Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

When are Company SOP's Dangerous?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

When are Company SOP's Dangerous?

Old 8th Dec 2006, 19:20
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,420
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SOP's should be used for one reason only.
TO PREVENT AN INCIDENT HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Where they are used as an arse covering procedure by airlines then they are very likely to be barstadised to such an extent as to potentially cause the very incident that they are designed to avoid.
Almost exactly what I meant to say. I'll just add that overgrown SOPs are not dangerous per se. They can be so hard to know and follow that crews get demoralized and decide not to follow SOP at all, because they feel it's all rubbish. And when proverbial hits the fan, guess whose nether regions will be well covered and who'll get the blame - posthumously, at the worst.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2006, 11:55
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a very well respected ex mil helo training Captain said the other day:

You've got to be good, to be gash!
brain fade is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2006, 01:01
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is all very interesting. As an airman, trainer and checker over the last four decades, I've been watching the evolution of CRM discussions with mounting interest. Robert Helmreich, a Professor of Psychology at the U of Texas (since Pontius was a Flight Cadet, according to his bio), with a specialty in human factors research, is an amazing source of eye-watering intel. I recommend 'googling' him for those who have not been so advantaged.
I've always been at least bemused by his perennial observations that pilot/aircrew members from the British Commonwealth have a tendency to 'wing it' (competently) when it comes to procedural matters. In latter years he has acknowledged that airmen from the United States have tended to fall into that illustrious grouping as well.
The upshot of this is that societies where individual strengths and initiative are valued tend to be weaker on strict procedural issues, while societies which are more dogmatically traditional and hierarchically structured tend to put greater emphasis on dogmatic procedural adherence.
In any event, the polemic on this issue is healthy interchange, and the corporate and individual experience input is healthy and entertaining as well as educational.
madtrap is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2006, 06:30
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

If you put a group of musicians together and let them make music, without any rehearsal in general it will be messy, but the creativity may be genius, unfortunately however only too often it becomes just a big mess in which many errors are made.
I rather listen to music played by musicians that have rehearsed and follow agreed arrangements.
Flying an airplane is not that different.

Nick (Mozart) Notoc
Nick NOTOC is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2006, 14:11
  #45 (permalink)  
The Bumblebee
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Inside the shiny tube.
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reminds me of something a very wise man said:
Is a standard procedure standard because it's in the manual and everyone complies or is it standard because everyone f*ck's it up the same way everyday?
DesiPilot is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2006, 06:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SOP's are important for hearings. Make sure you can show you adhered to them even though you feel the need to deviate for common sense reasons to make the flight safer. One day landing at Portland, Ore. I added 20 knots because of expected wind shear on short final with a gusty 25 + knot direct crosswind. We lost 20 knots at 50 feet and with a quick increase in thrust landed normally. A United 727 landed right behind us and looked like they got both wingtips and almost left the runway using SOP's. The second touchdown on the nosegear and one main gear probably put it in the hangar for a few days.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2006, 07:18
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Down south, USA.
Posts: 1,594
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
Thumbs up

Many or most SOPs were created many years ago in order to avoid this problem: for a given First Officer, how will Captain Hot Shot, for a new FO or FE, run "his" flightdeck? How about Captains Normal, Humble or Meek? Who knows? What could the FO expect thirty years ago? And in a larger type of jet, how different will the operation be? Unique styles and hard-heads, bloated, or delicate egos were major reasons (never mind the image for the young, pretty cabin crew back then...). During a serious abnormal situation it is no time to be guessing about the so-called standard stuff and just how two or three crewmembers should coordinate duties.

Over twenty five years ago a C-130 crew from an operational Little Rock squadron crashed after they spent a while at an airport analyzing a propeller governor malfunction (Fort Campbell?). Even if they had first selected mechanical on the governor, a fairly prompt engine shutdown (feather, de-couple, pitchlock etc)and landing might have ended their problem in a safe manner. In the Navy P-3, both 2P and PPC pilots memorize a large chart (4 columns, each with about 8 squares per column) in order to deal with various prop and Allison engine malfunctions, because they can be hours from land.
And due to the ValuJet DC-9 crash (and the MD-11 at Halifax?), when we now train for sudden smoke in the cabin or c0ckp1t, we tell the FO to fly, put on mask and goggles, head immediately to the nearest suitable airport and attempt to go thru the full emergency checklist. But (!), if it is a short distance to the airport, priority is to get the plane safely on the ground with flaps 40 and landing gear down etc-even if we have too little time to finish the emergency checklist.

Survival is more important than total compliance with a long complex set of procedures IF both pilots are needed to prepare NOW for an unfamiliar, possibly hazardous airport (Wyoming, MT or Vermont...) and/or demanding instrument approach etc. In a two-pilot c0ckp1t, the flying pilot (solo) can only do so much.
This can be an extreme example. If we die, we won't find the chance to be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" (i.e. football).

How important is your "delicate pink body" or those of your family? Your passengers?

Last edited by Ignition Override; 12th Dec 2006 at 07:42.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2006, 14:24
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: out there looking in
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
S-O-Ps cover standard operations and usually very well too.

In a non-standard standard ops or a situation not covered by the QRH, you use Airmanship-O-Ps.

How and why you apply those, now there's a whole other thread!
birdonthewire is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2006, 14:42
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UAE
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rananim.quite apt! Obsession with SOP could lead to the kind of obsessions that distract from the primary task of flying and ending up in a CFIT.SOP are there to promote safety and not to increase workload and dull Pilot's reflexes from removing the flight from an undesirable situation.Actions which breach SOP can be taken confidently once communicated and then accounted for later at a safer flight phase.Lets adhere to them but not be chained to them I say.


Originally Posted by Rananim
THeres good flying and bad flying.Aviation survived for many years before the introduction of CRM and SOP's.Good flyers might break SOP's or infringe the tenets of CRM when required but they're still good.Bad flyers might never break SOP's and be everyone's buddy-buddy but they're still bad.
AHRS is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2006, 16:46
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When working for an outfit with cockpit crew from all over the globe, SOP's are supposed to make operations safer and more "standard". Where do you draw the line between keeping operations safe and an overload of complex procedures! Fuel policies that laywers would have difficulty in understanding - not to speak about duty regulations!
777SandMan is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2006, 17:50
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Now at Home
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by a-bas
SOP are there to promote safety and not to increase workload and dull Pilot's reflexes from removing the flight from an undesirable situation.
Excellent statement !!!
This is the O N L Y reason for implementing any SOP's, but nothing else.
Airbus_a321 is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2006, 22:37
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nick NOTOC
May I add to your excellent view on comparing music and flying?

Having done both professionally, may I suggest. A well rehearsed, technically competent band with excellent arrangments for the music is fine in and of itself.

Almost perfection in each and every event.

Add to that the ability to improvise, with the confidence of a steady beat from the drums and rhythym section make the one taking off on a solo to really do a great job.

So too in flying. Most of the time, we should be providing that "steady beat" of what is to be expected and following the fine arrangments ( READ SOP_)...when something not covered by the SOP, THE MAN with the PLAN should takeoff (soloing as it were) with the confidence of his sidemen backing him up.


But more practice on the SOP means more confidence in a desperate situation.
bomarc is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2006, 09:07
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about when the old fogey from the CAA decides you now need a call at FL200 and FL300? For what? Anyone worth their salt has actioned some drills at FL100 wether their company SOP calls for it or not.

Superfluous SOPs only detract from the whole ethos. If one item is deemed to be questionable, then all items become suspect by default.

Just because eons ago some old fart used to have to retard the throttles on their Viper engines in the climb and used FL200 and 300 as a reminder does not mean modern equipment needs to be governed by rules that are irrelevant.

To my friends who are old farts, I wish I'd flown in your era when pilots were better skilled and very much more respected.
silverhawk is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2006, 12:33
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
99% of the time they are the result of a genuine effort made by flight ops departments to increase safety and efficiency
Genuine effort or personal opinions - therein lies the rub.
The problem is that a fair proportion of some SOP's are superfluous. To gabble a mantra such as "Auto-pilot engaged - Alt Hold engaged - Altimeters agree one two three all 1013 - I have VHF 1 my side - you have 121.5 your side - FD on heading both - Putting my seat back NOW -
I mean, for Christ sake we all have two eyes and it is obvious even to blind Freddy that continuous rote talking is not necessarily a good thing.
Now I made up that earlier lot but it is typical of some operators that unless you annunciate everything you do apart from scratching one's private parts (male or female) - then the operation is unsafe. And then there is the regulator who likes to sound important by insisting little things of his own personal preference is in print as an SOP.
The 737 FCTM at page 1.1 makes a reasonable point when it says "Conditions beyond the control of the flight crew may preclude following a maneuver exactly. The maneuvers are not intended to replace good judgement and logic".

In another life I was PNF during a straight in NDB approach into a Pacific island runway length 5600 ft. The Boeing FCTM recommended gear down flap 15 and 150 knots until runway sighted then land flap as needed. It was heavy rain and low cloud and the DME worked fine for a change. The MDA was 700 ft but the vis meant we were never going to get flap down and stabilised by the time we spotted the runway IF we stuck to Flap 15 until visual. Sure enough the SOP pedantic in the LH seat had to go around when we broke visual too late to land - all because the book said stay at Flap 15 and 150 knots until visual.

We did another circling approach and despite the lessons of the earlier GA the chap still stuck rigidly to same flap setting and speed and the inevitable happened - we went around and this time we diverted 550 miles to our alternate which had no DME and an NDB 8 miles from the runway and it was raining when we got there on min fuel. All he had to do was dirty up at the original airport and we could have been stabilised nicely in time for becoming visual.

But this clown stuck rigidly to the company SOP and no deviation. He was no ace I tell you, as soon after he burnt out the brakes on a 737 with an unnecessary high speed abort on a 11,000 ft runway all because the SOP said max braking until aircraft comes to a stop. The aircraft stopped with 5000 ft to spare. The fusible plugs did their job and the red hot brakes welded on when he parked them...

Last edited by Centaurus; 27th Dec 2006 at 12:49.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2006, 14:09
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SOP

" Deviations from the Standard Operating Procedures are allowed if, in the opinion of the Commander, it will result in a safer and/ or more efficient Flight Operation. Deviation shall be properly briefed and understood by ALL Flight Crew Members. "

That from more than one SOP manual.
Atlanta-Driver is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2006, 14:19
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 71
Posts: 4,132
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
SOPs are certainly a good thing, but excessive attention to them brings to mind the point of Political Correctness - it is not to be PC, but to be seen to be PC.

When SOPs come under that umbrella is when they become dangerous.

Phil
paco is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2006, 15:59
  #57 (permalink)  
turtleneck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
the problem sets in as follows: as an old fart you get checked/trained by new, young and eager farts who have never seen anything else but the outdated and a..covering sop's made up by older farts long gone. they know nothing else and so they have to stick to them religiously. try to deviate as described by airmen above, for the good of safer flight, and you will get hit. you try to explain and discuss, but the only thing you see are big, empty eyes where sopsopsopsop is written all over them. thats modern aviation in a lot of outfits nowadays. the old farts say so what, the new farts continue their religion and all will live happily ever after.
 
Old 27th Dec 2006, 18:57
  #58 (permalink)  
ZbV
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SOP's

Turtleneck

Unfortunately you are so very right. I have been hit as you say. Perhaps I was lucky to work my way up to large aircraft in a way that I had something to compare SOP's with.
A kid with 250 some hours total time straight out of a school sitting in a large jet has nothing but the SOP's to fall back to. But to follow something mindlessly is just plain simple stupid. Will you jump into a well if I tell you to? I doubt there are many takers.
What strikes me as suprising is the willingness of every new DFO, Chief Pilot or Fleet Captain to try to leave their mark into the paperwork and the first things they attack are cheklists and SOP's. Trying to re-invent the wheel me thinks.

JJ
JJflyer is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2006, 14:09
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some Other Possibilities

My observations on SOPs, for what they are worth;
Reading through the accident reports attributed to Pilot/Crew Error mentiones failure to follow Company SOPs as a contributary factor in the vast majority of cases. Adherence to SOPs would mean many lives saved over the years. When the report mentions adherence, they often qualify it with the word 'strict'. I bow to the AIB and their extensive knowledge so would advise 'strict adherence' as being your safest bet, in all and every situation, normal or abnormal.
Many years ago I joined an airline whose SOPs amounted to two sides of A4, and not so closely typed at that. They had never had an accident nor any serious incident but that didn't make them safe in my eyes. When my Check Captain retracted the flaps from 15 to 5 immediately after he had raised the gear for me after a performance restricted Take Off, he explained to a very surprised and somewhat scared Captain under training that; 'we don't need all that drag'. Needless to say, I struggled against ignorance and redneck indifference over the next few years to slowly introduce Boeing SOPs to the company.
If your attitude to your company's SOPs is that they get in the way of your ability to conduct the flight with the freedom and joi de vivre you previously enjoyed then you are the very pilot who needs them the most.
SOPs will save you and your colleagues from the grasping hands of ignorance and arrogance, coulped with bad procedures and lax discipline. Ignore them at your peril.
That is not to say they are perfect. Too often I see procedures that have pilots stating such idiocy as 'Indications Normal', or 'Two Reversers' (on a twin). Just what is the reason for stating that what we expect to occur has in fact occured? Anomalies or abnormalities should be stated, not normal operations of systems.
In spite of such inadequacies, I still urge you to follow SOPs, strictly. If you want to fly any othert way, persuade your colleagues and Management that your way is better, safer and less silly than the present system.
Happy Landings and a safe and standard 2007
rubik101 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2006, 05:05
  #60 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I bow to the AIB and their extensive knowledge so would advise 'strict adherence' as being your safest bet, in all and every situation, normal or abnormal.
rubik that would assume that the 'men in black' know what they are talking about when it comes to what consitutes 'good SOPs' and strict adherance thereof...in 26 years of aviating from single engine Cessnas to widebody Boeing I have actually only met one or two individuals who actually meet that criteria AND who work in AIB.

I am sure however that more than 'one or two' exist....in fact I would be prepared to accept the number might actually approach double figures when all AIBs world wide are taken into consideration.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.