked to and SIGNED up to follow. So saying that "I use 'altimeter' for my own reasons" when the correct and published RT quite clearly states contrary is a prime example of this. The over-use of the term 'heavy' is yet another example. I could go on.... But I'm sure the "close enough is good enough" breed of pilot already disputes everything I've written. Again, just follow the damn SOP's and stop believing that your way supersedes the airline's and ICAO's rules and regulations.
I believe RT is a dying art because so very, very few ever studied it from the Jepps or standard State's RT AIC's or ICAO Doc 4444. Instead they learned it from their instructor at day 1, who learned it from his/her instructor, and then it is compounded from the bad habits listened to at the work place. I mean, just now, since when has "Charlie-Charlie" been a standard reply? Not for decades yet it has snowballed back into favor due the sheep-like behavior. It's non standard. Plain and simple.
And it's those who breach either deliberately, ie the "I know best", or the "too cool for school" attitude, or ignorance that are the ones most offended when corrected. How so? By deliberately breaching an SOP be it RT or procedure you are forcing the other pilot into an uncomfortable position to have to speak up. Being "anal" or rigid has nothing to do with it. What it does come down to is AIRMANSHIP and PROFESSIONALISM that I (used to) think most pilots all aimed to one day achieve. Don;t blame the LCC or Airbus for this trend. Blame the system that promotes and refuses to correct it.
Interesting to read the Aussie bashing.... No matter as next week it will be the Americans, then the English, then the European (sub-divisions)...
So, what's wrong with following the damn SOP's or rules and regs as laid out, as you signed up for, as you requested to do when you joined an airline, as you are bound by law to do? So very many SOP's in companies I have been involved with or have read into have SOP's that I completely disagree with. It is not my arrogant right to just do what I want and place my fellow pilot in an awkward position to have to correct me. I do not have the arrogant right to pick and choose which procedures I follow and which I ignore, even if I disagree with them due my perceived "common sense". If in my opinion it came down to a safety matter then follow the correct protocol and report it with a solution in order to try to have it changed and therefore (hopefully) create a safer procedure.
How many times do we hear "Just follow the SOP's and you'll always be protected..." Rubbish. That's all well and good until 90% of cases where we get "The SOP's say this or that, but this is a better way of doing it...." or "If you read the SOP's the correct (ie "MY") interpretation is...." What complete arrogance.
Same with RT. I posted a thread a while back stating that RT is a dying art of aviation. Q codes, meters vs feet as well as RT, etc, etc are all laid out by the rules and regs YOU asked to and SIGNED up to follow. So saying that "I use 'altimeter' for my own reasons" when the correct and published RT quite clearly states contrary is a prime example of this. The over-use of the term 'heavy' is yet another example. I could go on.... But I'm sure the "close enough is good enough" breed of pilot already disputes everything I've written. Again, just follow the damn SOP's and stop believing that your way supersedes the airline's and ICAO's rules and regulations.
I believe RT is a dying art because so very, very few ever studied it from the Jepps or standard State's RT AIC's or ICAO Doc 4444. Instead they learned it from their instructor at day 1, who learned it from his/her instructor, and then it is compounded from the bad habits listened to at the work place. I mean, just now, since when has "Charlie-Charlie" been a standard reply? Not for decades yet it has snowballed back into favor due the sheep-like behavior. It's non standard. Plain and simple.
And it's those who breach either deliberately, ie the "I know best", or the "too cool for school" attitude, or ignorance that are the ones most offended when corrected. How so? By deliberately breaching an SOP be it RT or procedure you are forcing the other pilot into an uncomfortable position to have to speak up. Being "anal" or rigid has nothing to do with it. What it does come down to is AIRMANSHIP and PROFESSIONALISM that I (used to) think most pilots all aimed to one day achieve. Don;t blame the LCC or Airbus for this trend. Blame the system that promotes and refuses to correct it.
Last edited by TopTup; 12th Dec 2011 at 22:34.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point whizzed right over your head.
Nothing wrong with SOPs per se. Great idea.
But when they are blindly applied in a slavish and unthinking (almost robotic) manner, they are sometimes a barrier to good CRM - or even a source of conflict when illogical or not defined clearly, or when they become a distraction from a more pressing threat.
It does not impress me when an F/O makes a flourish of re-setting the Gain on the WX Radar at FL200 (per SOP) when there isn't a cloud in the sky and we are in a busy Terminal Area with non english speaking ATC'ers jabberring at us.
And if you ask him why is that Gain change an SOP, he will probably have no idea.
It just is!
This feeling is further compounded when the F/O then proceeds to prove he can't actually land the aeroplane in the touchdown zone on a CAVOK day. This is a person with his priorities totally wrong.
SOPs do NOT automatically equate to good Airmanship (a fancy word for good piloting).
Slavishly nit picking the minutiae of SOPs (FLAP, not FLAPS etc) is moronic, and really pointless. Exactly what difference does that term make in reality - I'd love to know. But as you say - while nit picking over FLAP not FLAPS - the same pilot may be unable to use proper ICAO RT Terminology, and won't give a damn about it either! Priorities??
The Perfect Pilot will apply the SOPs Perfectly.
He will fly the aeroplane flawlessly.
He will always land in the TDZ at the correct speed, bang on centreline, and grease it on (when appropriate).
He will use Perfect RT Terminology.
He will exercise Perfect CRM.
He will NEVER have an accident or Incident.
I have yet to meet that perfect pilot.
In the meantime I will happily fly with an F/O who says FLAPS (instead of FLAP) or forgets to re-set the WX Radar Gain on a CAVOK day - but can fly smoothly and accurately, land in the TDZ, and use proper RT.
So I say again - Perfect SOPs do NOT automatically equate to Perfect Airmanship.
There have been fatal accidents caused by slavishly following SOPs and forgetting Airmanship. You do realise that?
All that waffle about what I signed up to....I didn't sign up to killing myself.
Nothing wrong with SOPs per se. Great idea.
But when they are blindly applied in a slavish and unthinking (almost robotic) manner, they are sometimes a barrier to good CRM - or even a source of conflict when illogical or not defined clearly, or when they become a distraction from a more pressing threat.
It does not impress me when an F/O makes a flourish of re-setting the Gain on the WX Radar at FL200 (per SOP) when there isn't a cloud in the sky and we are in a busy Terminal Area with non english speaking ATC'ers jabberring at us.
And if you ask him why is that Gain change an SOP, he will probably have no idea.
It just is!
This feeling is further compounded when the F/O then proceeds to prove he can't actually land the aeroplane in the touchdown zone on a CAVOK day. This is a person with his priorities totally wrong.
SOPs do NOT automatically equate to good Airmanship (a fancy word for good piloting).
Slavishly nit picking the minutiae of SOPs (FLAP, not FLAPS etc) is moronic, and really pointless. Exactly what difference does that term make in reality - I'd love to know. But as you say - while nit picking over FLAP not FLAPS - the same pilot may be unable to use proper ICAO RT Terminology, and won't give a damn about it either! Priorities??
The Perfect Pilot will apply the SOPs Perfectly.
He will fly the aeroplane flawlessly.
He will always land in the TDZ at the correct speed, bang on centreline, and grease it on (when appropriate).
He will use Perfect RT Terminology.
He will exercise Perfect CRM.
He will NEVER have an accident or Incident.
I have yet to meet that perfect pilot.
In the meantime I will happily fly with an F/O who says FLAPS (instead of FLAP) or forgets to re-set the WX Radar Gain on a CAVOK day - but can fly smoothly and accurately, land in the TDZ, and use proper RT.
So I say again - Perfect SOPs do NOT automatically equate to Perfect Airmanship.
There have been fatal accidents caused by slavishly following SOPs and forgetting Airmanship. You do realise that?
All that waffle about what I signed up to....I didn't sign up to killing myself.
Last edited by Algol; 13th Dec 2011 at 04:04.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not agree with you more. The "WHY?" escapes all too many nowadays.
And yes, nitpicking often shows more of one's "mine's bigger than yours" mentality than anything. But like I said, it's quite often those happily giving it out who are unable to be challenged themselves.
Some of the best saves have been from those crews thinking outside the box & seeing a bigger picture & NOT blindly following inappropriate procedures (Sioux City springs to mind...all be it no procedures were available to follow).
"It's FLAP not "FLAPS"! Read your SOP!!"
"Yes Capt. My apologies. And it's "80" not "80 KNOTS" as per the SOPs."
See how that plays out....! The Capt sets the tone of the cockpit.
Your description of The Perfect Pilot i also agree whole heartedly with. But I believe it is something we should aspire to, not something we should put in the "too hard" or "near enough is good enough" attitude. No, we rarely are knot-perfect or precisely in that ideal touchdown zone but it should be what we strive for.
Regarding the radar gain example: I'll bet that same FO has at some stage received a previous mouthful for failing to apply the procedure. Damned if he does & damned if he doesn't. Best practice (in my eyes) would be:
"Capt, it's CAVOK. You're happy to leave the gain alone?"
"Of course. No problem."
SOP adhered to & FO not second guessing. A 2-3 second exchange & all is good.
My time in India saw poor excuses for pilots (Capts & FO's) regurgitating the FCOM or SOP yet unable to answer any if the "WHY's". Word perfect on procedures but ask them to mentally calculate a descent profile to include the STAR & approach to not include a level segment? No idea.
Again, this is the system created & rewarded. Give me a Capt or FO who knows the SOPs as well as the FCOMs, FCTM, QRH, etc as well as an open attitude able to see & adjust to the big picture. Again, it should be the norm to strive for & not the unattainable because it's "too hard" or "close enough is good enough" attitudes so abundant from management, recruiters, trainers & therefore line pilots of today.
Am just back from a sim evaluation. The FO has 2500 hrs TT, 2250 jet. He couldn't fly a raw data night visual pattern. He'd never heard of distance to height calculation for a 3 deg profile let alone using GS to calculate a rate of descent. His only comment after the debrief was that he believes he's ready for Command upgrade because all his Capts say how great he his. Blame him or the system?? Welcome to the world too many think is "good enough".
And yes, nitpicking often shows more of one's "mine's bigger than yours" mentality than anything. But like I said, it's quite often those happily giving it out who are unable to be challenged themselves.
Some of the best saves have been from those crews thinking outside the box & seeing a bigger picture & NOT blindly following inappropriate procedures (Sioux City springs to mind...all be it no procedures were available to follow).
"It's FLAP not "FLAPS"! Read your SOP!!"
"Yes Capt. My apologies. And it's "80" not "80 KNOTS" as per the SOPs."
See how that plays out....! The Capt sets the tone of the cockpit.
Your description of The Perfect Pilot i also agree whole heartedly with. But I believe it is something we should aspire to, not something we should put in the "too hard" or "near enough is good enough" attitude. No, we rarely are knot-perfect or precisely in that ideal touchdown zone but it should be what we strive for.
Regarding the radar gain example: I'll bet that same FO has at some stage received a previous mouthful for failing to apply the procedure. Damned if he does & damned if he doesn't. Best practice (in my eyes) would be:
"Capt, it's CAVOK. You're happy to leave the gain alone?"
"Of course. No problem."
SOP adhered to & FO not second guessing. A 2-3 second exchange & all is good.
My time in India saw poor excuses for pilots (Capts & FO's) regurgitating the FCOM or SOP yet unable to answer any if the "WHY's". Word perfect on procedures but ask them to mentally calculate a descent profile to include the STAR & approach to not include a level segment? No idea.
Again, this is the system created & rewarded. Give me a Capt or FO who knows the SOPs as well as the FCOMs, FCTM, QRH, etc as well as an open attitude able to see & adjust to the big picture. Again, it should be the norm to strive for & not the unattainable because it's "too hard" or "close enough is good enough" attitudes so abundant from management, recruiters, trainers & therefore line pilots of today.
Am just back from a sim evaluation. The FO has 2500 hrs TT, 2250 jet. He couldn't fly a raw data night visual pattern. He'd never heard of distance to height calculation for a 3 deg profile let alone using GS to calculate a rate of descent. His only comment after the debrief was that he believes he's ready for Command upgrade because all his Capts say how great he his. Blame him or the system?? Welcome to the world too many think is "good enough".
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopTup, here's the thing.
I've worked in a few different companies, and all of them had their own SOPs.
More often these would be Manufacturers SOP's, with a twist. But sometimes they were widely different from Manufacturers SOP's, and were introduced because of some particular 'hangup' in that company. Perhaps a previous serious incident, or accident. Sometimes the differences were because the company had numerous different types in its fleet, and had tried to standardise across the whole fleet.
Mostly, these were good companies, with good training departments, and serious thought went into the design of their SOPs. Many of them made perfect sense, and were an aid to operational performance and safety.
Then you move to another company - and those previous SOPs are wrong Wrong WRONG!!
Very well - as you say - that is what you signed up to, and so lets do it 'their way'. No problem.
But don't fool yourself by thinking any SOP is monolithic and immutable. Clearly they are not.
Indeed, you don't even have to move companies to see this proven.
Ever seen an SOP that was Gospel one day, and Heresy the next?
We play the game, and do our best, but when SOPs become nothing more than a stick to beat each other with they become a threat in themselves IMHO.
As to the F/O who goes by the book and gets slammed by a Captain - I have every sympathy. Its yet another example of the dilemma created by blind rigidity.
I've worked in a few different companies, and all of them had their own SOPs.
More often these would be Manufacturers SOP's, with a twist. But sometimes they were widely different from Manufacturers SOP's, and were introduced because of some particular 'hangup' in that company. Perhaps a previous serious incident, or accident. Sometimes the differences were because the company had numerous different types in its fleet, and had tried to standardise across the whole fleet.
Mostly, these were good companies, with good training departments, and serious thought went into the design of their SOPs. Many of them made perfect sense, and were an aid to operational performance and safety.
Then you move to another company - and those previous SOPs are wrong Wrong WRONG!!
Very well - as you say - that is what you signed up to, and so lets do it 'their way'. No problem.
But don't fool yourself by thinking any SOP is monolithic and immutable. Clearly they are not.
Indeed, you don't even have to move companies to see this proven.
Ever seen an SOP that was Gospel one day, and Heresy the next?
We play the game, and do our best, but when SOPs become nothing more than a stick to beat each other with they become a threat in themselves IMHO.
As to the F/O who goes by the book and gets slammed by a Captain - I have every sympathy. Its yet another example of the dilemma created by blind rigidity.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again - I completely agree with you. It's the "seeing the big picture" that is lost too often. SOP's, FCOM's, and so on... are just a part of this picture. But like trying to be "knot-perfect" is but one part of the approach & landing so too are these matters in the scheme of things.
CRM. It's still in my opinion the hardest part of what we do, unfortunately.
Cheers....
CRM. It's still in my opinion the hardest part of what we do, unfortunately.
Cheers....
)
Thanks to Airbus to sell their crap Aeroplanes they had to dumb it down .
Countries with the most people to move normally dont have english as first language . They have highly educated ( went to the best schools) because of their positions in society given fying jobs on a platter and using their wrote learning skills to impress the masses. Airbus think theirs enough protections to avoid most catastrophies so pretty pilots are really just bus drivers.
Bring on the accountants who can exploit this now less professional career by pay cuts and excessive working hours. If an aircraft gets written off once in a while (sq) no big deal insurance covers it.
Pilot salaries will decline in the future thanks to cadet schemes and the good ol boys pushing up daisies taking their vast experiences with them.
Before you commentt on my spelling im only required to have English level 4 so back off...!
Countries with the most people to move normally dont have english as first language . They have highly educated ( went to the best schools) because of their positions in society given fying jobs on a platter and using their wrote learning skills to impress the masses. Airbus think theirs enough protections to avoid most catastrophies so pretty pilots are really just bus drivers.
Bring on the accountants who can exploit this now less professional career by pay cuts and excessive working hours. If an aircraft gets written off once in a while (sq) no big deal insurance covers it.
Pilot salaries will decline in the future thanks to cadet schemes and the good ol boys pushing up daisies taking their vast experiences with them.
Before you commentt on my spelling im only required to have English level 4 so back off...!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting boring... 
How about those who say, "Start number four, thanks!" or "Flaps ten, thanks?"
LOVE IT! NOT!
Hey TopTup, what do you mean about the overuse of the word "heavy?" Just curious if you and I are on the same page.
How about those who say, "Start number four, thanks!" or "Flaps ten, thanks?"
LOVE IT! NOT!
Hey TopTup, what do you mean about the overuse of the word "heavy?" Just curious if you and I are on the same page.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree, this is quite mundane stuff yet the the source of so much angst and BS on the flightdeck that could be so easily avoided. But in all seriousness, it's like studying the principles of an ILS. Boring, boring stuff but that one time you capture a false glideslope or try to intercept outside of the rated range and "weird stuff" starts happening, the mundane effort paid off. Recognition of the situation is quicker.
(As I type am thinking didn't CX have a 777 (??) incident into RUH not too long ago due false glideslope??)
My notes at hand on use of the word "heavy" are as follows:
On first contact with the TERMINAL RADAR AREA prefix the callsign with "HEAVY". The ICAO standard is for any aircraft taking off with a gross weight of 300,000 lbs (140,000 kgs) or more to use the term "heavy" in radio communications BELOW 18,000 ft AMSL. In the US, the threshold for "heavy" is 225,001 lbs (115,700 kgs) or more. The term HEAVY may be omitted after initial contact with ATC.
So you identify your wake turb category on first contact with radar / ATC and only use it below 18,000 ft. No need to be "check'in in witch-a twenny one nine, thirty six thou, United 123 HEAVY" every transfer or every call in cruise. (Let alone like that [exaggerated?] method anyway...!)
My point is, it's but one of many, many habits adopted and not a procedure learned.
If incorrect then I'd appreciate the feedback.
(As I type am thinking didn't CX have a 777 (??) incident into RUH not too long ago due false glideslope??)
My notes at hand on use of the word "heavy" are as follows:
On first contact with the TERMINAL RADAR AREA prefix the callsign with "HEAVY". The ICAO standard is for any aircraft taking off with a gross weight of 300,000 lbs (140,000 kgs) or more to use the term "heavy" in radio communications BELOW 18,000 ft AMSL. In the US, the threshold for "heavy" is 225,001 lbs (115,700 kgs) or more. The term HEAVY may be omitted after initial contact with ATC.
So you identify your wake turb category on first contact with radar / ATC and only use it below 18,000 ft. No need to be "check'in in witch-a twenny one nine, thirty six thou, United 123 HEAVY" every transfer or every call in cruise. (Let alone like that [exaggerated?] method anyway...!)
My point is, it's but one of many, many habits adopted and not a procedure learned.
If incorrect then I'd appreciate the feedback.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopTup,
Yes, we're on the same page regarding "heavy," though stating that "heavy" may be omitted after first contact and, "should be used below 18,000 feet" is a contradiction. I remember reading in the AIM what you have written, though the new version of the AIM does not state the same thing.
The AIM states:
5. Air carriers and commuter air carriers having FAA authorized call signs should identify themselves by stating the complete call sign (using group form for the numbers) and the word "heavy" if appropriate.
It doesn't specify "first contact," "terminal area" or "enroute." So, we then look to the instructions for the controllers.
This is from FAA Order 7110.65T-Air Traffic Control (edited):
b. The word “heavy” shall be used as part of the identification of heavy jet aircraft as follows:
TERMINAL. In all communications with or about heavy jet aircraft.
EN ROUTE. The use of the word heavy may be omitted
EXAMPLE-
“United Fifty-Eight Heavy.”
NOTE-
Most airlines will use the word “heavy” following the company prefix and flight number when establishing communications or when changing frequencies within a terminal facility's area.
It seems to me that ATC must always use "heavy" in the terminal area and, according to the AIM, pilots must also use the term "heavy." It's not clear that pilots need not use the term, or should not use the term "heavy" in enroute airspace though it IS clear that ATC need not.
Clear as a bell?
Yes, we're on the same page regarding "heavy," though stating that "heavy" may be omitted after first contact and, "should be used below 18,000 feet" is a contradiction. I remember reading in the AIM what you have written, though the new version of the AIM does not state the same thing.
The AIM states:
5. Air carriers and commuter air carriers having FAA authorized call signs should identify themselves by stating the complete call sign (using group form for the numbers) and the word "heavy" if appropriate.
It doesn't specify "first contact," "terminal area" or "enroute." So, we then look to the instructions for the controllers.
This is from FAA Order 7110.65T-Air Traffic Control (edited):
b. The word “heavy” shall be used as part of the identification of heavy jet aircraft as follows:
TERMINAL. In all communications with or about heavy jet aircraft.
EN ROUTE. The use of the word heavy may be omitted
EXAMPLE-
“United Fifty-Eight Heavy.”
NOTE-
Most airlines will use the word “heavy” following the company prefix and flight number when establishing communications or when changing frequencies within a terminal facility's area.
It seems to me that ATC must always use "heavy" in the terminal area and, according to the AIM, pilots must also use the term "heavy." It's not clear that pilots need not use the term, or should not use the term "heavy" in enroute airspace though it IS clear that ATC need not.
Clear as a bell?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oval....much appreciated.
As mentioned, for me it's no so much the rigidity or for that matter pedantic quoting of chapter & verse but the knowledge, understanding & "big picture" awareness of this & so many, many other operational issues.
It starts at recruitment & continues throughout a pilot's entire career.
(Refreshing to have an educated & informative discussion on this site for a change!!)
As mentioned, for me it's no so much the rigidity or for that matter pedantic quoting of chapter & verse but the knowledge, understanding & "big picture" awareness of this & so many, many other operational issues.
It starts at recruitment & continues throughout a pilot's entire career.
(Refreshing to have an educated & informative discussion on this site for a change!!)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I type am thinking didn't CX have a 777 (??) incident into RUH not too long ago due false glideslope??)
That was one of our bi polar employees who thought he was the ace of base. He confused the lnav indication for the GS and well.....the rest is history.
