CRM summed up

[discretion]

Good CRM is essential for the safe operation of any commercial aircraft,some need it a lot more than others.!

However ,as a "mature pilot",I feel that crm is being abused by stroppy/arragont/chip on their shoulders F.O.s(yes f.o.s not cpt!),who have graduated from the flying acadamey "mould" on to line flying.

The budget airlines are encouraging the concept of "all equal " status,and effectively eroding the authority of the captain.There is even a form in existence whereby the f.o. can report the cpt for anything he feels unhappy about!!.It seems to me the tail is wagging the dog.Add to this,groundstaff addressing the Cpt as "matey"or "boss"(teenagers without a gcse between them),the status of the Cpt is seen by others to be no more than a regular bus driver.

I have seen many flidras reports where the Cpt has been reluctant to intervene in the F.os leg,resulting in a flidras event.The Captain has the ultimate authority for the safety of the pax/crew/aeroplane and IMHO this should be made clear to all new 150hr graduates from the "mould factory"

[fireflybob]

discretion, you are correct - the captain's authority has been and is continuing to be eroded and I fear that things will get worse before they get better. The commander is still the one who has the ultimate responsibility for safe flight yet his/her authority is diminished.

I started commercial flying in the 1970 with BOAC. We had lots of captains who were "characters" and we sometimes lived in fear of them. Whilst not wanting to see a return to the days when captain was God, flying with these fellows taught one a lot. They were commanders in the true sense of the word and certainly knew how to put people in their place if their authority was questioned.

Nobody is talking about "normal" CRM here but I know how you feel when EVERY decision you make is being questioned by the guy in the RH seat.

I am horrified to hear that certain companies have an official form for FOs to fill in in order to shop a captain who, in their opinion, is not the flavour of the month. Sounds like a classic case of "divide and rule" to me.

Being a good FO takes a lot of skill and experience and a quick CRM course is no substitute for either of these! I speak as one who spent many hours as an FO before getting a command.

[Snigs]

I have to say that I think that this is synonymous with the lack of respect that the majority of the youth of today have for society, authority and for the most part other people’s experience as well. It’s a damn shame, and sadly, probably irreversible. :( :sad:

[Airist]

Could this be where us older, sometimes wiser, wannabe-FOs should come into our own? Alas, if only the airlines would twig it!

[Khaosai]

Hi discretion, curious to how you would like to be addressed. Agree the reporting system is wrong, but be careful targetting the low houred pilots because they are generally a very sharp bunch who will build on this with experience. Rgds.

[Maximum]

Discretion, have to agree with you.

MCC teaches the new guys to speak up, fair enough and all very sensible. But unfortunately most have not been taught how to voice their opinions in a diplomatic way.

And with low-timers especially, they do not have the experience to properly evaluate the Captain's decision making. So they usually end up treating everything they don't fully understand as a mistake on the Captain's part. Anyone else feel like they've been treated like an old dodderer (and I'm not actually that old), when the new f/o actually doesn't understand what's going on, but simply assumes you're wrong?

Doesn't make it easy does it........:ugh:

...and Khaosai, you askHi discretion, curious to how you would like to be addressed , well, with reference to the groundstaff that Discretion was talking about, I'm even more curious as to why you need to ask. How about plain old "Captain"!!

[beamer]

As one BA 757/767 ex-Hamble Captain said to his new First Officer ( RAF, CFS, TRE/IRE etc) when questioned about some aspects of aircraft performance - 'Shut Up and Look out of the window' - somethings never change.......................

[Maximum]

beamer, let me apologise in advance if I'm taking your post the wrong way.

But the implication seems to be that we as Captains do not have a right to reply, which surely cannot be good for CRM. Wouldn't you agree?

[CaptainFillosan]

Every so often this subject raises it's ugly head. Yep, ugly. Because that is what it is. Or put more simply it is two people NOT being interactive on the FD. Sadly, it is a fact of life that the the LHS or the RHS can cause the ugliness - fact isn't it. Again simply put it is probably professional jealousy in some measure. However, it is also the breathtaking arrogance of some of the newer FO's who believe that "I can teach this Captain a thing or two!" who are just out of training with 250hrs who plainly do not know how to milk every last ounce of experience from some bloody fine Captains. But first, did they ever learn that CRM is important? CRM was always going to be a process that was easy to introduce but had the potential to disappear up it own orifice. And in many ways it has already. MCC could go that way too.

But let us get one thing straight. The ANO states legislation which is firmly rooted in parliament, from whence each word in it's 'unambiguous' pages came - well almost all - as we know some of the rules are stupidly absurd. But...... it fixes beyond doubt that the Captain is the commander of the aircraft. He alone is responsible for it's safe performance and operation. No if's, no but's, no doubts. If the FO cocks-up it is from the Captain that the company will seek explanations. The Captain is designated the master of the aircraft he flys and his will shall be obeyed. In theory yes, but somebody at the CAA (I remember it well) many years ago bought in mandatory CRM. Cost the company's a lot of dosh too. But people liked it then. Now it's something that some Captains and FO's think they could well do without. See. It was bound to happen.

So now who is responsible for this apparent breakdown of CRM? Is it the crew? Maybe, but then it might be that teaching CRM has given too much away and let the FO feel that he has as much right to be the commander and the commander does. I know it happens, I have witnessed it. So just take another look at discretion's post at the top. Is what he is saying what is happening on the FD? I have to say I think he might be for the reasons I make above.

He says and I quote:

Good CRM is essential for the safe operation of any commercial aircraft,some need it a lot more than others.!

Do you agree with that? I can, but only if it is GOOD, I repeat, GOOD. But if you experiences instances I describe then it is not good and causes bad feeling during operations. That is most certainly not GOOD.

beamer voices another NOT GOOD instance:

As one BA 757/767 ex-Hamble Captain said to his new First Officer ( RAF, CFS, TRE/IRE etc) when questioned about some aspects of aircraft performance - 'Shut Up and Look out of the window' - somethings never change.......................

That Captain deserves a swift kick. The FO actually deserved some respect with such strong experience, but what the Captain said (if indeed he said it - hearsay and that sort of thing!) lost him any respect due to him. The FO IMHO was simply trying to gain information. The Captain should have responded positively but was perhaps, trying to mark the FO's card although he didn't deserve it.

The FD is a place where every part of the operation must be conducted with professionalism, interactively, with skill and with absolute co-operation from both the LHS and the RHS. The FO will, if he has an ounce of nous, will look, learn, listen and operate the aeroplane the same way that the Captain does. If the Captain does it a different way politely, and diplomatically, ask why he does it that way. But....if the Captain by chance managed a cock-up, and we all have, DO NOT set out to make him look foolish. Vice-versa also applies. That's good CRM!

But...........I still think that CRM will be it's own worst enemy unless the trainers make every effort to get it absolutely right in the first place!

[Spearing Britney]

There is lots of agreement here on something that I think merits discussion and yes, I am a young(ish!) FO who short-circuited the traditional system, at least in part! Anyway, I feel that someone should play Devil's Advocate so here goes!

BTW So far, it hasn't got personal and I will try keep it that way, it is so much more productive but it will benefit to pick on previous posts so please take me at my well meant intention even if my script is not to your liking ;) after all A-Levels had dropped their standards by the time I sat them! :O

As discretion said of CRM, 'some need it a lot more than others.', but it's worth remembering that there are some around (often older? often captains? often male?) who truly believe the poor adage "CRM is not my problem". Maybe these people are the ones more likely to poo-poo something they don't believe in or aren't comfortable with. Isn't it also probably true to say that anyone who believes that they have class-leading CRM is most likely, at best, average? We all make gaffs and boobs sometimes in our interpersonal relations and should recognise them and even analyse them to reduce our chances of making them again. Maybe we should even apologise sometimes?

Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?

The reference to MCC teaching newbies to speak up is very relevant. At every single aviation interview I have ever attended for the RHS I have been presented with a scenario where the Captain is doing something 'wrong' and the interviewer has always pushed and pushed to get me from 'I would ask if...' to 'I would stand on the brakes/retard the levers/advance the levers....'. Never once was the question 'The Captain wants do something trivial and unimportant that you have been told isn't a good thing to do - you'd ignore it wouldn't you?' or something more erudite and appropriate! We are all products of our training, perhaps this the crux of discretion's point but surely it isn't that CRM has gone too far, CRM only seeks to optimise crew performance, but that CRM is being misinterpreted and poorly implemented? It seems to me CRM courses are often aimed at the timid mouse (the Asian experience, combating the culturally subservient nature?) and may therefore cause the strong character to become overbearing. Perhaps CRM planning should include the alpha male (left or right seat) and occasions where they need to be tempered as well as the (easy to portray and teach against) pilot who allows another to ignore a hard GPWS warning at night in IMC holding next to a mountain?

Another post mentions Captains' feeling that every decision made is being questioned from the RHS. Devil's Advocate says, well that is what he/she is there for! What other reason is there for having two P1 qualified pilots on the flight deck? If the point was that all decisions were being verbally disputed then that is a different matter entirely! But what good is a mentally absentee FO?

Diplomacy is defiantly something that should always be applied - from BOTH seats, and the absence of it is not exclusive to youth, it can sometimes come with age (think Victor Meldrew!) or ennui.

For what it's worth, where there are passengers/unfamiliar staff present it is always Captain or at least Skipper! If all around are familiar with each other and comfortable then whatever term is appropriate can be applied - with limits!

[PPRuNe Pop]

A good post, good points and well put SB.

Perhaps CRM planning should include the alpha male (left or right seat) and occasions where they need to be tempered as well as the (easy to portray and teach against) pilot who allows another to ignore a hard GPWS warning at night in IMC holding next to a mountain?

How true. Especially as there may be one such incident. I say may, because the true cause was never really established. But.....it happened nonetheless. What if CRM had been around then?

[Maximum]

Spearing Britney, you say,Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?
Well, maybe in an ideal world. But in some cases MCC is being used as a substitute for experience and training. Example: we've looked at the intersection performance and it's not a problem, in case we need it for ATC requirements. We get to the runway, ATC ask us can we take it from the intersection to avoid big delays. Yes I say. As I line up, f/o looks at the runway and makes his own mental judgement that there isn't enough. (He's basing this on a flawed perception of the performance of the aircraft as he's only used to long runway lengths and very reduced thrust take-offs. It's also evident to me now he doesn't understand how the performance calculations work.) I now have the task of explaining all this to him in the nicest possible way, and somehow convincing him that I'm not a cowboy trying to kill us, while ATC start a panic about the guy on short finals.

This happened. Now we can argue about the reasons for the gap in his knowledge, but I was the one left to deal with it.

SB, you also say: Another post mentions Captains' feeling that every decision made is being questioned from the RHS. Devil's Advocate says, well that is what he/she is there for! What other reason is there for having two P1 qualified pilots on the flight deck? If the point was that all decisions were being verbally disputed then that is a different matter entirely! But what good is a mentally absentee FO? but the above story illustrates my point. If the basic knowledge and experience base to sit in the RHS of a jet aren't there, then no amount of MCC can make up for it. Unfortunately, this seems to be a developing trend. Not so much the fault of the f/o's, but in the companies' recruitment and training policies.

This kind of thing makes for a very stressful operation.

[greybeard]

Gidday,

CRM-- This is my cockpit, you are a resource, prepare to be managed.

I have been a facilitator in this area for nearly 20 yrs, have to my horror seen the above system but also seen "programed" assertivness go so quickly to agression on both sides of the Cockpit that I dispair for my fellow man.

The authority, enshrined in Law, so aptly put above is not only being eroded but systematically destroyed from many external influences and as now appears in the Bloddy cockpit as well. Some Supervisory types can mark you as having poor CRM just because you did something quite correctly, but not the way he/she would have done. So the skills of the supervision can be a problem.

I have in my facilitation tried to make the point that assertivness is NECESSARY and should be expected from F/Os, good briefings beforehand may remove some of the missunderstandings, but that inexperience or lack of exposure to a set of circumstances can cause a depth of concern that may not be apparent to the Capt.

That's where the CRM skills come to play to get the job done safely, not destroy the needed crew co-operation and be a learning process for BOTH sides of the cockpit.

We need the wisdom of Moses, the patience of Jobe, the perseverance of Noah and a certain amount of the Luck of the Irish to get around some of our trials and tribulations, and it boils down to some basic facts.

There is the Captain-and he/she CARRIES THE CAN for it all
There are a multitude of others who contribute to the task of flight both in and out of the cockpit.
WE HAVE TO DO IT SAFELY.
We need to have an active risk management assessment going on all the time.
We need to accept and give CONSTRUCTIVE input (critisism??!!).
We must allow for the various levels of experience and enthusiasm of the other participants in the task.

an if all else fails as it will do

KICK ASS and TAKE NAMES so it might not happen again.

Be safe and remember

GRAVITY SUCKS

C YA

[White Bear]

I am going to get flamed for this, but I can't sit still for it any longer. I'm not a commercial pilot, but I am a human being.

Comments such as 'ground staff addressing the Cpt as "matey"or "boss" (teenagers without a gcse between them) and, 'stroppy/arragont/chip on their shoulders F.O.s (yes f.o.s not cpt!), lead me to think we do have a problem here, and it is not one of a lack of respect, but one of arrogance. Is this really about CRM gone mad, or is it more about ego? Is it more "How dare these people talk to me without using my title!" Than it is about how competent and conscientious they are at doing their jobs?

Juan Trip of Pan Am gave the pilots of his Clippers, the 'honorary ' title of Captain, primarily because they flew flying boats. He dressed them in dark blue, and gave them gold stripes to impress his passengers. It did not change anything, they were still pilots in command of an aircraft, just as thousands of other mere pilots were at the same time. Soon all the other airlines jumped on the bandwagon and followed suit. Today anyone who commands a commercial aircraft is called Captain, never the less it remains an honorific title, and to insist upon it seems a little crass.

Commercial pilots do a wonderful job, but in truth, pilots are not irreplaceable, nor are their skills rare or unique. Almost anyone with reasonable intelligence, the desire, and good hand/,eye coordination could do what they do. Especially given the long and expensive training they are given. If you have young F.O,s with 250 hours of flight time capable of safely flying a commercial jet airliner, and they must be, or they would not be there, then what is so skillful about what you do, that requires everyone in that aircraft to call you Captain? You have been selected by your employer to command an aircraft, you do not hold the Queens commission. To insist upon being addressed as Captain speaks more to your state of mind than to anyone else's.

One has to ask the question, when are you a Captain, and when are you not? Does it have to be a commercial aircraft? Does it have to require more than one pilot? For example, when John Travolta fly's his 707, is he entitled to be called Captain, even though it is a privately owned and operated aircraft? If the very same aircraft were carrying the very same number of passengers on a commercial flight, there would be no question in your mind, but is there a difference? Is a pilot in command of a Lear jet that only requires one pilot a Captain if he is paid to do it, and a mere pilot if he is not? Can you only be a Captain if you work for an airline? In your aircraft both pilots are there to do a job, you have been given the responsibility of command, not the 'right' to be addressed as someone holding the Queens commission.

Frankly, I believe we could do with much less of this kind of elitist B/S, and a bit more growing up.

Now I'm for it!
W.B.

[Bealzebub]

An airline captain has some unique responsibilities, and many that are not vastly dissimilar to any other senior manager in other industries. The Captain and First officer are both Pilots of course, and indeed the junior rank may well have greater experience of the aircraft than the senior one. However the title Captain represents the fact that you are at a certain level within a companies operating and managerial structure.

CRM for a Captain is central to how that individual manages their charge. The aircraft may have a total crew of 2 or a crew of 20. a good manager ought to be able to encourage the best qualities and productivity from each member of the team that he or she manages. Very often this is an easy task because it involves little more than simply recognising an individuals ability and allowing them to operate within their own parameters. A manager should always be approachable and receptive to advice or suggestions. It doesn't always follow that given advice is correct or necessarily desirable but part of the command function is the ability to sort out and seperate the advice as necessary. Knowing how to effectively utilize the wealth of resource that is normally available.

Most flights run perfectly well, however it sometimes happens that a problem crops up and the pressure starts to rise. It never ceases to amaze me how a crew so readilly rises to the challenge. This is a function of their training of course, but also a function of that same individuals management skills within their own sphere of operations. A problem well managed can be a source of enormous satisfaction, whilst a minor problem that is mis-handled can so easily become a major situation that is much harder to satisfy.

The F/O is nearly always an unpromoted Captain. They are often required to undertake many of the Captains management functions. Each F/O will treat every flight as a learning experience. For that reason and many others it is important to lead by good example. CRM is in some ways an abstract art. There are fundamental aspects that can be taught but the perception of it, is often an individual and naturally modified model for each person.

Despite some reservations in the early days of flying with "low hour F/O's", my own experience has been that a very high number of these folk have a high degree of CRM awareness that in some measure balances the lack of experience. In an ideal world I think there should be a progression of experience level that eventually leads to the right hand seat of a jet airliner. If it were up to me nobody with a few hundred hours would qualify. However that is not the reality. It does concern me that these people will probably make some of the mistakes we all made, and will do so in a complex aircraft with many hundreds of passengers down the back. Because of this we have to accept the world has changed, and it is important for us as captains to encourage questions and challenge and indeed to teach from our experience where that is desired, requested or warranted.

As a Captain you are in charge and again in my own experience I have seen little erosion of that responibility. I also have not experienced any dilution of the authority except where it has been removed or altered by statutory change. The company pay me as a Captain to manage their flights and they give me the latitude to be able to do that. I like to think they consider they get a fair deal in return.

If anything I do as a captain were to give any member of the crew cause for concern they could raise the issue with me. However it is within their right to address it to their relevant manager. Sometimes it is necessary to recognise that personalities and misunderstandings as well as emotions and the human condition simply requires the intervention of a third party. This ought to a rare occurance.

As for the title Captain, I believe this denotes my level of attainment within the structure. I receive letters from the company with this on it, and it appears on my payslip. Often ground staff will use the address and sometimes passengers will. When I meet anyone else for the first time I introduce myself and from thereon in adress them and expect to be called by my Christian name. I don't have any problem with "boss" or mate if it is used because somebody has forgotten the name or feels more comfortable. I just expect a good standard of operation and as a consequence a good flight in all respects.

Finally I don't believe that CRM can be taught accurately simply because it is an evolving and inexact entity. The principals of it are taught and it is often a matter for the recepient to decide how best to apply those things and modify them for their own personality and condition.

[CaptainFillosan]

White Bear

Because PPRuNe is a place for people to freely express themselves, providing they can control themselves, do not slag anyone off etc., etc., they are welcome to comment.

However, there are times when it is better to read than to write. This is one of of those times.

I suggest you read some more and maybe, but I doubt it, you may grasp a very small measure of the subject of this thread. Unless you fly and understand the environment you will never be able to understand it. CRM is not a matter for someone to comment on who simply does not understand it's use.

Read the last post, that might help but I wouldn't try to explain it and don't apply ridicule either - you will disappear in a trice.

[Maximum]

White Bear

I'm afraid it's your arrogance that's breathtaking. And it's no use pre-empting or excusing what you've said with your last comment "now I'm for it", as if you can say anything and that'll make it alright.

Your arrogance is breathtaking because you are expressing strong opinions about something of which you have absolutely no knowledge or experience. There are many unique problems associated with human interaction and human/machine interaction in the context of flying that make this subject a specialised rather than a generalised one.

Yes, just like you, I'm a human being too - I also happen to be a training captain and yes, believe it or not, an MCC and CRM facilitator. But that doesn't stop me expressing the kind of concerns that have been voiced in this thread.

With regard to this whole "call me captain" thing which you seem so upset about. You'd actually be extremely surprised at how generally informal most airline operations are. Most crews, cabin crew and flight deck, will all call each other by their first names. As will ground staff who know the crew. This is not a problem. In fact, it's very pleasant and makes for a less formal workplace than your average office. A knowledgeable and good SCA (senior cabin attendant) will often accord the captain his title when reporting something of an operational manner - eg, "cabin secure captain" - this is simply a recognition of where ultimate responsibilty rests, a way of creating a professional atmosphere and fostering teamwork - "we're all in this together" if you will. It also sets a good example to the whole crew. But for the rest of the flight, it'll be back to first names again.

The problem arises when ground staff have a problem with flight crew (and there are a small minority who do, just as you would expect in any work situation). They then hide their ill-disguised irritation at the flight crew behind the "mate", "boss" or whatever euphemism they care to use. This then sets up an atmosphere which is less than professional, and could ultimately affect flight safety. And that's what this is all about: SAFETY. For us, and for YOU, the passenger.

[Spearing Britney]

Maximum, :ok: you said I said this:-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which I did ;) and you started your response with

“Well, maybe in an ideal world.” But we are seeking that ideal world and the more we close out ATC/mechanical defects etc as accident causes the closer we need to come to it. Also, I would just like to confirm you don’t disagree with the end bit i.e. ‘that all controversial decisions, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat, should at least be de-briefed’: Because if this doesn’t happen then better CRM is badly needed! :uhoh:

Diverging from you point now, I know that story telling is of limited value but to let you know where I am coming from on this I once sat as supernumary FO on a type conversion flight where the Skipper took control in the flare and subsequently left the flight deck without comment at the gate. To the clearly bemused trainee I said ‘don’t worry it was probably X,Y,Z but he will talk to you about it later’ – he didn’t, and didn’t ask for questions either. :{ Remember CRM is a two way street, a multi way junction even, and when you feel poor CRM coming from someone it’s tempting to withdraw and let your own CRM slip, and that ain’t gonna help anyone!

Maximum, in your example of intersection performance you say you (plural) had looked at it before and established suitability. I believe you that this occurred but I also say that an F/O who subsequently challenges runway performance charts on the basis of visual perception is a fool and should never have got through his training! If this occurred during his training then he is a bigger fool again! Not referring to you personally here, but I hope (and believe) any training Captain would debrief this thoroughly and initiate any remedial instruction required. I would also hope that FO’s of this calibre are not common in your, or any other, operation. Any post-training FO is P1 qualified by definition, this means they should understand performance calculations and the situation you found yourself in was unacceptable but rare (surely!).

As for your opinion that the absence of the knowledge and experience base for a jet’s right hand seat cannot be made up for by MCC. Well, that’s true, but then MCC/CRM was never meant to make up for knowledge – the type rating and line training is there to do that. Experience isn’t what CRM tries to teach either; although maybe it tries to adapt your life experience to the F/D or make up for lacunas in your interpersonal skills. I feel that you may be blaming CRM for what you perceive to be poor training in general, is that fair?

I don’t mean to single Maximum out, it’s just that I think he makes interesting points for progressing this; he also said “We all want to avoid a stressful operation”, to which I say ‘here here!’ and I agree wholeheartedly on the ‘call me captain’ bit, you don’t call a Managing Director or a Headmaster mate in public do you, the front galley and sometimes the F/D are often public too. It may have started off as an honorific title but it is now enshrined in law (as commander) and manuals and should be treated as such.

Referring back to the first post discretion says “There is even a form in existence whereby the f.o. can report the cpt for anything he feels unhappy about!!.It seems to me the tail is wagging the dog.” This makes me a little uncomfortable. Look at it this way, power corrupts and there are always those who will misuse any power that comes their way. As such a system that can expose this is sensible and necessary. Any Captain acting correctly (the overwhelming majority IMHO) has nothing to fear, particularly as any managers who get involved in a dispute will most likely be Captains and hence likely to appreciate the experience/training/investment that the Skipper concerned represents. The FO’s report will most likely be critically analysed and cross checked if possible; any worries about reporting of this kind leading to any unjustified action must be largely unfounded in any moderately well run outfit surely! As a postscript I agree that any such system should be a last resort and infrequently used, good crew resource management should make it obsolete but good company resource management must put it into existence.

For what it’s worth, I found that the ultimate authority of the Captain is rammed home in the ‘mould factory’ as discretion calls it but then so is your personal responsibility to have your voice heard when things depart your sphere of comfort. There seem to me to be two issues here. One, that some (Maximum?) feel that the low hours FO’s sphere of comfort is too constricting. Isn’t this is to be solved not by CRM but by the type rating and licensing requirements. And two, that some (discretion?) feel that that voice is heard a little too often, perhaps that the boundaries of what is worth speaking up about need to be more clearly defined. This one CRM should help with. Any comments?

[Coastrider26]

I think this whole taking CRM going to far has to do with individuals on both seats. A while back we had an ATPL student onboard. This guy started to explain to us how we should fly and why we sould climb higher to safe fuel (FL 250 LHR->AMS in a E120) Imho this is CRM going to far.

Since a couple of months I am flying in the middle east and people never attended a CRM/MCC course. Being in the right seat and coming from a CRM environment certain captains know I speak up and wouldn't do "stupid" things they would do otherwise. CRM as it should be

As far as writing a report on a captain I think this should be a possibility AFTER discussing it with the person in question on the ground. If he persists to be wrong I think the company might invite the inviduals for a meeting with their MFO or Chief pilot.

[Maximum]

Spearing Britney, I said: "well, maybe in an ideal world", you then said in reply:But we are seeking that ideal world . The thing is, I took this thread to be about the real world. All the CRM/MCC principles you've written about above are on the whole very commendable and I support and practice them. How they manifest themselves in the real world can sometimes be very different to the theory though. Don't you find that in your airline?

Coming back to my original example, you say:an F/O who subsequently challenges runway performance charts on the basis of visual perception is a fool and should never have got through his training! If this occurred during his training then he is a bigger fool again!, you then go on to say that as an f/o it is your personal responsibility to have your voice heard when things depart your sphere of comfort The point is, things had departed this guy's sphere of comfort. And interestingly, you're the one calling him a fool, not me!

Here's another one for you. Night departure from terrain surrounded airfield. Get airborne. SID requires a left turn away from mountain. As left turn begins, f/o screams out that it should be a right turn, and that aircraft is in immediate danger from high ground. F/O is confused but sure he is right, and scared. Obvious he is thinking about taking control.......

I'm being a little naughty, as we can all come up with stories to support our arguments either way, but my point still is that it's easy for MCC training to swing too far towards very forceful f/o's who don't have the proper experience to evaluate certain situations.

In the end, it must all come down to top notch training.

[Smudger]

I hate to sound like an old fart, but in the early seventies when I first started pilot training in the RAF (no, please don't switch off, hear me out) we actually had classroom lectures on something called "Airmanship", during which we discussed all sorts of situations which might require crew management and/or decision-making by a Captain/Aircraft Commander. As the years go by and flying experience is amassed, one learns how best to manage a crew, no matter how large or small (in number, not size!) to the best effect, in order to achieve the task in hand safely and efficiently. In my humble opinion, 'CRM' is not something that can be learned on an "approved course", but is learned by experience, and is but only a part , albeit an important part, of a much bigger aspect of flying, called airmanship.

[Khaosai]

Hi maximum, I was thinking along the lines of turning around in the seat and introducing yourself using your first name. The co pilot does the same, simply because it would sound funny being addressed as first officer. Nice and relaxed, a good start to the day, with the dispatcher, let's call him John, on your side. Rgds.

[Spearing Britney]

Now come on Maximum you are twisting it! :rolleyes: Yes an FO (or Captain) must speak up if they are uncomfortable but they are all taught that correctly calculated chart performance is reliable and that visual perceptions are often not; so I stand by my statement that the FO you describe is foolish! He should not have been uncomfortable and if he was he should have known why and at most re-confirmed that you (the crew) were happy you had correctly calculated the performance. Does that explain my statement?

As for the real world issue, I must say I entirely fail to see your point. CRM is real world and applies to it perfectly well, in applying it we seek to create a real world that is also ideal. You brought the ideal world up in relation to both pilots being on the same page and the pre/during/de briefing of issues. I still maintain that if a crew fails to do this then the crew and its CRM is failing, there is no reason crews cannot do this. I ask again do you really disagree that any issue on which a confusion/disagreement emerges should ideally have been pre-briefed, if not forseen then real time briefed and in the exceptional situation of this not being possible should be de-briefed? I'd love to hear that you agree with this...




In reply to your second story. Well obviously the brief didn't go too well and your charts aren't handy to confirm the SID so the CRM has gone wrong already but to humour you:-

First option, simply say 'continuing turn' and if required add 'I have control' and immediately ask the FO to confirm the turn direction with ATC -readily available, independent and reliable second source of info and one which employs the wider scope of CRM. Meanwhile apply max power to make best rate available so if you are wrong (any you may be) you mitigate the error.

Second option, use EGPWS display to confirm correct turn direction.

Lastly, if other options not available then that’s why we have a Commander whose head rolls if he gets it wrong.




I fear that the point you are trying to make is that you feel that your FO’s are not worthy to question you, the Captain. All I am trying to say is that they must question the Captain when things happen that their body of training tells them may not be good, if they don’t its a single crew operation – at best Man and Dog. The manner in which they question should be constructive, non-combative, and beneficial to both parties. That is what CRM tries to teach.

[fernytickles]

An interesting discussion. I hope it doesn't deteriorate into a slanging match because there are some very valid and interesting points being introduced.

I think that so far, only Bealzebub has compared the crew situation to a managerial situation, and it struck me that although we do CRM and all those lovely technical exams, at no point are we given any real "people managing" training. I suppose one assumption could be that life's experience should have given us enough practice at working with, and managing people, but you don't have to look too far to realise that is not often the case.

I very much support a well presented CRM course - anything that makes us look at the mortality and fallability of ourselves, other pilots and passengers and makes us think a little bit about what we would have done or how we would have reacted in similar circumstances is invaluable. But perhaps, included in the command course, there should be a course introducing managerial skills, in greater depth than a CRM course does? Regardless of the number of crew the future captain will have to manage. Not everyone is a natural leader, but with a little help, many people can become very good leaders. With maturity and learning on the job, hopefully those skills will be honed, eventually, but in our line of work, "eventually" is not always the best approach for the captain.

Of course, this can go wrong, just as some of you are saying that the CRM is going wrong, but that shouldn't stop the thought from being developed. Isn't it often the complaint that the pilot who moves from flying the line to management has no formal management skills because flying is all they have ever done, and it shows through. This is not aimed at all management pilots, but it is a complaint I have heard often enough for it to stand out.

Just as a well done, well thought out CRM course can be of huge benefit, I believe a well done, well thought out management course could also be a benefit. I have never been on any kind of management course, and would be interested to try, having watched how others have benefited from them.

[Maximum]

Khaosai

I'm not sure I understand your point. Sorry.

Spearing Britney

I'm sure we're starting to wear everybody down! But at the risk of repetition. My observation would be that you keep denying the real world - you say that the f/o in my example "should not have been uncomfortable" with the intersection take-off. But the simple fact of the matter is that he was - just one of those unexpected things you're faced with from time to time.

And my second example did happen. You say
Well obviously the brief didn't go too well and your charts aren't handy to confirm the SID so the CRM has gone wrong already but to humour you:- Well....it was about 0400 after a long night. Delayed departure at other end. Very busy turnaround. Usual hassle with manual loadsheets, fuel late to turn up, one baggage handler, well meaning but slow handling agent etc......Finally pax on board, very tight slot. As we start to taxi out, wind backs 180 degrees. Runway change. Taxi out very difficult on extremely dark taxi ways, very poor lighting. Some closed due work in progress just to complicate matters. Poor old f/o has to start getting performance books out, find new SID page on chart, re-programme FMC, copy new ATC clearance from controller with poor English and two cans with a string for a radio. In addition he has to try and monitor Captain's new taxi route in the darkness. Meanwhile the slot looms ominously. If we miss it, we're advised delay could be more than two hours and we'll be out of hours. But, despite this, I ignore the pressure of the slot, sod that, and applying good MCC principles I tell ATC we aren't ready, and bring the aircraft to a stop. We then review the performance, and the SID, check all the bugs, re-set the nav aids, check the FMC, I do a brief, he says he's happy, and finally we line up, just in time. Trouble was, he still got confused once we we're airborne. Flying's like that sometimes isn't it? A lot had gone on in the proceeding five minutes, and he suddenly found he was still catching up. My experience helped me I reckon, but the fatigue at 0400 and the high workload had confused him. Who can blame him? He's only human after all. But I had to sort it out when part of his MCC training kicked in, and he started hollering about turning the wrong way. That's the real world, and it happened. Asking ATC would have been next to useless, as their English was poor, they had no radar, and they wouldn't have understood the question properly in all probability. Anyway, by the time they did answer, it might have been to late - that high ground was mighty close. Also, whose to say the answer would have been right?!

Max power wouldn't have helped - it was a big lump of rock and we were close. Our aeroplane didn't have EGPWS. My head wouldn't have rolled if I'd got it wrong - it would have been flat as a pancake with a couple of hundred men, woman and children swiftly following.

So there you have it. We did the briefings, etc etc. But real life s**t still happens. As I said before, I'm mostly in agreement with you, but there is a touch of the evangelical in your postings which seems to deny the valid viewpoint of experienced Captains on this subject.

As I asked you before, haven't you found situations on line in your own airline like this?

[Spearing Britney]

Sorry to appear evangelical, that wasn't my aim and I freely admit that I get it wrong sometimes when doing lots of things, including flying. I'll even admit that sometimes I don't even like to admit it!

In answer to your question, i.e. have I found situations like those you describe - well no, not to that extreme (I think you might just be tearing it to make a point) but yes I do know what you mean.

I certainly don't seek to deny the valid viewpoint of experienced Captains on this or any other topic but as I said I feel this thread needs (needed!) some Devil's Advocate. However, I do seek to point out that CRM is valuable, that FO's can be right and Capatain's can be wrong, even both crew can be wrong and its always worth asking anyone else who might be able to help.

I'll leave others to be judge and jury on the examples we have discussed but you say that I am ignoring the real world, may I extend this to suggest that maybe you have stopped reaching that extra bit in the hope of touching the ideal one?

[411A]

Smudger has very good advice for those rather younger inexperienced First Officers who, having sat thru a few CRM courses, really do feel that they have the upper hand.
Suspect these folks would not know 'airmanship' if it bit 'em in the backside.
They should also appreciate that many airlines have their line Commanders fill out a First Officer assessment form each month with the guys/gals they fly with...and being an overbearing co-pilot will certainly not win many brownie points in the fleet managers office.:uhoh:

[Captain Sand Dune]

One wonders what type of Captain these “rather younger inexperienced” and “ stroppy/arrogant/chip on their shoulders” First Officers will turn out to be. :rolleyes:
Why do I get the feeling that the more things change, the more they stay the same?
Smudger – spot on mate!:ok:

[Khaosai]

Maximum, sorry captain, try not to feel too sorry. Rgds.

[alf5071h]

‘Airmanship’ Smudger? How quaint and old fashioned, but I fully agree. As one of the ‘old school’, I was taught Airmanship every day. At the time I probably did not appreciate what I was being taught or what airmanship was and it has taken the last 40 years to gain at least some understanding. However, whatever ‘it’ is, it enabled me to get this far – retirement, without too many mishaps.

It would be foolish to expect that the ‘old way’ would still apply in a complex world; therefore what has changed that prevents the well founded principles of our profession being heeded today?

At each stage of my training, and throughout my professional career there were hurdles to be overcome, examinations passed, licenses and ratings to be earned; today the young graduate is ‘empowered’ with a frozen “captain’s” license, given the belief that within a few hours he (she) too can become a captain. Not so, captaincy requires airmanship that has to be developed though continuing education and experience. Now-days there may be fewer regulatory examinations during this progression, so greater the need for self examination and criticism.

The skills required in aviation are far more than stick and rudder, yet the license and the image focuses on the physical. A newly qualified pilot is safe – the regulators say so, they cover themselves. However, operators require safe but also effective pilots in a crew. Effectively has to be learnt and developed, which transforms into efficiency, - someone who can become a captain, who in turn must then strive for precision and expertise. These qualities are not bestowed, or bought; they have to be learnt through time and with considerable effort.

The qualities involved in monitoring and intervention are those of airmanship and once gained they have to be employed constructively. I often met pilots who had little knowledge of how or when to alert the captain, latterly I found a good reference for these – P.A.C.E (http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/alf501h.htm). Probing for a better understanding; Alerting Captain of the anomalies; Challenging suitability of present strategy; Emergency Warning of critical and immediate dangers. It appears from this thread that many younger pilots are forgetting step 1 – Probing for information, for reasoning and understanding. Similarly Captains must provide the answers; the basis of this is good communication.

The principles of airmanship still apply in a CRM world. Airmanship defines an individual; discipline, skill and proficiency, knowledge, awareness, and judgment. Many of the examples given in this thread identify failures in one or more of these areas. Most of these areas depend on self discipline, a rarely taught and often lost commodity in modern life. Discipline also involves respect, both for those above and below. The pressures on the modern industry make the development process all the harder; less stick and rudder flying, less time for explanation, and fewer debriefs. The ‘automated’ world implies less need for knowledge, fewer courses, lower standards of understanding, and narrowing of subjects; but there is growing evidence that the very opposite is required. How or where are awareness, thinking, and judgment taught? All of these require experience, not taught, but gained. Experience requires time, situation, and opportunity, but so often not available today.

Life’s expectation is for instant gratification, instant profits, at minimum cost or investment. Yet in high risk industries this may not be possible. Note those industries where rapid progression results in top jobs in the early thirties, then what? Disillusionment, complacency; this problem will affect our industry as well. Try management? But that too requires all of the qualities of airmanship. Indeed all of our industry requires these qualities; engineering, dispatch, cabin, and management; take note, CRM is coming (is here), but what is actually required are those personal qualities contained in the definition of airmanship.

CRM is a relatively modern or a relabeled older tool for maintaining professionalism and safety in the industry. Its mentor Robert Helmreich readily accepts that that CRM is in it’s sixth phase; mix this with the three major cultures in flying (national, organisation, and profession), and then flavor with biased or uneducated viewpoints, then it is no wonder that few people understand what CRM is. CRM is promoted as a tool, a method, a process of maintaining safety through threat and error management. However, like most tools, methods, or processes, if their purpose is not understood, if misidentified, employed with inadequate instruction, or misused, then mistakes are inevitable.

Airmanship depends on experience; experience is what you get when you don’t get what you expected. The industry and particularly the regulatory authorities are just gaining experience of CRM.

[hec7or]

fully agree with alf5071h, just been looking at my company training manual and found that "airmanship" does not appear anywhere on the company recurrent paperwork - not for a line check, a 6 monthly sim check, an annual sim, nor for a command assessment, so it seems it is no longer a company requirement!

glad the autopilot knows its place

[calypso]

Maximum,

considering the gloomy departure scenario that you have painted what do you suggest the Fo should have done:

1.- Said nothing (the cpt must be right, after all he has lots of experience and he does not make mistakes).
2.- Forced the situation at the holding point and request sufficient time to get himself up to speed with the changes. (possibly missing the slot in the process)
3.- Given up flying as he is so obviously not up to the task
4.- Any other suggestions people may like to make

Is there anything that you think you may have done differently in both situations that you mention that may have prevented them from arising.

We can all roll out stories when the other guy was about to do something and we prevented him, etc this is the bread and butter of flying and only proves that we are all fallable. I beleive it is therefore imperative to speak out. To be both assertive and receptive. This must be done with politeness and sensitivity. Nobody should take ofence at a polite question :

Cpt do we have sufficient performance for this intersection?

Yes we did work it out remeber?

Ok

Are we turning in the right direction?

etc.

Aviation is full of accidents that would have been prevented if this had happened. Do we all agree on this?

[James T. Kirk]

Doesn’t this come down to mutual respect?

I am currently flying with a bunch of F/Os who break down into two camps interestingly enough, divided roughly along linguistic lines. One lot work as part of the team and understand that we both take a turn at steering. The others assume that you haven’t just given them the sector but handed over command.

I welcome any advice, observations and help – I need all the help I can get! As for questions I would certainly risk missing a slot to clear up a query on a potentially dangerous matter. I heard some very good advice once. It said “Go through the accident report in your head. If you sound like an idiot change your plan.” I would not like the last words on the CVR to be “Of course we can take the intersection – SOI”

I do however object to being taught to fly again by a junior pilot with 1000 hours or less. Usually the over baring ones (left and right seats) are the ones who can’t demonstrate superiority and so have to claim it.

Why don’t we just treat each other with respect while remembering that the Captain carries the can when it all goes tits up?

On the subject of “Call me Captain” I heard a great CRM related tale. An airline used to send crews off on week-long freighter missions on the 74 classic. Multi-sector, multi-night stop trips. The Captain on this trip was very much of the old school and insisted on calling everyone by “P2”, “P3” etc. On about the fourth night stop when “P3” was asked if he wanted a drink in the bar he replied, “Come on Captain, we know each other well enough now, you can call me P.”

Kirkout…

[Maximum]

To Calypso and others who seem to (in my opinion) taken my comments as a criticism of all f/o's, I suggest you re-read my posts. Dare I suggest you appear a tad sensitive? A little touchy perhaps?

In no way am I putting f/o's down. In no way am I denying that MCC and CRM techniques contribute to flight safety.

All I am saying is that it's incumbent on new f/o's (and their MCC facilitators) to recognise that the application of these techniques can in certain situations dramatically increase the workload of the Captain.

And it must also be recognised that they cannot replace basic deficiencies in airmanship.

In the departure scenario I gave, you seem to making a major assumption. That I, the Captain, when queried, was 100% sure which way to turn. Well, I wasn't, I'm only human (what this is all about), and as soon as I was confronted with a very forceful demand to turn the other way, obviously the seeds of doubt were sown in my mind. So one of us was right, but which one? Precisely because I do listen to my f/o's, I was presented with a difficult situation, that needed to be solved rapidly. And obviously that's when I earned my money.

So all I'm saying, in a nutshell, and all I have ever been saying, is that when they need to speak up (and I'm all for that) f/o's must do it with an awareness of how it effects the operation overall, and how it can influence the Captain's workload.

I think some high horses need dismounting.:cool:

[ANVAK]

I'm reminded of something I use when facilitating CRM sessions: "Its not what we fly that counts, but how we fly it... Its not the position we occupy that counts, but how we occupy it..."

Just another thought for some of our more senior left seaters:
An NTSB study showed that in a/c accidents investigated between 1978 and 1999: (1) in 80% of the accidents surveyed the captain was flying; (2) in 73% of the cases it was the f/deck crew's fist day of operating together; (3) 44% of the time it was their first leg together; (4) 55% of the time the flight was behind schedule....

So I still submit that if we treat one another professionally and respectfully, we'll create the correct environment for a safe flight

[coorong]

A good thread......I concur with those who think CRM and Airmanship are much the same thing. However, for all the stuff printed in company policies/ops manuals about CRM theory, it should be remembered that you have to actually practise it EVERY time you fly and an important part of this is according everyone else [pilots/crew/atc etc. ] the same consideration and respect you expect for yourself.
I recollect a few years ago in South America [Cali?] an American Airlines [I think!] Boeing 7*7 crashed after some confusion about where they were in relation to an airport. The crew were not working together as well as they should have been. Apparently, the previous week the crew had attended a CRM theory refresher course back in Stateside .
The culture of the air operator/country/crew all play a big part in determining if CRM/Airmanship are effectively and routinely utilised.:bored:

[jigsawjockey]

Dear Sir Discretion, i suggest that if the commanders authority is being eroded, then it is down to the individuals fault, rather than the systems.
Surely a captain should have respect from his fellow workers because they appreciate the job he is doing, just as he or she appreciates the job everyone else, from the baggage handler to the SFO, is doing?
The moment Captains start to assume that they have God given rights to respect because of their position, is the moment that the system deservedly falls apart!
PS I'm writing this as a current Captain!:sad:

[fireflybob]

jigsawjockey, agree with your comments 100%.

It does, however, take two to tango, as they say. Just as the commander needs good communicatiion skills, the second in command also has to learn to do the same. Good commanders will make some allowance for this and coach their fellow colleagues in a non confrontational style.

Its all really a question of a bit of "give and take" by both parties. I am reminded by a comment from a highly respected CRM teacher (one of THE originals actually!) who said that the foundations for achieving the task (successfully) are laid when the task is NOT being worked on.

It's when the crew are not actually working at the job, as it were, when we have time to build rapport and find some common ground. Dare I say it but this might be over a drink at the bar or a meal at a restaurant etc or particpating in anything together which has nothing directly to do with the task. Given current lifestyles in many airlines this can be more difficult to achieve but its an area well worth working on and airline managements also have a key role in this area.

This is a highly chalenging area since we are dealing with human beings! Find out what yout employees are doing when they are NOT working and you will be amazed by their considerable skills and talents. It is just very sad that find that these creative skills are not encouraged at work due to the current culture. The companies that can capitalise on these skills and use peoples talents will be around for a lot longer than the other ones.

[Mowgli]

Good point Fireflybob - while many other industries send their people away on expensive courses to "team-build", we in the airline industry who have a tradition of social "interaction" have fewer opportunities to do this.

Has CRM gone too far? If we let it yes. As a facilitator myself, I try and encourage people to realise the importance of keeping the right balance on the flight deck - some may know it as the authority gradient. If we all strive for that then we should all be going the right distance CRM wise. i.e a young and low experience FO would be unprofessional if he/she was making the Capt feel that every decision was questionable. There are ways of making points: it is correct for an FO to ask a question if he/she feels concerned, but the tone and manner of the question is important so that "authority" is not questioned, but a point of airmanship is. I have never flown with an FO because I am one! I adjust my manner and bearing according to who I am flying with and the general situation of the flight, but at all times I try to behave in a manner which enhances the "correct" gradient. Some people are better at this than others, and no doubt there are times when people need to be put in their place. If a Capt needs to remind someone who's boss then that's fine by me - CRM isn't about being "fluffy" it's about getting the best out of people to ensure a safe operation. As FireflyB alluded to, it isn't going to be easy because you are dealing with people.

[buttline]

As a newly qualified FO going staight onto a medium jet I can definitely say that basic JAA training to fATPL does precious little to prepare you for the multi-crew environment.

Throughout basic training you do everything yourself - radios, nav, fly, plan make decisions. Whilst this is probably a good thing I definitely think there should be more of a bridge to the real multi-crew world. The MCC course doesn't quite cut it as it's usually 2 newly qualified pilots together for the course so the gradient is contrived / unrealistic. That goes for much of conversion training too.

I've asked the question of 'what are the qualities of a good FO' to most of the Training Capts I've encountered so far. Here are some of the responses I found helpful..

'Be supportive of the Captain'

'Make sure safety is your No 1 boss'

'Asking a question can be a better way of highlighting a potential problem than stating it in the first instance.'

'Be on time and come prepared always'

'Don't try to go for promotion by acting like the Captain. The best way to get promoted to Captain is to be a good FO.'

'Be aware of your issues as a person. If you have a tendancy to be abrassive or passive for example (we all have something), be aware of it and constantly compensate for it - keep looking in your personal mirror'.

[FoxHunter]

CRM=Respect, Common Sense, Common Courtesy.

[Spearing Britney]

Fair enuf, shame that respect, sense (common or otherwise) and courtesy seem to be in short supply at times!

As such CRM is still worth working at...

[Rananim]

CRM has undoubtedly gone too far and the balance needs to be redressed.It promised a lot in the late seventies but has failed to become the panacea that the industry hoped for.In fact,it has created more problems than it has solved.Not least of which is the erosion of the Commanders authority(a rudderless ship always ends up on the rocks),frequent grassing amongst crews,and the lack of respect shown in intra-crew communication on todays politically-correct flightdeck.
One's right to the privileges that CRM affords is directly proportional to one's level of airmanship and cognitive judgement,and these two assets are borne out of experience,and experience only.A student pilot,fresh out of flight school has no business making reports on a high-timer.In fact,he/she has no business in the right seat of a commercial jetliner.Possession of a pilots licence and the ability to reproduce the company SOP manual verbatim would appear to be all that is required in certain airlines and cultures to expect all the privileges that CRM accords.It is not.
A co-pilot in Fedex,or any US major,probably has about 5000 hours and has more likely than not flown as a commander in the regionals.He/she knows and understands the complexities involved in being a commander.He/she knows where the very thin line is drawn.That line between a perfectly acceptable SOP deviation and an unsafe flight maneuver for example.Or the line between abandoning a checklist and landing asap or continuing to hold and complete the checklist whilst everyone burns.He/she knows when to shut up and look out of the window and when not to.In short,give status where status is due.
The people that make up the crew(both f/deck and cabin)of a commercial airliner are NOT of equal status.A good Captain will set a tone where this unequivocal truth is not rammed down their throats but is merely quietly understood by all.He can do this by setting an informal and friendly atmosphere and encouraging input from all.A good First Officer is someone who never forces the Commander to remind him of this unequivocal truth.
This is true CRM.

As for name-calling protocol.The best is informal and friendly.Second is polite and formal.Worst of all is this politically-correct "everybodys equal,you fly the plane and leave the cabin to me" familiarity.

[chuks]

Gee, and I thought I was the only one sometimes having trouble with stroppy F/Os!

Of course the first thing to bear in mind, at least in my case, is that you get back what you hand out. 'What goes around, comes around.'

'Young people' today are not prepared to take a back seat and be talked down to the way our generation was. They tend to fire back with company procedures meant to protect their rights and feelings. I have to accept that the world has changed and deal with that.

We sometimes get a flight that develops into a table-tennis match, when the F/O cites page 112 of the SOPs and I cite an over-riding clause on page 221 or claim 'pilot's discretion' or whatever.

What I cannot do, what had been done to me, is to suggest he just sit there and look out the window. Those days are long gone, and it may be just as well. I used to fly with a 'Great Stone God' in a DC-3 who thought I was a wimp for even wanting to wear a headset. I should just sit there and work the gear and flaps to hand signals, was his take on reality. We each thought the other was mad!

I have tried to just back as far off as I can, while still maintaining standards, and let the F/O have as much responsibility as he can handle. That seems to work. And for the ones who want to make trouble, I make sure that I know the back of the book as well as they do, so that I am not left baffled by b*ll****.

As to the rest of it, people I get along with call me by my first name. Anyone who wants to give me any sh*t, they can call me 'sir' or else come along and talk to management about whatever problem we are having. That seems to work, so long as I am careful to check what message I am sending in the first place.

[UNEASY]

Maximum, Maximum

First time here, read your post re- explaining to S B and doing your best to vindicate yourself with every hole he picks in your story at every turn. You finally put together a scenario that makes you look the hero '... it was 0400 after a long night...' .
Without going too deep, the hairy situation you put together is one that required good CRM on this tiring night.
You might been absolutely sure of which way to turn on this night ( to your tired mind) and the F/O had doubts, it is possible that you assessed this situation from a superior position.
no amount of training or indeed experience could have avoided this. This was a simple left or a right turn at some point after T/O. It is a shame about his hollering as you say but a quick and mandatory cross check about what you thought was right against his was necessary by every means possible and S B did his best with some good suggestions . The first being that your charts should have been handy and the lighting in the cockpit should enable you to quickly see what the chart says , or else how did you intend to continue the SID and avoid the mountains if you suddenly lost your FMC input for what ever reason.
As you did not elaborate whether you did any retake or quick assurance to this confused F/O, I am left to deduce that you went along with your assessment of the situation which was correct on this ocassion..... Just imagine if for whatever reason you were wrong? you could have red hot paint all over the mountain.
Recommend very good CRM next time.
Happy flying

[Maximum]

UNEASY UNEASY ;)

I've just re-read my post too, and can't quite understand why you've taken such objection to it. You obviously don't think my CRM was very good that night - that's your opinion, to which your entitled, so there we go.

All I would ask you to do is read my post again (if you can bear it):p or at least these quotes:Meanwhile the slot looms ominously. If we miss it, we're advised delay could be more than two hours and we'll be out of hours. But, despite this, I ignore the pressure of the slot, sod that, and applying good MCC principles I tell ATC we aren't ready, and bring the aircraft to a stop. We then review the performance, and the SID, check all the bugs, re-set the nav aids, check the FMC, I do a brief, he says he's happy, and finally we line up, just in time. Trouble was, he still got confused once we we're airborne. Flying's like that sometimes isn't it? andSo all I'm saying, in a nutshell, and all I have ever been saying, is that when they need to speak up (and I'm all for that) f/o's must do it with an awareness of how it effects the operation overall, and how it can influence the Captain's workload.

I fail to see what all the fuss is about, but that could well be down to flaws in my own personality I suppose.:\

One final point, at least I've posted a concrete example of something factual that I'm responsible for to the good or bad and let you all dissect it!! :}

[keithl]

I thought Mowgli put it very well: CRM isn't about being "fluffy" it's about getting the best out of people. The phrase "appropriate behaviour" is sometimes used to illustrate the fact that there are times when, as in maximum's scenario, there's no time for much of a debate. When there's absolutely no time, then even "autocratic" behaviour is appropriate.

The problem for some FOs is to recognise that the Captain decides, and once the decision is made the time for debate has passed. CRM training does not always make this clear enough, concentrating too much on the best way of conducting that debate.

This seems a good opportunity to record my gratitude to the copilots who so often, and so tactfully, kept me out of the poo!

[alf5071h]

Rananim – CRM has gone too far? It all depends on how you define CRM. I quote from my earlier post and recommend that you view the paper “The Evolution of Crew Resource Management Training”. (http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/15oct03-RHelmreich.pdf) If you then agree that CRM can be represented as Threat and Error management then this will involve the use of all resources, which includes people.
CRM is a relatively modern or a relabeled older tool for maintaining professionalism and safety in the industry. Its mentor Robert Helmreich readily accepts that that CRM is in it’s sixth phase; mix this with the three major cultures in flying (national, organisation, and profession), and then flavor with biased or uneducated viewpoints, then it is no wonder that few people understand what CRM is. CRM is promoted as a tool, a method, a process of maintaining safety through threat and error management. However, like most tools, methods, or processes, if their purpose is not understood, if misidentified, employed with inadequate instruction, or misused, then mistakes are inevitable.
Furthermore, using the definition of airmanship that encompasses skill, then you should consider the many levels of skill within our industry. A new first officer will, by regulation, be sufficiently skilled to enable safe operation of an aircraft; this includes alerting more senior pilots to threats or errors. Certainly some first officers will alert benign issues, but this should be seen as a failure in understanding either by lack of briefing / crew cooperation or a shortfall in knowledge that you can make good.

Although you may be more skillful than a new first officer, that level of skill gives little protection against you making an error. In order to progress to the higher skill levels required for good captaincy, the skills embedded within CRM training have to be understood and learnt.

[411A]

Rananim is correct in every perspective, in my opinion.
A First Officer will not receive respect until he shows same to his Commander....and that is precisely what the Commander is, the boss,...period.
If said First Officer (who we must remember, is second in command) has a complaint about the way the ship is run, he can respectfully ask the Captain about his actions, but if there is a personality conflict, would suggest said First Officer button his lip...or go and see the fleet manager later, after he has had a long thought about the situation.

In every company I have worked for, the Captain is given the benefit of the doubt, and the First Officer, if his case is not solidly made, will find himself behind the eight ball for any future upgrade...to heavier equipment or Command.

Just the way it is...sadly, a few junior guys have not figured this out.

Now, having said all this, the Commander has a duty and responsibility to take the First Officers legitimate concerns into consideration, and operate the aircraft according to the company laid down standard procedures..., period.
If he does not, on a regular basis, without adequate explanation, he needs to be shown the door...pronto.

Cowboy antics are not to be tolerated....ever.:ooh:

[safetypee]

Cowboy antics are not to be tolerated....

Get off your horse 411A

[calypso]

I almost agree with part of your post 411, I must be going soft in my head....

The company sets the rules but also gives (as it must) the Comander the flexibility to break them if necesary. It also asks of both crewmembers to monitor the flight and speak out if any deviation form standard procedures or settings is observed. The company also uses each crew to police each other by stablishing a system of official reports, confidential reports, etc. This is just the way the game is set up. You can resent it just as you can resent the flight data monitoring system.

I however feel that this post does not deal with serious safety critical situations. It deals instead with the everyday frictions of overzelous FO´s and Captains that think that SOP´s don´t apply to them. With the frustation of people that would like to be given by law the moral respect that they can not gain from their own actions and example. With the inexperience of FO´s that only have the rules to fall back upon since they have little personal experience.

If you think that some FO´s can be a handful you should try Skippering a chartered sailing boat around the Caribean. At least your FO is being paid , has been told that it his job to help you and has some knowledge of the dangers ahead. Instead of paying you, looking for a good time above all else and has no clue of what might lie ahead. To gain the moral respect of people and gain their support and confidence, guide them without them feeling they are been guided is a difficult art. Much harder but also so much more satisfying that saying ´I am the boss' , to wich I would reply (OK I would just think it) ´are you? why don´t you act like it´. It is no good saying I am responsible for everything and then failing to take responsability for your crews actions, performance , development, etc.

A good rule of thumb I used to have was that if I felt myself getting anoyed or raising my voice I kew that I had screwed up.

[411A]

safetypee,

Cowboy antics do seem to be alive and well in Europe...the HapagLloyd A310 accident at VIE for example...running out of fuel is not exactly proper ops...and this after these guys bypassed quite suitable airports.
Am quite sure that HapagLloyd has CRM procedures courses for flight crew...but just like in the 'old' days, it doesn't seem to connect with a few.

[chuks]

I think we can see some sort of generational split developing here.

Used to be, back in the late Stone Age, one started as an underling and then climbed the greasy pole to become The Boss! At that point one could then inflict the same sort of pain on the underlings that one had endured on the way up.

But somewhere along the line this began to change, thanks to more detailed knowledge of human interaction, analysis of accidents, recognition of what goes to make or break an error chain and all that sort of touchy-feely, hard to define stuff.

I think we can take 411A as an example, for better or worse, of the old-fashioned cockpit Boss. 'My way or the highway,' as it were. While Studi, having just been trained at great trouble and expense by DLH, has probably absorbed all the new ideas about the Captain as Manager, using CRM.

Speaking for myself, I spent a long time as some sort of humble labourer in the Oil Patch, creeping along over the mangrove swamps in simple aircraft just a little bit higher and faster than that lowest form of aviation life, the helicopter. Then I was forced to choose to become the commander of a multi-crew aircraft. It was that or the breadline. So I came to this late in my career with a fairly open mind.

I have always found people to be an interesting and rewarding field of study, with CRM just an offshoot of industrial psychology, say.

I used to fly with 411A's evil twin brother in a DC-3, when I wasn't very impressed. The Boss! Well, Boss, go boss somebody else around; I didn't need that. So becoming a Boss myself was out.

Then I saw this touchy-feely CRM approach lead a few people astray as well. So there might well be some aspects of this Boss approach that are called for. Hmm.

Anything involving interaction with other human beings is damned complicated, certainly compared to just operating an aircraft. On the other hand it can be interesting and rewarding. Personally I would rather be back flying single-pilot but given that I have to work multi-crew it's been good to read through the material on this CRM forum. Some of you guys are far past me in your depth of knowledge and others seem to be mired in the past but all of it has been useful. I have to just keep trying to pick out the bits I can use myself and leave the rest for later.

[BlueEagle]

"Speaking for myself, I spent a long time as some sort of humble labourer in the Oil Patch, creeping along over the mangrove swamps in simple aircraft just a little bit higher and faster than that lowest form of aviation life, the helicopter."

So you got the 'chop' from rotary then Chuks?
Never mind, you seem to have made it now!:ok:

[411A]

Oddly enough chuks, the 'stone age' as you call it, is required by aviation regulatory authorties.
CAA/FAA/DGCA have specific requirements for the Commander, one of which is, he is responsible for the operation of the aircraft.
Not the co-pilot, not the flight engineer, not the chief steward...it is the Captain who is in charge, and strangely enough, the respective airline companies don't call them 'managers' either.

And, as for your comment 'my way or the highway...', it quite actually should read..'the company way or the highway'.
A very few younger guys seem to think that they can improvise as they go along, not pay attention to details, and when they are told by the Captain to 'shape up or ship out', they feel belittled and frustrated. Then, when they run crying to the fleet manager, and are given the cold shoulder, they are resentful of the 'system'.

All I can say is...get used to it. It ain't likely to change anytime soon.

But, there is a bright spot on the horizon.
Once you have the experience and senority, a command will be available, provided you have not burned too many bridges in the past.
Too many black marks in your record makes for poor advancement later on.
I've seen it happen all to often.

[HugMonster]

There are several aspects of CRM to beware of.

Woe betide the FO who thinks he knows it all and fails to respect the experience of the guy in the other seat.

Woe betide the company who fail to deal honestly with all their crew and fail to give them honest appraisals of their promotion and career prospects, preferring instead to tell them "You should get your command with us inside five years" and then wonder why people leave after seven or eight.

Woe betide the skipper who fails to listen to his FO. Despite his lesser experience level, he has still passed the same base check and it is significantly less time since he passed the ATPL and type technical exams - he might have a valid point and you need to listen to him.

Woe betide the skipper who fails to use all the resources open to him when the fan blades start to exit via the jet pipe and the flight deck lights up like a Christmas tree, and prefers instead to turn it into a one-man operation.

And finally, woe betide the FO who thinks that, because the skipper offers to listen to him, it shows that as an FO he has the final word. CRM principles dictate that the skipper should listen to him and take his views into account. Thereafter, the skipper should make his decision, announce it to anyone who needs to know. All should then back the said skipper up in bringing the voyage to a successful and safe conclusion, because by then the time for consultation is over. The captain's decision is final. He needs, however, to make sure he's got all the facts and possible viewpoints (time permitting) before committing himself to something that may, with hindsight, be a little rash.

[chuks]

Dear 411A,

Not to worry, I learned about responsibility a long time back, not least from being sat up there at the end of the airplane that gets to the scene of the accident first! While you airline gods were up at FL330 asking after the baseball scores I was down in the clag trying to find Great Inagua in a no-autopilot little bug smasher, contemplating my responsibilities.

No, the part that I have had to work at getting a handle on is the sharing of the workload with the other flight crew member. For instance, there have been sim sessions where I did everything correctly except that I did everything correctly. In other words, I forgot to use the man sat next to me, thus increasing my workload, making a hazardous situation more hazardous, etc, etc. It would kind of rankle to have to forget all those hours of being sat up front alone with the sole responsibility for sorting out a problem, but I got there in the end. In a two crew aircraft there is shared responsibility, with the ultimate responsibility being with the captain, right enough.

Not to be unfair to you but from many of your comments you do come across as the kind of guy who might have a little problem with CRM in the modern sense of the term, preferring to issue orders rather than first listen to some input from other crew members. 'Authoritarian' we call that, yes?

Part of the problem with the 'young' guys of today is that society's values have changed, so that their attitude to authority isn't what it was, and we have to work around that to some extent. Aviation doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I'm still learning myself, at 56 years and about 14,500 hours, if you want to write me off as just another 'young guy'.

I used to hear that all the time from the Great Stone God in the DC-3: 'You young guys!' At the time I was about 33, had put in two years in Viet Nam and had about 3,000 hours, so that I didn't quite feel wet behind the ears. Now I would find that rather flattering, actually!

[timzsta]

This has to be one of the most interesting threads on PPRUNE for a while, particularly for someone like myself who well hopefully have gained his fATPL in a few months time.

CRM/MCC have there place but I can see where peoples opinion that the Commander's authority is being eroded comes from. I have a thought that to some degree CRM may have outlived its time. Back in the 60's and 70's there where a lot of accidents that resulted from overbearing Captains flying with Junior FO's where the FO did not challenge the Commander and disaster followed. Some of this could be traced back to the fact that many of the airline Captain's of the day were ex-military types from the war and things were done in a military fashion - ie "I am the Captain, I am in Command, and you the FO do as I say".

But the modern airline captain is generally not of that mould, even the ones who have come from the military. Someone suggested the CRM training has made confident Junior FO's overbearing and that maybe a good point. One thing I also think maybe a contibuting factor, and I saw some of this in my military training is the number of people with University education. Degree's teach people to think, question and challenge. I often noticed, as a non-graduate, that during training at Dartmouth and in the Fleet, when the non-graduate trainee Officers were told to do something their first instinct was to obey the order. A bit to often the graduate types first reaction was to question and challenge the order. Not that I think university education is bad, just that it may lead people entering the profession of aviation these days to be a bit too questioning of those more experienced and senior. But the modern world of aviation is some way from the that of the military. Thoughts?

I have also worked as a Dispatcher and I have to say that Captain's going around demanding to be called Sir and Captain are pretty few and far between and I certainly did not go around addressing Captains as Sir but neither did I call then "mate" or "boss". I would usually go onto the FD and say "good morning/afternoon" and if they were from a foreign airline add "welcome to London". I would then give them the information they required from me "slot time is, passenger load is, we have such and such cargo in such and such hold, etc etc" and then ask "what do you need from me, and can I have your loadsheet information please". But I felt I had the maturity to understand that ultimately he or she was ultimately the Captain and was in Command and I should concentrate on "doing" rather then "question and do".

Having spent 6 years as an Officer in the Navy one thing I did learn is that sometims as the Junior one in the operation you do have to shut up, bow the Commander's superior knowledge and experience and get on with what he says. At night, in IMC, with the panel lit up like a christmas tree with failing systems, trying to get into a performance limiting airfield close to a mountain range, is not necessarily the best time to aviate by commitee with the FO questioning everything the Captain says. I think they call it "silent monitoring" orr something dont they?

What I am trying to say I guess is I hope when I do ultimately get that first RHS seat I can take the best aspects of both worlds and combine them in contributing to the safe operation of the aircraft.

[Maximum]

timzsta, I think your post shows an eminently sensible and "real world" approach to the subject, and in most cases this is exactly how things run on the flight deck.

Both pilots looking out for each other, using their knowledge, experience and CRM skills appropriately as the situation demands, coupled with an understanding of the Commander's responsibities. Spot on in my opinion. :D

[chuks]

One further thought came to me, that there is a distinction between authority and responsibility.

The captain cannot share his authority and remain in command, right? But when he asks for something, then the person asked has a responsibility to provide what is asked for.

That Crossair SAAB 340 crash was put down in part to the actions of the FO. He was held to share responsibility, in other words.

I was just thinking these two terms might be held to be interchangeable in some way, when they are not.

[Rananim]

Crew interaction between two experienced pilots will exist on a different level to that of a senior Captain/junior First Officer combination.To insist upon a singular and rigid format of CRM and apply that format to each and every flightdeck,regardless of crew make-up,would be unrealistic.
Politeness and mutual respect are common to differing formats(or levels) of CRM.However,other factors such as advocacy and assertion on the part of the co-pilot and the receptivity of the Captain to that advocacy and assertion will by necessity differ.The right to advocate and assert will still exist but will manifest itself differently.
The problems arise when the CRM format and crew combination are mis-matched.A Captain not listening to the counsel of a First Officer,whose levels of airmanship and cognitive judgement are above and beyond his rank,can be lethal.A First Officer who uses the egalitarian spirit of CRM to his advantage,who demands the privileges that it affords without the pre-requisite levels of airmanship and cognitive judgement,is rarely lethal but no less distressing.

If you've a modicum of social adeptness,education and upbringing,you're unlikely to ever need a CRM course in your life.

[Spearing Britney]

If you've a modicum of social adeptness,education and upbringing,you're unlikely to ever need a CRM course in your life - Rananim


:(


Have to say that the above smacks of the 'CRM is not my problem' attitude. I do know what you mean but please, we can all learn and there are tricks and models that even those who can sell ice to eskimos can benefit from.

[411A]

Rananim is quite correct, SB.
The Captain, who has the modicum of social correctness, education etc, does not benefit much from the CRM courses now offered, IMO.
Said Captain has seen it all before while he was a First Officer, oftentimes operating under the authority of an overbearing Captain and, having the social correctness, education (etc), has long ago decided that he will not do likewise when he is the Captain.
About the only positive development of CRM is to teach others to get along with the overbearing Captain who is not going to change his ways, no matter how many CRM courses he is subjected to...ever.

Further, if a First Officer tries to use his CRM training to try to 'outrank' the Commander on occasion, he will many times find that the fleet manager/chief pilot is unlikely to appreciate same, and said F/O will be burning brides at a very rapid rate.
In short, he is likely to be 'stepped on', big time.
Just the way it is, in many airlines.

[Spearing Britney]

411A I don't see how to accept your view that a (decent, upstanding) Captain doesn't benefit from CRM training let alone Rananim's that any (decent, upstanding) pilot won't need a CRM course in his life.

As I see it, to support these views would require either a belief that CRM has not benefited our industry or a belief that somehow today’s crews are naturally better than they used to be!

To support these views one would have to believe that CRM is a static and unchanging field with no productive research being carried out and none of its findings being brought into the training arena. One would have to believe that today’s increasingly global pilot workforce is somehow innately aware of cultural differences when they travel far and wide. One would have to believe that just because he is a good bloke to have a beer with he will be a good Captain/FO/SO/FEng.

I can't support any of these premises! Now I will add that some CRM instruction can be of little use, any teacher can fail to get the message home/use the correct materials/pitch to the wrong level etc and some who teach just aren’t made to, but at least a bad CRM course brings up CRM and may make people think about it!

To belittle the achievements of CRM by suggesting that a 'modicum' of anything renders it useless is, IMHO, unhelpful. It creates the gaps for those who need enhanced CRM skills but think they don't to dismiss CRM training when it could help them and those they fly with. Even if you don't need better CRM, even if you are the wonderpilot, then at least your presence on a good CRM course and your input to it can help others on that course.

We have all been on courses we feel we didn’t benefit from but I believe CRM can be valuable and that it has a place. Rounding on CRM training as an entity and shooting it down over the Captain/FO debate would, I feel, be a mistake.

[scanscanscan]

Crm course did not exist when I started in 1964 and the usa selection tests were based on the staynine military ww2 single fighter pilot selection profile.
Some years later after a United out a fuel incident it was found the cockpit was full of the right stuff for fighters but basically the wrong stuff for multi crew.
United then did a lot of work to retrain attitudes of its pilots with a Swedish psyco. friend of mine attached to SAS who wrote the CRM manuals for them.
The selection tests are today different from 1964 and the wrong stuff has either been modified by education or gradually eliminated as the pilots retire.
Teaching CRM to crews is a very interesting job and different techniques are required in different parts of the world.
It gets really interesting and is essential where the crews are multie national and also multi faith.

[chuks]

I think that I have developed a fairly wide panoply of social skills from living in a multi-cultural environment, but I still found CRM courses to be very useful.

The thing is, in normal social terms, I have learned how to either charm someone or else avoid them if I find them to be just terminally obnoxious. But in the cockpit of a true multi-crew aircraft I had to learn how to work with people rather than avoid them, even when they had obviously developed in rather unfortunate ways, personality-wise.

In purely social terms it can be an absolute nightmare to have to share a cockpit with someone who may pride himself on being out of step with life, so to speak. There was nothing in my background or experience that really gave me the fullest range of skills for that! We just don't need to know! I was always able to get away from people like this. Or, in a single-pilot aircraft operated with two crew, just give the troublesome one something to occupy his attention in a harmless sort of way. Sitting and brooding was a perfectly fine option in my opinion.

Then I did a CRM course, which was a real eye-opener.

We did stuff like a team exercise where one had to get a clue from each member, learning how to filter out, politely, useless stuff from the gabby one but also how to draw out the reticent one who was sitting on the key to the puzzle.

Another time we had a survival scenario where the dominant personality (an Aussie, of course!) managed to persuade everyone else but me that a trek across 20 miles of desert by night was a very good idea compared to just sitting and waiting to be rescued. The debrief on that one was fascinating.

So I wouldn't want to go overboard on the 'touchy-feely' stuff but I wouldn't want to operate with a CRM course every so often.

[STANDTO]

About 18 months ago, I arranged for a CRM instructor to come over for a day to talk to our Inspector Cadre about CRM, error chains, et al. It went down very well.

I am a big fan. It is amazing how many people lack basic interactive skills - esp. in management. CRM provides a framework where a degree of civility can be maintained.

[chuks]

Once I got on the CRM bandwagon and became some sort of true believer I did ask why the Company didn't bother to apply some of these lessons when Management was dealing with we plebs.

You know that 'Who farted?' look you sometimes get, despite having just said something that seemed to make perfect sense to you? That was my answer to that one! CRM is for lower life forms; once you advance from the cockpit to management you can forget all that stuff.

[lomapaseo]

This link seems like an appropriate break in your discussions to consider before and after CRM or you will know it when you see it.

http://fromtheflightdeck.com/assorted/CrewResourceMangementTheHighTheMighty.wmv

[Hudson]

It is getting bumpy - enough to spill the coffee and the captain thinks it will probably stay that way. He says to the F/O "Ask ATC for flight level 350 and we'll try and get out of this stuff".

F/O looks at his watch and says can we wait another five minutes when we will be on a new sector controller and he won't have to coordinate with the one we are on now?

Captain grits his teeth and thinks: Do I say do as your bloody well told and ask for F/L 350 NOW.

Or does he think OK I'm not in the mood to go through a big explanation of the pros and cons of climbing or staying and I don't want to make him feel that his opinion is not needed here, so I'll just say "That's fine by me just give ATC a call when you feel the time is right"

The passengers start to throw up one by one and the captain thinks what a weak kneed idiot I am for giving in to the F/O just to make him feel good.

The F/O thinks: I like flying with old Joe - at least he lets me make the decisions on my leg.

If you were a ashen faced fare paying passenger, or a harassed flight attendant stumbling in the aisle, tell me which option would you like the captain to take?

If there was one thing I hated when I was in the LH seat was this reluctance by some type of first officers to carry out a straight forward request without argueing the toss. If it is a definate safety of flight matter - then few captains would (should?) resent a F/O speaking out in a measured manner.

But it is all too easy to incur a simmering resentment from either side of the cockpit when a direct request is made and the other side jacks up or deliberately delays an action.

CRM courses rarely cover these small aspects of pilot behaviour which are so important in terms of a good working atmosphere.

Instead we hear endless repeat stories of CRM derring do in USA where a DC10 lost lots of systems and the cockpit workload was shared between a bunch of guys up front to almost a happy ending.

[chuks]

One of the funniest, most aggravating ones I ever had was when I told the F/O to 'Ask XXX Tower for a visual, please. Tell him we have the field in sight.'

Under ICAO rules one must have the field in sight, but we were about 20 miles off. The F/O, highly skeptical of my approach to life and to flying at the best of times, just looked at me, as if to say, 'Captain, you are asking me to tell a porky'.

I looked him in the eye and told him to go ahead and ask, when I would show him something surprising. He went ahead and got me my visual. Then I asked him if he saw that little speck of white out there on the horizon, almost lost in a sea of green. 'Yes, but...' he answered.

'Keep watching it. That's the control tower at XXX.' And it was.

On the other hand, I was poling along as an F/O operating as Pilot Flying when I could hear the traffic stacking up over the Lagos VOR. I told the Captain that I was reducing to holding speed now, since we would be holding and we were reasonably tight on fuel. (Delays can amount to 30 minutes easily, so that every kilo is precious.)

'You don't want to slow down 40 miles out. That is way too far.'

'Oh yes I do. We are going to be in the stack for a while. It's go-slow at Lagos, I'm afraid.'

'Well, I wouldn't slow down this far out. 40 miles is too far.'

'Noted, thank you. Let me slow down and we will see how it goes, okay?'

Guess what? I was right! Not that I saved our lives or anything like that but we didn't lose any time and we had some extra fuel to hold with.

He was the expert on the airplane and I knew what was going to happen at my home base. I would have preferred that he just go along with my rather innocuous decision and nail me in the debrief if it was a screw-up but we still got the job done.

[Tigs2]

Ladies and Gentlemen

I have just spent some time ploughing through this thread which has clearly generated some interest. I am a pilot of some 20 years and have been a CRM instructor for 10, running my own CRM training company for 8 years. Some of the problems highlighted here are alarming and if you have the situation where the young FO believes that there should be no gradient in the cockpit then you must kick ass with your internal/external training organisations, because thats where the problem is (likewise the steep gradients common in many airlines years ago are not acceptable these days in terms of safe working practices).

There must be a cross cockpit gradient, albeit a small one. It has been proved time and time again that 'no-gradient' is a very dangerous thing. The Capt is responsible under international law for the safety of the aircraft. Organisations must grip this, as the older guys will retire in the next 10 - 15 years, leaving in some places (so it seems here) a generation of pilots who will not make a decision unless they have had a referendum.

Young pilots must be taught that it is correct to question those, statements or decisions that they believe could compromise flight safety if they are carried through to completion(i.e but at all other times get on with it!), however, they also need to be taught that a small Cross cockpit gradient is a good thing. Remember that in the earlier years of pilot training a lot of training is attitudal. If we dont teach them these concepts they will do whatever else it is they are taught.

There are many good CRM trainers out there, but I browse a lot of CRM forums and there are some academics out there bringing into place some really wacky ideas, without real aviation knowledge. Be careful!

CRM is simple and it needs to be kept that way.

[Bluntly So]

CRM--very simplly summed up

C= Consideration, R =Respect M=Manners.

Did we not learn, were they not instilled, these simple values at our mothers knee so to speak, at home/ school?

Have we not experienced the consequences one time or the other when we have strayed from the simple basics of manners and attitudes towards others?

True educated professionals with good upbringing should know how to interact , conduct themselves in a professional environment.

It is a well known fact that in a contained professional environment, as inflight, locked in for hours, a true professional should keep every trait not condusive to a safe flight far away . cultural, personal, likes / dislikes for the company policies, management atitudes, anger/ frustrations rising from agendas personal or work related. These should not raise its ugly dark horns, to distract the professional from performing their duties towards passengers/ the team of flight crew.

Maybe my thinking is very idealistic- but is that not what CRM is all about?

Grown up men & women being taught right behaviour and manners ? Tut Tut, and at whose cost and what cost?

[HugMonster]

Nope - almost (but not entirely) totally wrong.

In fact, you have come out with one of the most common and most fatal misconceptions about what CRM is and is not.

CRM is about using all resources available to you in the most effective manner possible in order to bring the flight to a safe and expeditious conclusion.

It is NOT about being polite to everybody. It is not about everyone in the crew having a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling. It is not about respecting other people. It is not about not offending their feelings by failing to let their opinions affect your decision.

If the only way to get one member of the crew to do his/her job is to shout and scream and hit him/her about the head with a Jepps manual, then CRM dictates that is what you should do.

[keithl]

Entirely concur with Huggy. The only phrase I would add is"Using appropriate behaviour to..." Appropriate may in some circumstances mean autocratic (There's no time to argue - just do it) right through to meaning, in different circumstances, democratic (There's plenty of time and this is a complex problem - what do you think?).

I have always found the idea of "appropriateness" very helpful in explaining CRM. It is most emphatically NOT about making everyone feel warm and cosy.

[Menen]

Bluntly So.

Well said - I agree wholeheartedly. Commonsense airmanship ensures that "resources" are used appropriately. There is no point in looking around the cockpit and saying "thinks - what "resources" haven't I used yet".

One often hears aficionado's of CRM recounting of the bad old days when captains were perceived as stern unbending characters who sought no opinions from their first officers and were therefore a safety hazard.

Well, these characters may well have existed in some airlines, but I must say that after several decades of military and airline flying in Australia, I was fortunate enough never to have run across such types in the cockpit.

Did they really exist in such numbers as to be the catalyst for the beginning of the cottage industry known as CRM? I doubt it, personally. Then who started the CRM bandwagon? Aviation psychologists perhaps?

[HugMonster]

There is no point in looking around the cockpit and saying "thinks - what "resources" haven't I used yet".Did anyone suggest you did that?One often hears aficionado's of CRM recounting of the bad old days when captains were perceived as stern unbending characters who sought no opinions from their first officers and were therefore a safety hazard.Since you admit one often hears such tales, you may conclude that these characters existed and were/are considered a hazard to safety. Draw your own conclusions from there.Well, these characters may well have existed in some airlines, but I must say that after several decades of military and airline flying in Australia, I was fortunate enough never to have run across such types in the cockpit.Lucky you. Do you think therefore that nobody else did, either? Or because you never did, CRM is unnecessary? Perhaps (and just consider this) YOU may be one of those characters?Did they really exist in such numbers as to be the catalyst for the beginning of the cottage industry known as CRM? I doubt it, personally.In that case, perhaps you should try reading a few more incident reports and having a think about them.

You are also making a big wrong assumption about what CRM is. It is not about telling overbearing captains to wind their necks in. It is about using all resources available to you when the **** hits the fan in order to bring the flight to a successful conclusion. It is not about being polite. It is not about having lots of friends around you with broad smiles. It is not about telling you what to say. It is a method of training to persuade people to open their eyes, remove the blinkers, look around, and allow a lot more information in than some have in the past, to encourage them to use all sources of information, to encourage them to question their own assumptions, to get them to analyse their attitudes, to recognise when they trap themselves in an error chain, to see the limitations imposed by human psychology, by human factors.

The only people I have met who ever thought CRM was a waste of time and that they didn't need it were the people most in need of it.

[Captain Stable]

Merging threads - too much duplication here.

[Chimbu chuckles]

My thoughts on CRM...having experienced some very 'old fashioned' Captains and a few captains in the rhs!

Come aspects of CRM such as learning effective communication are essential lessons that are not necesarily possessed by people with even the most advanced intellect/common sense/manners. How to ask a question and how to raise concerns appropriately are sometimes counter intuitive.

Learning the traps of our own human condition is essential.

Having said that I believe that CRM has been hijacked by the shrinks who see it as the path to riches via lucrative consultant contracts.

Over the years I have had to direct a captain not decend below MORA in IMC and fend off an F/O that wanted to follow a preceding Boeing, on the same airway but much lower, left and right of track because his radar was 'better than ours'...on my sector. Not only was I the aircraft commander but the CP & C&T on type...in the end it came down to 'ENOUGH'!!!

A cockpit with an inappropraite cockpit gradient...in whatever form that takes, is an unpleasant and unsafe environment.

It's just a pity that the VAST preponderance of companies view CRM as a necesary evil that only applies to pilots...and to a lesser extent FAs.

The old saw about those who deride the value of CRM the most need it the most applies equally to Captains, FOs and 'management'...even many management pilots.

Chuck