I often wonder why I spend so much time trying to bring some common sense to these discussions about career aviation, regardless of how many times I try and give insite into this business trying to instill some common sense and logical thinking into the new commers to aviation most everything I say gets lost in the arguments that follow.
Then out of the blue (so to speak) someone with vast experience jumps in and points out that maybe I'm on the right track like Rebel did here:
"Cat Driver wrote:
SOP's work very well if they are logical and practical, however slavish adherence to SOP's without the ability to think outside of the SOP's can be fatal.
I'll take a skilled aviator with the ability to think over a SOP's Slave anyday.
Cat
Rebel said :
This quote has to be one of the most profound bits of insight that I've ever seen on this board. Its to bad that no one is listening... "
So I will very simply and in a few words point out why this business is going down hill as far as good airmanship and personal accountability is concerned.
This generation of wannabe aviators are being pumped out of puppy mill schools taught by instructors who have been brainwashed into slavishly following a training corriculum that has been so clusterf.cked by cover your ass rules and policies that the art of flying and the requirement for people to actually think has become lost in the fear of getting caught actually thinking.
So there it is in one word "FEAR "
Fear of reprisal by your masters who regulate you should you venture outside their rigid and in some case stupid policies and rules.
As an example of SOP's versus good airmanship and logical thinking based on the knowledge of the subject one has only to examine three high profile decision making incidentnts involving three airliners.
The DC10 in Soux City Iowa.
The MD11 in Nova Scotia
The A330 in the Azores.
Does anyone here see what I am driving at?
Cat
The dumming down of Aviation
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
The dumming down of Aviation
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
talkinghead
- Rank 4
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:14 am
Re: The dumming down of Aviation
Not to be too picky, but didn't the Azores incident happen because the crew didn't follow SOPs and simply assumed that the guage was wrong? Had they followed the checklist for a suspected fuel leak, the results may have been different (as opposed to x-feeding fuel from the good wing).Cat Driver wrote:The A330 in the Azores.
Otherwise, I do agree with you about airmanship and SOPs. I personally think that they go hand in hand - a pilots' procedural knowledge as well as his instinctual knowledge/airmanship must both be strong for him/her to be a successful and safe pilot.
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Cat, I am with you. The problems that exist in canadian aviation are obvious, and have been often talked about around water coolers, the hangar, the pub etc. Firstly, our instructors are often just also starting their careers. They do not have the years of "seat of the pants" and numerous " oh Sh*t" time in their books. This means that new pilots, entering their first jobs, have not effectively been prepared for commercial flying. Secondly, These schools often teach unpractical skills to their students. Because of an abundance in course material referring to SOP's , CRM , Turbine engine classes, How to fly big jets, FMS systems etc.. these students are taught this material, however this is a colassal waste of time and energy. Most new pilots first jobs will be working the dock/ramp, or if they are really lucky flying a 206 in the bush. FMS training will not help them there, but a practical maintenace course, or " bush" course may do wonders. If we in Canadian aviation demande more from our training, if we paid for highly experienced pilots to teach these courses and teach the instructors, if we made instructing a career where one could earn a respectable living, we might begin to see a change. ...OUT
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Tailgunner :
I'm sure most here agree the system is truly out of whack, however may I suggest that this part of your post is not the answer..
" If we in Canadian aviation demande more from our training, if we paid for highly experienced pilots to teach these courses and teach the instructors, if we made instructing a career where one could earn a respectable living, we might begin to see a change. ...OUT "
The truth is no amount of demanding will make the slightest bit of difference for the simple reason that those who wake up to the problem have advanced far enough down the path of aviation that they move on....
...meanwhile the drones in TC aided and abbeted by the drones in outfits like ATAC just sit back and feed off the system as it is.
Anyone want to deny this?
Cat
I'm sure most here agree the system is truly out of whack, however may I suggest that this part of your post is not the answer..
" If we in Canadian aviation demande more from our training, if we paid for highly experienced pilots to teach these courses and teach the instructors, if we made instructing a career where one could earn a respectable living, we might begin to see a change. ...OUT "
The truth is no amount of demanding will make the slightest bit of difference for the simple reason that those who wake up to the problem have advanced far enough down the path of aviation that they move on....
...meanwhile the drones in TC aided and abbeted by the drones in outfits like ATAC just sit back and feed off the system as it is.
Anyone want to deny this?
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: The dumming down of Aviation
I'm not super-familiar with this accident, but how was it a result of blindly following SOPs? Seems to me that the guys did a pretty damn good job given their situation.Cat Driver wrote:As an example of SOP's versus good airmanship and logical thinking based on the knowledge of the subject one has only to examine three high profile decision making incidentnts involving three airliners.
The DC10 in Soux City Iowa.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" I'm not super-familiar with this accident, but how was it a result of blindly following SOPs? Seems to me that the guys did a pretty damn good job given their situation. "
Exactly, they used every possible method to try and survive based on experience and awsome airmanship.
What I am trying to do is get people thinking about elevating their thought process outside the rigid thought police mentality that is slowly dumming down the industry.
Cat
Exactly, they used every possible method to try and survive based on experience and awsome airmanship.
What I am trying to do is get people thinking about elevating their thought process outside the rigid thought police mentality that is slowly dumming down the industry.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Every SOP and checklist that I have been responsible for ammending, I have tried to make more intuitive, but most importantly, I have tried to simplify and shorten. I believe in thorough training and knowledge first, followed by a less restrictive SOP for ease of operation and to promote flexibility and thinking. The last thing we need is an SOP so constraining that one can't do anything sensible and efficient without violating it.
-
200hr Wonder
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:52 pm
- Location: CYVR
- Contact:
Bravo! I agree 110% with cat driver. As a 200 hour wonder, I realize that I know nothing about flying. The problem is that my training did not allow me to learn much. Restrictions that are ridiculous and hamfisted did not allow me to. Now that is not to say that 200 hours of instruction and time building did not allow me to become a relatively competent pilot in a simple aircraft in good weather. But anyone one can do that! Flying schools and instructors are so worried about insurance and liability that they never let a commercial student pilot make decisions! If you never make a bad decision then how are you ever going to learn to make good ones? I think making a bad decision and having to divert to some airport you did not want to be at cannot be a bad thing, instead they have procedures and rules that are drilled into us. We learn by rote and regurgitate what we have learned. The ability to analyze and process information is not being taught. I can say that it is possible to pass the commercial written exam and ride without being able to think on your feet at all. Now granted the ability to think on your feet and come up with a decision requires knowledge AND experience, but you have to start somBravoewhere with it. There are pilots out there that have a total lack of common sense! I think that is a down fall of not only the aviation but the world. This day in age people have lost the ability to think for them selves, formulate a picture of what in reality is going on and act on it. Now that is not to say the SOPs are not to be tossed out completely, but they are merely a tool. Any tool is only as good as the craftsman holding it. I had the pleasure of hearing Capt. Al Hanes talk this past winter, and he impressed the heck out of me with the common sense the he and the crew showed during the Sioux City Iowa incident. 50% of the success of getting that DC-10 on the ground or more was due to their actions, for which there was no SOPs.
Despite being a 200 hour wonder who does not know his alienor form his rudder. I hope and pray that at least lack a small amount of common sense that will allow me to stay alive in this career path. Remember just cause it is in an SOP does not mean that it is the correct answer to the problem at this point! Any idiot can fly a plane, a good pilot uses his brains first and his hands and feet second.
Cheers.
Despite being a 200 hour wonder who does not know his alienor form his rudder. I hope and pray that at least lack a small amount of common sense that will allow me to stay alive in this career path. Remember just cause it is in an SOP does not mean that it is the correct answer to the problem at this point! Any idiot can fly a plane, a good pilot uses his brains first and his hands and feet second.
Cheers.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Planett:
Of course SOP's should be as simple and as functional as possible, SOP's are nothing more or less than a means of providing continuity between pilots in how the cockpit is managed. Where things get skewed is trying to pretend that a Navajo needs the SOP's of the space shuttle just to give the pilots an erection pretending they are operating something exotic.
I remember sitting in the front row of seats in an Air B.C.Twin Otter one day in Vancouver on my way home from a South American tour.
The Captain looked like the conductor of the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra as he deftly went from switch to switch to move them into the on position, it was about 30 degrees C in the sun on the ramp and he turned on every f.ckin switch his eyes could find....
...anyhow when we arrived in Nanaimo I was standing beside him waiting for my bags and asked him why he turned on the pitot heat parked on the ramp at 30 degrees C?
He looked at me like I was some kind of simple minded cockroach and said "It's SOP''
I said, but why do something that is totally uncalled for?
He got real snotty and answered , what do you know about how to operate a Twin Otter?
So I told him that I had been Chief Pilot for the operation he was flying for before it changed from Air West to Air B.C. and knew enough not to require pilots to act like baboons and use pitot heat in the blazing summer sun to fly 32 miles at two thousand feet...
...anyhow it is that kind of SOP mentality that dumms down crews, and he was the perfect example that dumming down works..
Cat
Of course SOP's should be as simple and as functional as possible, SOP's are nothing more or less than a means of providing continuity between pilots in how the cockpit is managed. Where things get skewed is trying to pretend that a Navajo needs the SOP's of the space shuttle just to give the pilots an erection pretending they are operating something exotic.
I remember sitting in the front row of seats in an Air B.C.Twin Otter one day in Vancouver on my way home from a South American tour.
The Captain looked like the conductor of the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra as he deftly went from switch to switch to move them into the on position, it was about 30 degrees C in the sun on the ramp and he turned on every f.ckin switch his eyes could find....
...anyhow when we arrived in Nanaimo I was standing beside him waiting for my bags and asked him why he turned on the pitot heat parked on the ramp at 30 degrees C?
He looked at me like I was some kind of simple minded cockroach and said "It's SOP''
I said, but why do something that is totally uncalled for?
He got real snotty and answered , what do you know about how to operate a Twin Otter?
So I told him that I had been Chief Pilot for the operation he was flying for before it changed from Air West to Air B.C. and knew enough not to require pilots to act like baboons and use pitot heat in the blazing summer sun to fly 32 miles at two thousand feet...
...anyhow it is that kind of SOP mentality that dumms down crews, and he was the perfect example that dumming down works..
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
The Devil's Advocate
Every pilot should be so well trained by experienced instructors so when he gets his licence, he can fly anything from a puddle jumper to a jumbo jet. Well, that ain’t gonna happen. Those of us poorly trained folks are going to need some guidelines to keep us from getting killed on the job. I am not disagreeing with Cat in that blind adherence to SOPs is bad, but there are some very solid reasons for having SOPs properly designed and implemented which should not be ignored either.
SOPs are normally been written as a logical manner of operating a particular aircraft and provide a standard amongst large numbers of aircrew. As a FO, I used carry a notebook listing the particular pet peeves of my ACs so I wouldn’t be at fault next time I flew with them. But when he said “Shutdown number three,” we all knew exactly why, how and when the SOPs were going to be carried out.
Rules and regulations normally get written in somebody’s blood. Unfortunately, they also seem to be written to address the lowest common denominator. Don’t fly too low lest thee smite the earth.
Orders and procedures are not perfect. They require routine refinements. They are still only the 99% solution. There are times deviations are necessary. One needs to know the rationale behind established SOPs before deviating from them.
I fly in an organization where mission accomplishment is critical to the life of others. If and when I break rules follows risk analysis and the answer may not always be favourable to mission accomplishment. There is a very fine line between heroism and stupidity.
Not everyone has the good fortune to start from the float dock, fly everything with wings and live long enough to get the illustrious airline job. (Not everyone wants that bus driver job either
) The airmanship pilots learn with extensive experience has been translated into stuff like CRM and SOPs. We have to learn from the mistakes of others… The better organizations have made good use of these SOPs in the name of safety and economy.
I don’t consider SOPs dumbing down the industry. It is just a more efficient way to be safe quickly without bending airplanes and hurting people to learn lessons and gain experience. So, instead of hanger flying on bad-weather days to learn from the “old crusty ones”, we now attend classes. As the new guy develops his own experience based on some solid knowledge, he too will be as good as the old guys – if he needs to be that good.
And no, I am not with Transport Canada.
Experience is a hard teacher. First comes the test, then the lesson.
SOPs are normally been written as a logical manner of operating a particular aircraft and provide a standard amongst large numbers of aircrew. As a FO, I used carry a notebook listing the particular pet peeves of my ACs so I wouldn’t be at fault next time I flew with them. But when he said “Shutdown number three,” we all knew exactly why, how and when the SOPs were going to be carried out.
Rules and regulations normally get written in somebody’s blood. Unfortunately, they also seem to be written to address the lowest common denominator. Don’t fly too low lest thee smite the earth.
Orders and procedures are not perfect. They require routine refinements. They are still only the 99% solution. There are times deviations are necessary. One needs to know the rationale behind established SOPs before deviating from them.
I fly in an organization where mission accomplishment is critical to the life of others. If and when I break rules follows risk analysis and the answer may not always be favourable to mission accomplishment. There is a very fine line between heroism and stupidity.
Not everyone has the good fortune to start from the float dock, fly everything with wings and live long enough to get the illustrious airline job. (Not everyone wants that bus driver job either
) The airmanship pilots learn with extensive experience has been translated into stuff like CRM and SOPs. We have to learn from the mistakes of others… The better organizations have made good use of these SOPs in the name of safety and economy.I don’t consider SOPs dumbing down the industry. It is just a more efficient way to be safe quickly without bending airplanes and hurting people to learn lessons and gain experience. So, instead of hanger flying on bad-weather days to learn from the “old crusty ones”, we now attend classes. As the new guy develops his own experience based on some solid knowledge, he too will be as good as the old guys – if he needs to be that good.
And no, I am not with Transport Canada.
Experience is a hard teacher. First comes the test, then the lesson.
-
R2000/1830
- Rank 4
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 6:24 pm
- Location: Canada
While my flying experience is still limited, there's this little pair of words easily put on a checklist that requires one to think a bit... AS REQUIRED. My guess is this would apply well on the above example.asked him why he turned on the pitot heat parked on the ramp at 30 degrees C?
He looked at me like I was some kind of simple minded cockroach and said "It's SOP''
I've had a multi-crew flying sim course (its part of my school's curriculum) and there was an occurence where a slight, justifiable and mutually agreed upon deviation from the SOPs helped make the flight safer. Now, the need for this deviation should IMO be further discussed, and the possibility of modifying the SOPs thoroughly examined.
Goodbye,
Louis
I 110% agree with Cat's statements, This industry makes NO sense whatsoever now. I know that times have greatly changed, it seems that now its the INSURANCE that runs the industry. Pilots need 250 hours on floats to fly em, when it was not that long ago that pilots with 7 hours were captains on nice aircraft. Now insurance at some fligh schools says on paper that you need 50 hours float to fly PIC, so how do you get the flaot endorsement??? Even multi-engines require 50 hours on type or more, when YOU PASSED a flight test that TC says you can fly it safely. This only creates another big problem as the pilot who is learning get no PILOT DESCION MAKING skills, which are what you REALLY need.
Maybe its the pilot factories that are becoming more and more common, and "training Air Canada pilots", who just turn on the 3 axis auto pilot and let IT fly. If something goes wrong, follow the SOP... but they lack the experiance to handle ANY situation... Personaly, I believe that the pilot factories are not allowing their students to grow from their mistakes. Maybe its just me, but I have trained privately throught FTU's and I best learned thigs when I did stupid things that may have killed me at the time, but NOW I know how to avoid those situations and I am a much better and forseeing pilot.
I also find that the Instructors who have just gotten their CPL's and Instructor ratings with no comercial experiance makes no sense. I have been trained by a few "Pilot Factory" graduates, and it was always follow the checklist and oh it doesnt look CAVOK, lets not go. But Contrary, I have been trained by a few instructors who have had real exposure to the industry, and i have learned the VERY things from them. Thanks guys (who know who you are!)
My point, may not really be clear, but its that todays pilots (who probably 80-90% come out of Pilot Factory) seem to lack the PDM from the times they filled their pants... Im not saying to go and fly thru a TCU in a 172, just that with experiance comes the NEEDED PDM that should be required to fly, especialy commercialy... I probly dont make sense, but neither does the industry!
Maybe its the pilot factories that are becoming more and more common, and "training Air Canada pilots", who just turn on the 3 axis auto pilot and let IT fly. If something goes wrong, follow the SOP... but they lack the experiance to handle ANY situation... Personaly, I believe that the pilot factories are not allowing their students to grow from their mistakes. Maybe its just me, but I have trained privately throught FTU's and I best learned thigs when I did stupid things that may have killed me at the time, but NOW I know how to avoid those situations and I am a much better and forseeing pilot.
I also find that the Instructors who have just gotten their CPL's and Instructor ratings with no comercial experiance makes no sense. I have been trained by a few "Pilot Factory" graduates, and it was always follow the checklist and oh it doesnt look CAVOK, lets not go. But Contrary, I have been trained by a few instructors who have had real exposure to the industry, and i have learned the VERY things from them. Thanks guys (who know who you are!)
My point, may not really be clear, but its that todays pilots (who probably 80-90% come out of Pilot Factory) seem to lack the PDM from the times they filled their pants... Im not saying to go and fly thru a TCU in a 172, just that with experiance comes the NEEDED PDM that should be required to fly, especialy commercialy... I probly dont make sense, but neither does the industry!
The industry would benefit from having experienced people teach ab initio students, the fact is it's just not lucrative enough to waste time on. I would love to give something back to that level of the business, but I would not recoup my investment in rating renewals within a year if I fought for work on my days off. It would make more financial sense to work at a gas station part time. The onus is on the training and line indoc captains in commuter turboprop or piston freight operations to bring so many new pilots up to speed. They have a thankless but important role to play. Too bad it could not be eased by highly experienced commercial and multi IFR instructors.
-
Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
Does the dumbing down of aviation include misspelling "dumming"???
Sorry Cat couldn't resist!
PS: I agree with you...SOP's are a good guideline but there still has to be thought behind what you are doing and why you are doing it. No set of SOP's will ever encompass all possible situations.
Sorry Cat couldn't resist!
PS: I agree with you...SOP's are a good guideline but there still has to be thought behind what you are doing and why you are doing it. No set of SOP's will ever encompass all possible situations.
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
SOPs ALONE will never cover all situations. However, I believe that a great set of SOPs, written by experienced folks who KNOW what the 'standard' operation requires, coupled with a crew who has enough experience and knowledge to think rationally when the current situation is different from the 'standard', and the freedom to make educated ammendments to those SOPs when the occasion dictates it, absolutely becomes the ultimate in Safety. Clear thinking should still be a trait more sought after in a pilot than mindless obeyance.
Where the dumming down happens is when you end up with a crew adhering blindly to a mandated set of SOPs, regardless of the screaming obviousness of a need to think freely and do something unconventional, or 'non-standard', for fear of reprisals for not following the approved SOPs, or because that procedure is 'policy'.
Chances are, the crew who is able to think freely probably spent a good amount of time flying in an environment/operation where the flying was so varied, that flying a regimented style (SOPs) was simply not practical. Or they learned from a pilot who had spent time in that sort of operation at some point in their own 'history'.
Problem is, nowadays that same pilot is far more obvious a target for a lawsuit if the impossible didn't get accomplished. The Swissair pilots, had they attempted an over-gross landing and saved all but a dozen passengers, would have been found as failures, and ultimately responsible for the deaths of 12 passengers, rather than as the saviours of 1XX passengers and therefore heros
. It's all about limiting liability. Don't get me started on insurance companies...
Where the dumming down happens is when you end up with a crew adhering blindly to a mandated set of SOPs, regardless of the screaming obviousness of a need to think freely and do something unconventional, or 'non-standard', for fear of reprisals for not following the approved SOPs, or because that procedure is 'policy'.
Chances are, the crew who is able to think freely probably spent a good amount of time flying in an environment/operation where the flying was so varied, that flying a regimented style (SOPs) was simply not practical. Or they learned from a pilot who had spent time in that sort of operation at some point in their own 'history'.
Problem is, nowadays that same pilot is far more obvious a target for a lawsuit if the impossible didn't get accomplished. The Swissair pilots, had they attempted an over-gross landing and saved all but a dozen passengers, would have been found as failures, and ultimately responsible for the deaths of 12 passengers, rather than as the saviours of 1XX passengers and therefore heros
. It's all about limiting liability. Don't get me started on insurance companies...
Last edited by Airtids on Sun May 08, 2005 10:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Aviation- the hardest way possible to make an easy living!
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
32A :
I don't think you really read my thoughts on SOP's clearly.
Nowhere have I suggested that SOP's are unnecessary, what I have tried to get across is blind adherence to SOP's without question is far to common, resulting in automation on the part of the crews.
This unquestioning submission to whatever is taught by whoever is teaching the subject has crept into the industry in part by the way the teaching industry is structured at the bottom end.. ie. the puppy mill concept of flight training where everything is ridgidly controlled to pass a rigid test set up with rigid testing guidelines.
I do believe that if you sit and think about it you will come to the conclusion that it is geared to mass production of an inferior product, and ridgidly controlled by the industry regulator. When this mindset and unquestioning mimicing of what you are told to do gets to entrenched in the mainstream of aviation it can and will evolve into the cockpits of working aircraft, resulting in automatic monkey like response to a task. In some instances this kind of reflex can end up in departing from control of the situation to the point that it is unrecoverable.
Whereas SOP's used properly will allow time to analize just why you are making the next move...
...remember an airplane that has a crew mentally flying ahead of the airplane have time to think and make the correct decisions before taking the wrong actions.
Many moons ago I had an emergency with a fully loaded air tanker just at VR with a strong x/wind...the left throttle broke off at full take off power and I made the decision to drop the load and reject the takeoff because I figured there was enough flat grass past the runway end to stop before hitting the trees outside the airport boundry.
Rote thinking and monkey like reaction to reject the take off would have killed us, ( it was a narrow one runway strip with trees on both sides, had I pulled the throttle we would have veered into the trees and turned an airplane into a very powerful tree cutter. ) however I resisted the urge to pull the power with throttles and pulled both mixtures to ICO to kill the engines...think about that situation and you will quickly see that using rote thinking and rote actions will sometimes result in disaster.
That was a very critical situation where no SOP would have worked.
I don't think you really read my thoughts on SOP's clearly.
Nowhere have I suggested that SOP's are unnecessary, what I have tried to get across is blind adherence to SOP's without question is far to common, resulting in automation on the part of the crews.
This unquestioning submission to whatever is taught by whoever is teaching the subject has crept into the industry in part by the way the teaching industry is structured at the bottom end.. ie. the puppy mill concept of flight training where everything is ridgidly controlled to pass a rigid test set up with rigid testing guidelines.
I do believe that if you sit and think about it you will come to the conclusion that it is geared to mass production of an inferior product, and ridgidly controlled by the industry regulator. When this mindset and unquestioning mimicing of what you are told to do gets to entrenched in the mainstream of aviation it can and will evolve into the cockpits of working aircraft, resulting in automatic monkey like response to a task. In some instances this kind of reflex can end up in departing from control of the situation to the point that it is unrecoverable.
Whereas SOP's used properly will allow time to analize just why you are making the next move...
...remember an airplane that has a crew mentally flying ahead of the airplane have time to think and make the correct decisions before taking the wrong actions.
Many moons ago I had an emergency with a fully loaded air tanker just at VR with a strong x/wind...the left throttle broke off at full take off power and I made the decision to drop the load and reject the takeoff because I figured there was enough flat grass past the runway end to stop before hitting the trees outside the airport boundry.
Rote thinking and monkey like reaction to reject the take off would have killed us, ( it was a narrow one runway strip with trees on both sides, had I pulled the throttle we would have veered into the trees and turned an airplane into a very powerful tree cutter. ) however I resisted the urge to pull the power with throttles and pulled both mixtures to ICO to kill the engines...think about that situation and you will quickly see that using rote thinking and rote actions will sometimes result in disaster.
That was a very critical situation where no SOP would have worked.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
