Flyby,
"fail to understand the basis fundumentals of leadership. followership and effective CRM."
This was not aimed specifically at you and if I have caused offence on this I extend my appologies. I agree that it is important to treat all coworkers fairly and with respect. However, this does not extend to uspurping the authority of the Captain.
I give as much of a long leash to my subordinates so as they can develop professionally. However, if I wish for a course of action that is safer or more efficient, I will insist on that action being taken. That is what command is all about. I do not insist on
enforce(ing) your right as a Captain to fly all sectors
. That would be ludicrous and certainly invoke bad feeling. However, if I feel that the conditions are too demanding, I will (nicely) suggest/(insist) that I do the flying. When the FO acts as PF, they are in essence 'borrowing' the Captain licence for that sector.
Remember, too, that the Captain is ultimately responsible for the stuff ups made by the FO.
Anthill, I think you might be taking flyby's comments a little too literally.
Yes, I have taken a literal interpretation because I can only interpret what is writen, not what was intended to be meant.
For a start, CRM entails the safe and efficient use of all available resources. This is an ICAO definition. It is not one that I have made up. Whilst good CRM implies safety, excellent CRM also implies that decisions are efficient as well.
Let me be crystal clear on one thing: Good CRM is not some warm-and-fuzzy-feel-good-Dr Phil-meets Oprah-in-a-hot-tub kind of I’m ok/your ok-psycho-babble, good CRM is a tool that allows the decision makers to make good decisions. This means that input from subordinates is encouraged and where this input has validity, it is to be accounted for. When it does not have validity, it can be safely ignored. How a Captain goes about doing this a called command style. Remember, a flight crew is not a democracy.
Command decisions are not put to a vote and are not about making people ‘happy’. Command decisions are about safety and efficiency.CRM training is (or should be)about reinforcing this concept. Unfortunately the trend in recent years has been to misinterpret what CRM training and philosophy is all about. The blame for this trend falls squarely at the feet of CRM program developers and trainers (of which I am one). The contemporary outcome of many CRM courses is that subordinate crew members feel that they now have a licence to usurp authority belonging to the Captain. That is a million miles from the desired outcome.
Hmm.. Quite. An FO is there to support the process of making decisions, not to be a decision maker in themselves. The Captain, under law, is the only decision maker on the aircraft. Some crew may feel a sense of entilement to make decisions and this should be permited on the FOs sector to the degree that the Captain agrees with that decision as being safe, efficient and lawful.
I
overheard at an ISASI conference many years ago, a thesus by an honours student arguing why Qantas was such a safe airline in comparison to others. His research indicated that QF's operation was no different to any other airline in the world. What was different, is the Australian culture. We have the LEAST subservient culture on earth, and this serves us well as airline pilots. I'm sure that this is true for any Australian airline...
Lets not have this change by promoting a steeper gradient eh?
What is being refered to in this citation is that a less subserviant culture should promote freer communication. This is what leads to enhanced safety. It is quite true that the egalitarian cultural factors within the Australia national pysche support freer commuication style and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I do not back away from my assertion that the gradient of authority must be varied at times, depending on the circumstance. For example, a steeper gradient of authority would be appropriate when the subordinate crew member is inexperienced or during an emergency.
Some instances where I have steeped the "gradient of authority to vertical include:- An FO who thought that is safe to proceed with the WX radar in AUTO and refused to deviate around a CB that I had detected by varying the gain and tilt.
- An FO who tried to continue a 'visual' approach when lawful visibility was lost.
- An FO who could not self-separate from traffic OCTA and was setting us up for a TCAS RA..
On the otherhand, there are instances wher in the name of crew cohesion, I did not assert my view of what was the most safe/efficient plan of action and had to settle on a second best 'plan B'-all because the FO lacked the technical knowledge to understand that what I was proposing was safe, efficient and lawful. Because the FO was lacking in these areas, effieciency was compromised, however safety was not. FO was less than pleased when I told him to have a closer read of his books.
Centaurus' post was a good one, however I too felt overtones of "superiority" as a Captain creeping though.
Not sure what you mean by this. I Think that Centaurus' view was quite balenced. Maybe I'm just an old pr!ck.