Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airmanship Vs. Following SOP  
User currently offlineFrequentflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 736 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Fellows:

There had been a discussion at the end of the thread on AF 358 (YYZ rwy overrun): topic was, are pilots nowadays following SOP by the letter, and at the same time "forgetting" to trust their gut feeling and flight/airxcraft posture impressions.

I quote the following from PIHERO

Quoting Pihero (Reply 90):
Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 87):
You mean, flying personnel has a tendency now to follow SOP strictly whereas they should balance it with their guts/impressions/airmanship?

Hi FF,
You could start a long , very interesting discussion on the subject.
Put simply, I have noticed that nowadays'pilots react to a given set of anomalies/situations/circumstances... whereas airmanship allows for anticipation on the evolution of a situation, making a decision faster and easier to take.

Problem is we are fast losing these experience-teaching guys mainly because training is mostly based on SOP's. Time lacks for airmanship. Problem # 2 is we can't put everything on a check-list and that, combined with adherence to procedures which in this case don't exist can lead to flawed decisions.

regards.


What do you think?

Cheers,

P


Take off and live
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRightWayUp From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

With the factual information given so far by the investigators, following Sops would have avoided the overrun. Most if not all major airlines Sops will require a go-around if you have not touched down within the touchdown zone. What we do not know at this point is whether the crew were pressured to continue the landing for fuel reasons. That may have been an airmanship call!

User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6533 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1435 times:

If a set of SOPs are written well, and allow enough lateral movement by pilots, then airmanship is taken into account and a pilot can do what they feel is right and stay within the SOP confinements.

User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4152 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Frequent Flyer was right to take these questions out of the AF358 discussion, as they were more of a general kind.
Airmanship, as I define it , is for instance seeing a set of lenticular clouds at one's altitude and then take every action possible to avoid the -very often- associated turbulence...
It is about making sure during a dark night cruise that one's radar is correctly set to detect thunderheads ahead (replaced now by the newest site sweeping radars)...
It is about flying the upwind side of a preceding aircraft contrails...

And two quizzes :
1/- Your destination is a 7000 Ft runway. Some rain there. Your pre-descent scan shows a flat tyre on your TIPS. What do you do ? (Comments and decision ?)

2/- You've just taken off from base... Some rain there, too. You then get a hot brake warning on one wheel, followed by a wheel well fire alarm...What do you do then ? ..After your initial action, the fire warning disappears...Comments and decision (s) ?

Answers as complete as possible, please.

PS : In an ideal world, I would agree with CX flyboy. Problem is, after having seen quite a few manuals from as many airlines, my judgement is reserved...like for instance switching the A/Throttle only before T/O.

Regards.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29699 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

Well there is a good train of thought that good airmanship is being true to the SOP's....but a lot of people have followed the SOP's right into a smoking hole too.

So I guess it is kind of like Kenny Rodgers "Gambler" song....You got to know when to follow them and when to run away.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Every FCOM I have ever seen details the importance of SOP. But, there is also a disclaimer associated with the SOP section. The disclaimer is worded to the effect that the SOPs can't cover each and every situation and the Captain has the authority to deviate from the SOP if in his estimate the SOP will not resolve the problem.
With that said, in general I agree following SOPs will keep someone out of trouble. However, good airmanship will also keep someone out of trouble. The real question is how do you resolve the conflict.

Pihero's two quizzes are fairly easy (from my perspective) for the 744 FCOM handles them very well. The second quiz is very straight forward, the checklist calls for the gear to be lowered, land as soon as conditions permit. You could dump fuel to get to a reasonable landing weight (no runway length specified) or you can leave the gear down and burn fuel off that way. Things to consider:

1) inoperative brake(s)
2) landing distance on a wet runway

The first quiz is a little more complex. What's my landing weight? What's the calculated landing distance with a wet runway? Availability of alternates?

My initial thoughts are to go to an alternate with a longer runway and better weather (dry runway). Realistically, the 744 doesn't operate into runways that short. So, it's more an academic exercise.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4152 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Philsquares,
Make it an 8800 ft runway for your beast.

Reasoning and decision, please !

Quoting L-188 (Reply 4):
but a lot of people have followed the SOP's right into a smoking hole too.

An MD 11 lost was the saddest illustration of your statement.
Will we ever learn ?



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1349 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 6):
Philsquares,
Make it an 8800 ft runway for your beast.

Divert to an alternate with a longer runway. At max landing weight, wet runway, that's still a pretty short runway. So, longer runway it is, reduce to lowest weight possible.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4152 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

OK,
Now the second quiz.
(btw, do you ever sleep. Me I'm lagged out)

Cheers.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1341 times:

It's about 925am here in Singapore....very nice day, having coffee...

Actually, in both situations, I'd divert to a longer runway. With either situation you have the possibility to have non functioning brakes. The longer and lighter the better it is from my perspective.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4152 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

PhilSquares,

Actually,the second situation involves a sticking brake.
I understand that on a 16 wheel airplane, the situation is less severe, but doing normal braking in this situation could lead to an overheating brake with possible fire in the end.
So my solution is : upon landing, use maximum braking in order to spread the stopping energy over all brakes. I would also ask for a fire vehicle nearby.
Do you agree ?

On the first situation, you are right, you've lost braking on the flat tyre.Both on the 73 and the 320 family, that would preclude a landing on a contaminated runway (so the question has to asked from the tower, even in case of light rain).

These are the sort of situations that in my opinion require both a knowledge of procedures and involve some lateral thinking, which is airmanship about.
Believe me , I did not try to be pedantic.

Best regards.

[Edited 2005-08-22 20:11:15]


Contrail designer
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airmanship Vs. Following SOP
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Aircraft Vs Race Cars: Temps, Wear And Tear, Etc posted Thu Nov 2 2006 07:34:20 by TimePilot
DC-8 Vs 707 Today posted Tue Oct 31 2006 05:49:17 by DLKAPA
Airport Design - Arrival Vs. Departure Floor posted Wed Oct 25 2006 05:08:15 by Abrelosojos
HF Vs VHF Vs UHF R/T Frequencies Useage posted Fri Oct 20 2006 08:28:34 by BOACVC10
757 Vs 767 posted Tue Oct 17 2006 23:57:59 by Freight400
Rwy Capacity: Mixed Use Vs. Non-mixed posted Wed Sep 27 2006 02:27:28 by BuyantUkhaa
Engine Thrust: Rating Vs. Real Differences posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:49:42 by A342
747 Vs A380-School Project; Need Help posted Tue Sep 19 2006 03:07:29 by Speedbird747BA
Skydrol Vs 5606 posted Sat Sep 16 2006 22:44:44 by DC8FriendShip
US Vs Metric Units On A/C posted Thu Sep 7 2006 00:37:11 by Coal

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format