There is nothing worse when a subordinate deliberately brings up CRM encouraged assertiveness as an excuse for deplorable bad manners on the flight deck or at flight planning stage.
Actually, there are lots of things worse. I do not think you guys get it. CRM is not something designed to take away your godlike powers as Captain. It is some knowledge of human interaction and a set of tools to turn 2 pilots into a crew. Obviously in the above example the Captain failed to manage the crew properly. It is also implied that due to a real or perceived lack of management support, the Captain also failed to address the problem with the F/O later. This means that the problem isn't with one stroppy F/O (rediculous concept), it is systemic to the organization and will continue.
Stroppyness, or any other character flaw, is a problem no matter which seat you are in. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't belong in either one.
Good CRM is about either crew member being able to make a strong point or correction to the other crew member without upsetting them by the manner in which it is done. That is it.
It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation and for the younger generation of FOs that have never experienced any real environment of discipline and for whom the cockpit gradient is, therefore, a bit of a struggle.
In foreign airlines that employ expats good CRM also helps to compensate for the fact that the Captain is a foreigner and the FO is a National and regards it as 'his' airline and the foreign captain is, he thinks, sitting in 'his' seat.
Location: Kerikeri, New Zealand or Noosa Queensland. Depending on the time of year!
Age: 69
Posts: 99
"It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation and for the younger generation of FOs that have never experienced any real environment of discipline and for whom the cockpit gradient is, therefore, a bit of a struggle."
I think you will find that the need was not confined to the military. Back in the dark old ages there were many a BOAC captain that suffered from the "God Complex" Ever read the book "Call me Captain" ?
Same breed, many were, in fact, ex RAF from single crew bombers but some of the older ones had never flown as a First Officer, as in the mercantile marine, the Master was the Master, end of story.
"Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid."
The first problem is there are F/Os who share your opinion...sometimes encouraged by trainers.
The second problem is this opinion is in direct conflict with every legal statement made in this area.
In the section of my ops manual "organisation and responsibilities"
Sub section "Authority. Duties and responsibilities of the Commander" (note it does not say Captain).
The commander shall:
"(a) Be RESPONSIBLE for the safe operation of the aeroplane and safety of its occupants during flight time.
(b) Have AUTHORITY to give all COMMANDS he deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aeroplane and of persons or property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aeroplane shall obey such commands."
An aircraft Captain / Commander has FULL responsibility for the operation (read any investigated incident report). With this has to come full authority...you cannot have one without the other.
Polite requests are normally the way to go...and they normally work...but when you fly with people who try to reverse the authority gradient you have to deal with that.
If you condone that behaviour not only are you encouraging it but (if the dreaded day comes where you have a major incident developing) be in no doubt you will have these guys making decisions for you.
This is not the time to be wrestling your authority back from the right seat.
"It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation
That is one point of view. From personal experience of having flown 3000 plus hours on Lancaster Mk 4 four engine heavy bombers (known as the Lincoln), and crewed as second pilot to ranks from Group Captain and Squadron Leader right down to Pilot Officer and Sergeant Pilot, I can honestly say I never saw one instance of the mythical I AM GOD THE COMMANDER pilot, so beloved of CRM aficionados.
I cannot say the same from my long experience in the airline industry. There was certainly no shortage in that game of arrogant puffed up four bar "captains" who were never worthy of the title. These idiots were the career busters some of which went on in retirement to be tin-pot little Hitlers in the simulator who glorified in their perceived power to make life hell.
The myth of the military pilot being the basis of the huge money making cottage industry called CRM and its half brother TEM invented by the University of Texas aviation trick cyclists, is one of the greatest cons in aviation history.
Of course there was the occasional twit in the military but it is quite illogical and certainly inaccurate to typecast all former or current military pilots as idiots whose pompous attitude to their subordinates on the flight deck was the catalyst for the invention of CRM or whatever important sounding title becomes the next cash cow for a newly graduated aviation psychologist.
I work with a couple of captains who have terrible CRM.. One Cap even pointed at her stripes to make a point she was in charge. I understand fully the plight of you but as a Captain, if these snappy comments are coming your way, you nip it in the bud surely. As a Copi its hard.. How do I tell a Captain they have terrible people skills and rub every other member of the crew up the wrong way and take pride in that? To cap this off, one has terrible hands on skill and the other is poor on the SOP front...
Traditionally they make you a judge when you have the experience and the demonstrated maturity and aptitude to fulfill that role. You do seem rather judgmental of these senior crewmembers from your less than lofty perspective?
These captains with "terrible CRM," I assume you mean CRM attributed skills? How did they qualify for promotion, and given the recurrent testing criteria how do they maintain a position in your company with these "terrible" skills? Does your judgment differ radically from those charged with the 6 monthly assesments? Presumably it must, since maintainance of command would normally require at least a consistent ongoing grade of average or satifactory in both the use of SOP's and the notech requirements as part of the overall assesment.
Quote:
One Cap even pointed at her stripes to make a point she was in charge.
Why? What had you done to cause such exasperation?
It really is a fundamental mistake to interpret "CRM" as some sort of universal leveller. In any walk of life and in any industry there are going to be individuals with a spectrum of personalities. There simply will never be a one size fits all character that everybody should aspire to. A lot of emphasis in the understanding of behavioural markers, is in understanding your own. It is how you as an individual can tailor and adapt your own interpersonal skills to best work with the whole range of people and personalities you are likely to meet.
Nobody is perfect. I am not, you are not, and its a fair guess that neither of the two captains you mention are either. However part of the learning process in this job (and many others) is in seeking to understand and adapt to make these personalities mesh with your own in such a way that you achieve the best possible result. We all work with people who for one reason or another we don't particular like. That is just a fact of life. Understanding and adapting to these people often requires a great deal of effort and some time, however there is usually much to be learned from the work required.
Nobody said it was easy, even though trotting out those three letters "CRM" as a universal catch all, often is?
In my estimation, command is not about telling your F/O when to start down (unless it is getting to the point where). It`s an opportunity to teach.
It`s not about ordering the F/O to wear a tie during the flight or that his or her shoes need shining. It`s an opportunity to help your F/O elevate his professional appearance to a whole new level.
It`s not about commanding the F/O how far to deviate for thunderstorms (unless the F/Os idea of a deviation is unsafe or inadequate). It`s an opportunity to share your WX knowledge and experience.
These examples are all part of your commanders roles and responsibilities. Having an argument over it on the flightdeck isn`t the solution and neither is giving your F/O the cold shoulder.
Command IS about ensuring the FPLN is accurate and correct. If not, ordering up a new one is a command decision AND as such falls under the command authority of the aircraft commander.
Command IS about ensuring sufficient fuel is on board to safely conduct the flight. Otherwise, ordering up additional fuel (or perhaps ordering that the aircraft gets a defuelling) falls under the authority of the aircraft commander.
Command IS about making sure the weather along the route is flyable and the chosen FPLN alternates are properly assigned.
Command is also recognizing when the filing of a new or revised FPLN may be required when flow control or slot assignments are in effect.
Informing your operations control when it is your opinion the flight needs to be delayed.
This is exercising command.
My impression of this thread, while it`s an excellent dialogue, is that personality conflict on the flight deck (unless I`ve gotten the stroppy context all wrong) is handled by telling/ordering/commanding the F/O who`s the boss and who should be told in clear uncertain terms who`s the commander (perhaps tapping on your Captains epaulets might go a long way to shorten the discussion, but that doesn`t work for me). Some of these notions are simply outside the bounds of command and what makes a good PIC. IMHO
It`s when an F/O flies with a Captain who hasn`t figured out the difference between the two that these stroppy F/Os usually get their dander up.
You might also reverse that by saying when a Captain flies with an F/O who hasn`t figured out the difference between the two....
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn : 18th May 2009 at 01:12.
To put it in simple terms.... You can use your laptop to run your business mate... I have no problem with that. So long as you can fly the plane at the same time.... By the way... I'm watching you out of sheer curiosity because I don't think it's possible!
Taking your word for it and asuming that your particular F/O is stroppy. The fix is relatively straight forward. You take control and say thank you for your viewpoint - I have control. Then don't give him a leg for the rest of the day. Or the next day until he gets the message. He soon will.
But always be polite about it. Never reason with him and don't be suckered into explaining why you are taking certain courses of action.That is his cue to argue to the contrary whatever you do. Some people are born that way. If he cannot understand why you take a certain course of action, that is his problem - not yours. Unfortunately these characters exist in most airlines and you can either cringe in the left seat and give lame explanations in which case that type of character will seize upon your weakness and give you more stick.
Or you stop the chappie in his tracks. Prevention is better than cure. For some captains it is easy to put the stroppy one in his place. For others it is difficult depending on your own personality. None of us enjoy confrontation, but sometimes you have to cause a crisis to fix a crisis and for some that takes bottle.
Try my method.
I don't know if you have any hotel stops or similar, you'll need it to work as I would never try this in the cockpit!
Make a list of all the times when he's exhibited bad behaviour or a crappy attitude. List what he did and how it made you feel. If there were any safety breaches as a result, point these out.
Ask if he's up for a beer after a couple of sectors. Set the trap.
Grease him up and ask him about his previous flying career. Ask him what made him want to become a pilot. Ask him his defenition of a good pilot.
Point it out to him the few up-sides you see in him, perhaps handling and theoretical knowledge are some points.
Then you ask if he's willing to take some critique. If he's not, then just dont say anything. If he is willing (which he will be, it's the golden rule, if you ask, he has to say yes to not automatically look like an idiot and he knows it), methodically go through your list. Thoroughly explain what he did and how it affected safety. Make him understand that he's far from his goals of being a good pilot. Let him know that he indeed has a problem with the CRM concept. Explain that he needs to be more autentive and listen to people around him.
If I understand this person correctly from your description, he's much like one of our more senior pilots. He's very good in that he can actually fly the plane. He has the capacity, but not the rest. He's an absolute ae to fly with and to simply suggest something, you need a good and solid plan to put forth this suggestion. You have to make him think that it's his idea from the start. That's the point of making him think about what a good pilot is.
Silent battles in the form of not letting him fly or just treating him with the same attitude never gets you anywhere.
Personally I don't think this type of person should ever make it through flight school, but with todays "pay for you job" thing going on, anyone will make it through. Then it is up to the more senior colleagues to provide a professional upbringing. It is your role as a captain to provide constant instruction, even in the more softer matter such as this. Best way to do this is in a relaxed setting without the uniform. That gives him a way out and he won't feel pressured and this in turn may lead to him actually thinking about his behaviour. I expect he does not have any amount of self critique whatsoever and this is basically where the problem lies. His view of himself does not match reality and this is what needs to change. He has to be made aware of his behaviour. With awareness, half the battle is won.
I don't know who said it first, but my definition of a good pilot is: a pilot that allways strives to be better.
I think that was an absolutely excellent post. Most pilots develop a keen feel for techical matters -- all knowledge combined into a sense of knowing what needs to be done, and how, factoring in the many variables encountered. LnS seems to have developed that same keen feel when it comes to human matters. Bravo!
One of the best books; that is to say one of the books that have taught me the most about flying, is not flying-related at all. It's called "How to make friends and influence people" -- how about that.
Most of my friends ridicule the fact that anyone may need such a book. I'm pretty good with tech matters, I can remember facts and figures easily enough, but I'm always trying to get my head around people. I find that more difficult than any other operation in the cockpit .But I believe all things can be trained.
Today, cleared onto runway, him head down., me lights and strobes please. Him, No, its not SOP. Me, please do it or I will. I will take it up with CP.
Sounds like a situation dealt with easily and professionally. Referring it to the CP will hopefully also ensure that this is not a systemic problem.
A note on CRM courses, specifically the sections on human interactions. If your course does not involve role-play, it can be worse than useless. It could be that the F/O in the above was exposed to the standard Transport Canada CRM course, including the dangers of deviating from SOPs. Putting a bunch of scenarios in front of people and making them think about how to respond to them will help ensure understanding of how CRM is supposed to work. My course has a half a dozen scenarios, ranging from a Garuda like scenario to one similar to the above post.
The best mix on the flt deck is always 2 senior guys with nothing to prove to each other ie.flat gradient,non-combatant.They neednt be friends or even know each other.Through experience and equanimity,theyre almost able to communicate telepathically,predict each others thoughts and actions.Flat gradient combatant can be as dangerous as steep gradient passive-aggressive.
Very often a stroppy FO will be testing you and will quickly come round after you pass the test.If this isnt the case and hes just a stroppy SOB,then the skipper must read the riot act or the situation spirals out of control quickly.If still no response,then offload the SOB.
Had to do just that one time only.
Of course he went running the the fleet manager and complained, however it did no good as this turkey had a long previous record of being a malcontent.
He was sent home for three months with no pay.
Never saw him again, either.
Before flying with an FO I haven't flown with I ensure I have a few quiet words with him either in the crew room or on the flight deck well before departure time. I start by saying that one of the best safety accessories on an aircraft is an FO who will speak up when and as required. I then go on to say that I expect adherence to SOPs and good check list control. I finish by asking which sector(s) he'd like.
Cilba
accessories on an aircraft is an FO who will speak up when and as required.
And that's the rub. Fine words but your kindly thoughts to your F/O are often mis-interpreted as a wide open invitation for your F/O to constantly "coach you or advise you" in a manner known by some as "Fly-By-Mouth"
It takes skill that some do not have, to know when you should button your lips and let the captain run the ship. Constant hinting by an F/O may mean you are indeed a lousy captain or he loves to show "assertiveness" because he simply cannot stop being a back seat driver..
e to fly with and to simply suggest something, you need a good and solid plan to put forth this suggestion. You have to make him think that it's his idea from the start. That's the point of making him think about what a good pilot is. 
Linear Mode
