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.
Sounds like a CRM class gone awry. The last part of PIC is "command'. Not 'consensus'. And it just sounds like a continued erosion of the authority of the PIC. It seems some believe the 4th stripe merely indicates a pay raise.
Good leadership skills usually obviate having to 'command' or 'boss' anyone around but occasionally one has to get the attention of those you are leading or at least working with.
And yes, there are Capts who fail to demonstrate leadership. And there are F/Os who push the envelope.
From the initial post, THIS F/O is creating problems. Unnecessary problems. The guy is a rogue. And he will most likely continue to create problems with increasing consequence until someone exerts their authority and challenges him. Or at least gives him reason to change behavior.
Last edited by wileydog3 : 25th June 2009 at 18:28.
SOP's are just that - standard procedures for standard operations and here I include the majority of non-normals. There are however situations which require a degree of lateral thinking that go beyond' standard procedures'. You can call this what you will, airmanship, experience, thinking on one's feet, intuition, no matter what - perhaps the Hudson Airbus incident is a case in point - how many times do we practice a double engine failure immediately after departure followed by a ditching ? SOP's are great, we always had them but they were not known by that name and certainly there were less of them. A new generation of pilots believe that SOP's are the panacea for all evils but they are not; they are a great set of building blocks but they don't give every answer and some of the younger troops have not yet grasped that fact.
Make no mistake, there are plenty of 'dodgy' captains as well as FO's/SO's. I would hesitate to categorize myself however ! We have the SOP zealots at one end of the spectrum all the way through to the downright gash at the other end. The balance lies between extremes with a slant to the former rather than the latter. There are Captains who are bullies - probably coincidence but so many of these seem to spend a lot of time calling themselves Captain way beyond the flightdeck. There are First Officers who will not stand up for themselves and will happily allow the Captain to screw up. There are Captains who are probably a little too unassertive allowing both junior pilots, cabin crew, crewing and operations to push them into corners where they really do not want to go. We have junior pilots in the right hand seat who believe they have the whole operation sorted out - I had one the other month who opened up his laptop halfway across the Atlantic in order to watch Top Gear ! ( did not stay open for long !!! ). Guess what, these characters have always been with us and probably always will despite the best efforts of CRM,MCC, psycho-babble testing etc. One former Company of mine employed people on the basis that they would fit in with their prospective colleagues - they obviously had to have the licence and the experience but would they fit in, would they be team players or arrogant individualists - say what you like, the policy seemed to work quite well.
Lost and much lamented Flight Engineers did not always solve these problems - plenty of cases where any two out of three on the flight deck ganged up on the third !
Huge generalization but as a group we are somewhat egotistical, arrogant and selfish, it seems to go with the territory, why I'm not quite sure. As a result we will have clashes on the flightdeck, we will have differences of opinion and attitude to our job. CRM has helped without doubt but it does not weed out all the problems, something we all need to remember from time to time !
As an F/O I think it is always easy to assume, out of the two roles on the flightdeck, we have the tougher deal. A requirement to rapidly assess the character and personal preferences of your captain, how they like to operate the a/c (harking back to beamer's point about the SOP to Gash spectrum) and all the while keeping them within their comfort zone with regards your own performance. And of course laughing at their jokes and sympathising about the ex-wife/annoying teenager/costly second mortgage etc.
The more experience I get I realise it is actually a lot more difficult from the LHS, and I think certainly the F/O in question in this thread would do well to remember this!
Quote:
My question is this - what would you do if you were the FO in question?
D O Guerrero
Personally I wouldn't avoid flying with the guy, it would be avoiding the problem. I would choose from two options. Option 1, at the pre-flight briefing politely inform the captain you don't wish to fly any sectors as PF that day. This (should) prompt the question why, and it is up to you how you answer.
Option 2 is to carry on with the day as normal, if you feel you are being pushed into operating outside of your comfort zone, hand over control and once on the ground explain the reasons you decided it best the captain have control, and that is the way you think the rest of the day should be.
If he constantly deviates from SOP all you can do is operate within them. Personally I wouldn't go to management unless you really feel you have to. I have a friend who went to management over an incident with a captain and it made life difficult for quite some time after. I think the best way is always to speak to the captain about whatever it is and take it from there.
Good points from you all - thanks. I decided to do nothing for the moment. If I fly with him again, I'll deal with it head on if necessary.
Thanks for making some of the more sensible comments I have read on PPRuNe...
As an F/O I think it is always easy to assume, out of the two roles on the flightdeck, we have the tougher deal.
It surely can be. That depends on the crew and the Captain's pacing.
I came back off a medical and spent six months in the right seat flying with some Capts who were not hired when I checked out and some who had flown right seat with me.
The workload was quite different. It took a while to get on pace with loading the FMS, running the checks and checklists and watching while we taxied to ensure we were complying with the clearance. I saw how easy it was to overload a F/O with multiple tasks. I also understood how and what the Capt was thinking. When I returned to the left seat, I remembered the workload in the right seat and deliberately decided to slow my pacing down.
A really good crew makes it all look easy. And a crew where there are problems makes almost everything a major effort. And it often is.
One former Company of mine employed people on the basis that they would fit in with their prospective colleagues - they obviously had to have the licence and the experience but would they fit in, would they be team players or arrogant individualists - say what you like, the policy seemed to work quite well.
There is also a company in Australia that during the interview which is run solely by the Personnel people (aka HR) and there is not one single technical question asked of the candidate. Every question is on the subject of flight deck conflict resolution. The result is they are recruiting a tribe of pilots whose technical knowledge is unknown apart from the fact they hold a pilots licence, but they know the HR answers off pat having spent significant dollars being coached by a professional firm who specialises in interview techniques.
But in the subsequent simulator sessions ask these pilots what do they know about avoiding storms using airborne weather radar or the risks involved in climbing and cruising with actual altitude 4000 ft above optimum, most hadn't a clue. Some even arrive at the sim wearing designer aviator sunnies over the head and carefully ripped expensive jeans. These are the captains of the future..heaven help the passengers on a dark and stormy night over the Pacific.
I'm with glueball, he will never fly a leg and if I don't like his radio work, override that too! Just don't be like my last company and have a fist fight on short final between capt/fo. At least on that one the fe reached up and engaged AP. Both were fired of course.
There is also a company in Australia that during the interview which is run solely by the Personnel people (aka HR) and there is not one single technical question asked of the candidate. Every question is on the subject of flight deck conflict resolution. The result is they are recruiting a tribe of pilots whose technical knowledge is unknown apart from the fact they hold a pilots licence, but they know the HR answers off pat having spent significant dollars being coached by a professional firm who specialises in interview techniques.
But in the subsequent simulator sessions ask these pilots what do they know about avoiding storms using airborne weather radar or the risks involved in climbing and cruising with actual altitude 4000 ft above optimum, most hadn't a clue. Some even arrive at the sim wearing designer aviator sunnies over the head and carefully ripped expensive jeans. These are the captains of the future..heaven help the passengers on a dark and stormy night over the Pacific.
I've had two interviews not unlike that, one as a Flight Test Engineer for a business jet manufacturer, and one managing a large flying laboratory - both were about 90-95% "soft skills", and the general assumption seemed to be that my CV said I knew all the technical stuff so there was no point in bothering to check. (A bit irritating since in both cases I'd spent a couple of weeks preparing; on the other hand I was offered both jobs so shouldn't complain too loudly.)
Without doubt soft skills have an important place and have to be got right - but personally I also want to know that the people I'm employing, or flying with, can hold their own when everything hangs on a weather forecast or judgement of serviceability of an aircraft as well.
Linear Mode
