Not respecting SOPs
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
penko, C2 is expressing concerns over his outfit and rightfully so as it seems to be widespread phenomena. C2, I salute you for your dedication and persistence. There's no major or minor violations, it's individual attitudes promoted by corporate culture. Whatever the outcome of your efforts might be sooner or later you'll find the right place for you. 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know 9.G and I have written about that. If it is a common occurrence that captains in his outfit have a total disregard of SOP then I share his (deep) concern. I think we all do. I just wonder if there is more going on because some of the things he mentions are very mundane.
-Like the two way comms required when fuelling with pax. Even my airline accepts that this can be achieved by banging on the side of the fuselage when there is a need for communication with the fligh tdeck. We're not sitting high up in a 747.
-Headsets to be worn when copying the airway clearance. Again, it's a regulation but there is also a real world out there..
In the end, if we were to follow each and every regulation to the letter we would achieve maybe one take off per day per crew. After which, per regulation, the crew will call in fatigued!
To be absolutely clear, I am not advocating non-compliance to SOP! Not at all. I am a big believer. I marvel at the fact that tomorrow I can be called up to operate in a foreign base with foreign people I have never met and make it look like we have been doing it together for ages. This is only possible through strict adherence to sensible SOP's. And yes, it avoids making stupid mistakes.
-Like the two way comms required when fuelling with pax. Even my airline accepts that this can be achieved by banging on the side of the fuselage when there is a need for communication with the fligh tdeck. We're not sitting high up in a 747.
-Headsets to be worn when copying the airway clearance. Again, it's a regulation but there is also a real world out there..
In the end, if we were to follow each and every regulation to the letter we would achieve maybe one take off per day per crew. After which, per regulation, the crew will call in fatigued!
To be absolutely clear, I am not advocating non-compliance to SOP! Not at all. I am a big believer. I marvel at the fact that tomorrow I can be called up to operate in a foreign base with foreign people I have never met and make it look like we have been doing it together for ages. This is only possible through strict adherence to sensible SOP's. And yes, it avoids making stupid mistakes.
Last edited by PENKO; 22nd Dec 2012 at 19:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: France
Age: 47
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not preaching , I just wanted to point out that a deviation without reasonable grounds , being minor or major, could have a significant impact either on safety ,being the primary concern, or economically.
What definition do you give to minor and major deviations? Would you consider flying below MSA more severe as not breifing your approach ? That is where I disagree.
Not crosschecking the approach plate validty has been more detrimental than flying below MSA, in the past.
Considering the deviation as being minor could be just reassuring or comforting in one's decision , not to qualify it as being a lack of discipline.
Airmanship is that portion of flight which didnt fit into your SOPs , where you exercised good judgement. That's why aircraft are not flown by robots which are unable to sense a situation out of the ordinary.
Not being able to distinguish or integrate the environement around you such as weather , performance etc.. Could be as detrimental as respecting blindly SOPs.
As for the rest, the history has shown the results.
What definition do you give to minor and major deviations? Would you consider flying below MSA more severe as not breifing your approach ? That is where I disagree.
Not crosschecking the approach plate validty has been more detrimental than flying below MSA, in the past.
Considering the deviation as being minor could be just reassuring or comforting in one's decision , not to qualify it as being a lack of discipline.
Airmanship is that portion of flight which didnt fit into your SOPs , where you exercised good judgement. That's why aircraft are not flown by robots which are unable to sense a situation out of the ordinary.
Not being able to distinguish or integrate the environement around you such as weather , performance etc.. Could be as detrimental as respecting blindly SOPs.
As for the rest, the history has shown the results.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standby altimeter set and left in QNH *while during descent or just before top of descent in an anticipation way , before being cleared to an altitude.
Accepting intersection take off on ATC request although performance data for that intersection is not available "we can do it as it is just 50 meters shift, no problem"
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOPs are not a one day job research. Nobody came up one day and said " this is how to do it " We learn every day and it is a never ending process.
Principled Adherence should be weighed differently than SOP itself. The former reflects flight discipline and a systematic way of adressing threats. The latter is negotiable, transient, and widely varied. Your airline and mine operate the Airbus family. Yet 8 items on your list either contradict our SOP or are not addressed at all. Yet in our fleets several million hours we haven't bent anything. So there is more than one (safe!) way to skin a cat.
SOP is valuable, but not sacrosanct.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Principled Adherence should be weighed differently than SOP itself. The former reflects flight discipline and a systematic way of adressing threats. The latter is negotiable, transient, and widely varied. Your airline and mine operate the Airbus family. Yet 8 items on your list either contradict our SOP or are not addressed at all. Yet in our fleets several million hours we haven't bent anything. So there is more than one (safe!) way to skin a cat.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow this is such a simple subject. Follow SOP and you will have a great career until the unexpected happens and your lack of common sence may result in a disaster creating an admendment of your SOP. Blue Skies to all airmen globally over the holidays!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: "como todo buen piloto... mujeriego y borracho"
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good discussion with lots of valid points. I feel that "Airmanship" and "Pilot Technique" has been largely lost in a maelstrom of SOP's and Regulatory Compliance.
I am not trying to discount the importance of both; they are extremely important. I am not the guy who can recite the FCOM or OM by memory, yet often start my crew briefings by clarifying that my objective is to comply with the SOP's and Operations Manual and I encourage any crewmember (from the FO to the most junior FA) to bring it to my attention if they feel that I am not doing so (we all make mistakes). It is important.
But I also mention that it does not mean that we will not deviate from the aforementioned, but it must be a concious decision and we better have good justification for doing so.
I am not trying to discount the importance of both; they are extremely important. I am not the guy who can recite the FCOM or OM by memory, yet often start my crew briefings by clarifying that my objective is to comply with the SOP's and Operations Manual and I encourage any crewmember (from the FO to the most junior FA) to bring it to my attention if they feel that I am not doing so (we all make mistakes). It is important.
But I also mention that it does not mean that we will not deviate from the aforementioned, but it must be a concious decision and we better have good justification for doing so.
Last edited by Panama Jack; 23rd Dec 2012 at 05:34.
Has anyone of you guys come across any of the situations listed below ?
I didn't know what he was doing far too much of the time and went into the office and told them I was refusing to fly with him. I was perhaps more disappointed that he passed the sim rides and was allowed on the line without being corrected.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lotsa terms are thrown into the round however the experience shows that for the most part there're grossly misunderstood. The very foundation of our profession is discipline e.g. the ability to carry out very much same routine day by day for a single purpose reduce potential errors.
Airmanship is skill and knowledge applied to aerial navigation, similar to seamanship in maritime navigation. Airmanship covers a broad range of desirable behaviors and abilities in an aviator. It is not simply a measure of skill or technique, but also a measure of a pilot’s awareness of the aircraft, the environment in which it operates, and of his own capabilities.
Airmanship can be defined as:
A sound acquaintance with the principles of flight, the ability to operate an airplane with competence and precision both on the ground and in the air, and the exercise of sound judgment that results in optimal operational safety and efficiency.
The three fundamental principles of expert airmanship are skill, proficiency, and the discipline to apply them in a safe and efficient manner.
Discipline is the foundation of airmanship.
The complexity of the aviation environment demands a foundation of solid airmanship, and a healthy, positive approach to combating pilot error.
It's resulted in the new approach to CRM called TEM. ergo always be ahead of your aircraft and be able to predict. As for simple compliance of SOP it's not negotiable and not subjective but a must. Any deviation from such is possible but must be warranted and justifiable let alone safe. Wearing the headset is a matter of discipline not convenience. However it always will come down to an individual attitude no matter how many rules are in place. It's the job of the standard dep, QA and training dep. to weed out bad apples.
Airmanship is skill and knowledge applied to aerial navigation, similar to seamanship in maritime navigation. Airmanship covers a broad range of desirable behaviors and abilities in an aviator. It is not simply a measure of skill or technique, but also a measure of a pilot’s awareness of the aircraft, the environment in which it operates, and of his own capabilities.
Airmanship can be defined as:
A sound acquaintance with the principles of flight, the ability to operate an airplane with competence and precision both on the ground and in the air, and the exercise of sound judgment that results in optimal operational safety and efficiency.
The three fundamental principles of expert airmanship are skill, proficiency, and the discipline to apply them in a safe and efficient manner.
Discipline is the foundation of airmanship.
The complexity of the aviation environment demands a foundation of solid airmanship, and a healthy, positive approach to combating pilot error.
It's resulted in the new approach to CRM called TEM. ergo always be ahead of your aircraft and be able to predict. As for simple compliance of SOP it's not negotiable and not subjective but a must. Any deviation from such is possible but must be warranted and justifiable let alone safe. Wearing the headset is a matter of discipline not convenience. However it always will come down to an individual attitude no matter how many rules are in place. It's the job of the standard dep, QA and training dep. to weed out bad apples.
Last edited by 9.G; 23rd Dec 2012 at 09:17.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9.G
Quote :-As for simple compliance of SOP it's not negotiable and not subjective but a must. Any deviation from such is possible but must be warranted and justifiable let alone safe. Wearing the headset is a matter of discipline not convenience. However it always will come down to an individual attitude no matter how many rules are in place. It's the job of the standard dep, QA and training dep. to weed out bad apples.
I'm not altogether sure if you are not a troll who is having a laugh about this subject but your attitude seems to take any hint of flexibility in the way an aircraft is operated.
I'm not altogether sure if you are not a troll who is having a laugh about this subject but your attitude seems to take any hint of flexibility in the way an aircraft is operated.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C, you seem offended by my critics. Conflict management is due then, I feel.
Well, let's start with common objective- safety. Flexibility was granted as necessary, as already stated earlier, provided its warranted etc. unlike a violation. A violation is an act of deliberate action. As a crew member you have singed up to comply with valid rules and regulations, haven't you? EU OPS clearly prescribes when headsets are to be worn which is also part of OM. Now if you chose not to wear it coz you don't feel like or didn't do it before you're clearly violating the regs. It's a fail item during any check, btw. You weren't flexible but complacent. Now if you choose to fly NADP1 instead of 2 due to tight turn or altitude constraint that's where you've been flexible. I'd like to see your reaction if you had to re-do the recurrent for silly things like not wearing the HS. I haven't come across many people not being capable of understanding the lesson. Again it's a corporate culture promoting individual qualities let it be positive or negative.
Well, let's start with common objective- safety. Flexibility was granted as necessary, as already stated earlier, provided its warranted etc. unlike a violation. A violation is an act of deliberate action. As a crew member you have singed up to comply with valid rules and regulations, haven't you? EU OPS clearly prescribes when headsets are to be worn which is also part of OM. Now if you chose not to wear it coz you don't feel like or didn't do it before you're clearly violating the regs. It's a fail item during any check, btw. You weren't flexible but complacent. Now if you choose to fly NADP1 instead of 2 due to tight turn or altitude constraint that's where you've been flexible. I'd like to see your reaction if you had to re-do the recurrent for silly things like not wearing the HS. I haven't come across many people not being capable of understanding the lesson. Again it's a corporate culture promoting individual qualities let it be positive or negative.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Headsets to be worn when copying the airway clearance. Again, it's a regulation but there is also a real world out there..\"
Headsets are mandatory for a clearance? That's laughable from the other side of the pond.
Headsets are mandatory for a clearance? That's laughable from the other side of the pond.
Laughable, yes, that something like this has to go in national regulations. Sadly we have become over regulated in the apparent interest of our own safety. Here in Oz there is a fetish for flouro-coloured high visibility vests. If you step on to an airfield without one of these you face prosecution. Seriously. The headset rule is common enough in Company Ops Manuals and does make some sense for some types of aircraft I suppose. If a particular SOP causes no hardship, why not just go with the flow instead of bucking the system just to be ornery?
On the other hand if a SOP is contrary to 'best practice' put up a sound written argument to the Chief Pilot to have it changed, lobby via the Safety Group etc.
On the other hand if a SOP is contrary to 'best practice' put up a sound written argument to the Chief Pilot to have it changed, lobby via the Safety Group etc.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FL410
Age: 22
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Rat!
Considering the fact that 75% of aviation accidents are directly related to human factors, pilots should make every effort to respect procedures established by the manufacturer and airline SOPs
That is an interesting introduction when actually studied. I despise the "accidents are related to human factors" argument. It is true.....but it is only a tiny portion of the Truth. So human factors also contribute greatly to traffic accidents, but human factors AVOID the open manhole cover, the diesel spill on the road, the wet leaves in the bend, the fool running the red, the blown tyre. Of course, all the incidents and accidents AVOIDED due to airmanship and ability, "wisdom," are totally ignored in the introductory statement, which is why I get so irritated by hearing it.
There is also an assumption that SOPs improve that human factor ratio. They are a tool and used properly, reduce stress, as they are ingrained procedures, like tying a shoelace, using the clutch and changing gears in a curve on a motorbike (try writing a procedure for either of these activities) BUT use with wisdom.......... One of my "pet" peeves, although a minor one, is that our checklist calls for the "nav lights "on" before APU start. Our NAV lights have no power on batteri, so selecting them "on" is useless, as they will not come on anyway. Selecting them on however, and then selecting the generator on after APU start, blows especially the tail NAV lamps after a short time. Some sort of surge as the generator comes on line. So I deviate from the order of the checklist to selecting the NAV lights on AFTER APU generator on line.
You would be amazed at the FOs who almost cannot sit still at this horrible deviation!
Yet the same FO would depart with an "open door" warning(!) "Don´t you think it is a false message?" or descend below MDA towards a mountain on an island, because he had intermittant ground contact directly below..... not wise........
Considering the fact that 75% of aviation accidents are directly related to human factors, pilots should make every effort to respect procedures established by the manufacturer and airline SOPs
That is an interesting introduction when actually studied. I despise the "accidents are related to human factors" argument. It is true.....but it is only a tiny portion of the Truth. So human factors also contribute greatly to traffic accidents, but human factors AVOID the open manhole cover, the diesel spill on the road, the wet leaves in the bend, the fool running the red, the blown tyre. Of course, all the incidents and accidents AVOIDED due to airmanship and ability, "wisdom," are totally ignored in the introductory statement, which is why I get so irritated by hearing it.
There is also an assumption that SOPs improve that human factor ratio. They are a tool and used properly, reduce stress, as they are ingrained procedures, like tying a shoelace, using the clutch and changing gears in a curve on a motorbike (try writing a procedure for either of these activities) BUT use with wisdom.......... One of my "pet" peeves, although a minor one, is that our checklist calls for the "nav lights "on" before APU start. Our NAV lights have no power on batteri, so selecting them "on" is useless, as they will not come on anyway. Selecting them on however, and then selecting the generator on after APU start, blows especially the tail NAV lamps after a short time. Some sort of surge as the generator comes on line. So I deviate from the order of the checklist to selecting the NAV lights on AFTER APU generator on line.
You would be amazed at the FOs who almost cannot sit still at this horrible deviation!
Yet the same FO would depart with an "open door" warning(!) "Don´t you think it is a false message?" or descend below MDA towards a mountain on an island, because he had intermittant ground contact directly below..... not wise........
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9.G
The headset on for the ATC clearance is clearly a stupid and unnecessary bit of rubbish from a desk bound shinny ass.
As long as both flight crew members clearly hear and understand the clearance then what matters by what audio system it was received from ? No doubt the headset is still required if the clearance comes via the data link.
Once the aircraft is about to move off and until 10,000 ft I can understand and agree with the use of headsets.
I am still not sure if you are troll, very low time and have little or no experience or are paid to write this SOP rubbish.
OH ! If it is the last of these options do you know the guy who in draft one of the new EASA regulations required ASI's to be fitted to free balloons ?
As long as both flight crew members clearly hear and understand the clearance then what matters by what audio system it was received from ? No doubt the headset is still required if the clearance comes via the data link.
Once the aircraft is about to move off and until 10,000 ft I can understand and agree with the use of headsets.
I am still not sure if you are troll, very low time and have little or no experience or are paid to write this SOP rubbish.
OH ! If it is the last of these options do you know the guy who in draft one of the new EASA regulations required ASI's to be fitted to free balloons ?
Last edited by A and C; 23rd Dec 2012 at 23:55.