When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are the captain you can feel safe in the cockpit if you feel confident in your decisions because of your experience and aircraft knowledge. Sometimes decisions involve variables that can change like weather and multiple failures so you must always be prepared to change the plan if conditions require it.
FO's need to feel comfortable in the aircraft and not ever need the captains assistance in my opinion. They should fly like they are the captain and not let the captain make all of their decisions for them. Most of my FO's did that but with a few I didn't feel it was safe to take a restroom break.
FO's need to feel comfortable in the aircraft and not ever need the captains assistance in my opinion. They should fly like they are the captain and not let the captain make all of their decisions for them. Most of my FO's did that but with a few I didn't feel it was safe to take a restroom break.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please try to keep to the point, everyone.
The topic is
When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?
Sorry, but you make a pushy impression, as if you were fishing for stories...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Pantload, my neighbor thinks automation is the only way to fly an airplane because a computer can fly better than a pilot. He also believes SOP's are the only way to go and he is an airline pilot. Are you happy?
I do argue with him a lot but you don't want to hear any more of my version of the story. I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody.
I do argue with him a lot but you don't want to hear any more of my version of the story. I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Old schoo'l....me too....
Retired, too...
So, the question is: When, looking back in your experience,
has following SOPs been the wrong course of action?
The relevance of this topic is to my response to the initial
thread....
If you found automation as the culprit....and the use of
automation was your SOP....please share this...
Be as detailed as possible.
So, the question is: When, looking back in your experience,
has following SOPs been the wrong course of action?
The relevance of this topic is to my response to the initial
thread....
If you found automation as the culprit....and the use of
automation was your SOP....please share this...
Be as detailed as possible.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers, Pantload and alf
OK Pantload, my neighbor thinks automation is the only way to fly an airplane because a computer can fly better than a pilot. He also believes SOP's are the only way to go and he is an airline pilot. Are you happy?
I do argue with him a lot but you don't want to hear any more of my version of the story. I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody.
I do argue with him a lot but you don't want to hear any more of my version of the story. I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody.
The fact is that piloting skills are hard to maintain these days. Reactive memory function to adverse flight situations are first driven by SOP, selected pilot flies the aircraft while the other has to look up what to do is the norm. The larges factor is liability driven by bean counters resulting in more automation and less traditional airmanship. This trend shall continue.
I'm retired and am of the old school that pilots should know how to hand fly proficiently and SOP's are a guide so the weak pilots don't kill anybody
When can you say you know enough to be safe in the cockpit?
Pantload,
Hopefully most people will have no need to diverge from SOPs, but most certainly a good Captain will consider it if required.
Examples I can think of:
1) Departure from an airfield which is below single engine auto land approach minima (haven't mentioned specifics as mine would be different to US regs). You get a engine fire that won't go out. I most certainly would land below minima.
2) My type tells you to close the fuel xfeed if the fuel in both inner tanks goes below 750 kgs. With single engine and confirmed no fuel leak I would ignore that ECAM procedure.
I hope that in my career I have no need to disregard an SOP but I am ready to if the situation dictates. Now pilots who wilfully and constantly ignore SOPs because they know better, that's a different subject.
Hopefully most people will have no need to diverge from SOPs, but most certainly a good Captain will consider it if required.
Examples I can think of:
1) Departure from an airfield which is below single engine auto land approach minima (haven't mentioned specifics as mine would be different to US regs). You get a engine fire that won't go out. I most certainly would land below minima.
2) My type tells you to close the fuel xfeed if the fuel in both inner tanks goes below 750 kgs. With single engine and confirmed no fuel leak I would ignore that ECAM procedure.
I hope that in my career I have no need to disregard an SOP but I am ready to if the situation dictates. Now pilots who wilfully and constantly ignore SOPs because they know better, that's a different subject.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good so far....
Right Way Up....thank you.
So far, we have GPWS from aircraft below, land below minima
if on fire, and open the fuel crossfeed (assuming no fuel leak).
OK, anyone else?????
Can anyone give specific incidents where not following the
SOP was the prudent thing to do? Or, to put it another way,
does anyone have a story to tell where, if the SOP were followed,
an unfavorable outcome would have resulted?
So far, we have GPWS from aircraft below, land below minima
if on fire, and open the fuel crossfeed (assuming no fuel leak).
OK, anyone else?????
Can anyone give specific incidents where not following the
SOP was the prudent thing to do? Or, to put it another way,
does anyone have a story to tell where, if the SOP were followed,
an unfavorable outcome would have resulted?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pantload,
There will be many examples where the unintelligent application of the SOP will result in unfavourable outcomes. e.g. the coal train with a brake fire:
The fire was noticed by the "alert" crew who performed the SOP "Stop the Train".
Unfortunately, the train was brought to a halt with the burning truck in the middle of a wooden bridge. The bridge caught fire and eventually collapsed taking the rest of the coal train with it. The picture I have shows the very last truck just on the edge of the bridge.
The more intelligent application of the SOP would have been to stop the train about 100 yards further down the track.
if the SOP were followed, an unfavorable outcome would have resulted?
The fire was noticed by the "alert" crew who performed the SOP "Stop the Train".
Unfortunately, the train was brought to a halt with the burning truck in the middle of a wooden bridge. The bridge caught fire and eventually collapsed taking the rest of the coal train with it. The picture I have shows the very last truck just on the edge of the bridge.
The more intelligent application of the SOP would have been to stop the train about 100 yards further down the track.
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 12th Jul 2011 at 10:27.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went to San Jose, Costa Rica in a B757 and landed up in the mountains with a 15 knot tailwind with about 8,000 ft of runway. This was legal because our SOP for this airport allowed it because of the difficulty in circling with normal low ceilings.
We come back to Miami at sea level with 13,000 ft of runway and are cleared for a close in right base entry to short final landing east with a storm approaching from the west prohibiting us from doing the ILS and will soon close the airport. On final they report a 15 knot tailwind, our limit is 10 so we land anyway and turn off at midfield. The option was to divert to Orlando for a few hrs. Not life threatening but shows how SOP's are for the company's benefit, not common sense. They also protect pilots that can't protect themselves.
We come back to Miami at sea level with 13,000 ft of runway and are cleared for a close in right base entry to short final landing east with a storm approaching from the west prohibiting us from doing the ILS and will soon close the airport. On final they report a 15 knot tailwind, our limit is 10 so we land anyway and turn off at midfield. The option was to divert to Orlando for a few hrs. Not life threatening but shows how SOP's are for the company's benefit, not common sense. They also protect pilots that can't protect themselves.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can never know enough to be totally safe because even if you knew everything there are too there are too many unknown external variables to deal with. However, the amount of knowledge required to be "safe" depends on the person and the environment in which they fly. Somebody flying a modern simple aircraft close to civilisation in the first world country does not have to be as knowledgable as someone operating an ancient flying wreck for a bunch of shysters in the third world. Luck can replace knowledge only for so long.
Beau_Peep
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: India
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
windshear procedure
I had a severe windshear encounter on approach once. fully configured. for more than a minute we struggled with it chasing the FD bars, following the airbus proc, not changing config and keeping wings level. twice airspeed went into red pole. I was worried about the life of flaps which were full. finally, when next time airspeed shot up in the red pole I ordered 'flaps 3'. we got extra room for airspeed to vary. altitude was more or less same. next time speed shot up, we took gear also up. we could climb a bit but still It seemed like never ending windshear. so we initiated turn to right by 45 deg and after a few seconds we were out of that nasty zone.. I realised how nasty windshears could be.. after all, wings are meant to develop lift in smooth air only... I think coming out safe out of windshear is matter of shear luck. windshear is a condition when aircraft is no more flyable.. it is just that powerful engines keep pushing us forward..
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly believe there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to SOP's.A good pilot will use his/her best judgement when it comes to SOP's.Restricting yourself to a rigid and literal guideline when in a constantly changing and dynamic environment is unwise.Kind of like CRM.An authoritarian(undesirable in CRM terms) pilot may well perform brilliantly under pressure and save hundreds of lives.Likewise,a "people person" who scores great on those psych profile tests may kill everyone on board.We just cant know.No hard and fast rules.
Willful disregard of SOP's is incorrect but thinking outside the box and airmanship is certainly not.Airmanship can diverge from SOP's.Nitpickers who trade airspeed for altitude after engine failure when VMC(Chicago-this one changed the rulebook..if you have V2+20 keep it!).A pilot(especially a Captain) who checks only those pre-flight items as laid down in the SOP manual as being his area of responsibility(Helios-Pressurization mode selector).A pilot who shuts down an engine prematurely after entering volcanic ash to prevent damage and facilitate a later relight(BA).A pilot that doesnt descend at Vmo to the nearest airport when a source of smoke is not immediately identified(Swiss-again this changed the rulebook but nothing new to airmanship).A pilot who can brilliantly adapt to a situation for which there is no SOP or even a checklist(Sioux city-Qantas turning off all ADR's ..not in any checklist or SOP!!).A pilot who is wary of any SOP that forbids the non-use of the AFDS or any part thereof.Automation complacency/confusion is a big killer.A pilot when told by ATC to "expedite" leaving the runway doesnt because the taxi speed limit will be infringed.A pilot who doesnt put every single bloody light available to him when taking an active runway because the SOP says only "when cleared for takeoff".
It boils down to common-sense,experience and knowing what you're doing.But they cant write a manual for that so instead they write a manual for the lowest common denominator.Its a guide.An important tool.But by no means a panacea.As an airline Captain,you need more,much more.
Willful disregard of SOP's is incorrect but thinking outside the box and airmanship is certainly not.Airmanship can diverge from SOP's.Nitpickers who trade airspeed for altitude after engine failure when VMC(Chicago-this one changed the rulebook..if you have V2+20 keep it!).A pilot(especially a Captain) who checks only those pre-flight items as laid down in the SOP manual as being his area of responsibility(Helios-Pressurization mode selector).A pilot who shuts down an engine prematurely after entering volcanic ash to prevent damage and facilitate a later relight(BA).A pilot that doesnt descend at Vmo to the nearest airport when a source of smoke is not immediately identified(Swiss-again this changed the rulebook but nothing new to airmanship).A pilot who can brilliantly adapt to a situation for which there is no SOP or even a checklist(Sioux city-Qantas turning off all ADR's ..not in any checklist or SOP!!).A pilot who is wary of any SOP that forbids the non-use of the AFDS or any part thereof.Automation complacency/confusion is a big killer.A pilot when told by ATC to "expedite" leaving the runway doesnt because the taxi speed limit will be infringed.A pilot who doesnt put every single bloody light available to him when taking an active runway because the SOP says only "when cleared for takeoff".
It boils down to common-sense,experience and knowing what you're doing.But they cant write a manual for that so instead they write a manual for the lowest common denominator.Its a guide.An important tool.But by no means a panacea.As an airline Captain,you need more,much more.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim, i recently completed a complete career with a major airline and agree with you totally. All the comfort feely, feely stuff is nice but CRM and SOP's only work part of the time. Common sense will work most of the time.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOPs
SOPs are there to keep all crew members on the same "frequency". However what I found during my career was the "know it all" chief pilots who insisted in changing SOPs from the manufacturer's recommendation to their own. Here are pilots who had nothing to do with the design, building, flight testing and certification of the aircraft but thought they knew more than the manufacturer.
One case in point was the introduction of a procedure that was different to the manufacturer when capturing the GS from above. The "new" procedure caused chaos when approaching the FAF and had the 'plane reaching for the skies at a time when the pilot was attempting to do an approach to LAND. When I e-mailed the manufacturer to clarify the result of this "new SOP" they said " It is why the SOP says to do it that way". They knew what would happen if you changed the published procedure. Quite frankly I am appalled that the governing bodies in each country allow airlines to do this. They should insist on the airlines presenting proof that the new SOP is essential for the safe operation of the aircraft and that it is better that the original manufacturers SOP.
One case in point was the introduction of a procedure that was different to the manufacturer when capturing the GS from above. The "new" procedure caused chaos when approaching the FAF and had the 'plane reaching for the skies at a time when the pilot was attempting to do an approach to LAND. When I e-mailed the manufacturer to clarify the result of this "new SOP" they said " It is why the SOP says to do it that way". They knew what would happen if you changed the published procedure. Quite frankly I am appalled that the governing bodies in each country allow airlines to do this. They should insist on the airlines presenting proof that the new SOP is essential for the safe operation of the aircraft and that it is better that the original manufacturers SOP.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"When will you know enough?". Never. But be cautious regarding what you know. There are no shortage of know-it-all clever-arses out there whose brains are full of useless sh1t. And boy oh boy do they never tire of letting you know how much they know. To which my response is invariably, "Give me any conceivable scenario in which that information could be operationally useful to me in conducting and ensuring a safe flight" The response is almost invariably never, if it's not never then I have learned something useful which is good.
Regarding slavish compliance with SOPs, deviate, if safe to do so, whenever the situation is Non-Standard, assuming that your fellow crew are with you and happy with the non-standard proposal. That's the whole idea of SOPs, they are appropriate when the situation is standard and are inappropriate when the situation is not. The debate doesn't need any further justification. Lastly on this topic, I once worked for a freight airline operating 4 completetly different fleets. Our chief pilot decided that 3 fleets should have their SOPs re-written to match the logic and layout of the senior fleet even though 4 separate manufacturers were involved. Consequently and inevitably the Junior fleets SOPs were rubbish being laced with errors and inappropriate actions.
Regarding slavish compliance with SOPs, deviate, if safe to do so, whenever the situation is Non-Standard, assuming that your fellow crew are with you and happy with the non-standard proposal. That's the whole idea of SOPs, they are appropriate when the situation is standard and are inappropriate when the situation is not. The debate doesn't need any further justification. Lastly on this topic, I once worked for a freight airline operating 4 completetly different fleets. Our chief pilot decided that 3 fleets should have their SOPs re-written to match the logic and layout of the senior fleet even though 4 separate manufacturers were involved. Consequently and inevitably the Junior fleets SOPs were rubbish being laced with errors and inappropriate actions.