Not respecting SOPs
 

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. Has anyone of you guys come across any of the situations listed below ?Some of the items are for A320. How would you/ could you correct that when a majority of pilots do not respect SOPs or deliberately violate SOPs because they are simply considered as minor items?

Undocumented procedures generally speaking like resetting breakers when not documented.
Cockpit preparation carried out in an anarchic way, switching on or off whatever comes across.
Before start check list requested when external power connected , or takeoff data not inserted, or fuel pumps off.
No headset used for departure and landing and when below FL100.( Eu ops requirement)
Breifing not performed.
Checklist is read by memory
Beacon switched On, with ground personel working and cargo door open.
Reluctant to use Flaps 3 for take off , and considered as " critical flaps setting" although giving the optimum performance.
After start checklist requested with NSW still disconnected and amber on ECAM memo.
Below FL 100 PF head down on MCDU, and performing PNF tasks.
During Lvp take off , ILS pushbutton ON. Not aware of yaw bar function.
During LVP ,Flight control check performed while taxing out.
During LVP, before take off checklist performed while taxing out.
During LVP , taxi speed above maximum authorised speed. " it"s okay I can see the green lights very well "
During LVP not switching on all lights when stopped.
When *the clearance is given *while taxing out, PF is setting the FCU cleared altitude and setting the transponder head down, and in the same time taxing the aircraft . Disregarding SOP and Airbus 3rd golden rule " one head up at all times "
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"
Descent below MSA
No arrival breifing.
Not considering Optimum FL.
When PNF is copying wheather from Volmet, ATIS, PF *listening out *also on volmet or atis frequency with loud volume and nobody listening out on active ATC frequency.
Standby altimeter set and left in QNH *while during descent or just before top od descent in an anticipation way , before being cleared to an altitude.

Approach flown without any chart .
Refuelling with pax on board without dual communication established
Not respectingthe procedure to open the cockpit door.
Any ATC request to the pilot would give an affirmative answer .. Without calculating, without having a look at the performance of the aircraft Can you make *Fl 360 with 10 nm ? Affirm , then climbing until vls is reached.

Wow, is this one Captain, or a compilation of many Captains within the one company?
If it is one Captain, I would be refusing to fly with him. If it is an overall company culture, I would be dusting off the CV. An accident waiting to happen....

c2, just change to a reputable operator. Way too many deficiencies to tackle for my taste. :ok:

Citation2;

Does your company have an operational flight data analysis program?

Even for small operators with small fleets and aircraft with bread-and-butter parameter sets, a decent FDM/FDA/FOQA Program can be run, (provided it has been set up correctly and the data validated.)

A question:
Is this person unique in disregarding SOPs or is this a company-wide trend?

Either way, a flight data analysis program will be able to provide feedback on the daily operation so that these "violations" (Reason's definition etc., not regulatory), may be addressed.

I suspect that a company-wide trend will not welcome a flight data program but the proof is in the results. If such SOP violations are limited to one or two persons, there are other ways to address the matter. As always, such problems if chronic and not once-off's, almost always start at the top of the organization: What is tolerated as an operational standard by senior management is what will occur on the line.

Very often, and where the intent is to improve safety and not resort to ineffective methods such as blame, enforcement and discipline, a flight data program will provide the very basis for change because it provides data not opinions and does not countenance the usual psychological or organizational denial mentality that often those new to flight data analysis can sometimes have.

Good luck. If that is truly the way someone's operation is being routinely carried out, that is seriously disrespectful of one's professional integrity, one's colleagues, one's employer and one's passengers. History shows that it is an accident waiting to occur.

This is not a unique person behaviour, but rather a wide trend noticed in aviation industry, not everywhere hopefully but enough airlines worldwide. And I am sure that some of you can recognise one or more scenarios listed above.Unfortunately this also happens, sometimes , in reputable airlines which are recognized as being the safest or the best.

I do not understand this lack of discipline , nor the culture and disrespect for the profession that we chose for passion and we all know the result of such behaviour.

The Flight data monitoring has limited capabilities, like it would not be able to detect wether the FMGS entered data was made by PF or PNF, or FCU entered altitude.

Citation2, next time we fly together I think a little chat might be in order!

Many of those who "commit" those acts will kill you for really minos deviations, like jot setting the loudspeaker knob at one o'clock or something lime that...

It a part of life :(

You seriously need to get a hobby.

Makes you wonder if the SOP's are too prescriptive leaving nothing left for the pilot to use initiative or be flexible. I simply cannot imagine all these sort of gripes occurring when USAF and RAF bomber crews were flying their single pilot IFR four engine bombers with their crew behind them during missions over enemy territory. And they were getting shot at as well.

While I dips me lid to those old bomber crews I sometimes shake my head in disbelief at the proliferation of verbal "SOP's" and other such unnecessarily complex flight deck 'procedures" foisted upon intelligent crews that I am sure could fly quite safely and efficiently using normal airmanship given half the chance. :ugh:

Thread inadvertently deleted. Back to the front page in case there be further commentary.

Nicely said.:DAnd you're Australian and older generation.It had to be.

As for the original post.The failure to brief is poor airmanship.Checklist by memory is also poor airmanship.Checklist discipline is key.I suppose a two item checklist like descent can be done off the top of the head.I dont see a problem with that but it should never be trained that way.Descent below MSA?Well,you do that on every landing but what context?The Captain doing things whilst taxying?Well,it depends what really.And the conditions at the time.Some are very good at it and some arent.I dont agree that a Captain taxying should never do anything else but taxi.A good Captain will know what he/she can do safely.The Beacon on with cargo doors open is a form of communication.Its neither good nor bad airmanship really.It might get the doors closed quicker or it might not.Standby altimeter set in QNH early/late..okay now things are getting a little picky.Dont forget that flying by rote is in itself poor airmanship.Maybe theres a reason he/she wants the QNH.At any rate its something that a good co-pilot would observe,make a mental note of,and say nothing more on the subject.Not considering optimum FL?So many variables here.Turbulence and wind components are two I can think of.Also,as a very general rule,more experienced pilots fly below optimum whilst more inexperienced pilots gleefully climb to optimum and above not knowing just how dangerous it can be.However,flying more than 2000 feet below opt on a regular basis would cost the company and so would also be poor airmanship.The headset not on below 100?yes,it should be worn but the cockpit spkr and handmike will still enable timely comms.Its not a major infraction to be honest.App flown without any chart?Thats poor airmanship unless on a visual approach I suppose but the chart would still be to hand.Not respecting the cockpit door procedure?Well,that one would cost you your job in the States.This is a SOP well worth following I agree.Taxi speed?Again it shows a general pattern to flout rules but in of itself its not of great concern unless taxiway conditions are hazardous.What was the infringement?3 knots?More?

The danger of your post is that the person you describe is someone who has poor airmanship rather than someone who disregards SOP's.By calling good practice/judgement SOP rather than what it really is(ie airmanship),you fuel the fire for an ever-increasing tide of fiddly procedures to be imposed upon perfectly good flight crew who can think very well all by themselves.The only actual "procedure" you mentioned was the cockpit door SOP and that is certainly a good one.

Every captain I've flown with have their way of doing things. Not always exactly by the book. As long as those are just minor deviations that aren't safety related, I let it pass without giving it a second thought. From the list that would involve things like proper door opening procedure, not climbing all the way to optimum FL, no arrival briefing (when both are familiar) etc. If I have any questions I will ask, otherwise wake him up at TOD. A certain captain is known for reporting people for silly things... not exactly a treat to fly with him. Not the type of reputation I'd like about myself.

Without stepping on their toes too hard and challenge their authority, there are obviously times when you have to put your foot down. It has happened a few times and usually leads to a pretty tensed day with not too much chit-chat. Not that it has to be, but the tensed environment lead to a break down in communication and CRM. Some people have a very task orientated style, some are more person orientated. Dealing with SOP adherence I think requires a little bit of both.

Agree with 172 about briefings, but after reading our ASRs I am changing my attitude to these things as most incidents seem to occur at our base, so complacency maybe rife.

I also agree with not dying in a ditch over non safety deviations. But if the deviation is also clearly inefficient I think it is my duty to press for some kind of acceptale rationale, but at the end of the day he is the boss.

However, when I do have to insist on a different course of action, it thus far has never resulted in a tense day. Quite often the conversation has the potential to get a little tense as some guys can get a bit defensive initially, but so far I have always found a way to get my concern across and dealt with without sacrificing the convivial atmosphere. My most difficult time was with a TRE inappropriately interfereing with the decision making process on a line check! But we survived :}

Good SOP's are the building blocks of a flexable and safe operation not the word of god written in tablets of stone never to be departed from.

A lot of points you mention are valid, but a lot of points could also fall under the 'seeing the bigger picture' or 'experience'.

-Not calculating if they can reach a certain level before answering 'affirm' to ATC. Experience comes into this. Also the knowledge that they can always timely inform ATC if and when the restriction cannot be made. If you have to calculate each and every ATC request then you will make everyone's life more difficult than necessary 9 out of 10 times.


-Not considering optimum. Well, that depends on what the optimum is based. Do you ask them why they don't climb? Maybe they don't care, but maybe they have a valid reason. Maybe they have route experience about early descents. Ask!

-Before start checklist with external power connected. Is that a problem? How do you do that checklist with an APU inop? :E

-Briefing not performed. Do you brief everything at your home base? Probably not. If not, then you are on the same sliding scale...careful before you point your finger.



Again, most other points you raise are very valid. I just want to impart on you that the world is not always black and white.

sounds like an immature safety culture might be in place or a misconception of the roles assigned. Perhaps a closer look into part A might prove useful to remind ourselves of the authorities and responsibilities. Put it simple: Commander has the authority, apart from responsibilities and F/O responsibility to assist the commander and to contribute towards safe conduct. The commander should ideally balance between being person and task oriented however exercise assertive style, encouraging and promoting open communication channels at the same time. CRM is supposed to be an effective tool and not grounds for competition or abuse. Cultural, ethnical, religious differences can be mitigated by establishing a safety culture revolving around the subject rather than person. Most of the time it's not what you say but how you say it. For the F/Os a piece of advise: remember a commander was in your place you haven't been in his/her, for the commanders: nothing is more worthy than a timely advise from a fellow crew member. There're always bad apples here and there but in a proper safety culture it's down to individuals not the whole entity. :ok:

SOP's are not in place to be used as instruments of torture. Following them is excellent guidance. Beating the other guy to death with them isn't.

Strive to follow them. At the end of the day if the other guy thinks you followed every SOP, or has to think about which one's you missed, you've done well.

And deviating from SOP? Figure out the balance. What matters and what's just the latest soup du jour that might be different tomorrow? If every little thing bothers you the other guy isn't the problem and heaven help your FO's when you upgrade.

Once you figure out the balance that works for you remember how the non SOP cockpit made you feel. Use that to be a better Captain to your FO's when you upgrade. :ok:

Guidance for wise men and obedience of fools. However, there are times when it is very foolish to deviate. Knowing the difference is for wise men. The sad thing is I've had F/O's who did not know when to deviate and when the SOP was not the best thing to do: e.g. "use V/S 1000fpm when 1000' from cleared altitude. DO NOT use V/S on departure until flaps are up." On a SID with ATC cleared level lower then Jeppe: noise abate 1 so accelerate at 3000' agl. Cleared only 4000' due traffic descending 5000'. TA on said traffic passing 3000', and of course flaps still extended. I suggest V/S to avoid an RA. "We're not allowed to do that." AGH! Airmanship. Wise men stuff.

SOPs could be deviated if the commander deems necessary for the safe conduct of the flight. As professionals, we all know this basic rule.

The concern is more related to a routine flight where no particular reason dictate a deviation from SOPs.

An altitude that is 4000 ft below the optimum level produces a fuel penalty of 5% as a general rule. This is your contigency fuel.
If this culture is spread througout the company with a fleet of 50 or 100 aircrafts , figure out the financial damage , I will let you do the maths.

This could contribute to the factors that will close your company, and let you jobless.
The commander has a duty to operate safely And economically. Safety being on top of priorities.

Now if your decision is not just arbitrary and you have reasons at flying even 8000 ft below optimum level, and if your common sense , experience and airmanship make you believe that this is the best course of action for the safe conduct of the flight, considering weather , turbulence etc.. then your well intentioned and thought decision is not just praiseworthy but you are an exemple for the aviation community.

Minor or Major deviations ? I do not think that one is able to quantify the severity of the deviation.
Regulations have been written with blood and accidents unfortunately. And I am sure that we could have learnt something from the " bomber of WW2" , like previously posted above, in order not to reproduce some mistakes. They might appear " minor " to you and could be devastating at some point.

Firstly wearing the headset is a EU ops requirement from the moment you take your clearance. Okay not using the headset below FL100? Big deal? Maybe nothing will happen on "that " flight. But you are just adding a contributing factor to an accident, or you are just adding a hole in your Swiss Cheese model. ( you'd better have French cheese at that point)
Communication being the primary tool of a good synergetic cockpit, by deciding not to wear the headset (just because they bother you ) , you are installing a barrier to communication, which could be severe in critical times, or critical phase of flight.

I can't remember dates and time but some time ago , a corporate jetliner crashed because the flight crew failed to cross check the validity of the approach plates . Thats's where " Mr Pilot " should question himself about the pertinence of the validity plate crosscheck. And not just come up with " don't bother me with your 13-2 effective.."

If it's been implemented , bear in mind that it is for a serious reason and not just for decoration.

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.

Learning is done through experience and mistakes . And SOPs are the experience of our predecessors, and manufacturers .They are also made from the feedbacks of many airlines around the world, which experience different environement , they are evolving and not fixed as being " the science" .
That is why you have revisions.

if you have reasons to believe that SOPS will affect safety in that particular situation that s where you will use common sense and airmanship .
That' s where you will address your concern to your airline which will probably forward to the manufacturer, then maybe a revision will come up , and I will learn from you.

Mate, relax, we know about SOP's. Most of us are very conscientious SOP huggers, at least that is the case in my major LCC, and I guess it is so for most major outfits so there is no need to preach. Now did you read our replies?

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. :ok:

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.

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.

It's not addressed one way or another in our company SOPs, customarily we set QNH in our ESIS when received at TOD.

Hypothetically, if you had 1000 meters more pavement than you needed and you were 20% lighter than your climb limited MTOW for the conditions, would you say that safety had been dramatically compromised by giving up 50 meters of runway?

This thread does not belong in tech log, it belongs in the CRM forum.

I try fairly hard to adhere to SOPs in my daily routine, I find it produces less conflict and I don't have to alter my style relative to the "coolness" of wichever captain I'm flying with.

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.

Very wise words.

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!

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.

Follow SOP´s and if the situation is not written down, then use the common sense/airmanship.
The main problem nowadays is it can not be sold.

Yes I have. The chap in question was one of the ex-Cathay 49'ers and simply refused to follow our SOP's and got very dirty when you didn't follow whatever ones he was doing.
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.

Really ?
 

So I am being told that EASA has decided that it is mandatory for me to listen to the ATC clearance with a headset and not using the cabin speaker ?

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. :ok:

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.

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. :ok:

"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.

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.

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........

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 ?

SOPS are good because the bad pilots will do ok. Sort of sad but that is the way aviation is going. It wasn't this way when I as flying. Automation is the answer.