Cantaurus,
Really? Strong opinion indeed. Seems to me that unconsciously the replies so far reveal the respondents favour the warm and fuzzy method of captaincy. To make the co-pilot feel he is wanted, the captain should massage his ego. These replies show how much the Human Factors trick-cyclists have taken away the authority of the captain to run his own ship.
Not being autocratic does not mean having no authority. When you delegate a task to a subordinate you retain responsibility for it, but that does not require snatching the task back at the earliest opportunity. To do so is a sure fire sign of lacking self confidence. Giving a subordinate an chance to operate within (and gradually stretch) his/her skill set is an essential leadership task.
I think the captain was perfectly entitled to navigate the aircraft as he saw fit.
So do I. However, having delegated the control of the flight path to his FO it is poor management to fail to communicate with his FO regarding his modification of it.
The co-pilot regardless of his experience is there as a back-up and support pilot – not a quasi-captain.
Opinions differ on this. Many companies differentiate between commanding and flying. You might not agree with that, but it is the way ther Ops manuals are written. Certainly in my last mob when an FO is the Flying Pilot they are expected to manage ALL aspects of the flight.
Until then he might be legally second in command and that means he supports the captain in his job - not challenge every decision to satisfy his own ego just to prove that he can.
Again, a surefire sign of lack of self confidence. The vast majority of FO 'challenges' are usually because they want to improve their knowledge. It's just authoritarian types that interpret this as a challenge. That's not to say you don't sometimes get folks with an attitude problem of course.
The captain should not be compelled to explain every action he takes just to keep in the good books of his subordinate.
I agree. not *compelled*, but it is good sense to do so when time permits.
yet is being pilloried by those who see the cockpit crew as a team with the captain acting as “team leader” and he should use the members of his “team” to come to a course of action that they all agree on. In other words, command by consensus. That is not what command authority is all about.
BTW I didn't suggest they needed to come to a consensus. That's your inference. I said:
but on balance it is the Captains responsibility to overrule the FOs choice of flight path
Command authority also carries with it responsibilities. Leadership is a balance between team needs, individual needs and task needs. By jumping in as described the Captain sacrificed the individual needs of developing his FO, weakened his team, in order to be sure the flightpath was safe. So, OK in the short term.... the flight path *was safe* after all.
But my position is that all 3 needs could have been met with a little early communication. A little nudge to get the FO thinking (or communicating if he already *was* thinking), maybe some knowledge transfer, *if necessary* a command override. The last resort, not the first.