I read a lot of pilots commenting on SOP's and going all weird when they think a crew is doing something that looks like it is outside of SOP's.
So am I to take it that in today's world of aviation you can never do anything that is not in the SOP's?
SOP's
-
Slick Goodlin
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:46 pm
[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=7326.msg19961#msg19961 date=1508551781]
So am I to take it that in today's world of aviation you can never do anything that is not in the SOP's?
[/quote]
Why would you? A good set of company SOPs should cover all normal operations and foreseeable emergencies. The goal is to fly that work plane as boringly as you possibly can and standardization of procedures goes a long way towards that.
I'm not talking about SOP monkeys blurting out checklists like just saying the words is what's important, either. A good pilot has to be able to apply intelligence to what they're doing. The purpose of SOPs is to make what they're doing predictable to the other person in the cockpit.
So am I to take it that in today's world of aviation you can never do anything that is not in the SOP's?
[/quote]
Why would you? A good set of company SOPs should cover all normal operations and foreseeable emergencies. The goal is to fly that work plane as boringly as you possibly can and standardization of procedures goes a long way towards that.
I'm not talking about SOP monkeys blurting out checklists like just saying the words is what's important, either. A good pilot has to be able to apply intelligence to what they're doing. The purpose of SOPs is to make what they're doing predictable to the other person in the cockpit.
-
Liquid Charlie
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
SOP's --- ah yes -- we all know it's about standardization and some things being generated by a fuckup especially if it was a chief pilot or check pilot that it went south on. Standardization is good but not all SOP's are and the issue is that companies seem very reluctant to update and change.
I also think that some people take SOP's too far and refuse to venture into the grey area. SOP's in my mind are a tool for standardization and allow crews who rarely fly together the ability to work as a team. They are not, however, in my book written in stone. I will say it again, it's all part of the dumbing down of aviation but pilots should never fall into the trap of thinking that SOP's were written on top of[b] that[/b] mountain. They have their weaknesses and flaws. We can't completely turn off our brains in the flight deck.
I also think that some people take SOP's too far and refuse to venture into the grey area. SOP's in my mind are a tool for standardization and allow crews who rarely fly together the ability to work as a team. They are not, however, in my book written in stone. I will say it again, it's all part of the dumbing down of aviation but pilots should never fall into the trap of thinking that SOP's were written on top of[b] that[/b] mountain. They have their weaknesses and flaws. We can't completely turn off our brains in the flight deck.
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
It all depends on the operation.
In a Western culture people are encouraged to think and a Western Airline can have a more flexible SOP.
In an Eastern culture people are not encouraged to think and learning is done by rote (without any way of determining if an individual has actually understood what has been taught). In this culture anything outside the books isn't known.
I've experienced both and you really need a very rigid SOP in the Eastern culture as it would be complete chaos otherwise.
The accident rates in Asia speak for themselves - if you look more closely you can see cultural factors at work. In a number of accidents the F/O either did not speak up or was ignored.
At my last company the failure on the Command upgrade was running at over 50% - it never occurred to them that their training system was flawed. You could actually see the holes in the cheese lining up but the 'management' was completely oblivious to this.
Surprisingly they haven't had any accidents - not for lack of trying! A mishandled fuel leak over the Bay of Bengal would have resulted in a ditching had they been any further out. All covered up by the regulator like a number of other serious incidents.
My personal favourite is when they dropped an A340 off one jack after maintenance. The jack punctured the aft fuselage and caused structural damage that I heard cost millions to repair. The story making the rounds was that there were not enough engineers so they enlisted the help of the cleaning crew. I doubt the insurance company paid out. All covered up of course!
In a Western culture people are encouraged to think and a Western Airline can have a more flexible SOP.
In an Eastern culture people are not encouraged to think and learning is done by rote (without any way of determining if an individual has actually understood what has been taught). In this culture anything outside the books isn't known.
I've experienced both and you really need a very rigid SOP in the Eastern culture as it would be complete chaos otherwise.
The accident rates in Asia speak for themselves - if you look more closely you can see cultural factors at work. In a number of accidents the F/O either did not speak up or was ignored.
At my last company the failure on the Command upgrade was running at over 50% - it never occurred to them that their training system was flawed. You could actually see the holes in the cheese lining up but the 'management' was completely oblivious to this.
Surprisingly they haven't had any accidents - not for lack of trying! A mishandled fuel leak over the Bay of Bengal would have resulted in a ditching had they been any further out. All covered up by the regulator like a number of other serious incidents.
My personal favourite is when they dropped an A340 off one jack after maintenance. The jack punctured the aft fuselage and caused structural damage that I heard cost millions to repair. The story making the rounds was that there were not enough engineers so they enlisted the help of the cleaning crew. I doubt the insurance company paid out. All covered up of course!
-
vanNostrum
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:04 pm
Didn't Swiss Air 111 followed SOPS and end up all dead?
-
Slick Goodlin
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:46 pm
[quote author=vanNostrum link=topic=7326.msg20006#msg20006 date=1508698025]
Didn't Swiss Air 111 followed SOPS and end up all dead?
[/quote]
Those guys were screwed no matter what they did. A better example would have been Sully going off-script and starting the APU out of sequence since he knew the dual flameout procedure was designed for an emergency in cruise.
I'm sure you could also come up with more than one example of people being killed because the crew decided they'd rather operate with style and flair. This really shouldn't be about SOPs or not, it should be about sense. Common sense dictates that standardization can help or hinder and as such should be applied wisely. This is regardless of whether it's an airline crew running their after takeoff checks, a float instructor teaching "what am I landing on and where should my wheels be," or a formation pilot trusting their lead is respecting the top gate of their maneuver. It's a process by which standards are set, people are relying on it, and if you're deviating you better have a good reason.
Didn't Swiss Air 111 followed SOPS and end up all dead?
[/quote]
Those guys were screwed no matter what they did. A better example would have been Sully going off-script and starting the APU out of sequence since he knew the dual flameout procedure was designed for an emergency in cruise.
I'm sure you could also come up with more than one example of people being killed because the crew decided they'd rather operate with style and flair. This really shouldn't be about SOPs or not, it should be about sense. Common sense dictates that standardization can help or hinder and as such should be applied wisely. This is regardless of whether it's an airline crew running their after takeoff checks, a float instructor teaching "what am I landing on and where should my wheels be," or a formation pilot trusting their lead is respecting the top gate of their maneuver. It's a process by which standards are set, people are relying on it, and if you're deviating you better have a good reason.
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
Nah Swiss Air wasn't screwed no matter what they did, Land overweight if your on fire get the fucker on the ground ASAP.
I always include that in my briefings when departing above landing weight, no dump on my bird.
If we are on fire we are burning, fight it and lets get this thing on the ground, overweight is just and inspection.
I always include that in my briefings when departing above landing weight, no dump on my bird.
If we are on fire we are burning, fight it and lets get this thing on the ground, overweight is just and inspection.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
The problem is that a lot of the time, you really don't
know what's broken on the airplane, until after you
land and it's inspected. Only then can the monday
morning quarterbacks, with the benefit of hindsight
and ample time, declare what you ought to have done.
Look at the Air Transat Azores Glider. I'm sure they
didn't know they had a leak. Didn't they just follow
SOP to deal with the imbalance and pump all their
fuel overboard?
Look at the shock cooling rudder reversal on the 737.
It took Boeing years to figure out what the hell was
going on.
Look at the fuel de-icer plugging up on the 777 at LHR.
Didn't the airline trash the pilot for that? And he violated
SOP's by raising the flaps slightly, and the monday morning
quarterbacks months later calculated that yeah, that actually
allowed him to avoid hitting the ILS antennas. He did the
right thing, and he got royally fucked for it.
As far as Sully goes, wasn't there some question as
to whether or not his engines were actually toast,
which was only answered months afterward?
Whole lotta monday morning quarterbacks. The
best turn pro and join accident investigation boards.
know what's broken on the airplane, until after you
land and it's inspected. Only then can the monday
morning quarterbacks, with the benefit of hindsight
and ample time, declare what you ought to have done.
Look at the Air Transat Azores Glider. I'm sure they
didn't know they had a leak. Didn't they just follow
SOP to deal with the imbalance and pump all their
fuel overboard?
Look at the shock cooling rudder reversal on the 737.
It took Boeing years to figure out what the hell was
going on.
Look at the fuel de-icer plugging up on the 777 at LHR.
Didn't the airline trash the pilot for that? And he violated
SOP's by raising the flaps slightly, and the monday morning
quarterbacks months later calculated that yeah, that actually
allowed him to avoid hitting the ILS antennas. He did the
right thing, and he got royally fucked for it.
As far as Sully goes, wasn't there some question as
to whether or not his engines were actually toast,
which was only answered months afterward?
Whole lotta monday morning quarterbacks. The
best turn pro and join accident investigation boards.