Multi Engine-Piston PIC

[just curious]

Just shows you how outdated Cat's methods are. I only let them fly 74% of the time.

[trey kule]

While I do not disagree with you two last posters at all, I think, for the purpose of discussion I should play the devil's advocate. RANT WARNING.

SOPs, if they are properly developed, and implemented, monitored and modified evolve into some pretty decent ways of making sure routine does not have people forgetting things, whch if they are lucky and dont cause a problem, become a habit. If followed, they make the operations safe, efficient , and if you have Pax,, enjoyable, or at least routine.
One of the first things the new FO should be taught...is ....you follow SOPs....if they are not correct, then you write them up and they will be reviewed and , if necessary modified. But you dont simply start ignoring them because you want to hand fly the plane or do other things..(before anyone starts talking about emergencies and how they saved the day by not following SOPs, that is a red herring)
Now the Captain, being a mentor, and leading by example, should insist on SOPs being followed..That means if it is 30 below out and someone is to monitor refuelling...then it is done...A good leader in those circumstances will demonstrate their leadership by taking their turn, and by making sure their FO does also. Not by deciding that fuel uplifts dont have to be monitored at minus 30 and allowing it to slide. It also applies to what percentage of flights should be flown as PF by both crew members.

So, we have a couple of old guys on here who say ...I let my FOs fly 75% or 74% of the time Is that what your SOPs say? The FO should fly the majority of time? Ignore SOPs? ...why not? Now where do you stop? Turn off the autopilot so the new FO can get some hands on stick time? Hell, make him hand fly an approach to minimums on raw data and throw in a simulated failure or two....will make him a heck of a better pilot. Dont worry about following checklists is you dont think they are important..You want your FO to know that SOPs dont apply to Captains like you.
Seems to me that you are showing, by example as a mentor, that SOPs are only to be followed if they are convenient to you, and with your experience and wisdom you can simply ignore them if they are not. That is definitely something you want to instill in a future Captain.
So why should you expect that another Captain would get cranky because the FO he is paired with who wants to do something he should not complains.....well Cat lets me do it.
Nothing like seeing a twin landing with one engine inop because it was shut down in the air on a ferry flight ..."for training purposes", and then being told...well my old Captain used to do it all the time....I dont even know why we bother with training departments, training Captains, check pilots, or even SOPs when all we need is Captains who all know better.

The rules apply to Captains as well as first officers. And companies are not looking for Maveriks.. They are looking for those who play by the rules. For team players.

The days of the cowboy are over...I lived and flew through them..Miss them alot..But they are gone. Now we follow checklists and SOPs religiously and , despite the cowboy memories, they have made flying safer . It is the Captain's job to instill that in their FOs, not teach them they can ignore SOPs when they choose.

My rant is over ....I have poked the bear(s) and you can flame away now.

[rapid602]

very interesting points .... I enjoyed the read.

[Cat Driver]

Well, well what can an old cowboy say to all that?

Not much I guess except maybe I was very lucky that none of my F.O.'s managed to wreck any of the airplanes I let them fly.

Yes, yes I realize that in the airline side of aviation SOP's have been improved over the decades to ensure everyone is on the same wave length as far as operating the airplanes go in the same manner to make sure none of the pilots us cowboys trained wrecks the machine.

So back to my cave to contemplate how lucky I was when I used to fly for a living.

[Northern Flyer]

I have never seen an SOP that dictated the percentage each pilot should fly. Also back in the real world you would be surprised that in 703 and 704 ops there are actually aircraft that do not have auto pilots. There are actually people in the aircraft manipulating the controls... As scary as that might be.

I understand your argument trey kule, I just think that maybe you have been sheltered from how most entry level jobs are.

[just curious]

Trey nice rant!

While I was being facetious, it's hard to argue with most of the points you touched on. On reflection, I find that while I may permit more by a copilot in terms of flying, it is always within the context of our SOPs.

As a training captain, I tend to give FO's flying that reflects their need to be challenged or polished as the case may be. Provided the FO in question is performing the tasks set aside for them in the SOPs, I am willing to help them improve.

For a new captain (less than a year captain on type) the skill sets aren't there for them to do much more than go Point A to Point B as a crew. Hence the experience pairing in most SOPs

[flying4dollars]

So, we have a couple of old guys on here who say ...I let my FOs fly 75% or 74% of the time Is that what your SOPs say? The FO should fly the majority of time? Ignore SOPs? ...why not? Now where do you stop? Turn off the autopilot so the new FO can get some hands on stick time? Hell, make him hand fly an approach to minimums on raw data and throw in a simulated failure or two....will make him a heck of a better pilot. Dont worry about following checklists is you dont think they are important..You want your FO to know that SOPs dont apply to Captains like you.
Seems to me that you are showing, by example as a mentor, that SOPs are only to be followed if they are convenient to you, and with your experience and wisdom you can simply ignore them if they are not. That is definitely something you want to instill in a future Captain.
So why should you expect that another Captain would get cranky because the FO he is paired with who wants to do something he should not complains.....well Cat lets me do it.
Nothing like seeing a twin landing with one engine inop because it was shut down in the air on a ferry flight ..."for training purposes", and then being told...well my old Captain used to do it all the time....I dont even know why we bother with training departments, training Captains, check pilots, or even SOPs when all we need is Captains who all know better.
.

While SOP's are meant to be followed under most normal circumstances, almost all SOP's that I have been involved with have stated that they may be deviated from so long as safety is not compromised, and it is briefed and agreed upon by both crew members. It's just common sense too. So have I deviated from SOP's to teach my copilot something? Yup. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I never have. I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who hasn't deviated from SOP's to some degree to create a learning environment and I don't believe it means I know any better. I'll graciously admit I learn new things all the time, and I even learn from the guy to my right. The great thing about flying is that we've all flown with different personalities and experience levels. And one way or another, we all learn from people though people.

Let me give you an example of where SOP's can also work against you. My f/o and I were doing the before take-off checklist, and when the challenge "wx radar" was called, I called for it to be turned on, and my f/o continued to read the checklist. Most of the time, we don't need it on, so habit meant the f/o's ears were hearing what they are normally used to and subsequently, the radar was never turned on by him. Now I understand this is a checklist item more than a 'standard operating procedure', however they are one in the same.

The point being, SOP's as you mentioned, create a routine. However, sometimes comfort with a routine leads to complacency. I find that deviating from SOP's under certain circumstances is good for the thought process and it keeps us honest. I don't believe that deviating means we know any better. A lot of what flying entails, is thinking outside the box, and that sometimes means having to get creative, while still ensuring safety isn't compromised.

[trey kule]

Well, FFD, your post was interesting, however before I start, I should give you a bit of background to my last post.

It was morning , you see. I was suffering from severe caffeine withdrawl, and despite every possilbe use of my persuave powers , people seemed to expect me to waddle to the coffee pot....damn near 10 meters away. Frustrating as all get out, as the company has made it quite clear that I am not to refer to the marital status of someone's parents at the time they were born; allude to their mother's canine ancestory; or speak out loud of my thoughts as to their sexual orientation....I know what your thinking.. I have to wonder myself, sometimes, why I keep working for such a company

There also is apparently a no dog in the hangar or office policy in place.

So you can see my dilema...coffee shakes.. No puppies to kick...well, it was time to post a rant.. And picking on FO's is rather simple sport so I choose to take on two of the best..Cat and JC. I thought I made it quite clear I was just playing the devils advocate..Pick on Captains.

Your quote..

Let me give you an example of where SOP's can also work against you. My f/o and I were doing the before take-off checklist, and when the challenge "wx radar" was called, I called for it to be turned on, and my f/o continued to read the checklist. Most of the time, we don't need it on, so habit meant the f/o's ears were hearing what they are normally used to and subsequently, the radar was never turned on by him. Now I understand this is a checklist item more than a 'standard operating procedure', however they are one in the same.

I am not sure why you would consider that a failure in SOPs. Someone made an oopsie.. The other crew member picked it up.. I think that is exactly how it is supposed to work, and why we do challange -response for certain checklists..Perfect...whatever fifth generation CRM is called these days.

Your quote"

The point being, SOP's as you mentioned, create a routine. However, sometimes comfort with a routine leads to complacency. I find that deviating from SOP's under certain circumstances is good for the thought process and it keeps us honest. I don't believe that deviating means we know any better. A lot of what flying entails, is thinking outside the box, and that sometimes means having to get creative, while still ensuring safety isn't compromised.

I think you should read my post again.. I believe I said SOPs were a solution to routine items that tend to get missed...Your checklist example was pretty much a good one of why we should follow SOPS. I cant speak for all companies, but I know one for sure, that spends a great deal of man hours looking at accidents/incidents..Analyzing them. Developing a solution, Implementing an SOP, and then monitoring it for effectiveness, and, if necessary modifiying or eliminiating it.
It is good that you have that ability to unilaterally ignore an SOP. I wish all Captains had that ability, then we would not need SOPs anymore...oh wait...that is why we now have SOPs...because a few to many Captains did not have the ability they thought they did.

.

While SOP's are meant to be followed under most normal circumstances, almost all SOP's that I have been involved with have stated that they may be deviated from so long as safety is not compromised, and it is briefed and agreed upon by both crew members. It's just common sense too. So have I deviated from SOP's to teach my copilot something? Yup. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I never have. I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who hasn't deviated from SOP's to some degree to create a learning environment and I don't believe it means I know any better. I'll graciously admit I learn new things all the time, and I even learn from the guy to my right. The great thing about flying is that we've all flown with different personalities and experience levels. And one way or another, we all learn from people though people.

There are so many things wrong with that , I dont know where to start. SOPs, as a rule say they may be deviated under conditions where a better solution or a situation not covered by the SOPs....
Here is an actual one...

These aircraft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are issued by XXXXX for guidance in the operation of XXXXX aircraft. The SOPs cannot cover all circumstances. However, they are intended to assist flight crews to operate the aircraft within the limitations of the aircraft flight manual. Flight crews are expected to exercise sound judgement and consistency in their application.

They go on, in the next 180 pages or so, to describe shalls, shall not, shoulds...etc etc. To make it clearer, in iniital ground school, level upgrades, new type, it is reinforced each time that is not a Carte Blanche for Captains to simply ignore them..

Have yet to see one that simply states if a crew decides to deviate from the SOPs, all they have to do brief it...Not much point in having SOPs if thats all it takes to ignore them.

Now the old,,,"everyone has done it" argument ....Are you really a Captain or a multi-crew airplane? My dear old sainted mother dealt with this type of thinking is one short sentence.....

And of course, when all else fails, one must trot out the old..."we are all learning all the time"....and BTW if you disagree with this you are a neantheral idiot. One cannot agrue with this, but the danger then is it is used to go on to justify all sorts of deviations from the rules.

Despite the best efforts of companies to maximize safety, and which seem to actually have done it, I suppose we will always have Captains that simply think they are so much smarter....

I suppose, according to your line of thinking, the two pilots that managed to take off some time ago without a fuel uplift due to a failure to follow the SOPs, could simply claim they were thinking outside the box: briefed it, and their only mistake was that they misjudged the possible impact on safety...and, well, as they did not bend any metal, one could further argue that there was a safety factor built in and they actually heroes, for recognizing the situation and returning to the airport.

If you need to be your FO's best buddy , buy them a beer. If you want to mentor them for a future upgrade, then demonstrate maturity and responsability by trying to fly within the rules.....maybe have a few less buzz jobs or lets try this accidents or incidents.

[iflyforpie]

What are these 'SOPs' everybody keeps talking about?

[flying4dollars]

Well, FFD, your post was interesting, however before I start, I should give you a bit of background to my last post.

It was morning , you see. I was suffering from severe caffeine withdrawl, and despite every possilbe use of my persuave powers , people seemed to expect me to waddle to the coffee pot....damn near 10 meters away. Frustrating as all get out, as the company has made it quite clear that I am not to refer to the marital status of someone's parents at the time they were born; allude to their mother's canine ancestory; or speak out loud of my thoughts as to their sexual orientation....I know what your thinking.. I have to wonder myself, sometimes, why I keep working for such a company

There also is apparently a no dog in the hangar or office policy in place.

So you can see my dilema...coffee shakes.. No puppies to kick...well, it was time to post a rant.. And picking on FO's is rather simple sport so I choose to take on two of the best..Cat and JC. I thought I made it quite clear I was just playing the devils advocate..Pick on Captains.

Your quote..

Let me give you an example of where SOP's can also work against you. My f/o and I were doing the before take-off checklist, and when the challenge "wx radar" was called, I called for it to be turned on, and my f/o continued to read the checklist. Most of the time, we don't need it on, so habit meant the f/o's ears were hearing what they are normally used to and subsequently, the radar was never turned on by him. Now I understand this is a checklist item more than a 'standard operating procedure', however they are one in the same.

I am not sure why you would consider that a failure in SOPs. Someone made an oopsie.. The other crew member picked it up.. I think that is exactly how it is supposed to work, and why we do challange -response for certain checklists..Perfect...whatever fifth generation CRM is called these days.

Your quote"

The point being, SOP's as you mentioned, create a routine. However, sometimes comfort with a routine leads to complacency. I find that deviating from SOP's under certain circumstances is good for the thought process and it keeps us honest. I don't believe that deviating means we know any better. A lot of what flying entails, is thinking outside the box, and that sometimes means having to get creative, while still ensuring safety isn't compromised.

I think you should read my post again.. I believe I said SOPs were a solution to routine items that tend to get missed...Your checklist example was pretty much a good one of why we should follow SOPS. I cant speak for all companies, but I know one for sure, that spends a great deal of man hours looking at accidents/incidents..Analyzing them. Developing a solution, Implementing an SOP, and then monitoring it for effectiveness, and, if necessary modifiying or eliminiating it.
It is good that you have that ability to unilaterally ignore an SOP. I wish all Captains had that ability, then we would not need SOPs anymore...oh wait...that is why we now have SOPs...because a few to many Captains did not have the ability they thought they did.

.

While SOP's are meant to be followed under most normal circumstances, almost all SOP's that I have been involved with have stated that they may be deviated from so long as safety is not compromised, and it is briefed and agreed upon by both crew members. It's just common sense too. So have I deviated from SOP's to teach my copilot something? Yup. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I never have. I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who hasn't deviated from SOP's to some degree to create a learning environment and I don't believe it means I know any better. I'll graciously admit I learn new things all the time, and I even learn from the guy to my right. The great thing about flying is that we've all flown with different personalities and experience levels. And one way or another, we all learn from people though people.

There are so many things wrong with that , I dont know where to start. SOPs, as a rule say they may be deviated under conditions where a better solution or a situation not covered by the SOPs....
Here is an actual one...

These aircraft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are issued by XXXXX for guidance in the operation of XXXXX aircraft. The SOPs cannot cover all circumstances. However, they are intended to assist flight crews to operate the aircraft within the limitations of the aircraft flight manual. Flight crews are expected to exercise sound judgement and consistency in their application.

They go on, in the next 180 pages or so, to describe shalls, shall not, shoulds...etc etc. To make it clearer, in iniital ground school, level upgrades, new type, it is reinforced each time that is not a Carte Blanche for Captains to simply ignore them..

Have yet to see one that simply states if a crew decides to deviate from the SOPs, all they have to do brief it...Not much point in having SOPs if thats all it takes to ignore them.

Now the old,,,"everyone has done it" argument ....Are you really a Captain or a multi-crew airplane? My dear old sainted mother dealt with this type of thinking is one short sentence.....

And of course, when all else fails, one must trot out the old..."we are all learning all the time"....and BTW if you disagree with this you are a neantheral idiot. One cannot agrue with this, but the danger then is it is used to go on to justify all sorts of deviations from the rules.

Despite the best efforts of companies to maximize safety, and which seem to actually have done it, I suppose we will always have Captains that simply think they are so much smarter....

I suppose, according to your line of thinking, the two pilots that managed to take off some time ago without a fuel uplift due to a failure to follow the SOPs, could simply claim they were thinking outside the box: briefed it, and their only mistake was that they misjudged the possible impact on safety...and, well, as they did not bend any metal, one could further argue that there was a safety factor built in and they actually heroes, for recognizing the situation and returning to the airport.

If you need to be your FO's best buddy , buy them a beer. If you want to mentor them for a future upgrade, then demonstrate maturity and responsability by trying to fly within the rules.....maybe have a few less buzz jobs or lets try this accidents or incidents.

Yikes, when did I say I ignore SOP's? There's a line between deviating and ignoring, don't mistake the two. I think we may have misunderstood each others posts. That's fine, we all have our opinions. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa. I just gave an opinion, take it or leave it. I can justify all my decisions in the cockpit and I don't need the world to agree with me. I do just fine in the sim and nobody has been concerned with my abilities and actions.

Try n have a better day.