Lets talk about SOP's

[Big Pistons Forever]

Reading the Hand bombing the DC 3 thread makes me rather sad. Once again we seemed to be locked into a binary argument.

From the old guys. “How dare you snot nosed young guys question anything we ever did, you know nothing and are just SOP monkeys that don’t know how to fly”. I will not admit that a lot of things needed to stop because they were stupid and dangerous and that SOP’s have demonstratively made aviation safer

From the young guys. “You old farts are proud of doing crazy shit, everything back then was an unorganized gong show with no standards or accountability”. I will not admit that a culture of self reliance and operators that demanded high standards of aircraft control skills has been greatly diminished and that has affected safety.

Why is it so hard to have an adult conversation ?

SOP’s would be a great subject where actual examples could be looked at from various perspectives. But for that to happen all sides have to stop speaking to their echo chamber and lose the self righteous belief that the other side has nothing to offer to the conversation

[Rockie]

SOP's are what allow two total strangers to get in a complex aircraft and seamlessly (and safely) have it ready to fly from A to B in minutes, and doing so at all times knowing exactly what to expect from the other pilot and when.

As good as SOP's are they do not cover every aspect of a flight, nor can they guarantee getting the aircraft on the ground when all hell breaks loose. During those times, in fact at all times, one still needs to think and act appropriately.

The key is knowing when adherence to SOP's is required and when it is not. Lots of people fail at that in both directions. No one side is always right...or wrong.

[True North]

The key is knowing when adherence to SOP's is required and when it is not. Lots of people fail at that in both directions. No one side is always right...or wrong.

Interesting. Give me an example of when adherence to SOP would not be required.

[Rockie]

Interesting. Give me an example of when adherence to SOP would not be required.

There is an imminent threat of some kind to the aircraft is the obvious one where you do not have the time to complete all checklists or procedures. Another is when a SOP is too restrictive and you are left with no choice but to violate it in the interest of safety. Sometimes a poorly written SOP contradicts itself telling you to do something this way on one page, and another way on a different page. Can't help but violate the SOP somewhere in that circumstance.

Perfect SOP's in my mind are prescriptive enough that everybody knows what to expect, but permissive enough to give some latitude where it is appropriate. They should also state at the very beginning that they do not cater to every circumstance and may not be appropriate in some. At all times crews are expected to act professionally in the intent of the SOP's and in the best interests of safety.

No SOP is perfect and they are being amended all the time for changes in priorities, methodology or simply corrections. They are not to be followed blindly in every circumstance, but they are to be followed. NOT following them had better be for a good reason.

[True North]

I'll give you the scenario where there isn't enough time to complete a checklist before you hit the ground. That isn't exactly a violation of SOP though, it's simply circumstance and if a checklist states "land as soon as possible" then you aren't violating anything you are exercising airmanship.

Give me an example of a too restrictive SOP where you have no choice but to violate it. And another of one that contradicts itself, I never encountered one in 40 years of flying.

[tailgunner]

True North,
Perhaps this scenario meets your request.....SOP is to have the PM(PNF) input all FMS entries once airborne. An emergency/event arises that requires the Ca to hand PF duties to the FO, so that she can concentrate on the requisite briefing / dialogue with FA's, and other important decision requirements. ATC clears the AC to a different point on the flight plan. It is far easier for the CA to now monitor the FO(PF) making the FMS entry. Once verbally verified, the action can be completed safely. There is no transferring of control etc.....not SOP, but probably the best /easiest/safest way...
Cheers.

[NWONT]

The discussion went from hand propping a DC-3 to how it violated SOP's....and it became a shit-show, which often happens on Avcanada. Now I won't pretend to know anything about flying a B737 but I'll offer this example. Jan-1982 Air Florida takes off and hits a bridge over the Potomac River. During the pre-flight check list the EPR sensor heat is not switched on. Take-off is commenced but aircraft not performing because EPR indications are wrong. My guess is gauges are telling crew that they have the required power according to SOP's. The aircraft is descending and both pilots knew a crash is imminent but SOP's are followed and more power is not applied. Damn..........

[Rockie]

Give me an example of a too restrictive SOP where you have no choice but to violate it.

Specifying flap settings for takeoff that fail to accommodate certain conditions.

And another of one that contradicts itself,

I encountered one not that many years ago. The SOP said one thing on one page and something totally different a few pages later. It got corrected, but until it did we were constantly in violation of it. They are written by humans and therefore contain errors. If they were perfect they would never need amending would they?

Come to think of it flaps were another contradiction in one case. On one page it said the takeoff flap setting had to be determined a certain way that removed all discretion from the PIC, but in another section it said the captain had discretion to use a higher flap setting on contaminated runways. So...which was it? To my knowledge that one never got resolved.

One case of a poorly written SOP was where the Captain was required to use reduced thrust takeoffs unless they were specifically prohibited by regulation or aircraft manufacturer limitations. That means if conditions concerned the Captain enough to want full thrust but didn't actually meet one of the prohibitions the Captain couldn't exercise caution without violating SOP's. Poorly written and wisely disregarded by crews who used their heads instead.

[True North]

Sorry tailgunner I don't buy it. If the capt hands control over to the FO then the capt becomes the PM and assumes those duties. Nothing complicated about it. Flying the a/c, which includes FMC entries and verification, comes before everything else. Briefing the FAs happens when there is time.

[Cat Driver]

Another interesting issue is you can have several companies operating the same airplane type in the same environment and no two company SOP's are the same.

[True North]

Give me an example of a too restrictive SOP where you have no choice but to violate it.

Specifying flap settings for takeoff that fail to accommodate certain conditions.

I don't follow.

And another of one that contradicts itself,

I encountered one not that many years ago. The SOP said one thing on one page and something totally different a few pages later. It got corrected, but until it did we were constantly in violation of it. They are written by humans and therefore contain errors. If they were perfect they would never need amending would they?

I can't imagine what kind of operation you are referring to. Yes SOPs are written by people, usually starting with the manufacturer and sometimes modified by the operator. Then approved by the regulator. There are several steps where a contradiction should be caught and if it isn't then as soon as a crew catches it and reports it should be fixed. There is no excuse for not amending it immediately.

[True North]

Another interesting issue is you can have several companies operating the same airplane type in the same environment and no two company SOP's are the same.

That is a true statement. There are many ways to skin a cat (no offence Cat).

[Rockie]

I don't follow.

SOP's can specify preferred takeoff flap settings, but making them mandatory at all times removes discretion when some may be needed for the conditions.

There is no excuse for not amending it immediately.

In a perfect world....

[Zaibatsu]

Another interesting issue is you can have several companies operating the same airplane type in the same environment and no two company SOP's are the same.

That is a true statement. There are many ways to skin a cat (no offence Cat).

It doesn’t matter if they are different. It matters that they meet the standards and are consistent within the company.

Otherwise, every time you fly with a new crew member, you are spending hours telling them ‘your way’ of doing it or spending hours learning ‘their way of doing it’. Thousands of lives have been lost like that.

[True North]

I don't follow.

SOP's can specify preferred takeoff flap settings, but making them mandatory at all times removes discretion when some may be needed for the conditions.

There is no excuse for not amending it immediately.

In a perfect world....

You're talking in circles. Does the SOP specify "preferred" takeoff flap settings or does the SOP specify required takeoff flap settings? If they are "preferred" then you have latitude. If they are mandatory then you don't have any latitude and if the mandated setting doesn't work, you don't have to violate the SOP because you don't go.

The world is far from perfect but amending a mistake in a published SOP ain't rocket surgery.

[Rockie]

You're talking in circles. Does the SOP specify "preferred" takeoff flap settings or does the SOP specify required takeoff flap settings? If they are "preferred" then you have latitude.

Here it is again with just a touch of emphasis for clarity:

"SOP's can specify preferred takeoff flap settings, but making them mandatory at all times removes discretion when some may be needed for the conditions."

I've seen both.

If they are mandatory then you don't have any latitude and if the mandated setting doesn't work, you don't have to violate the SOP because you don't go.

Sure...ok.

The world is far from perfect but amending a mistake in a published SOP ain't rocket surgery.

In some companies that is the case, in others it is unfortunately not as simple as you would like to think for a bunch of reasons.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My personal philosophy is the default starting point in dealing with any situation is “follow the SOP”
If there is a reason that following the SOP may not be the best plan then as a crew discuss what may work better, assuming there is time available. A decision is then made by the Captain and the action is carried out with the results evaluated.

An example of deciding to not follow the SOP from my personal experiences. Piper Navajo, after departure from an airport at IFR approach mins about 10 minutes out one engine rolls back to about zero thrust power.

The SOP for engine failure was shut down and feather the engine. We elected not to immediately shut down as there was no sign of smoke/fire and no other abnormal engine indications, however shutting down the engine meant no systems redundancy as you lose your 2 nd hydraulic pump, alternator and vacuum pump.

SOP was land at nearest suitable airport. The choice was go back to destination for minimums non precision approach or fly 100 miles to the next nearest airport which was VFR but where the route to that airport had a MEA of 9000 feet. We elected to return to the departure airport and landed with both engines running.

I think this is a good example where in the first case ( the shutdown) you can make a reasonable argument that we should have followed the SOP and in the second case ( which airport to go to)
You could also make the case that not going to the nearest airport as the SOP required would have been a reasonable action.

I think this is a good example where the follow the SOP, not follow the SOP is more nuanced then a lot of the debates acknowledge.

Anyway I am interested in other opinions as I still wonder if I made the best choices. Thoughts ?

[True North]

In some companies that is the case, in others it is unfortunately not as simple as you would like to think for a bunch of reasons.

Please enlighten me.

[True North]

My personal philosophy is the default starting point in dealing with any situation is “follow the SOP”
If there is a reason that following the SOP may not be the best plan then as a crew discuss what may work better, assuming there is time available. A decision is then made by the Captain and the action is carried out with the results evaluated.

An example of deciding to not follow the SOP from my personal experiences. Piper Navajo, after departure from an airport at IFR approach mins about 10 minutes out one engine rolls back to about zero thrust power.

The SOP for engine failure was shut down and feather the engine. We elected not to immediately shut down as there was no sign of smoke/fire and no other abnormal engine indications, however shutting down the engine meant no systems redundancy as you lose your 2 nd hydraulic pump, alternator and vacuum pump.

SOP was land at nearest suitable airport. The choice was go back to destination for minimums non precision approach or fly 100 miles to the next nearest airport which was VFR but where the route to that airport had a MEA of 9000 feet. We elected to return to the departure airport and landed with both engines running.

I think this is a good example where in the first case ( the shutdown) you can make a reasonable argument that we should have followed the SOP and in the second case ( which airport to go to)
You could also make the case that not going to the nearest airport as the SOP required would have been a reasonable action.

I think this is a good example where the follow the SOP, not follow the SOP is more nuanced then a lot of the debates acknowledge.

Anyway I am interested in other opinions as I still wonder if I made the right choices. Thoughts ?

I don't see either of you examples as violating an SOP.

You say your engine "rolled back" but it was still running. If you only have a checklist for a failed engine, not one for a partially failed engine, then you made a command decision which is appropriate.

Landing at the "nearest suitable airport" is wide open. Sounds like you looked at all the options and made a choice based on what you deemed safest. That is what you are supposed to do. You didn't violate anything.

[Big Pistons Forever]

True North

The SOP for loss of engine power was shut down the engine. There was no provision for partial loss as the company felt that it was safest to just shut down a malfunctioning engine so the aircraft was configured in a known state. If it had been VFR or only light IFR I would have followed the SOP.

As for which airport to go to, well the one 100 miles away was a sure thing, going to the departure airport meant a no minimums approach as a missed approach was not viable without the performance available with one engine.