Guys, I am reading some of these posts and am agast at some of the logical falicies that have developed. Every 2nd post either refers to what a great bloke the SO is and how much of a See You Ee Tee the CA is. In either case, none of that matters.
What is significant are 2 issues: 1) How did the conflict fail to be resolved to the point that the flight was delayed? Did it escalate to the point where teamwork disintegrated? 2) Was it the case that either the SO or the CA didn't understand the SOPs? I emphasise this point because all the CRM in the world does not help you if you don't have technical competance.
I can empathise with any CA who is trying to deal with a subordinate who is sticking to his guns (a favourable trait) over an issue where they are wrong and will not be shown the truth. These people can be absolutly infuriating to deal with, especially if issues of ego come into it and they refuse to be convinced, even when presented with overwhelming evidence! -remember
: what's right, not
who's right.
It could well be that the CA was right and the SO wrong. It could also be the other way around. Let the facts come out. What is occuring here is that people are basing conclusions regarding the situation in accordance with a bias. To be specific the Fundumental Attributional Bias.
Attributional bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always had hoped that Pilots were smarter than this.
