Bad fos make a bad day for the captain - but he should be mature enough to deal with that. Bad captains make dysfunctional crews.
I think the problem is is in the `offenders` own make up. Take for example the following two examples:
Captain watching his radar and notes Cb's ahead and to one side and also notes wind direction at his cruising altitude. He makes the decision to divert 25 miles right of track to avoid possible overhang of large CB. He says to his F/O "Request ATC approval for diversion 25 miles right of track". F/O looks at radar and replies "25 miles is a bit excessive don't you think? How about 10 miles right of track"? Hello?
Captain repeats his direction to the F/O who then asks ATC for 15 miles right of track and at the same time winks to the captain and says "go you halves, Jack". Is that an example of good humour or not? In fact, this example of one F/O's behaviour is not uncommon and the captain is left with several options.
Does he pick up the microphone and talk to ATC himself? Or does he laugh and bow to the F/O opinion that 15 miles is good enough and pretend not to be annoyed at the gross lack of professionalism displayed by the F/O? Does he savage the F/O in no uncertain terms and put him in his place to ensure such behaviour will not be repeated? What do you think?
Or - in future before he makes the request does he patiently explain to the F/O the full reasons why he made the decision that 25 miles right of track was made - to include wind direction, further CB's along track that would have to be studied on radar which would not be a problem if 25 miles right of track was approved. Then if the F/O agrees with the captains point of view he goes ahead and requests the weather diversion? More to the point should the F/O under these circumstances accept the captains request without question if he was satisfied the diversion distance was safe?
Example 2. During cruise, the company flight planning department (despatcher) contact the aircraft with an amended route clearance. The captain studies the amended clearance and decides this will cause problems further down the track and he decides to recommend an alternative course of action.
He asks the F/O to contact the despatcher and request a further amended route with details of the captain's suggested route. The F/O looks at the captain and says "Oh! do I really have to call the despatcher now? And why can't we just accept his route"?
............................................................ ....................................
These examples of replies by each F/O to the captain's operational request are typical of many first officer's lack of good manners and in turn is guaranteed to annoy any captain. But it is not just lack of good manners and maturity. It is challenging the captain's authority just for the sake of it and when there is no obvious danger to the conduct of the flight. Some captains are happy to sit down and patiently explain the reasons for these operational decisions. But should they have to? Some argue they should not be put in that position in the first place.
Some put the blame fairly and squarely where they perceive it should be - and that is on the head of the F/O. At the induction stage of new first officers entering an airline, management need to acquaint new recruits with commonsense rules of the game. It is called Cockpit Etiquette. F/O's are primarily in the RH seat to support the captain. They also have the responsibility of being second in command. That means complying with the captain's directions within reason and without arguing the toss for no good flight safety reason. Is it any wonder that some captains are forced into strong words when faced with eager beaver obstinate first officers who just love to needle the bloke in the left seat. A hostile atmosphere on the cockpit then becomes a flight safety issue.