Who would you prefer to fly with?

[cmill]

I see what you're saying, but being non-standard is hardly being "creative." In fact, all it does is create a single-pilot environment where the guy in the other seat really has no idea what to expect next. That does very little to enhance flight safety, and in fact can quickly create a hazardous environment.

But, we're on two different pages here. I'm talking about procedural standardization as it relates to working together as a crew. That means callouts, flows, and (for the most part) profiles that conform to the company's SOP. Naturally there are some procedures that may have to be made up on the fly because of a situation that doesn't present itself in the QRH, CFM, etc. However, those are few and far between and don't excuse a pilot from being excessively non-standard in everyday line operations. Standardized procedures are there for a reason, and that's because people haven't "pulled it off" in the past and have learned from certain mistakes. Best not to repeat them.

I understand that standardization is required for things to run smoothly in a 121 environment, but like you said we're on 2 different pages. I'm not advocating hopping in the seat throwing levers like a five year old who didnt take his ritalin. I understand in a crew environment you need to do whats expected of you. Believe it or not, this hillbilly has worked in a crew before, and my boss was the first type, didnt really have a problem with it. His procedures were non-existent, but i always knew what to expect out of him. Occasional he would have a guy fill in for him that was retired SWA, who was completely by the book, when he wanted to be. One day we would run the engine start checklist line by line when its 120 in the cockpit, the next we wouldn't even crack it to check power settings. Or, he would fly with a busted engine instrument, but turn around with an inop radar on a clear day. Never really knew what i was getting.

Both of them were great pilots, and id trust them any day of the week.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Honestly, if you are the CA, it shouldn't matter. If yo uset the tone, it is your job to make sure that the FO is following SOP's. Im not sure about the other carriers, but it is pretty much one of our stated duties to moniter and foster the progression of FO's.

If you want the flight to be done by the book, then it is your job to make sure it happens. You are not doing your job if you let your other crew members run away with whatever they want, and you're not doing them any favors. I learned the most about being a captain from the captains that I hated the most. I learned how to establish a decorum that ensured things were done by the book, and safely. I'm not saying I am perfect by any means, but, it is your job to make sure it gets done right.

 

[mshunter]

Alright... I'll give it a good shot...

Consistently non-standard:

Has their own flow of procedures that is independent of corporate procedures, runs checklists without them being called for, flies non-profile climbouts, cruise, and approaches, etc... Yet does it the same exact way every time and is highly predictable.

Paranoid:

Checking the weather for the destination and surrounding airports at least twice each leg, even when the weather is nearly perfect. Always on the phone with dispatch checking the enroute weather, even when they just flew that route to an outstation. Always muttering about "not knowing something". Seems jumpy and nervous when the other pilot is flying (especially with no autopilot and no flight director). So concerned with FOQA that they drop the gear 15 miles out on a visual (backed up with the ILS) because you are approaching G?S intercept. Having some type of 'false reasoning' for not using a certain flap setting for takeoff. That kind of stuff. Does not do it the same way every time and seems unpredictable.

That help?

I see your point, but I was responding to the above.

Actually, from personal experience, I had the exact opposite reaction. I wouldn't know what to expect, and that's far worse than dealing with someone who's paranoid. 121 airlines didn't become the safest form of travel in the world because we're all flying how we think the airplane should be flown. It became that way because of standardization of procedures and crew interactions.

Flying non-standard is a good way to get in trouble. Safety wise and company wise. But I'd rather have predictable than someone who is paranoid and makes mistakes because of it.

 

[seagull]

I understand that standardization is required for things to run smoothly in a 121 environment, but like you said we're on 2 different pages.

Don't agree. The manufacturer came up with procedures for a reason. The FAA regulations are there for a reason. Do it your way and see how that works out for you if a mishap occurs.

 

[cmill]

Don't agree. The manufacturer came up with procedures for a reason. The FAA regulations are there for a reason. Do it your way and see how that works out for you if a mishap occurs.

Do you even know what i was referring to about non standard procedures, or do you automatically take the tone of "you're dangerous if you dont follow the book." If thats the case, you're really showing off some ignorance of anything outside of 121.

Edit: I didnt see your first response to me.

For some operations there is no book. There are no manufacturer recommendations for what we do, there are no numbers, no T/O or landing distances, no max x-wind components. The only thing we really have to go by is what we see, and how its happened in the past. I know for you it might be unfathomable that the FAA would let people operate this way, but it happens every day almost always without incident.

If you can find me a book that shows the number for taking off with a 15 knot tailwind because you're in too narrow of a spot to turn around, or where in the 185 POH it advocates yanking flaps, or in what flight manual it details a 90 degree turn at speed as a SOP, id be more than willing to read it.

Until then, please remember your non-standard maybe someone elses SOP. There are some facets of aviation where things are still determined on a trial and error basis. If that makes you uncomfortable, then theres always going to be an RJ seat for you.

 

[Oxman]

optiion 1 could mean that he (or she) is confident in their situation, decision and ability.

option 2 could mean that they are scared of making a decision and only do when finally forced to.

 

[dasleben]

If that makes you uncomfortable, then theres always going to be an RJ seat for you.

Oh, dear. Now you've gone and done it.

 

[38driver]

Alright... I'll give it a good shot...

Consistently non-standard:

Has their own flow of procedures that is independent of corporate procedures, runs checklists without them being called for, flies non-profile climbouts, cruise, and approaches, etc... Yet does it the same exact way every time and is highly predictable.

Paranoid:

Checking the weather for the destination and surrounding airports at least twice each leg, even when the weather is nearly perfect. Always on the phone with dispatch checking the enroute weather, even when they just flew that route to an outstation. Always muttering about "not knowing something". Seems jumpy and nervous when the other pilot is flying (especially with no autopilot and no flight director). So concerned with FOQA that they drop the gear 15 miles out on a visual (backed up with the ILS) because you are approaching G?S intercept. Having some type of 'false reasoning' for not using a certain flap setting for takeoff. That kind of stuff. Does not do it the same way every time and seems unpredictable.

That help?

Easy...fly a single seat jet! haha

In all seriousness, #1. As long as he/she is not unsafe or shooting from the hip I'll fly with the predictable guy/gal. Being overly paranoid is an accident looking for a place to happen.

 

[Pilotforhire587]

Whaaaa?!?! HOW? He has 0, read ZERO TPIC!!

Really I must be mistaken then... He must know a bunch of SOMEBODYS

 

[cmill]

Oh, dear. Now you've gone and done it.

The gloves are off baby!

Really though. It irritates me when i make every attempt to be diplomatic and open minded, trying to see something from other's point of view (121,) only to have someone come back at me and tell me im wrong, simply because they dont understand where im coming from. I dont mean anything personal by the RJ remark, but if someone really doesnt want to take the time to see how others might be forced to do things that there isnt a SOP for, then they should really just stay inside their comfort zone.

Just please dont assume im wrong, or dangerous, or cavalier, just because you dont know any better. Thats all im sayin.

 

[jtrain609]

If that makes you uncomfortable, then theres always going to be an RJ seat for you.

Hilarity, this post has it.

 

[seagull]

For some operations there is no book. There are no manufacturer recommendations for what we do, there are no numbers, no T/O or landing distances, no max x-wind components. The only thing we really have to go by is what we see, and how its happened in the past. I know for you it might be unfathomable that the FAA would let people operate this way, but it happens every day almost always without incident.

Until then, please remember your non-standard maybe someone elses SOP. There are some facets of aviation where things are still determined on a trial and error basis. If that makes you uncomfortable, then theres always going to be an RJ seat for you.

No, I'm not missing the point at all. You are changing the premise of the question. There are LOTS of variations out there. Does the fact that at one airline the crew is allowed to perform procedures that another considered "maintenance procedures only" make the first or second non-standard? Of course not. Read what you wrote. You are not talking about "standard procedures/SOPs". You are talking about items that are TECHNIQUE. In that category, there is no "one correct way". Technique is just that, and there are going to be a lot of different ones. Some only do what they were taught (which is just their instructor's technique, really), never thinking there is a better way. Others look at every technique and think "why should I do it that way?" I am of the latter mindset. I look at the variety of different ways to accomplish things, and see that each has advantages and disadvantages. I use ALL of them, choosing the one that is best suited for the particular situation. I can give plenty of examples of this. Again, this thread was not, AFAIK, about TECHNIQUE. If there is NO BOOK, then it is ALL TECHNIQUE! Again, that is NOT SOP, you are free to operate as you feel you need to. Does this help?

 

[Firebird2XC]

This is a great question, and I think either example has drawbacks.

Personally, there's a middle ground somewhere between those two extremes where we all have to operate. Like Doug said- procedures exist for a reason, but being able to think outside the box is important.

The overall question is this- maybe the other pilot is nervous, or is doing something nonstandard.. but are they communicating with you about it?

A nonstandard checklist or taxi procedure is one thing- are they omitting something, or adding something that increases awareness? A nonstandard climb profile? What's nonstandard about it? Our company climb profile says use a FLC climb at an outstation all the way to final altitude. Personally, I prefer to accelerate as much as possible before increasing my rate of climb. Carrying that energy into the climb helps keep extra energy between the airplane and the "Rake of Death" as we struggle to get our heavy, sluggish RJ to 370.

There are nuances of real world experience that color most "personal techniques". The question is, are we allowing these things to happen because there's a reason behind it that still applies? Or are we just resisting changes in procedures and sticking to something we 'used to do' which was based on old procedures (or now erroneous data)?

 

[seagull]

Until then, please remember your non-standard maybe someone elses SOP. There are some facets of aviation where things are still determined on a trial and error basis. If that makes you uncomfortable, then theres always going to be an RJ seat for you.

On this line, first, non-standard is in the context of a single operator, not across the industry, as SOPs vary, as I pointed out. Second, while some do things on a trial and error basis, it is, perhaps, not the best way. It would seem to me that it would be logical for those who have, through trial and error, sorted out the best way to get into that short strip, etc., document that for use by those that follow them, would it not? The problem is that in GA, there is not really any way to do this. The SOPs in the airline world were established by years of doing just that, so deviating from them is not just a matter of a different technique.

Finally, have no idea what your RJ reference is to? I don't see trading in my widebody seat to fly one at this point of my career, though.

 

[cmill]

No, I'm not missing the point at all. You are changing the premise of the question. There are LOTS of variations out there. Does the fact that at one airline the crew is allowed to perform procedures that another considered "maintenance procedures only" make the first or second non-standard? Of course not. Read what you wrote. You are not talking about "standard procedures/SOPs". You are talking about items that are TECHNIQUE. In that category, there is no "one correct way". Technique is just that, and there are going to be a lot of different ones. Some only do what they were taught (which is just their instructor's technique, really), never thinking there is a better way. Others look at every technique and think "why should I do it that way?" I am of the latter mindset. I look at the variety of different ways to accomplish things, and see that each has advantages and disadvantages. I use ALL of them, choosing the one that is best suited for the particular situation. I can give plenty of examples of this. Again, this thread was not, AFAIK, about TECHNIQUE. If there is NO BOOK, then it is ALL TECHNIQUE! Again, that is NOT SOP, you are free to operate as you feel you need to. Does this help?

Agreed, just wanted to clarify after you said

There is always a book. It is called the regulations, the aircraft flight manual, etc. If someone is ignoring those, it is the same thing as what we are talking about here.

I just dont like blanket statements. They're always wrong.

 

[mshunter]

Just an observation here.

Say you have a situation of smoke/fire in the cockpit. You run your memory items and then take the time to pull out the checklist, start running the procedures and double checking all the while the flames are licking up against your leg. You never make it to the ground because the smoke and flames overcome you.

Or, you completely throw the checklists out the window, push over for an emergency decent, turn everything off, find a field and just put it down. You get out, pull out your cell phone and tell your boss that his plane is in a field burning, but you and the guy in the other seat are o.k., or maybe have minor burns and some smoke inhalation.

I understand that this doesn't necessarily relate to the OP directly, but it does indirectly. My point is, the guy that is paranoid may just react the way described in the first scenario. I have had smoke in the cockpit before. I didn't pull out a checklist. I turned of everything, closed up all the vents and turned the airplane around ASAP (I had just departed). I landed, and got out of the airplane. Everyone was fine, and I lived to fly another day. I also was completely non-standard with what I had done. I was more concerned with preservation of life than adhering to SOP's or checklists. Why, because SOP's and checklists be damned if I am in serious danger. I didn't know if it was going to get worse, or what had caused it. And I didn't really care either. All I knew is I had a problem that could get serious REAL quick. I knew there was an airport less than 3 minutes behind me, with a riverbed for me to put down in if I had to right under me. I didn't declare an emergency because I didn't have time to, nor was I in contact with anyone that I could have (I was at a non-towered field). So, #1 was getting back on the ground and getting out.

Paranoid man may have frozen up in this situation which, in an airplane as complex as an RJ or bizz jet would leave me to handle the emergency on my own and smack the crud out of them when we were back on the ground and safe. Thats not something I ever look forward to having to do.

 

[cmill]

On this line, first, non-standard is in the context of a single operator, not across the industry, as SOPs vary, as I pointed out. Second, while some do things on a trial and error basis, it is, perhaps, not the best way. It would seem to me that it would be logical for those who have, through trial and error, sorted out the best way to get into that short strip, etc., document that for use by those that follow them, would it not? The problem is that in GA, there is not really any way to do this. The SOPs in the airline world were established by years of doing just that, so deviating from them is not just a matter of a different technique.

Finally, have no idea what your RJ reference is to? I don't see trading in my widebody seat to fly one at this point of my career, though.

I wouldnt trade a widebody seat for an rj either. Hell, i wouldnt trade my float plane seat for an RJ seat. It was a generalization.

As for the first part goes, yes, the best way to deal with a hazardous environment is to teach others what has worked in the past, the problem is that the environment is too dynamic to say this way works every time, thats were the technique comes in.

What does that have to do with this thread? I think if you combine a by the book personality, mixed with paranoia, and years of indoctrination, it would be tough for them to adapt to a situation in the cockpit without the aid of a guide telling them what to do. My .02

 

[USMCmech]

I chose option #1, because pilot # 2 strikes me as not having any confidence. I can work with a guy who uses a different technique than I am used to, but I can't fix a confidence problem.

I will also say that pilot #1 is still wrong. Company SOP should still be followed even if you don't personally like every part. Unless there is a imeadiate reason to deviate (land overweight if on fire).


Seagull, you are absolutely right for the 121 or 135 crew world. Boeing, the airline, and the FAA did a LOT of work to figure out the exact best way to fly the plane, and you should stick with what they gave you.

cmill, you are also right for the single pilot 135 or pt 91 world. Cessna, Piper, ect, only gives you the bare basics, and had a bunch of lawyers write the POH so they couldn't get sued. You have to use your best judgment.

Different worlds different attitudes.

 

[seagull]

Agreed, just wanted to clarify after you said

I just dont like blanket statements. They're always wrong.

However, you DO have the books I referenced, it was just that (if I read correctly) it was not THOSE books that you were talking about deviating from. Airlines have a few more books to add to that layer, but the reality is that they are just more levels of proven procedures. They are not techniques as they are fully vetted and are designed to maximize the aircraft performance and compliance with the regulations within the framework that the airline operates in.

 

[seagull]

Our procedure for that scenario is that you get on the ground ASAP, if you have time to run the checklist you do.

Bottom line, though, is that is an emergency, so you are supposed to, and should be trained to, do what is necessary to get on the ground. The person who does not follow SOPs is actually a lot more at risk in this scenario. That might seem counter intuitive, but it really isn't, and years of accident analysis support that.

Just an observation here.

Say you have a situation of smoke/fire in the cockpit. You run your memory items and then take the time to pull out the checklist, start running the procedures and double checking all the while the flames are licking up against your leg. You never make it to the ground because the smoke and flames overcome you.

Or, you completely throw the checklists out the window, push over for an emergency decent, turn everything off, find a field and just put it down. You get out, pull out your cell phone and tell your boss that his plane is in a field burning, but you and the guy in the other seat are o.k., or maybe have minor burns and some smoke inhalation.

I understand that this doesn't necessarily relate to the OP directly, but it does indirectly. My point is, the guy that is paranoid may just react the way described in the first scenario. I have had smoke in the cockpit before. I didn't pull out a checklist. I turned of everything, closed up all the vents and turned the airplane around ASAP (I had just departed). I landed, and got out of the airplane. Everyone was fine, and I lived to fly another day. I also was completely non-standard with what I had done. I was more concerned with preservation of life than adhering to SOP's or checklists. Why, because SOP's and checklists be damned if I am in serious danger. I didn't know if it was going to get worse, or what had caused it. And I didn't really care either. All I knew is I had a problem that could get serious REAL quick. I knew there was an airport less than 3 minutes behind me, with a riverbed for me to put down in if I had to right under me. I didn't declare an emergency because I didn't have time to, nor was I in contact with anyone that I could have (I was at a non-towered field). So, #1 was getting back on the ground and getting out.

Paranoid man may have frozen up in this situation which, in an airplane as complex as an RJ or bizz jet would leave me to handle the emergency on my own and smack the crud out of them when we were back on the ground and safe. Thats not something I ever look forward to having to do.