PF/PNF who's in command ?

[jimmyg]

I will be transitioning from the Boeing to Aibus later next month, as well as companies.

From what I gather, as per Aibus and company SOP, the PF(FO for this example) calls for check list and such during ground operations. This appears to be a bizzare practice to me; or is it more or less handled just like ops during flight.

Please shed some light on the ryme and reason on this practice.:bored:

Flame away

[NZLeardriver]

The PF is pilot flying and runs the show. That includes calling for checklists when they are required.
Captain is always in command. PF and Captain are two different things, don't confuse the two.

[jimmyg]

No confusion in that department of who is in overall command, but once again I find it strange to have my FO calling for checks during ground ops.

For example is it not up to the captain when it is safe and proper to push and call for engine start and taxi. I am of the school that the command pilot sets the tone and pace of action in the pit, or is it my unfamilality with this procedure reading and to much into it.

Please help this old Boeing dog learn a new trick.

[BuzzBox]

I guess different airlines have different policies, but where I work the PF calls the shots, including ALL the checklists, regardless of whether it's an Airbus or a Boeing. Obviously the commander has overriding authority if he or she isn't happy. The emphasis is on allowing FO's to run the show (as much as possible) when they're PF to help prepare them for command.

If the commander doesn't have the ability to allow the FO to run with things and recognise when it's necessary to intervene, perhaps he or she shouldn't be there!

[NZLeardriver]

With my company, the PF will tell the PNF to request push and start, if the PNF does not feel it is safe or appropriate (could be capt or FO) then he will say so. Same with taxi, PF will direct the PNF to call for taxi after the after start flows and checklist. If it is not safe either pilot or ATC can say it is not safe.
The FO taxiing may take some getting used to for you as well.

[Dani]

jimmyg, you come from a company where the SOPs are still very concentrated around the commander.

Newest SOPs are different. The PF is always doing *everything*, and as long as the FO is doing everything in an acceptable manner, the CMD will not interfere. AI (Airbus Industries) has so far implemented the most complete SOPs in this way. So if you are becoming to be trained according AI SOPs, the FO does everything.

Your confusion about checklists on ground may come from the fact that in older SOPs, only the CMD started engines, taxied and took off. This is no longer the case.

You will be surprised how well it works (if your CMDs cooperate). CRM is on a much higher level, your hours on the right seat are a real training for your upgrading. Enjoy it!

Dani

[jimmyg]

Yes, quite a change for me after 15 plus years with a major US airline.

I am all for having my partner think as if they are sitting in my seat and I hope they will not take my word as gospel and query me, as I make my share of mistakes. What I am looking for is there must be a clear definition of this practice other than to just help prepare FO's for command.

It appears that my new organization my be hiring low hour FO's and I find it hard to digest that a NG (new guy) will be attempting to run the show.

I am looking foward the new changes. It will just take some adjustments;)

[411A]

It appears that my new organization may be hiring low hour FO's and I find it hard to digest that a NG (new guy) will be attempting to run the show.

New guys never ever 'run the show'.
Any Commander who allows NG's to run anything is just asking for trouble.
Now, when they have sufficient experience under their belt, perhaps a different story.
Say, at least a few hundred good solid hours.
Nothing less will do, and to do otherwise is foolishness in the extreme.

[BuzzBox]

What I am looking for is there must be a clear definition of this practice other than to just help prepare FO's for command.

Not sure what you mean by a clear definition. The procedures should be clearly stated in the company FCOM. For example, the introductory blurb in our Boeing FCOM states the following:

"The FO, when pilot flying, performs the duties listed under PF and the Capt performs those duties listed under PNF. A small number of items in the procedures require specific Capt or FO action or response and are annotated C,F on the particular item in the flow pattern or checklist. The Commander, however, retains final authority for all actions directed and performed.

The FCOM then clearly states the PF/PNF duties for each phase of flight.

[Dani]

Originally posted by 411A:
New guys never ever 'run the show'.

Well well, here come the dinasaurs again :rolleyes:

You obviously never ever have been part of a team in a company sharing NPs (New Procedures). In fact, the FO really runs the show. If he's wise, he still asks for hints in an unusual situation where experience is required (pax treatment, system knowledge, weather avoidance aso). Other than that, he just does what he learned in the simulator: Fly the aircraft from pushing back to stopping the engines.

The big advantages for CMDs with FOs 'running the show' is that he can really concentrate on the tasks he is superiour to his mate: Overview, safety backup, long term planning, situational awareness, correcting if necessary.

Dani

[PantLoad]

As per Airbus SOP, the captain is always CM1 on the ground.

Individual company SOPs may vary...and, of course, take priority.

At my company, the captain is always CM1 anytime the aircraft is on the ground....same as Airbus SOP.

So, with the PF being CM1 when the aircraft is on the ground, how do you handle RTOs and Emergency Evacs? Does the F/O (when he/she is PF) handle the thrust levers during takeoff? Does the F/O when he/she is CM1 (PF) act accordingly during the exection of the Emergency Evac checklist?

Where I work, the first officers are VERY experienced. However, the captain is always CM1 when the aircraft is on the ground. This is no reflection on anyone's abilities...just clearly delineated areas of responsibilities...no changes in that depending whose leg it is...except for inflight during 'normal' operations.

Again, no reflection on abilities, etc.

PantLoad

[BuzzBox]

So, with the PF being CM1 when the aircraft is on the ground, how do you handle RTOs and Emergency Evacs? Does the F/O (when he/she is PF) handle the thrust levers during takeoff? Does the F/O when he/she is CM1 (PF) act accordingly during the exection of the Emergency Evac checklist?


1. Does the F/O (when he/she is PF) handle the thrust levers during takeoff?

No. At my company the Capt handles the thrust levers, and the Capt makes the 'STOP' decision.

2. Does the F/O when he/she is CM1 (PF) act accordingly during the exection of the Emergency Evac checklist?

No. The duties in our Passenger Evacuation checklist are clearly defined as Capt or FO. The Capt orders the evacuation, assuming he is able.

Other companies may use different procedures.

[BOAC]

1. Does the F/O (when he/she is PF) handle the thrust levers during takeoff?

No. The Capt handles the thrust levers, and the Capt makes the 'STOP' decision.
- not so. Depends on airline SOPs. It will be written down in the Ops Manual. I'm reasonably certain, however, that 2) is correct.

[BuzzBox]

- not so. Depends on airline SOPs.

Cripes, flamed already! I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the procedures in use at my company. Previous post edited to reflect the same.

[TheKabaka]

In my company the FO runs the show when it is thier PF sector, this includes calling for cx lists/eng stat/push, taxing, handling thrust levers (making stop decision if required) etc.

This works well and really engenders a good flight deck environment (CRM).

Clearly N. American airlines are MILES behind in terms of modern and enlightend SOP. As to only letting the (experienced) FO handle the aircraft in flight and normal ops- dreadful. When there is an emergency is an excellent time to hand the aircraft to the FO, (s)he will no doubt handle as well as the Capt and this frees up the Capts capacity to deal with and manage the emergency.

Just because the current captains had to go through their time as Flaps Operators does not mean it is the best system or that everybody else should go through it!

[Dream Land]

Cripes, flamed already! I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the procedures in use at my company. Previous post edited to reflect the same. Same procedures as UAL, NWA, let's not bring BA into this. :}

[sleeper]

Dani

"Your confusion about checklists on ground may come from the fact that in older SOPs, only the CMD started engines, taxied and took off. This is no longer the case."

Funny this,
After 20 years of PF doing everything (F/O doing starts , rejected take offs, you name it), we just changed back to the Boeing way of doing things. This is: Captain starts engines , calls for on block checklists, rejects take off etc.
This is met with considerable resistance in one particular division, and silent acceptance in others.

It all boils down to Company SOP's, and they may be considerably different from factory SOP's. They all work, just go with the flow.

[411A]

I shouldn't be too concerned, jimmyg....

First Officers (brand new or well experienced) generally do as they are told when the chips are down, and if for some strange reason they do not, it really is quite simple to keep them headed in the right direction...just make sure that you, as the Commander, keep them PNF for as long as it takes for them to get the message.

Works every time.:}

Of course, they might go to the fleet manager an complain, but it has been my experience (as I'm sure it is with your good self) that these complaints generally fall on deaf ears.

[Slasher]

Does the F/O when he/she is CM1 (PF)....
Does the CM1 when he/she is PNF...

What a load of rubbish! Id have to write
out a bloodey memo in the cockpit to remind meself who
the hell is who doin what!

Anyway I done Tooloose recentley so dont say I dont know
nuthin.Apart from re-inventing the aviation wheel a la
Frog, Airbooz dont distinguish a 200hr CM2 (thats FO in
normal aviation talk) from a 2000 hr one. So a 200 hr kid
can dictate to a 10000 hour captain and dob him in for
"lack of CRM" if the captain cant be bothered teaching him
the basic airmanship and pilotage techniques he shud
allready bloodey know to stay alive. The 23yo stuckup Frog
I had as sim-partner proved that.

And heaven help any skipper if he takes the stick away
from the FO (sorry, le CM2) if his judgement deems it
necesary to stay in one piece - Le horreurs! Le captain
infant terrible! (or somethin like it). I thought I was gunna
be taken out to a tumbril and guillo'd after a sesh where
Le Ace was about to prang the sim.

Im starting to think this damn A320 endorsment was a
huge mistake. :ugh:

Anyway PF means "Driver operating the FMCG", and PNF is
the bloke doing the paperwork. Simple as that realy.

PS what got up Airbooz's nose is my refusal to call myself
a "CM1 PF" - Im a CAPTAIN whose PILOTING, mon-sewer!

[dustyprops]

411A, I am sure you must be having a laugh with everybody here, because i cannot believe that someone would have the affront to make comments on a website that is full of T.C.'s, Capt's, and F/O's of all different levels of experience, like you do.

I look at what you write and quite frankly feel desperately sorry for you, because people like you are generally looked upon as a giant pain who it is really not worth saying anything to, or even flying a sector with, and certainly not being with "when the chips are down". I am glad i never came accross anyone like you when i was new, because the Capts i flew with were big promoters of giving you the show right from day 1, be it checklists (S.O.P.'s anyway), ops, cabin crew whatever, and where more than happy to help out when you needed it or asked for it, and this was on a B757. Stood us all in good stead for the future.

In fact i look at the way you write your threads and your thinking is so backwards that i would be surprised if you fly at all! If that is the case, well then i hold my hands up, because you got me big time!!

jimmyg, you seem like a level headed decent fella, enjoy the change, i bet you'll find it a breath of fresh air.:ok:

[dustyprops]

Slasher, you're drunk mate. Sleep it off and come back tomorrow.

[TACHO]

Our company sops are pretty much set in concrete. there are checks that only the captain does, and checks that only the F/O does. however in supplement to that there are certain actions that are variable depending on who is PF/PNF. Nothing to do with authority, experience or hours.
Capt always orders evactuation and request evac cx from the F/O. That way there is never going to be any confusion, the roles are set. With regards to thrust levers PF puts power on, then removes his hand so the captain can carry out an abort if neccesary, however either PF or PNF may call stop. think it would be a brave man to continue with the takeoff if stop was called. (hard hat on) mind you some of the old boys (dinosaurs) will proably disagree with that:}.


just make sure that you, as the Commander, keep them PNF for as long as it takes for them to get the message.

Works every time.

Hehe:). You should run a CRM course... no really you should. it would be funny. By making sure the Pnf does 'whatever you tell him' when the 'chips are down' you are removing a useful tool that could possibly alleviate a great deal of your workload. might has well have a voice commanded autopilot.

regards all.

Tacho

[fullyspooled]

Dustyprops, I agree completely!

411A, your comments suggest that you come from an era where "ego" ran the show. If indeed you are still flying I would suggest you trim yours back a wee bit - those days have well and truly passed dude!

[jimmyg]

Thanks all, good stuff;

Upon initial review of our FCOM what I found strange was the use of the term CM1 and CM2. I have always been under the impression that their can only be one CM, :confused: I am sure it is just semantics.

I am far from being a control freak and all for even distribution of our work load. I have always been comfortable allowing my right half to take on as much responsiblitity as is practical and to promote active communication and teamwork.

With that said it is my firm belief that there can only be one Captain.


Without a proper order you can only have kaous.

[411A]

No trimming needed, fullyspooled...you would be surprised at the number of smaller companies whose managements share my views completely.
And as for my First Officers now, they are so experienced that I could go for a snooze, and everything is done to perfection.
After all, we have a professional Flight Engineer to do the heavy lifting...superb arrangement....never leave base without one.:):}

[Dream Land]

As per Airbus SOP, the captain is always CM1 on the ground. As with my company, if CM2 is the PF, he will take over on the runway. PF sets the power, Captain guards thrust levers for take off.

[latetonite]

Ok, who is doing what, and when, that is company SOP`s. The question "Who is in command" clearly indicates that it is not you for a while...:{

[Dani]

Originally posted by PantLoad:
As per Airbus SOP, the captain is always CM1 on the ground.

That is one true statement. AI defines CM1 as captain. So you are correct. But that doesn't mean that CM1 is always PF, irrespective of being on ground or in the air.

As far as I know, AI never defines who is PF on the ground. I just went through my electronic copy of the FCOM, and I couldn't find one hint about that. AI just doesn't define who should be PF, which is very wise, so every operator can define it itself. As far as I remember, in Toulouse the PF does everything. But then, we were two captains together...

Let me put the facts straight (please correct if I'm wrong): according Airbus training the PF remains the PF for the whole flight, and it can be the FO. It doesn't work the other way, because if a CM1=Capt would want to change that, he would have to rewrite the whole FCOM. AI SOPs don't work any other way.

Special cases: 180° on narrow runway (because of eye position, FCOM: "CM1" and "CM2", depends on direction of turn.
Rejected TO (FCOM: "Captain" and "FO"): Captain decides.
Evacuation: No role given, so any CM can do it. FCOM: "Cockpit crew".

Dani

[flyingins]

I'm 100% behind 411A in all aspects of this argument.

Some of you may claim that having SOPs geared around the Captain is "old school" and bizarrely, one of you (Dani - what are you thinking?) even claims that the FO really "runs the show". With all due respect to those particular opinions, not so.

The Pilot-in-Command MUST retain legal authority for ALL aspects of the continued operation of the flight AT ALL TIMES. The First Officer is second-in-command. His or her authority is delegated by the PIC.

I have spent more than enough time as an FO to understand completely that flying with anachronistic Captains can be a fairly painful experience, but at the end of the day, unless that particular commander is asking you to break a rule or operate against the SOPs, it is an inherent requirement of the duties of an FO to comply FULLY with the orders of his or her Captain. Any reluctance to follow this theory can easily be construed as insubordination.

That is not to say that the FO cannot raise his or her concerns in a constructive manner - indeed the majority of reputable airlines have procedures for such interjections enshrined in their SOPs. Equally, Captains are required by the same SOPs to listen attentively to any such concerns and afford them the appropriate attention. Having said that, in the absence of any valid reason for such concern, the Captain is fully empowered to continue upon his or her course of action without further explanation.

That is why there is a Captain. They are there for a reason! By the same token, that is why those of you who most vociferously maintain that they should be "running the show", are not in a position to do so!

P.S - The Airbus FCOM is deceptively simple. PF and PNF are independent of CM1 (Captain) and CM2 (First Officer), except only the Captain will command an RTO or Evacuation, and park at an aerobridge using NIGS. Regardless of PF/PNF duties for the sector, however, the Captain always retains command. Just like any other aeroplane!

P.P.S - Fullyspooled - the era where a Captain retains full command of the flight will NEVER pass. The simple fact that you refer to 411A as "Dude" should indicate to those with any experience in command that you certainly are not ready for yours. Show some more respect.

P.P.P.S - One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given as an FO (still applies as a Captain, but more relevant to the junior ranks); "You were given two ears and one mouth. Use them in that proportion."

[Dani]

flyingins, you miss the point. It was about who orders checklists, gives orders, starts actions. That's a PF thing. Because if he's not initiating, he's not flying. PF means "pilot flying", not "pilot might fly a little bit if the captain agrees".

btw I'm discussing here as a captain myself. And I'm living up to the standards given by my manufactor and my operator.

Noone here ever doubts the legal and moral responsability of the role of the captain. 411A et al. are putting in question if a new trained FO should do the whole thing, i.e. run the ops from push back to chocks under. After that he was given the answer: AI ops do not work otherwise, because you learn from ground school day one, PF does everything, PNF monitores, assists, operates the gadgets, checks, talks. Newest SOPs call the PNF now PM (pilot monitoring), giving the most important task a name.

Dani

[Cardinal]

What a load of rediculus-sounding cr@p! Id have to write
out a bloodey memo in the cockpit to remind meself who
the hell is who doin what!

.....

And heaven help any skipper if he takes the stick away
from the FO (sorry, le CM2) if his judgement deems it
necesary to stay in one piece - Le horreurs! Le captain
infant terrible! (or somethin like it). I thought I was gunna
be taken out to a tumbril and guillo'd after a sesh where
Le Ace was about to prang the sim.

......

PS what got up Airbooz's nose is my refusal to call myself
a "CM1 PF" - Im a CAPTAIN whose PILOTING, mon-sewer!

Best Tech-Log post Ever!

[porch monkey]

Slash my man, You have no idea how happy I am to see you are back to somewhere near your best. Bit sorry to see you've traded the boeing in tho.......:uhoh:

P.S. Still waiting for that A.K......

[Tee Emm]

For example is it not up to the captain when it is safe and proper to push and call for engine start and taxi. I am of the school that the command pilot sets the tone and pace of action in the pit, or is it my unfamilality with this procedure reading and to much into it

I agree with your sentiments absolutely. The current situation is that the flight deck is now run by a committee. The margins between captain and first officer actions, decisions and "duties" have become blurred to the point of being indistinctive.

Others will dsagree of course and I have no problem with that. The command authority of the captain is set in legal stone but Boeing and Airbus operational checklist and decision making policy forces the captain to become merely a target for the legal eagles in event of an unfortunate event and someone gets hurt.

The long held view that challenge and response checklists involves two people has been tossed overboard - because now the first officer challenges himself and answers his own challenge while the captain plays the part of an interested spectator - but wears the blame ultimately.

No further correspondence will be entered into on this subject by this contributor!!

[Ignition Override]

411A, Dani, Dustyprops:

I might not agree with 411A's "style" or views sometimes, but I agree, for the most part, with his first remarks on the previous page, and many of your comments, based upon various backgrounds and company styles. The context can be different than what we appear to read, or too subtle.
The discussion of what it means to give the FO "command of the aircraft on the ground" is puzzling to me.

On most aircraft, the Captain asks for the Preflight, Before Start checklists etc. But he/she should sometimes ask whether the FO/FE is (are) ready. We asks for slats extend/flaps 15 (or 5), allow the FO request taxi clearance, checks for free rudder movements, sets V1, Vr, V2, Vf and Vzf speed bugs, compare the stab trim to the setting etc.

But the FO sets (Does) most things while the captain taxis out and in. Sure, I tell an FO that he/she sets the pace on the ground, so that they are not rushed to read any checklist etc. Avoiding a cold, aloof style seems to encourage them to speak up if a Captain misunderstands something etc.
Depending upon your Flt Ops cultures, and policies etc, it is likely that you all made correct comments as to how FOs must work on the ground (or in the air, based upon your own operations and comfort levels, present or past).
Sometimes those Captains with the lower comfort levels are less forgiving of the FO's flying skills.

To "have command" (as they like to call it over there... from the Royal Navy sailship days, or to state what is already totally obvious?) does not mean that we must treat people like young kids in the right seat. Here the FOs are now usually about 38-50 years old on these narrow-bodies. Even when they were new here, it was never necessary to give constant commands for pilots who understand how to do the flows etc, understand and comply with what ATC wants and can also safely fly the plane. If a pack is left off or the APU stays on during climbout-so what...We simply switch it on or off.

The puzzle for me on this thread is to understand whether something is lost in translation (from another language and foreign culture?), or whether an airline simply allows an experienced pilot (less than 1500 hours?) to pretend and practice being Captain on the ground. But that is their Business.
To an extent, that might be ok-but only to a limit. The Captain might Not want to do any checklist crossing a runway, unless the runway is closed for weeks due to resurfacing etc.
Sometimes I find it necessary to ask FOs to glance out the window to verify that the runway is clear. I don't trust the radios and ATC due to many blocked radio calls-even in perfect weather.

Years ago we were cleared onto a runway in perfect weather at IAH and the Captain went a few feet then suddenly stopped. A CAL 727 was on final at about 1,000'. Tower caught their mistake and blurted out "#^@ 292 hold your position!" :eek:
For potential close calls or much worse, read the topic about Providence, R.I.(PVD) years ago in low visibility.:ouch::ouch:
It is the Captain's job to clear up confusion and keep it a safe operation. Stop, cancel a takeoff clearance, divert etc. Somethings can be openly discussed between pilots as we enter holding or can not reset a system but sometimes there is simply no time...

[SIDSTAR]

The Airbus recommended SOPs (and that's all they are - recommendations on how the aircraft might be operated according to the manufacturer) suggest that the roles can be almost fully exchanged for any given flight. That's one reason why there's a nosewheel steering tiller on the FO's side. These suggested SOPs recommend that the PF carries out almost all the actions when he is PF, on the ground and in the air. The notable exception is the issue of Thrust Lever handling during the takeoff run where the FO sets the thrust and then the Captain takes over handling the levers. The reason for this is that, as the Captain is the one who will decide to reject the takeoff it is faster to execute if he has his hands on the levers. However, some companies allow the FO to call the stop/reject, notably BA for example. To my knowledge they do not differentiate between a 200 hr FO and a 5000 hr one in this regard. Their system obviously works well for them as I haven't heard that they have any more problems in this regard than any other operator.

The manufacturer's recommended SOPs can be changed/modified as required by the operator (in many cases the local Aviation Authority may insist on approving the SOPs for each company and in any case they are tacitly approved by the local authority in their overall approval of the operator's policies and procedures.

SOPs in any company generally reflect the experience and preferences of the Flight Ops management. If you find a particularly unusual procedure in a company, it often goes back to some important episode in either the company's or chief pilot's previous experience!

However, some issues never change. The Captain is always the legal Commander of the aircraft and the FO is second-in-command. How much of the Capt's authority a company will allow to be delegated to the FO is a function of the company culture/beliefs and will vary quite a lot. In my last three outfits the FO was allowed to everything on the ground that was possible for him to do (our Boeings did not have n/w steering on the RHS so Capt taxied the a/c).

Decision-making at a critical time such as approaching V1 is always an emotive point but as long as both pilots, properly trained, know and clearly understand the company procedures, it should work whether the Capt or FO is handling the levers and whether or not both can call "STOP" or "REJECT" or whatever word your company uses.

We are spending vast amounts of money on very good CRM courses over the past 20 yrs of so. This has come about because it has been fairly universally acknowledged that the human element is now probably more likely to fail than the machine. It doesn't seem logical to me that we should train our FOs to be future Captains by only allowing them to 'speak when spoken to' as is implied by some of the posts here. Of course there are young pilots, full of the joys and confidence of youth who will sometimes think that they are the Captain. If they cross the line between being PF and being Captain then any Captain worth his salt will have a few strategies to sort that out. If he hasn't he shouldn't be in the LHS.

My personal view is that we should give FOs as much authority as possible to make decisions subject to the over-riding authority of the Captain. I believe it is better for the Capt to handle the thrust levers on takeoff for the reject case, if he is the only one who can make the reject decision. However, there are companies where that authority is also delegated (BA) and the FO handles the levers and can reject on his own decision. Either system works, as long as crews are well trained for the particular procedure.

CRM has evolved from cockpit resource management to CREW resource management which is a good thing as it broadens the whole concept. If I have a serious problem in flight, does it not make more sense for me to delegate the handling of the aircraft to the FO (using the automatics to the maximum extent possible) so that I can concentrate on MANAGING the operation as well as possible rather than trying to do both? This in no way removes my authority for the safe conduct of the flight but actually enhances the chances of a successful outcome, in my opinion by using the available resources to the maximum extent.

At the end of the day, we have no option but to follow company SOPs. These have been thought out in the cold light of day usually by a number of senior pilots who should know what they want for their particular culture. Any half-civilised outfit will listen carefully to a well-reasoned argument from any pilot who thinks changes should be made but ultimately may decide not to change the SOP. Some of the views expressed here re non-delegation of duties appear to belong to a bygone age but I have no doubt are sincerely held. However, such views are very much in the minority nowadays which I believe to be a good thing. The mountains of the world are littered with the wrecks of aircraft flown by "one-man-bands". There must be a better way to carry out our business.

[airbus757]

There is a difference between running the show and command. The captain and f/o take turns as PF and PNF and their duties are clearly defined in the sop (or they should be). It all works quite well. Do not confuse that with Command. The Captain is the Captain and he is always in command. The F/O may operate the controls of the plane with the permission of the Captain and always under his supervision. Now I know that seems a bit harsh, but in the end that is what it all comes down to.

As for 411A, it appears as though he is one of the older guys. That means he is either very lucky or he may actually know what he is doing. Most of the time he is right, it is just that he doesn't suger-coat things for the more sensitive.

7

[asuweb]

Just reading these posts with amusement. There appears to be a astronomical divide between practices either side of the pond. My conclusion is, CRM hasn't reached the western side of it.

In the airline I work for, the PF (irrespective of which seat he/she occupies) calls all of the shots relating to the sector. The PF sets the power on the runway (and releases the thrust leavers to the captain if PF is the FO). Both of us can call stop.

If PF wants a checklist he/she asks PM for it. If PF wants flaps, again PM selects them.

Nobody is removing the fact that the Captain has overall authority, however flap operators are a thing of the past.

[airbus757]

asuweb

Just reading these posts with amusement. There appears to be a astronomical divide between practices either side of the pond. My conclusion is, CRM hasn't reached the western side of it.



That is quite a statement.:= Do me a favor, look up where the concept was invented and which airline it was. You do know one of the principles of CRM is to stay problem oriented and gather information before coming to conclusions.

7

[asuweb]

757, fair point. Perhaps a rash conclusion.

[Wrongstuff]

jimmyg, It's been done before but this should help:)

There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. The titles P1, P2 and
Co-Pilot will now cease to have any meaning, within the BA operations
manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot, Non-handling Pilot,
Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot, Handling Non-Landing
Pilot, and Non Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off
and landing except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling Pilot for taxi
until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Landing Pilot at eighty knots.

The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) Pilot
reads the checklist to the Handling Pilot until after Before Descent
Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to
the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude"
call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go-around", in which
case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, continues Handling and the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of
"land" or "go-around", as appropriate.

In view of the recent confusion over these rules, it was deemed necessary
to restate them clearly.

[airbus757]

Simply stating the simple. :D

7

[asuweb]

And that is supposed to make it clearer. I think I prefer my companies SOP's where the PF is the PF and the PM is the PM

[haveago]

load of nonsense being written here!!! FOs are more than capable of calling for checks and running the show...No one is disputing who has overall command. Some of you need to get of your high horse!!

[Ketek400]

I have to agree with haveago!!!!!!

[#1AHRS]

The pilot in command is just that, the pilot in command. It is a requirement of the law. As to the duties in the cockpit (Handling or Monitoring), these will be largely depicted by the type (I.E taxiing a boeing) and also the company SOP's.
Simple really.
To think that there are still those that believe that the command difference is all about calling for the checklists and that somehow it's important. Sheesh, this is the 21st century you know..!

[ACMS]

I also don't believe the rubbish written in here.
There is and can be only 1 Captain with responsibility for the aircraft.
I sign for the damn plane, not the FO.
That being said when It's the Fo's sector he can make all the decisions, It's just that I have the over riding final say if I'm not happy.
Not complicated really.

[Slasher]

There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. The titles P1, P2 and
Co-Pilot will now cease to have any meaning, within the BA operations
manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot, Non-handling Pilot,
Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot, Handling Non-Landing
Pilot, and Non Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off
and landing except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling Pilot for taxi
until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Landing Pilot at eighty knots.

The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) Pilot
reads the checklist to the Handling Pilot until after Before Descent
Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to
the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude"
call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go-around", in which
case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, continues Handling and the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of
"land" or "go-around", as appropriate.

Briliant Wrongstuff! :D

Im sure it must also be writ in Frog somewhere.

[parabellum]

"FOs are more than capable of calling for checks and running the show..."

I think that should be prefaced by 'some' or 'most', sadly not all.

[411A]

"FOs are more than capable of calling for checks and running the show..."

I think that should be prefaced by 'some' or 'most', sadly not all.

Ain't that the truth...:}

[stator vane]

exactly what did he say that was wrong?

though his statements might not be in terms appeasing to those of today's PC extremists.

indeed, i think it's actually a difference in terminology.

"run the show"---it had better be the captain, unless he/she is incapacitated-partilally or otherwise--because it is his/her head that is in the noose when the caca hits the fan. from the beginning to the end. the decision even to go to the aircraft, to the final fuel figure and choice of alternates--etc.

starting engines, calling for flaps and calling for checklists-- etc is not "running the show"

from the beginning to the end of the flight---all final decisions must sit squarely on the shoulders of the captain--full stop.

and i honestly don't know the man and will not receive any recompense for this, but in the real world of aviation i have flown in over the years--there MUST be one person that will take the full responsibility of the events of the aircraft.

it's us dinosaurs and the at-times-necessary attitude of being the final aurthority-- that has kept aviation going for these past few years---

yes, the game is changing in many ways, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water--there is a truth within the old terminology he is using.

[WaterMeths]

In a nutshell ...... when I enter my flights as PF in my log-book, I enter the flight as P1/S. The "S" really sums it all up doesn't it. The captain is effectively supervising, and why shouldn't he, after all it IS his aeroplane. Thank god it is 2007 and the cross-cockpit gradient is flatter on an average day...thats fine for us up and coming commanders to be. I think as long as there is mutual respect on the flight deck then we are all happy bunnies are we not?

[haveago]

I have flown with Captains that i would not have my family fly on their aircraft....I agree not all Fos are up to the task but equally nor are all Captains....Some are past their sell by date and have not got a clue about new technology!!
In the company I work for now there are many FOs that have previously been Captains and they can do a damn site better than some of the Captains I fly with....

[TyroPicard]

jimmyg
Just in case it helps..
In Airbus speak CM = Crew Member, so CM1 = person in left seat and CM2 = person in right seat.
PF can be CM1 or CM2
Indeed Captain can be CM1 or CM2

Good luck with the course!
Tyro