Command upgrade

[Captain Smiley]

How are co-pilots in your company assessed for upgrade.

In the company I work for the upgrades are done purely on seniority once the co-pilot makes the minimum standard on his sim checks. I don't believe enough goes in to assessing if they are actually ready and qualified for command.

[GlueBall]

Seniority is never an "automatic" entitlement to command; it's only an opportunity to be be evaluated for upgrade. Just because you can make smooth landings and do everything "right" as a copilot is not enough criteria for promotion. The most important element may be "judgement" in decision making, followed by flying experience.

[skiesfull]

whether it is seniority or meritocracy, a co-pilot will only be given the opportunity of attempting a command course if he or she is deemed likely to pass the course. The airline has to cover for a co-pilot off the roster and make available simulator and line trips with an instructor/examiner, which of course can be costed. The suitable candidate will have to demonstrate such skills as:- the decision-making process, team leadership and CRM, management of the flight as well as flying skills. A 'one-man band' method of showing such skills will not impress, nor will delegating everything to the co-pilot, - a happy balance has to be achieved!, and don't forget to 'look after your co-pilot'. He/she may get you out of the mire one day!

[Old Smokey]

Now that's two good replies, one poster from a purely seniority based system, and the other from a comparison between the Seniority and the Meritocrocy system. Good words.

I was 'raised' in the Australian environment, where Seniority was the determinent for Command training. GlueBall's words are absolutely true, just because your number has come up (at last), carries absolutely no guarantee of a successful command transition. The candidate MUST, repeat MUST, meet all of the criteria in every respect to graduate to Captain upon successful completion of their training. Yep, greasy landings and perfect ILS's are basic flying skills expected of all pilots, it's command ability in all of it's facets that are looked for.

I now work for an airline where the Meritocrocy system prevails, and interestingly, one of the most common questions asked of me by F/Os is how a seniority system can be tolerated for promotion. Their rather naive assumption is that merely waiting for your number to come up is all that's required. Wrong fellas, think again, the candidate rising in the Seniority system must meet no less a standard for the final Command Check / Assessment than occurs in the Meritocrocy system.

In the Meritocrocy system where I now work, 'points' are accumulated together with Command Potential Assessments over their F/O career, all to the purpose of being ultimately placed in the command pool. Oddly enough, (or perhaps not surprisingly) the time to command is about the same, give or take 6 months, as if a Seniority system had prevailed.

There are pluses and minuses for both systems.

One of the minuses for the Seniority system is that a particularly talented individual may be 'held down' for longer than his/her talents dictate, but, as a counter to this is that good airlines are now using 'talented' F/Os much more extensively in certain areas, Simulator Training, Technical areas etc. On the plus side for the Seniority system is that F/O morale is greatly increased, in the knowledge that their turn will come in a predictable and equitable manner, free from any prejudice that a command selection panel may hold against them.

On the minus side for the Meritocrocy system, and it's a VERY big minus, is that many F/Os are intimidated by the fact that any negative report is a strike against them, and, for example are afraid / unwilling to speak out when all indications are that they should speak out. Don't rock the boat. In this system, a delayed command can be used as punitive action. I know of an F/O who bounced a cheque to the company (bad accounting, no fraud intended), and was given a 2 year postponement of Command as penalty.

There's good and there's bad in both systems, I've spent equal time in each, and would have to lean strongly towards the Seniority system.

As a final remark, I'd like to amend skiesfull's quote -
don't forget to 'look after your co-pilot'. He/she may get you out of the mire one day!
to - "don't forget to 'look after your co-pilot'. He/she WILL get you out of the mire one day!" It happened to me on my first sector in command, and I've never forgotten it.:ok:

Regards,

Old Smokey

[Captain Stable]

I've always worked on the assumption that, whichever seat I'm in, I trust the other guy/gal to look after me and get me out of the brown stuff into which, sooner or later, I will inevitably insert myself. In return, I will do my best to do the same for him/her.

We both make mistakes because, surprise, surprise, we're both human. There's no shame in having mistakes pointed out. I don't try to score points off the other guy unless we have the sort of relationship that he can tell that I'm teasing "Nyahhh, you did such-and-such - beers on you tonight" and I won't tolerate someone trying to score points off me (or any other member of the crew). That is NOT good CRM.

There are several aspects needed over and above those needed by any pilot for someone to make a good captain.

Simple flying skills are, of course, one of them. Yes, they should be superior to those required by an FO.
Good decision making skills are another.
Further, good team management.

The list, of course, is endless, and I don't propose to divert the thread in that direction. But there are as many ways for a company to decide who gets to go on a Command Course as there are ways to skin a cat. Almost universally, I would hope, those companies who look first to seniority would still pass someone over if his skills are not up to the job, whether before the course or during/after it.