So thats why the Airbus keeps yelling at me during the landing.

 

nope, no one flies a perfect flight. All the more reason for some flexibility in procedures. And no, I never flew with NWA. But I have spoken with many people who did, and even they tell me that NWA's procedures were too rigid.

 

Handed out 2 GSWC and 6 GS for DTW 320B today. 2 trips in open time for tomorrow......MINUS 2 reserves.

12 trips in open time for the 2nd..........MINUS 2 reserves.

It's a definite CHA-CHING month for us.
My August RAW may beat my RAW 180 for this month.

 

I've got to agree. I've never flown SOPA/SMAC so I can't comment on it. I'm sure if there was a "slam dunk" answer on which procedure was better there would be data galore to support that conclusion from both pre-merger airlines operating history (operational errors, deviations, ASAP, FOQA, etc.) I am still optimistic that over the next couple of years our procedures will continue to evolve to "best practice."

I do find it interesting that one of the main protagonists in this discussion talking about Delta standardization is on one of the two aircraft fleets with zero cross pollination. All the training and check airmen he is exposed to are the same as they've always been, just the book they're operating under is different. On another forum I see plenty of compliments for both pre-merger operations from those that have been cross-pollinated. Maybe after the fences come down Carl can find some value...

 

I think the discussion is important because we are supposedly in the mode of promoting best practices. In order to determine what those are, healthy debate is necessary. Since NWA is now history, if any of our old procedures are ever to be adopted as a best practice, that will by definition require a discussion of history.

Carl

 

You miss the point. Of course checklists are there to back you up in case you missed something. The question is: why would you throw away the first line of defense by making the initial activation of this system a silent item? It costs absolutely nothing to make it a command and response (as we do in other areas), and it adds another layer of defense.

I know this is "the way we've always done it." I know that. I know that. But there really are better ways. You just have to be willing to listen.

Carl

 

Nobody is talking about not noticing before taking off. We're just talking about throwing away the initial line of defense by making the activation of this system a silent item. When in all other regimes of flight, this system's activation is by command. Makes no sense.

Standardization makes all crews better. Weak and strong. The opposite view of your argument is the following: the strongest pilots in the world will not perform to their best as a crew, if they are not standardized.

Again, the characterization of our SOPA/SMAC as rigid is made out of pure ignorance. If you had flown it, you would know. You probably shouldn't continue to reference the term rigid just because another poster here called it rigid. A poster who also never flew it.

Carl

 

Carl- it works great both ways. Sorry.

There is more than one way than one to skin a cat... or fly a airplane (safely, professionally, and standard).

Goes both ways... just because you've done it that way for years doesn't make it the right way either. Like I've said time and again, we're going to see (and are seeing) a more joint combination of procedures.

 

OK, one more time. SOPA/SMAC allowed for deviations any time as desired by the captain in the interest of safety.

What we have here is the strange desire to desperately hang on to a less than optimum system because you can't bear the thought of changing to a system not invented by Delta Air Lines. The desperation goes so far as to assert utter falsehoods about other's procedures in order to hang on to what was invented here.

Sheeesh.

Carl

 

You end up pulling in any greenies?