A railworad story but could very well be a flying story.
Good news:
It was a normal day in Sharon Springs, Kansas , when a Union Pacific crew boarded a loaded coal train for the long trek to Salina .
Bad news:
Just a few miles into the trip a wheel bearing became overheated and melted, letting a metal support drop down and grind on the rail, creating white hot molten metal droppings spewing down to the rail.
Good news:
A very alert crew noticed smoke about halfway back in the train and immediately stopped the train in compliance with the Standard Operating Procedures.
Bad news:
The train stopped with the hot wheel over a wooden bridge with creosote ties and trusses.
The crew tried to explain this to the Chief Engineer of Union Pacific but were instructed not to move the train!
They were informed that standard operating procedures prohibited moving the train when a part was found to be defective.
Common Sense and SOP's
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Common Sense and SOP's
- Attachments
-
- train3.jpg (21.32 KiB) Viewed 1116 times
-
- train2.jpg (23.54 KiB) Viewed 1116 times
-
- train1.jpg (26.49 KiB) Viewed 1116 times
-
CanadianEh
- Rank 7
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:00 pm
- Location: YYZ
Re: Common Sense and SOP's
What a moronic decision. It just goes to show that the "common sense check" shouldn't be neglected.
-
Trim Spinner
- Rank 1
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:48 pm
- Location: YYZ - Terminal 1
Re: Common Sense and SOP's
Yes, but every operator I have worked at, it states right there in the COM: "deviation from SOPs is permitted whenever it would be the safest option" or something similar.
-
ninjacrumb
- Rank 2
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 2:08 pm
Re: Common Sense and SOP's
Here's the deal with common sense in aviation:
It is not common.
It is not common.
Re: Common Sense and SOP's
This should be on the shoulders of the Cheif Engineer, not the crew.
They asked to act in commen sense (if what you type was correct) and were told not to.
Had they exercised commen sense, and something else messed up, guess who is out of pocket for a destroyed railcar etc...
Just like at my last job. I can think of an example where my commen sense was over-ruled. If they want to destroy a PT6, it's on them. I'm not bending metal or hurting myself to save it.
I'll only get into details over beer.
They asked to act in commen sense (if what you type was correct) and were told not to.
Had they exercised commen sense, and something else messed up, guess who is out of pocket for a destroyed railcar etc...
Just like at my last job. I can think of an example where my commen sense was over-ruled. If they want to destroy a PT6, it's on them. I'm not bending metal or hurting myself to save it.
I'll only get into details over beer.
Re: Common Sense and SOP's
These "common sense" discussions always straddle the line between condoning the practice of discounting the validity of SOPs and using good judgement. Anecdotal evidence like Bede's story is a bit inconclusive. We will never know what may have happened if they moved the train further but we can generally agree that it was probably the right thing to do.
I've heard far too many pilots lamenting SOPs because apparently they don't jibe with "common sense". It always reminds me of a young PA-31 pilot fresh out of FlightSafety who decided that not only was the FlightSafety Emergency Checklist better than the one Piper wrote (even though it clearly said not approved for use in aircraft) but he decided that he would henceforth modify the checklist for engine failure after V1. He felt it was only "common sense" that you put put the gear up immediately once airborne to clean the airplane up.
Most people that know PA-31s know why that's not a good idea and certainly not "common sense".
SOPs are generally written using the combined experience and knowledge of the aircraft manufacturer and operators. Fully intend to follow them but keep your eyes open for issues that may arise that require slight modification. Then present the issue to your operating/flight department and/or the chief pilot for review and resolution. It may include modification of the SOP.
I've heard far too many pilots lamenting SOPs because apparently they don't jibe with "common sense". It always reminds me of a young PA-31 pilot fresh out of FlightSafety who decided that not only was the FlightSafety Emergency Checklist better than the one Piper wrote (even though it clearly said not approved for use in aircraft) but he decided that he would henceforth modify the checklist for engine failure after V1. He felt it was only "common sense" that you put put the gear up immediately once airborne to clean the airplane up.
Most people that know PA-31s know why that's not a good idea and certainly not "common sense".
SOPs are generally written using the combined experience and knowledge of the aircraft manufacturer and operators. Fully intend to follow them but keep your eyes open for issues that may arise that require slight modification. Then present the issue to your operating/flight department and/or the chief pilot for review and resolution. It may include modification of the SOP.
