SOPs

[gelbisch]

I was recently reviewing a weathered old stack of model interview questions I've amassed over the years, and came across the standard question of: "Have you ever broken SOPs, and if so why, etc..."

That got me thinking and I'm just curious as to the opinions of you folks... what, if any, is an acceptable deviation from SOPs?

[R2000/1830]

Any deviation from SOP's is acceptable when the safety of the A/C would be best served with such a deviation. That said, if your constantly deviating from the same SOP then that SOP should be changed.

SOP are there to keep everybody on the same page, but sometimes you fly off the page and have to go beyond the SOPs.

[Cap'n P8]

Great answer...but I bet you the answer he was looking for involved specific examples so as to use them during an interview...I think.

[just curious]

For us, the standard departure is climb to 400 before any turns.
Sadly, for us a lot of our takeoffs involve departures in mountains off short strips.

Therefore, in order to avoid bonking into a rock, we briefed a turn below 400 feet. As it develops, this happened a fair bit. Lots of little strips; lots of rocks.

Accordingly, we amended our SOPs to reflect a set of circumstances whereby we would turn below 400. Speeds, flaps, bank angle the whole shebang.

[Wasn't Me]

I'm with R2000/1830 just remember Swiss Air 811 . The crew flew for 20 minutes while following SOP's while the airplane burned and crashed. The pilots flew by the book and SOP'ed themselves to death. The new SOP's for the MD11 call for an overweight landing rather than stay in the air with a fire.

Air Alaska that crashed on the west coast, with the tail broken of caused by an unlubricated Tail screw is another example. That poor crew did everything by the book including calling company for help. They wanted the airplane to land at destination to save money. The tail broke of and the crew and passengers dropped to the earth without a tail control. They spent over 2 hours trying to SOP a problem to a fix. In hind sight they should have landed.

I now believe that the standard SOP should be "DO ALL THE DEBUGING ON THE GROUND" that means if you consider it serious land ASAP and let the ground guy put out the fire or fix the tail screw.


SOP's are not a replacement for good judgement.

My two cents

[TG]

Nice sum up R2000/1830

More interresting stuff:

"Bending the Rules II"
P.T.W. Hudson, W.L.G.Verschuur, R. Lawton, D Parker, J. T. Reason
Why do people bend the rules, deliberately fail to follow procedures? There is an assumption that people will follow the guidelines and procedures as laid down in the Safety Management System. When this assumption is broken, the whole basis of the Safety Management System is temporarily put at risk. The main reasons for violation are:
1. Expectation that the rules will have to be bent to get the work done;
2. Powerfulness, the feeling that one has the ability and experience to do the job without slavishly following the procedures;
3. Seeing the Opportunities that present themselves for short cuts or to do things 'better';
4. Inadequate Work Planning and advance preparation, leading to working, on the fly' and solving problems as they arise.

If you know how someone will answer questions about those four factors, you can make a very good prediction of whether they are likely to bend the rules or not. On the other hand, having good intentions, being closely watched over for rule-breaking and having the threat of punishment when caught are not good predictors.”

This is a nasty question because there is no correct answer. What I think is expected from the victim is: "Can you justify what you did?"

Wasn't Me, I'm not sure those crews were fully aware about their "dooming" situation.

[Jaques Strappe]

The book is a guide to the wise and a bible for the idiots

Don't use that statement in an interview obviously but think of it this way Gelbisch. Each and every pilot on the interview panel will have at some point deviated from SOP.

[grimey]

I'm with R2000/1830 just remember Swiss Air 811 . The crew flew for 20 minutes while following SOP's while the airplane burned and crashed. The pilots flew by the book and SOP'ed themselves to death. The new SOP's for the MD11 call for an overweight landing rather than stay in the air with a fire.

If I remember right, it wouldn't have made a difference in this case anyway. From the time they chose to divert, the straight line estimate for Halifax was longer than it took for the plane be rendered uncontrollable. I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea to land in this case, only that following SOPs didn't kill them.

[gelbisch]

Actually, I don't ask to find a good interview response. I already have my answer all worked out.

I'm just curious what everyone's opinions are. I think we've likely all seen different folks sitting beside us with MOs that run the gamut from fly like a cowboy and checklists are a waste of time to everything must be done by the book to the exclusion of common sense.

I certainly know where I stand and I'd think that a happy medium is best... I think that JS's little maxim sums it up nicely. There are obviously very sound reasons for SOPs and they've hopefully been put in place by those wiser and more experienced than myself, but I don't think they should ever prevent you from ignoring glaring factors and situations that must be dealt with and likely don't fit nicely into any SOP checks.