How many details should a SOP have?

[-1000AGL]

It never stops to impress me how much knowledge and in-depth technical details we share on this forum. I really enjoy reading and learning more from tech-log. Most airlines write their own SOPs, FCOMs, AOMs, OM Part B or whatever they call them. Many pilot’s are criticizing the industry trend of writing less in-depth pilot manuals that are more “need-to-know” than the older manuals used to be. Most airlines have a lot of additional procedures, details, techniques and often a higher degree of “micro-management” than the manufatcturer's manuals. Could some of you share your view on:
1) How many details should manuals include?
2) Can they have too many details?
3) Have your airline any overall philosophies about how many “extra” details to include?

[Capt. Haddock]

Not a direct answer to your question but I have noticed that arlines who hire a lot of low time pilots such as the fast growing low cost carriers in Europe often have very detailed manuals. They have more details about how pilots should do subtasks while other carriers rely more on experience and allow individuals to adapt a bit to the situation and operational variations.

I am not going to suggest where to draw the line but too many details might lead to more procedural deviations and a difference between written procedures and real line practices.

[oldebloke]

In the olde days Airlines had days of ground school lectures ETC to 'know' the aircraft...About 1970's Boeing came through with 'need to know'Chapter 3 of the AFM(how to)fly the aircraft..
Generally the SOP's,as the manufacturer saw it were quite Basic.
Airline 'culture'added certain info as 'nice to do',as seen by the
Flight standards dept.(constant change) covering percieved weaknesses in the day to day operations.This policy applied to the QRH,and this too became a 'bible' of information-transposed from the AFM(bulky?)...
Boeing's 'need to know' dropped certain 'good'advisory information(like landing on contaminated runways)from the 'supplemental'chapters,which had to be published elsewhere.
At the moment the most 'basic' SOP's and 'Standard' calls are in the Airbus Fcom's/AFM's(320)

[411A]

One rather small (then) airline I worked for in asia long ago pasted their logo on the Boeing manual and mentioned...fly it this way, thank you very much.

Seemed like a good idea to me.

Then, SOP's were not all that detailed, as the airline expected their training/line Captains to show the new guys the ropes.

Also seems a good idea....and it worked surprisingly well.

If you get too pedantic, oftentimes it obscures the initiative needed when things don't go according to hoyle..IE: not as expected.
SR111 comes to mind.

[Techman]

I agree fully with 411, much too often airmanship and common sense if stifled by the belief than only what is written in the ops manual can be done.

[Rananim]

I concur 100% with 411.
SR111 is an excellent example of just how dangerous SOP clutter can be during an emergency.Find the correct mindset to suit the emergency.Rule-based and methodical(and oh so slow)is lovely when you're building the airline's reputation as a marvel of Teutonic time-keeping and precision or dealing with a V1 cut.Its the last thing you want in a dire emergency that requires a mindset that starts off by recognizing at the outset that there are no rules...free the mind,know your aircraft inside out and trust in airmanship alone.

[None]

411A wrote:

One rather small (then) airline I worked for in asia long ago pasted their logo on the Boeing manual and mentioned...fly it this way, thank you very much.


I flew with pilot who had a similar story, adding on that for the chapter on conduct professionalism, etc., they stated merely:

"Always use your own personal best judgement at all times."

[alf5071h]

I do not entirely agree with the view that SOPs should include the abnormal or emergency checklists as suggested by 411A and Rananim in their references to Swiss Air 111. That accident involved poor emergency procedures, which were more in the realms of the manufacturer and regulator. The SOP that was missing was to consider landing asap.

SOPs – Standard Operating Procedures are predominantly for routine operations. Some ‘professionally advanced’ operators have very few SOPs. Their safety culture and operating methods instil their procedures in everyday behaviour - ‘this is the way we do things’.
Therefore, by segregating SOPs from the QRH / abnormal or emergency checklists, the real purpose and value of SOPs, and thence the number required, can be assessed. The number of standard procedures often reflects inversely, the operator’s safety culture.

There are considerable differences between an operator who requires crews to fly by the book and has to write everything down, and a similar operator who teaches airmanship – and as None, 411A, and Rananim indicate, airmanship requires crews to use judgement within a standardised operation.

Now if airmanship (experience?) is really lacking as indicted by Capt. Haddock, then perhaps we should be worried by the increasing number of SOPs.

[None]

FAA Advisory Circular 120-71A

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...D?OpenDocument

This looks to be along the lines you are searching for, but I have not read through it. It's in PDF format.

[safetypee]

Whist the AC gives good general advice; it is not a great example for how many details there should be in an SOP. The AC lists all of the subjects that should be covered by procedures, thus by following the advice an operator includes everything, but the details are still his choice to some extent. In my experience this AC can be mis-used; the local regulator uses it as a template for everything that has to be written down so that he is confident that the operator is doing a good job, but with little consideration as to the effectiveness of the procedures in-flight. Similarly the FAA HQ required tightening of ‘in house’ regulatory guidance after an accident when it was discovered that they and local inspectors were unaware of the manufacturer’s changes to operating procedures in icing conditions.

Para 9 a (2) ‘The procedure is practical to use’ probably offers the best advice.

[error_401]

As with all manuals again the question arises:

Do you want to publish the knowledge at all?

Unfortunately we always think to complicated. Why not let the user decide in how deep he wants to dig into. Offer an understandable staged approach to SOPs.

1. Tell the user the essential - kneed to know
2. Tell the user the in depht knowledge - nice to know
3. Tell the user where the source is and give him arguments and reasons why the SOP is the way it is - offer him reason.

In my opininon there is usually too little information. The SOPs are sometimes poorly written, ambigous or not concise. Many companies struggle with procedures which are not thought through. The mor information you make available the better any user can pick what he deems necessary for his understanding.

Apart from this - live the SOPs - develop a philosophy and live it because this is the way people pass that on to the new ones.

[learjetdriver]

my opinion concerning SOPs is

keep it simple, keep it safe

SOPs are good for to standardize crew action. They should never replace common sense.
So if SOPs are to much detailed no one will follow them, because no one can remember them. The result would be chaos in the cockpit. Unfortunately some operators / manufactors are creating SOPs to compensate design problems instead of solving the problem.

[BOAC]

There is also the additional risk of 'fiddling' too much with SOPs until everyone is confused as to 'what is today's SOP' - as BA did on the 737 a while back with, for example, how to set flap before take-off, until GB cried 'no more' after 7 or so amendments in as many weeks. Taking a fortnight's leave left you well behind the game.

[-1000AGL]

BOAC .... very interesting, ......that's exactly the kind of cases I have been looking at. Did BA change it's philosophy or are they still on the same path? Anyone else with similar stories?