Challenging First Officers! [Archive]

Bealzebub

20th Apr 2008, 00:21

when I suggest that it's time to slow up and/or select another mode (Level Change vice V/S) and/or take speedbrake etc the reply I get is "I am flying the aircraft!"

Then the answer is simple, you state "I have control" and the Commander then becomes the pilot flying. As a Captain you will have a comfort zone, outside of which you need to be doing something positive and corrective. With increased experience, that comfort zone will change and adapt. It is also important to realize that the First Officer will also have a comfort zone, and in many cases will need some latitude from you that allows them flexibility to learn and acquire experience. Obviously it as the edges of these two zones that the situation requires a high level of discrimination and increased vigilance.

Nevertheless as the commander you are "in charge" and the final decision rests with you. That is why they promoted you and why they pay you more. If you are at any time unhappy, it is your responsibility to ensure the situation is resolved. Most F/O's are very receptive to advice as it is part of the learning process that assists them in becoming good Captains. It has to be said that on occaisions, the "advice" may not qualify as a golden nugget, but a good F/O can make that distinction for themselves. Similarly advice that is proffered late, or that simply overloads the other pilot when they may already be reaching saturation point, may fail to have the desired or indeed any effect.

In summary my advice is don't be afraid to take control, and don't be afraid to break off an approach if things start getting too rushed or late. I know it is obvious advice, but there are few of us who are not guilty of failing to always do this when we should.

ssg

20th Apr 2008, 03:35

Not being a CRM guy, I find these threads interesting...always comes down to the same old queston...'who's flying the plane?'

justlooking_tks

20th Apr 2008, 07:10

SpaceBetweenThoughts

Yes there are F/O's who are certainly a challenge!

What concerns me also is the fact the F/O in question has passed "through the hoops" at the selection stage. How do these people get through? Should this F/O have been weeded out previously? Maybe it is CRM that is out of control in some cases.

As to previous comments on this thread, letting it get as late as a missed approach, before sorting the handling pilot out. It is tempting of course to let them "get on with it" but the question will be asked as to why the missed approach accured? Why did you, the PIC allow events to develop to the extent when a missed approach was required? Of course a missed approach should never be discouraged should the need arise for a safe operation. However some "chiefs and managers" would not be easily convinced, a MA was necaessary in this senerio.

The handling pilot, in his/her breif should encourage input or critisim from the NHP or PNF, as none of us are perfect. We all screw up, once in a while and it is nothing to be ashamed of. Invite constructive input.

wap101

20th Apr 2008, 08:01

If one looks at a behaviour marker system such as NOTECHS ( as recommended within JAA Regulations) this can give some guidance to measuring this scenario.

Assessment of Non Technical skills are always to be associated with a technical incident/consequence and are mandated for crew and individual crew members in JAR/EASA regulations. This scenario is therefore suitable for assessment.

The first question to ask under assessment is " Was this flight actually or potentially unsafe in operation or intention" If yes then assessment almost always indicates a failure in behaviour somewhere that was associated with the technical consequence.

Look at CAP 737 ( available from UK CAA website free) and one can see examples of good and bad behaviour under Leadership and Managerial Control, Decisionmaking, Cooperation and Situation Awareness.

Diagnosis of these markers including communication will give an idea of where this scenario is acceptable and where not acceptable.

The debriefing and remedies are best contained within this NOTECHS or chosen BM vocabulary so that the meaning of the remedies are understood in a uniform way by both crew members.

Can't fill up the page as this requires a five day course but hope this directs thinking towards why this was unacceptable/acceptable and where it was remedied and how it might be remedied in the future.

WAP

Octane

20th Apr 2008, 08:44

Someone has to seriously address this issue otherwise the person involved will end in the left seat influencing others with a suspect attitude to aviation...

Octane

Norrington

20th Apr 2008, 09:11

To let him do the mistake or removing him from the control is not an option. This will only exaggerate the situation.

I think you should talk to your FO on the ground, first explain to him that this is not a criticism on his flying, but inform him that you are a team, and that you as captain don’t feel comfortable or safe with this behavior. If he does not realize the problem, you have to take this higher, talk to the chief pilot.

parabellum

20th Apr 2008, 10:21

Norrington and others. If you allow your FO to fly an unstable approach, exceed the limitations of the aircraft, make a dirty dart at the ground and then get away with it he will regard it as satisfactory, as far as he is concerned, probably quite pleased with himself, certainly, I would say, the "I'm flying the aeroplane" character.
If, on the other hand, you let him demonstrate that he has made a total cock-up, (exercised poor judgement), requiring a GA after you have tried to advise him where he is going wrong then he is unlikely to forget it. A GA may be expensive but it is much cheaper than an accident, I can remember each and every go-around I made in my entire career, (five and not all my fault!;)).

Tigs2

20th Apr 2008, 11:32

At the end of the day it is really simple, as the Captain, you are, under international law, responsible for the safe conduct of the Flight. In this case I would have taken control, and when on the ground, made sure the FO knew why.

You tried all the CRM techniques, by suggesting and advising, but all said and done if it all goes wrong you as the Captain will be at fault, with the FO saying, 'well if he didn't like it he should have taken control, it's not my fault'. CRM does not mean we can teach FO's how to walk all over Captains and get away with it.

fernytickles

20th Apr 2008, 15:14

I agree with the poster who said talk to the FO on the ground. Away from the aeroplane and the relatively stressful environment. Its very hard to see yourself as others see you, especially when in a situation. Often its easier to understand the situation when you look back at it.

Try talking with other captains and see if they have experienced similar problems, so you are sure its not just a personality clash on top of inexperienced handling. If they have seen similar traits, then consider the option of a couple of you talking to that person together, that way making it clear it isn't a personality issue.

Tempting tho' it is, I definitely would not leave it until you have to take control, or the FO has to commence a go around. The trusting travellers down the back have put their faith in you to operate a safe and efficient flight, not a training flight for a curmudgeonly, or under-confident FO.

Good luck. It would be interesting to hear how you get on.

Farmer 1

20th Apr 2008, 15:20

always comes down to the same old queston...'who's flying the plane?'

More like, "Who signed for the plane?" I would suggest.

LH2

20th Apr 2008, 15:25

we get to circa 15 miles out when it is clear we need to start slowing up to achieve a stable approach

Reminds me of an anecdote when I was doing my IR.

Getting close to destination (on the sim) my instructor says "might be an idea to slow down".

"Nah, be alright" says I.

Nope, it wasn't. At all. :O Taught me a lesson.

Bealzebub

20th Apr 2008, 18:19

To let him do the mistake or removing him from the control is not an option. This will only exaggerate the situation.

Actually they are options, which is why they were suggested. The First officer is only in control under the Captains supervision. You need to remember that in the air moving at anywhere between 130 and 300 knots you need to carefully plan ahead and when the plan changes for whatever reason it is incumbent on the aircraft commander to take the necessary action to rectify the situation. In some cases this may well involve abandoning the approach and starting again. Your suggestion that "this is not an option" belies a lack of experience in this regard.

I think you should talk to your FO on the ground, first explain to him that this is not a criticism on his flying, but inform him that you are a team, and that you as captain don’t feel comfortable or safe with this behavior. If he does not realize the problem, you have to take this higher, talk to the chief pilot. Yes indeed, but that is as you say on the ground. The posters problem was concerning what was happening in the air. It is relevant that much more timely and positive action is likely to be required. It is quite unusual to find F/O's who are not receptive to corrective suggestions and input, as I am sure the author of this thread would readily acknowledge. However the problem related with what to do with an individual who was less receptive. In this case the Captain must decide on a course of action that they deem appropriate.

cjam

21st Apr 2008, 00:01

I have had a similar situation and found it quite tricky to deal with. I had only had my command for a few months and it was my first ever real CRM issue. It wasn't as black and white as this situation. It was as if there was zero authority gradient in the cockpit (he was senior f/o and me junior captain). I talked to a senior captain about it and in the end had a chat to him on the ground, basically I said that if i suggested something while operating the a/c he needed to do it unless it compromised safety rather than think about it for ten seconds and decide if he thought it was the best course of action. He was very good about it, we flew together a few times after that and had a good working relationship. I'm still not sure why it happened like it did but it was good to get it sorted, it feels wrong when the authority gradient is dead flat. I think my relaxed approach to authority when we first started flying together had something to do with it, I was aware that he was senior and treated him as such but it seems he took advantage of that a bit, he may have had a heightened awareness that I was a junior captain and felt an added responsibility because of that. Regardless, it worked out well in the end and thankfully it is still my only CRM issue of any consequence.
Personally I would be hesitant to let your situation slide without at least saying to him on the ground " did you think there was any fat built into that approach for an unexpected wind etc?" I'm also unsure I would let it slide in the air either but it is difficult to tell in a forum like this how hot you really were and just how uncomfortable you felt.
Anyway, tricky these ones. Ya can't always be Mr nice guy.

ABX

21st Apr 2008, 00:48

Hi cjam,

I didn't think we had SFOs here in Oz?

I am under the impression that the Capt. is senior to the FO under all circumstances - except those that disqualify the Capt. from exercising command, such as incapacitation.

I hope I have not misunderstood you mate.

ABX:ok:

Dream Land

21st Apr 2008, 05:19

I come from a small company and I know most FO's by first name, I would certainly make a mention like "you're getting a bit high on the profile bla bla", not much more, if the FO does blow it, no big deal, when on the ground talk about the 3 to 1 rule and try not to make him or her feel bad about it, part of the learning curve.

kingoftheslipstream

21st Apr 2008, 17:08

We have a little mnemonic we use 'round here thet works pertty good:

ASI ( I remember it as tha 'breviation fer AirSpeedIndicator)

Ask - a leadin' type question, in the non personal manner of includin' yerself: "Are we gettin' a little high on our profile?"

Suggest - "It might be a good idea if we began to slow down - we're only 15 miles from landin' an' we're still doing 250"

Insist - Pure 'n simple: Do this: or Do that: whatever's appropriate, or if necessary: "I have control". :ok:

Always remember, yer the guy/gal that signs fer the wreckage!

Happy Contrails!
k-o-t-s

weido_salt

21st Apr 2008, 17:52

Hang on just one minute please! Let us give the F/O a break.

Let us be open minded on this and consider if the Captain was right at getting agitated at 15 miles out. Maybe the captain did not give us all the facts therefore the whole story. We haven't been told what type of aircraft was involved. Maybe the aircraft in question was a CESSNA 150 for example.:}

Only trying to stick up for F/O's, who think they should be Captains!:rolleyes:

SNS3Guppy

21st Apr 2008, 18:06

Not being a CRM guy, I find these threads interesting...always comes down to the same old queston...'who's flying the plane?'

If that's the question, it's the wrong one. The question might better be phrased as "Who's responsible for the same outcome of the flight."

If I understand the scenario correctly, the F/O is the one flying the airplane; it's "his" leg. He seems to feel that he's going to do it his way, and even appears to be attempting to assume that he has the ultimate responsibility for the airplane. Who is flying has nothing to do with who is pilot in command of the flight, and the F/O is NOT pilot in command.

I like the Ask-Suggest-Insist method described above. It's very much the way I prefer to conduct business in the cockpit. However, when confronted with a F/O who states "It's my leg, I'll do it my way," my response is inevitably going to be "It's not your leg any more. You may resume non-flying pilot duties and we'll talk about it on the ground."

On the ground we can carry on a rational discussion to explore his reasoning or purpose. If his attitude continues, then he can be referred to the Chief Pilot or Professional Standards.

A PIC should always be fully open to the suggestions, questions, or comments of the crew, but it's got to go both ways. A crewmember who stipulates that it's his airplane and he's doing it his way regardless of another's input (particularly that of a more experienced member...such as the Captain), has become a serious detriment to safety. Time for either an attitude change or a change of employment.

Bealzebub

21st Apr 2008, 18:18

Weirdo,

There is not really any need to "stick up" for F/Os as nobody here is attacking them either individually or collectively. The type of situation that the thread author was referring to, is one that does come up from time to time for everybody. Without going too deeply into the specifics, it was a very valid question and particularly so in a CRM context.

This type of authority gradient problem is found in many other walks of life and probably with far greater frequency. The concern here is that it is impinging on a Captains perception of safety, in a time critical scenario. The problem may well have greater relevance to the Captain (in this particular case) than it does to the First officer.

Tigs2

21st Apr 2008, 18:49

Weido Salt
The FO does not deserve a break in this case. He is WRONG. I think after the replies on this thread the Captain will realise that with hindsight (of which I have a PhD:) ) then perhaps he would not have been so lenient with the FO.
SNS3Guppy has said it all, "you now resume non-flying duties, we will talk about it on the ground'. Simple. Whether it is 4 down the back or 300 down the back, they do not need a FO with an ego to take them to the scene of the crash.

8846

21st Apr 2008, 21:42

There are a lot of good points here but...

I can't imagine any team member in any semi-professional occupation even considering displaying an attitude like that!

We weren't there to hear the inflection and subtleties of the interchange but for goodness sake..!

Perhaps I'm just getting old...:ugh:

cavortingcheetah

22nd Apr 2008, 05:07

:hmm:

Especially liked the analogy of comfort zones and the mnemomic ASI, Ask, Suggest, Insist. Wish I had thought of that in the past.
As a hypothetical scenario, there could arise a series of instances where an FO goes into a sort of Walter Mitty routine every time it is his leg. He becomes the Captain in his own mind and expects to be left to make all the decisions himself, almost up to and in some cases including, the fuel loads. This situation of the imagination would be further exacerbated if the FO were unable to grasp the big picture, specifically the sort of canvas one finds flying older aircraft in northern Europe in the middle of the winter darkness.
At the end of the day, if the sort of problems outlined above were to persist, the only option open to a Captain, possibly after consultation with the Chief Pilot or Fleet Manager, might be to take the chap to one side and gently explain to him that actually, he holds his 'leg' at the discretion of the Commander and to remind him that it is all very well and good to regard himself as Master and Commander when flying that sector but that in reality and at best he is only operating as P1/US?:ouch:

Old Fella

22nd Apr 2008, 06:34

If the Captain has to seek advice as to how to approach a F/O who is not open to suggestions on how to better control the aircraft maybe the Captain should still be a F/O himself. No one enjoys being bullied, however the incident described hardly constitutes bullying. As the Captain you are the one with the ultimate responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. Pretty simple I would think.

cavortingcheetah

22nd Apr 2008, 06:55

:hmm:

One can of course lay the blame for all of this squarely at the door of CRM.
Many will know the story of the ancient Captain, rumoured in this case to be Dan Air who, on being told that he would have to undergo a CRM course expressed the opinion that such training was unnecessary for him.
In the matter of first officers he was quite clear. He never let the little so so's touch anything in the cockpit below 10,000ft.
Thereby he no doubt placed a somewhat different interpretation than was originally intended on the concept of a sterile cockpit.;)

keithl

22nd Apr 2008, 11:47

If you want a simple one-line answer to "I'm flying the aircraft", I have found that, "And I signed for it." works quite well, immediately followed by "Slow down" or whatever you require to be done.

Man Flex

22nd Apr 2008, 12:14

I do believe that the whole CRM situation has been turned on its head in recent years. I find that I am flying more and more with F/Os who think they are in charge, talk to you as if you're an imbecile and make decisions without seeking consultation or approval. I was taught that CRM involved individuals being gentlemanly and cordial towards each other, respecting each other's status, working together as a team for a common goal. Now I find that CRM encompasses, in some cases, the F/Os fulfilling a need to prove themselves by scoring points against their colleague and continually treading on toes with the pretense that he or she knows better!

Although we would never wish to return to the bad old days where the Captain is an infallible God and the F/O a fortunate understudy I do feel that the cockpit gradient is being more and more challenged. Although I am a fairly easy going guy and happy to allow the F/O the opportunity to gain the experience of making command decisions I feel that with a growing number of individuals I am required to be more assertive and to reign them in.

Is it that with this generation a Captain's respect is something that is earned rather than accepted?

It doesn't have to be such a difficult day out. Does it?

fireflybob

22nd Apr 2008, 14:49

Although we would never wish to return to the bad old days where the Captain is an infallible God and the F/O a fortunate understudy I do feel that the cockpit gradient is being more and more challenged. Although I am a fairly easy going guy and happy to allow the F/O the opportunity to gain the experience of making command decisions I feel that with a growing number of individuals I am required to be more assertive and to reign them in.

Is it that with this generation a Captain's respect is something that is earned rather than accepted?

It doesn't have to be such a difficult day out. Does it?

Man Flex - I think your comments summarise well what is going on. There have been cultural shifts in society, there is less respect for authority and whilst, like you, one would not want to return to the days of the Captain being "God" some individuals need to bear in mind that he/she is the Captain and that all those on board have to obey all legal commands that are made.

Like you, all I want is a nice day out. In my days as FO (and I did quite a few years in the role) I would not have dared to make a comment such as "I am flying the a/c". I recognised that the granting of any a/c handling was a privilege and not a right!

Thanks to all for some great comments - I like the ASI system!

cavortingcheetah

22nd Apr 2008, 15:42

:hmm:

Well, it rather looks as though the days when the captain could give the foe a smack on the back of his head with the fireaxe have passed away. (F27)
Some of us old lags probably respected our captains first and foremost because they were the commander and, having discovered that they were actually quite normal and did make mistakes, carried them from time to time with a certain wry sense of humour and perhaps pride. Possibly that attitude made for a safer flying environment than one sometimes seen today where two relatively inexperienced flight crew operate a machine which increasingly does the job for them with neither one of them knowing who really is God in the cockpit.:uhoh:

Pugilistic Animus

22nd Apr 2008, 16:26

Follow the captain's command --provided he's not incapacitated or obviously in an unsafe flight condition---and especially if he's coming from the more conservative standpoint--is it really so simple?

Can't there be a balance between Van Zanten and Pinnacle 3701?

Rwy in Sight

22nd Apr 2008, 18:27

OK, I am going to be flamed for this but I have to ask it here and not while being an SLF between flights.

While I have every respect for the captain's authority and the fact that he signed for the aircraft let along that an avoidable go-around is a very expensive way to learn, why not let (to a safe extent) let a first officer to learn by his mistake. Thus maybe making him a better pilot.

A very naive approach but an answer would be most welcome.

Rwy in Sight

Bealzebub

22nd Apr 2008, 21:48

Not naive at all and a very valid question.

Of course the F/O must be allowed to learn from their mistakes, just as they would learn from the things that they perform well. Captains dont stop making mistakes from time to time either, simply by virtue of the change of seat, or the length of time they have been occupying it. However the Captain is the Captain because they have aquired the necessary experience and been tested to satisy the basic requirements of that position. There are additional responsibilities and authority that are encumbent with the promotion. Perhaps the most obvious one is that you are then "in charge" and the de facto manager of the flight. Regulation and statute places various legal obligations on you as a result of that postion, and the company employing you, expects a proper discharge of these obligations as well as additional responsibilities that it will define in its operating manual.

The other crewmembers operate under your authority in the dischage of their duties. When everything runs well (as it usually does,) then your role as a manager is a fairly easy one. When problems occur, it is often a case of allowing the crewmember to suggest and effect a solution usually through you. Sometimes the problem or the solution requires direction or input from you as the manager. On rare occaisions you may well need to intervene and initiate an entirely different solution. It is this latter case, and the borderline margin leading up to it, that is really the subject under discussion here.

Certainly nobody should ever be discouraged from performing a go-around in an unstable approach scenario or where the outcome of a landing is in any reasonable doubt. If you are unhappy, then throw it away and start again. However in Public Transport operations there are other serious considerations as well. It is very important (and just as much part of the learning process) that developing mistakes are pointed out and corrected in a timely manner. The F/O will be aware that it is not just a case of satisfying the Commander, but also his responsiblity to the hundreds of paying guests down the back. Whilst a go around should be a normal if seldom practised manouever to the pilots, it will be less happily received by the passengers who might have to wait some considerable time for an explanation. As such, the situation that might lead up to a go around, should not be allowed to develop simply to satisy the F/O's need to learn from his mistakes. That might be the end result, but subjecting the passengers to any discomfort is most certainly not to be entertained lightly, and definetaly not something any responsible captain would normally allow to occur.

Artisan

23rd Apr 2008, 01:39

In order to become a good leader, you must first become a good follower. This means supporting your Captain and being respectful while being pro-active in the decision making process. If this means that sometimes you have to bite your lip, then so be it, that is the essence of good character.

If you don't develop the traits of a good follower, you will never develop the traits of good leadership. I imagine that the F/O in question will enjoy a long career in the right seat.

In the scenario described, with the benefit of hindsight and the other posts, I think the correct actions would have been;

1. Take control yourself. The comment; "I'm flying the aircraft" indicates a break down in CRM. We are flying the aircraft you as PF and me as PM is more accurate. BOTH pilots must be happy with state of the aircraft at all times.

2. On the ground, conduct a thorough debrief. Make him understand the above.

3. Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles.

Admiral346

23rd Apr 2008, 09:05

Artisan, I do NOT agree at all with your first few lines.

If the FO has the better idea, he is not to "bite his lip", it is the Captains time to realise that. I always try and stay open to suggestions just as I have expected my captains to do when I was FO.

Being a good follower makes you a sheep, you should be a creative thinker and an assertive First officer, to do your job right.

However, in this case I would sign my name under what you have written in numbers 1,2 and 3...

Nic

Guttn

23rd Apr 2008, 10:50

The Captain`s role is one which is earned by him-/herself by going the ranks. The Captain`s role is one which is to be accepted by his/her crew.

It`s easy for an F/O to become hot`n`high og slow`n`low:ugh:. This has to do with experience. There are a lot of inputs which add up to the F/Os level of experience. One of them is planning ahead. And a Captain is correct to notify the F/O when things are getting to a point close to not stabilized or exceeding limits of the aircraft.

There are several ways of dealing with this, but upon reaching your stabilized gate, and you`re not stabilized, then the call from the Captain should be "not stabilized - go around". There`s too much emphasis on the committment to land as to the option of a go-around. The stabilized gate is there to safeguard to the landing. The rest is dealt with on the ground during debriefing (yes, there should be a debrief done by the Captain after such an approach).

BTW, I`m an F/O and consider any inputs/debriefings from my Captain to be valuable to my level of experience. It also is a learning experience for when I someday will earn my 4 stripes as well:ok:. Much respect to the Captains who debrief their F/Os when something needs debreifing!

Artisan

23rd Apr 2008, 13:17

Admiral346,

When you were an F/O (a follower), you learned to be open to other peoples suggestions. This skill is called Receptiveness. This skill, learned as a follower is now put to good use in your role as a leader (Captain).

When you were an F/O, and when you had a good idea, you learned to put forward your idea using effective interpersonal skills, styles and methods. This skill is called Influence. This skill learned as a follower is now put to good use a a leader.

When you were an F/O, you learned situational awareness, the ability to see the big picture and the ability to project a present state (Plane/Path/People) into a future state. This skill is called Envisioning. This skill is now put to good use as Captain.

The F/O in this scenario was not open to the Captains suggestion.

The F/O in this scenario thought that he had a "better idea" but did not use effective interpersonal skills to influence the Captain.

The F/O in this scenario probably had poor situational awareness.

The F/O in this situation should have bitten his lip and accepted the Captains authority.

Pugilistic Animus

23rd Apr 2008, 16:48

the problem with todays FO's is that they never have been through the laundry, first a soak cycle for the delicate followed by a thorough rinse of the unworthy in ground school you should eliminate all the delicates and perm press in Ground school--- Afterwards you get a heavy duty washing machine [Stearman/ Waco/ T-6] and wash the rest of the arrogant sorry Bums outta the business-- and then hang the rest out to dry in an E-18:}

so the problem--- they jus' don't make good washing machines these days:}

SNS3Guppy

23rd Apr 2008, 17:21

PA, that sounds a lot like the sorry song of "if you ain't military, you ain't nothing." Hopefully that tired saw won't rear it's ugly head.

The FO was wrong. Nobody here disputes that. You may be right that a certain level of disrespect, and certainly a certain level of inexperience, exists today. the cockpit enironment is not the same today as it was decades ago, and that's a good thing. Inexperienced pilots have populated cockpits for many, many years; this isn't new. The environment today provides for a greater latitude for input by each crewmember, as opposed to the kingdoms and dictatorships that pervaded cockpits of old. Brashness in youth isn't new. There's nothing new here under the sun.

What is needed is a clear lesson in the chain of authority so that the F/O who misunderstands, is brought to comprehend his role. He should speak up when he has a concern. He should be assertive in his input. He should not hesitate to do his job. His job does not include taking charge of the flight, and should always be equally receptive to the captain for input and instruction; particularly when it's his leg.

Man Flex

23rd Apr 2008, 17:30

An interesting analogy Pugil. This is a subject I feel quite strongly about (it has a direct effect on flight safety). As a previous poster has stated, "I wouldn't dream of saying...".

One would hope that the recruitment process would be able to weed out those pilots who lack the necessary "people skills". Unfortunately the feedback I have had is that these individuals often come across well during the interview. Perhaps some different scenarios should be tested.

Pugilistic Animus

23rd Apr 2008, 17:59

Hello Gentlemen,

No--I'm not even military myself--so-I definitely don't hold THAT particular belief---my post was slightly light-hearted. I do know about 18 yr FO's on DC-3's etc... but I do believe many people have gone on autopilot in the modern learning process--and it gives them an unearned sense of entitlement---what for going from a Katana an A320--what a big achievement-you are now so special---that's the attitude that inspired the post---I don't believe in Sky-God from either side--- but I do feel you should have knowledge and skill before challenging- a consevative order---Too much blow and no wind you know:hmm:

and don't let my name or some of my posts fool anyone ---personally--I'm a big softy:O

low n' slow

24th Apr 2008, 15:35

Many interesting views on this subject. In my outfit, I'm a relatively experienced F/O and I've happened across similar situations but seen from the other side (flat cockpit power gradients). The worst situation was with a new DEC who had virtually no experience on type and furthermore had no experience of our type of operation (Scheduled pax service). It was allways his call, but in those situations it's difficult (if not impossible) for the F/O to just stand by and watch as mistake after mistake happens. I would never dream of telling him that it was my plane on my PF legs, but it's also very difficult to take critique from someone who has so much less insight into the operation. He probably percieved me much the same way as the original poster percieved his F/O, although I'm quite sure that in my case, experience levels were more extreme and affected the situation to a greater extent and in a different way from the original post.

Many posters seem to note that the cockpit environment has seen a change over the last couple of years. Coupled with comments regarding recruitment processes and filtering out the bad seeds, I can't help thinking about the "pay for your job scheme". Today, anybody with money can buy his/her own type rating and get a job. This has also been very clear in my outfit as we have had virtually no recruitment process whatsoever. As long as the applicant has had the correct type on his license, he/she has been welcomed aboard and this has resulted in more than one situation where crewmembers judgement has been in question. As long as this trend continues, these issues in which poor CRM is the main factor, this trend in our cockpits will continue.

/LnS

Pugilistic Animus

24th Apr 2008, 15:42

Feeling a little calmer on the issue---I just want to say my biggest thing is to see that folks really care about what they are doing the type of behavior exhibited by the FO in that example--to me is unthinkable by a knowledgeable professional---

I feel that you can't create pilots through exams but through hard airwork--so that they actually have the skill and knowledge to handle their responsibilities in a mature and respectful way and that applies across the deck---the 18 and 20 year old pilots of the past era were actual aviators-who went- through many trials--personal trials---in order to do that job---they paid for it with NOT just money--they paid with sweat and tears---not all the legends were military E.K.G...Bob Buck...but they pushed themselves--they didn't require anyone else to assure they had the right attitude---and you can't just pay 60 G's for that--- you have to earn it--I can't picture any type of trained pilot acting in such an irresponsible and potentially dangerous manner---just because you paid for your license every body pays[somehow to learn flying]--military or civil--as they say there's plenty of money in aviation--All mine's there:}---

stator vane

25th Apr 2008, 06:20

sorry if someone else asked this in the growing list of replies--

but when i see that coming--and that is part of being captain--paying enough attention to catch something early enough, i simply ask, "when do you plan to ....?"

either it should have already been mentioned, and he/she is focused on something else--or he/she's a prat.

but then again, we can usually perceive someone with that attitude within a few minutes of meeting in the crew room--

Salusa

25th Apr 2008, 14:51

Pretty sure it’s been posted before, but good for a laugh.

A true lesson in CRM techniques.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmxiZZZ-2_4

cjam

26th Apr 2008, 12:37

Old Fella said

"If the Captain has to seek advice as to how to approach a F/O who is not open to suggestions on how to better control the aircraft maybe the Captain should still be a F/O himself."
Maybe. maybe not. I think that there is merit in taking a couple hours on the ground to decide on a way to approach the situation, also in discussing it with an old hand. Obviously that assumes that the captain did what was required while airborne to maintain a safe flight.
Thats the approach I took and the outcome was good for both me and the F/O.3.
Artisan,
"Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles. "...that approach is just going to result in animosity in the cockpit, it won't improve the crm in any way shape or form and there is also the risk that he'll realise you're a dick:)

RS3AV

26th Apr 2008, 14:47

Gents,

Many human dynamics or factors books talk about this in different ways... In CRM it can be 'task vs relationship orientation.' We all know the job to be done.. however, if a Captain is a task master eventually the followership will reject him/her for not being "human" enough...

In this post the task was to get the jet configured in time and follow SOP. Leaders are dependent on thier followers.

The key here is how the CA responds to the FO's statement: "I am flying the aircraft!"

Some CA's might take this as an attack/threat on their command. Effective leaders will use this as an opportunity to reapproach the social dymanics between the two pilots.

Effective Captains tailor their communication for the different types of personalities within their followership cadre. It doesn't matter how the job gets done, just as long as it is positive, ethical, moral, within SOP and allows the followership to contribute and grow: an ethos for any captain leader...

If the CA had stated, "My controls" in effect he would have said to the FO "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft" Any further flying in the short or long term between the two would be very difficult under the guise of teamwork.

It isn't flying the jet that is difficult... anyone can do that... It is dealing with the human dynamics of needs, morale, teamwork and effectiveness that takes true leadership skills.

Well here goes with this one!

How do you deal with First Officers who are reluctant to accept advice when they are operating a sector?

For example, we get to circa 15 miles out when it is clear we need to start slowing up to achieve a stable approach. I think I am a pretty reasonable guy to fly with (although not in training with my current company I have extensive experience in the role) but when I suggest that it's time to slow up and/or select another mode (Level Change vice V/S) and/or take speedbrake etc the reply I get is "I am flying the aircraft!" - I then insist that changes are made and we just manage to be comfortably stable although a flap setting is called for above the limit speed.

I believe this event is quite a serious CRM issue. It is obvious to me that this FO is weak in certain areas despite being quite an experienced aviator.

Any helpful comments/observations appreciated!

Bealzebub

26th Apr 2008, 16:43

ssg

27th Apr 2008, 10:13

I wonder with all this talk of CRM, personalities in the cockpit, ect ect...if atleast one person is actualy flying the plane...

RS3AV

28th Apr 2008, 01:04

RS3AV,

Whilst I am reasonably sure that everything you have said is correct, and is undoubtably good discussion in a classroom environment. The reality is that when the ground is rushing up to meet you at 290 feet per second horizontally and 17 feet per second vertically, you to need to be able to make a relatively quick decision on the course of action to be employed to ensure a safe outcome.

Ok... I didn't take the account to be critical. 15 miles out is relaitively enough time. In addition the original poster stated this is a "serious CRM issue" not an aircraft controllability issue.

Your thoughts?

If anyone can do that, it is sometimes the case that not "anyone" does. In those situations (as described in the topic of this thread) it is flying the jet that is paramount. If the person doing that "I'm flying the plane", isn't doing it in a safe and timely effective manner, then the situation needs to be resolved by either starting again, or if that is judged unnecessary or inappropriate, by the Commander excercising his supervisory authority and changing the roles. Once you are on the ground and time is not critical, then the discussion could resume where you left off.

Again, I didn't perceive this as a critical flight control issue where one pilot needed to take control to prevent an accident. It was more a question of configuration...worst case scenario... a missed approach or go around would have kept the operation safe.

The issue, as I read it... is teamwork and the FO following the CA's leadership style... or how can the CA be more effective as a leader.

The CA had concerns that the FO wasn't supporting the CA's ideal of how to operate the jet. The CA, after law and policy is followed, gets to decide the atmosphere, culture, tone and how the jet is to be flown. A Captain leader is constantly reminding his followership of his culture, usually though positive actions and behaviors.

It is the followerships (the FO) job to keep in step with the CA.

SNS3Guppy

28th Apr 2008, 06:00

If the CA had stated, "My controls" in effect he would have said to the FO "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft" Any further flying in the short or long term between the two would be very difficult under the guise of teamwork.

That's a rather broad-brush assumption that overlooks the most basic aspect of the problem; the first officer has already elected not to engage in teamwork in the cockpit by insisting that it's his airplane and he's going to fly it his way.

If the captain states "my controls," he has not in effect said to the first officer "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft." Not in the least. That might be the case if the scenario involved an unsafe practice (in which case the captain is obligated to correct or take control).

If the captain states "my controls," he has not only in effect, but in actuality said to the first officer "my controls." This is an affirmative statement of both authority and correction. The first officer has incorrectly assumed authority beyond his own, and in so doing damaged cockpit management and relations. The captain is restoring the proper line of authority and making a statement regarding each crewmember's relative position and purpose.

It is not, in actuality or in effect, the first officer's airplane. It may be the first officer's leg. It may be the first officer's privilege. It may even be the first officer's duty. It is not, however, the first officer's airplane, and moreover it is not the first officer's place to refuse input or correction. The first officer has an obligation to consider all input, particularly that provided by the one who's airplane it really is, provided in a non-threatening supportive manner.

Nobody likes to be the bad guy. The cockpit is not a democracy. It is an environment of teamwork and does involve a dynamic relationship. However, the proper working relationship must be re-established in this case, and is best done so in an assertive, non-judgemental manner. The message is clear; "my airplane."

Pugilistic Animus

28th Apr 2008, 15:31

Most excellent thread---I love when this discussion occasionally comes up, a true classic 'pilots discussion'--- right up there up there with stalls and crosswind technique :ok:

PA

RS3AV

28th Apr 2008, 17:06

A perspective that we are missing is that of the FO's. Since we only have the CA's version of the events, and the CA asked for feedback and input and ultimately, until the FO enters into the discussion, the CA can only be influenced here. Also, the only pure control the CA has is over himself.

That's a rather broad-brush assumption that overlooks the most basic aspect of the problem; the first officer has already elected not to engage in teamwork in the cockpit by insisting that it's his airplane and he's going to fly it his way.

I disagree, from the account we have. Was the FO violating SOP? Commen sense? My understanding is the CA was uncomfortable with the methodology or "how" the FO was flying the jet. And that is fine. The FO shall comply with the CA's tone and culture.

The question posed by the CA was HOW to handle this better. Or how to influence the FO better. The CA knows he can use power and authority. I believe the CA is looking for a social methodology not an operational one.

If the captain states "my controls," he has not in effect said to the first officer "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft." Not in the least. That might be the case if the scenario involved an unsafe practice (in which case the captain is obligated to correct or take control).

The question begs was the FO operating the jet in a mistrusted or disrespectful way? And what is the measuring scale? SOP, ICAO, FAA/JAR or CA preference?

If it is only CA preference, then the CA still has a right to impose that preference.. the trick is HOW s/he does it. If the CA uses negative methods will will degrade teamwork and effectiveness.

Recall the old social saying... "It is not what you said but HOW you said it that really made me mad"

If the captain states "my controls," he has not only in effect, but in actuality said to the first officer "my controls." This is an affirmative statement of both authority and correction. The first officer has incorrectly assumed authority beyond his own, and in so doing damaged cockpit management and relations. The captain is restoring the proper line of authority and making a statement regarding each crewmember's relative position and purpose.

This is only valid, in my opinion... if SOP, policy, law or safety was violated. My understanding of the original poster is.. that it is not.

It is not, in actuality or in effect, the first officer's airplane. It may be the first officer's leg. It may be the first officer's privilege. It may even be the first officer's duty. It is not, however, the first officer's airplane, and moreover it is not the first officer's place to refuse input or correction. The first officer has an obligation to consider all input, particularly that provided by the one who's airplane it really is, provided in a non-threatening supportive manner.

A slippery slope. It is commonly taught in CRM groups that a strong or even multiple subtle social "shutdowns" of followers will in fact... shut them down. This has led to the implementation of CRM over the years and into the 80's and 90's.

Not specific to this example: It is the FO's place to refuse input or correction (exclusive of SOP, policy, law etc..)... (read: offer other ideas and input. Not be a "yes" man) to the point where the CA puts his foot down and says "this is the course we are taking" At that point it is the FO's legal responsibility to support the CA.

Specific to this example, I believe, the CA raised a concern and the FO replied with firm resistence. My point: Just because the CA has authority, control and power doesn't mean he should use it. Influence and guidance is better than command and control.

A good respectful debriefing would be in order...

Nobody likes to be the bad guy. The cockpit is not a democracy. It is an environment of teamwork and does involve a dynamic relationship. However, the proper working relationship must be re-established in this case, and is best done so in an assertive, non-judgemental manner. The message is clear; "my airplane."

I still like the way the CA handled it. He didn't take control, rather asserted it was time to configure. This irked the FO. The CA is concerned enough or has empathy for his FO...and that is an excellent indication of a good leader. Many CA's would simply not care if the FO was irked. This CA doesn't want the FO to be irked. Non-irked FO's make good team members.

Kudos to the CA for doing a good job and seeking out improvment.

Submitted repsectfully...

Your thoughts?

SNS3Guppy

28th Apr 2008, 18:43

Was the FO violating SOP? Commen sense? My understanding is the CA was uncomfortable with the methodology or "how" the FO was flying the jet. And that is fine. The FO shall comply with the CA's tone and culture.

When a first officer states that it's his airplane and he will do it his way, he's already shut down the lines of communication. The FO shall not only comply with the captain's tone and culture, but the captains requests, orders, direction, and input. The FO is not the pilot in command, and it is not his airplane. No matter how you slice it.

The captain should always be open to input from the FO. The FO must always be open to input from the captain, however. When the captain gives subtle direction, or even dictates what needs to be done, the FO who disregards the captain and instead states "it's my airplane, I'll do it my way" has destroyed crew coordination and cooperation. Time to reset the balance.

Recall the old social saying... "It is not what you said but HOW you said it that really made me mad"

Recall the fact that the cockpit is not a democracy, there is no vote, and the goal is orderly operation in a safe manner...not necessarily kissing babies and winning votes. The response to "it's not what you said but how you said it that made me mad" should be simply "we'll talk about it on the ground."

"It's not what you said but how you said it that really made me mad" disregards the fact that perhaps saying it in that method was warranted, and that being "mad" is unwarranted. The FO can be mad all he likes. It's still not his airplane, mad or not. If he's upset because he doesn't get to play with the ball, it's time to grow up, mature up, and deal with it. He can deal with it on the ground. It's not his airplane. Period.

A perspective that we are missing is that of the FO's.

The FO's side of the story isn't present, but we're not addressing the FO's concerns. Only the captain's. Whether the FO believes he was justified in stating "it's my airplane, I'll fly it the way I want" is really irrelevant when we turn on the light of day and see that it's not his airplane.

I think most of us can relate to and understand the position of the first officer, as most of us have either been a first officer or are first officers...we get it. Those of us who are captains or have been captains or even those who have or are acting as flight instructors understand the dynamic from both sides of the fence. The first officer who presumes beyond his authority, even so far as "it's my airplane and I'll fly it the way I want" has overstepped his bounds by a considerable margin. He's the offender; he's the one "making others mad," he's the one in need of humility and the offer of an apology. The captain who takes the airplane back isn't in need of apologizing. Certainly dialogue can follow on the ground...but it's the captain's call. Not that of the FO.

The idea that one should forgo taking control in order to appease the FO is ludicruous. If the FO is unhappy or elects to curtail his cooperation because he's upset that the captain exercised his right to assert his authority, then it's the FO that has a problem. His cooperation, indeed his efforts in the cockpit are NOT predicated on the gifts he receives from the captain. He does not have the right to decide whether to give 100% or 50% based on how he's rewarded by being allowed to do as he pleases. He has a job to do, for which he's being paid. Period.

The captain who opened the thread is certainly interested in finding the best solution. I don't think that would include kissing up to the FO. The FO screwed up by virtue of his attitude. It's unacceptable. He needs to know. "It's my airplane and I'll fly it the way I please" can be dealt with in a polite, professional, concise manner in flight with a simple "Not any more. I have the controls." Further discussion to follow on the ground over dinner and a drink. Not in the air.

Command is not a popularity contest.

Man Flex

28th Apr 2008, 19:14

Yes, a great discussion boys. What PPRuNe is all about.

I can see both sides of this arguement and how this particular problem should be resolved. I certainly agree with those that insist on a "debrief" afterwards, preferably on the ground. But how one handles such a situation at the precise moment in time is surely a careful balancing act. I was taught to try and always keep the F/O "onside". This involves tact and diplomacy, perhaps even when he hasn't necessarily shown it towards you! To do otherwise would potentially agrivate an already tense situation, potentially alienating your colleague for the rest of the day and completely destroying the critical teamwork environment within the flight deck.

I think that the original poster is asking for opinions on how we deal with such interesting characters on a day-to-day basis. Diffusing the situation in the short term may be the preferable option however I would be keen to hear from those that have used the other solution and how effective it was.

parabellum

28th Apr 2008, 23:41

Well said Guppy, absolutely on the money, no doubt about it.
RS3AV, your turning the whole thing into a big pink fuzzy ball!
If the aircraft is outside the parameters for a stabilised approach through the actions of the PF then it is already in breach of SOP and if a flap setting is required outside the limitations of the aircraft the SOPs are once again being breached. There are a dozen ways to talk a FO into bringing everything back to a stabilised condition but when, on having an unacceptable situation pointed out to them, they reply with,"I'm flying the aeroplane" then the options of the Captain are considerably reduced as you now have a challenge to his authority combined with a bad attitude from the FO, time constraints don't allow for a discussion, the FO either corrects immediately or loses the leg, if a GA is required then so be it, it will reinforce the point! Discussion at the debrief.

Artisan

29th Apr 2008, 11:09

SNS3Guppy,

You are on the money, I agree entirely with your opinions.

CJAM,

"Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles. "...that approach is just going to result in animosity in the cockpit, it won't improve the crm in any way shape or form and there is also the risk that he'll realise you're a dick:)"

You suggest, that the best way to deal with a colleague who has just offended the rules of professionalism, safety and good conduct; is to treat them with kid gloves and to avoid animosity at all costs.

I suggest that you study the Situational Leadership Theory model;

(a) At one end of the scale, you have a follower who won't take direction, or needs a lot of direction (possibly new to type etc). Your correct approach as Captain, would be high task/ low relationship behaviour. You need to spell everything out for them. You should brief them thoroughly on your expectations of how you wish them to conduct a flight, so that they are left in no doubt. If this results in them thinking you are a "dick" (one has to question their maturity if this is the case), then so be it. You must do what you think is best for the F/O and for safety.

(b) As the follower begins to exhibit higher levels of performance, your correct approach as Captain is to develop them and to reward them by being less directive and giving them more responsibility in making operational decisions.

(c) At the other end of the scale, the F/O is fully competent and displays all of the qualities of a good follower. At this level of performance, you can basically just sit back and monitor the F/O, let the F/O make all of the decisons when it is his/her leg. This is the ideal situation, two professional colleagues and a relatively flat gradient.

Cjam; if you try to apply the strategy in (c) to the F/O in (a), you are essentially rewarding bad behaviour. You might have preserved your 'mister nice guy' image, but you are not doing yourself any favours and you are definately not doing the F/O any favours.

Rightbase

29th Apr 2008, 19:39

Having safely finished the flight, there's no point starting a fight. I would say a good plan is to suggest the FO should see how his pprune peers think a captain should deal with a headstrong FO.

It's then outside the cockpit, not personal, and given the traditional thoroughness of pprune discussion, nothing more need be said.

Nice one, Captain.

RS3AV

30th Apr 2008, 01:38

If this results in them thinking you are a "dick" (one has to question their maturity if this is the case), then so be it. You must do what you think is best for the F/O and for safety.

Smug, disconcerning and knowingly being onerous is not leadership.

The definition of a professional is one who serves for the greater good.

I suggest Servant Leadership.

parabellum

30th Apr 2008, 01:50

"The definition of a professional is one who serves for the greater good."

No, not at all, you have just described a community volunteer.

Bealzebub

30th Apr 2008, 02:33

The definition of a professional is one who serves for the greater good.

No that is closer to the definition of a sacrifice.

The definition of a professional is someone who is highly skilled and doing a certain kind of work to make a living. Belonging to a profession which is in turn defined as an occupation, especially one that involves knowledge or training in a branch of advanced learning.

I suggest Servant Leadership

For whom ? God forbid it is the Captain, and the role of a First Officer is not to be a servant by any definition of the word. Servant leadership is contradictory ? The First officer has duties and responsibilities to the company, but primarily to the Captain. No part of his job is to be servile.

The dictionary definition of a Captain is a person given authority over a group or team. My companies definition (runs to 58 paragraphs, but the relevant one) is That the Captain will be responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and the safety of its occupants and cargo from the time he/she boards, until he/she hands over to another Captain or an authorized official or agent of the company. The Captain will have authority to give all commands he/she deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of all persons and property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aircraft shall obey such commands.

The First Officer (primarily, and followed by 29 paragraphs,) is responsible to the commander for assisting in the safe and efficient conduct of the flight. In the event of incapacitation of the Captain, the First Officer will assume command.

Nobody is advocating authoritarianism or suggesting anything other than good management. Hopefully and indeed usually that is what happens every day of the week. Once in a while you might come up against a problem of the type that caused the author of this thread to go in to print. How it is dealt with will depend on the situation and the management style of the Captain on the day. But nobody should be under any illusion that the Captain is anything other than the commander. He/she is in charge, and if the autopilot, the engine, the flying controls or even the First Officer are not operating to an acceptable standard, or not responding adequately, then it is perfectly proper and incumbent upon them to rectify that situation. If that requires changing the handling and non handling roles, then so be it.

Devils Martini

30th Apr 2008, 09:03

A very interesting thread indeed!

As an inexperienced F/O, I can recall a few situations where the captain has offered me advice and on one occasion taken control for the last 200ft. I found the chat on the way back to the crew room very helpful and I went home feeling I had learnt something useful and with hindsight, if I'd pig wrestled it onto the floor I would have been disappointed with a far from perfect performance. Who cares if you don't get a landing? You'll get one tomorrow.

Throughout my fledgling career it has been drummed into me that it is ALWAYS the captain's ship, it's just he/she is letting you have a go. What is more tricky to appreciate is that Captains are subject to the same CRM issues and thought-processes that F/Os are when they are asked to pipe up if they feel they are in an uncomfortable situation. It's not something that immediately strikes you so it's been an eye-opener reading this topic and highlights how we are all learning every day. I expect behind the facade of even the most confident F/O, there's someone there willing to take the advice. They might not appreciate it at the time, but I bet they sit down and think about it when they get home. Anyone would. As RS3AV said, this is a human dynamic situation above all else - applied in a complex environment. Does that make sense?

Particularly interested in the experienced Capt./inexperienced FO scenario and the balance of the cockpit authority gradient in this situation. I guess it'll happen to all of us one day. Long way off for me, but I'll bear it in mind!

RS3AV

30th Apr 2008, 17:46

"The definition of a professional is one who serves for the greater good."

No, not at all, you have just described a community volunteer.

No that is closer to the definition of a sacrifice.

The definition of a professional is someone who is highly skilled and doing a certain kind of work to make a living. Belonging to a profession which is in turn defined as an occupation, especially one that involves knowledge or training in a branch of advanced learning.

I disagree with the above two quotes. A professional is one who receives compensation and serves a purpose other than monetary gain. In addition, a profession requires ethics. A community volunteer has neither ethics or pay.

A prime example of a professional is a medical doctor. While s/he is compensated, concern for the public (or pateint) takes precedence. A doctor has an ethical standard, which translates to trust and respect.

A CEO or president isn't necessarily a professional.

Does a CEO have an ethical standard? Does the CEO serve the greater good? While some organizations do... many do not.

Consider this concerning professions:

a calling or vocation requiring specialized knowledge, methods and skills, as well as preparation, in an institution of higher learning, in the scholarly, scientific and historical principles underlying such methods and skills. A profession continuously enlarges its body of knowledge, functions autonomously in formulation of policy, and maintains by force of organization or concerted opinion high standards of achievement and conduct. Specifically in this regard it maintains and polices a code of ethics and conducts a professional organization of which a large majority of the profession are members. Members of a profession are committed to continuing study, placing service above personal gain, and are committed to providing practical services vital to human and social welfare.

For whom ? God forbid it is the Captain, and the role of a First Officer is not to be a servant by any definition of the word. Servant leadership is contradictory ? The First officer has duties and responsibilities to the company, but primarily to the Captain. No part of his job is to be servile.

The servant is the leader. The servant in this case is the Captain. Servant leadership is not really new. However, it inverts long standing and ingrained ideals of leadership.

The Servant Leader serves his followership, ensuring that members of the team have the resources and support they need to do their jobs effectively.

For example, one can easily see how the environment and/or company can push a crew, putting the needs of the revenue before the needs of crew. The SL embraces the paradox: ensuring the needs of both the company and crew are met.

Look at it this way: if a FO and the cabin crew know that the Captain will do for them everything s/he can, won't that instill a high level of trust, respect, teamwork? In addition, it will in turn motivate the FO and FA's to do everything they can to support the CA and his goals which are: safe operation of the jet, earn a living and making the company money. Once a crew is highly motivated to do these things all of the little ego battles, turf battles, and "drama" go out the window.

From the orginal post: When the FO stated "I am flying the aircraft!" This was an emotional and defensive reply. In defense of what? The FO felt threatened in some way? Servant Leadership is an excellent methodology in removing egos, threats, combativeness, power struggles and the like.

Of course the Captain provides this atmosphere and can do so via Servant Leadership.

The dictionary definition of a Captain is a person given authority over a group or team. My companies definition (runs to 58 paragraphs, but the relevant one) is That the Captain will be responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and the safety of its occupants and cargo from the time he/she boards, until he/she hands over to another Captain or an authorized official or agent of the company. The Captain will have authority to give all commands he/she deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of all persons and property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aircraft shall obey such commands.

Using power (captains authority) through legal rights via command and control is not leadership. It is manipulation through fear.

Nobody is advocating authoritarianism or suggesting anything other than good management.

To manage is to control.
To lead is to the show the way.

Human beings do not like to be controlled. They'd rather be guided and influenced. Followers would rather be given options and the latittude to make decisions then be told what to do.

Regardless of the situation, individuals gets to choose how they feel about thier leaders. Sure a Captain may have the right but that doesn't mean the followers like how the CA excercises that right. Nor does it ensure effective teamwork. Recall a dramatic example from the movie Braveheart, where the English lord(?) had the right to shag with the Scottish peasants women, to spread the English population into Scotland. It was the English Lords right, but it certainly pissed off the Scots. (and in the movie, it cost the Englishman his life).

The point?

Sure it is a Captains right to use authority and control but what is the point if the FO harbors ill will toward him? The only way to get your FO to be 100% committed is to be 100% committed to the FO. One way to do that is Servant Leadership.

Hopefully and indeed usually that is what happens every day of the week. Once in a while you might come up against a problem of the type that caused the author of this thread to go in to print. How it is dealt with will depend on the situation and the management style of the Captain on the day. But nobody should be under any illusion that the Captain is anything other than the commander. He/she is in charge, and if the autopilot, the engine, the flying controls or even the First Officer are not operating to an acceptable standard, or not responding adequately, then it is perfectly proper and incumbent upon them to rectify that situation. If that requires changing the handling and non handling roles, then so be it.

The Captain really doesn't need to be the Captain until SOP, law or policy is violated. Professional FO's and FA's know thier job. What Professional FO's and FA's need is the support and resources to do thier job. That is where the Captain (servant leader) comes into play. FO's and FA's will respect the CA much more if the CA gives them the latittude and support to carry out thier job description.

Effective leaders allow the followership to exceed their own job description on their own accord.Where Captaincy really comes into play is irregular operations including emergencies. When a emergancy occurs all eyes look to the Captain to formulate a plan of action. This is where the CA uncovers his fourth stripe and excerises all aspects of his command.

Admittantly, I am a Yank giving a North American perspective. Whereas I understand that Command in other parts of the world is still much more traditional. However, consider this leader from a century ago operating under traditional British culture:

An excellent leader to study is Earnest Shackleton. In a time (early 1900s) where 'Master and Commander' meant command and control, Shackleton was a Servant Leader and his performance and results are quite incredible.

Contrast with Robert F. Scott, a rival leader. He was a military man who was content with the ideal that men are expendable. A loss of life, in fact, was acceptable in obtaining the goal. Shackleton was quite the opposite in that the goal was important, but the follwership was more important.

Which leader would you rather follow?

Submitted respectfully....

SNS3Guppy

30th Apr 2008, 19:02

A prime example of a professional is a medical doctor. While s/he is compensated, concern for the public (or pateint) takes precedence. A doctor has an ethical standard, which translates to trust and respect.

Irrelevant.

A patient isn't paid to be part of the doctor's team. The doctor doesn't earn the trust of the patient, the patient spends his or her money elsewhere. Further, a doctor who lacks trust cannot be relied upon to handle the health and welfare of the patient. The patient is the employer, the doctor the employee.

This has nothing at all to do with the captain/copilot relationship. Put it in context.

The doctor leads a surgical team in a heart operation. Now it's a crew environment. You think the doctor is going to cow down to a nurse when the nurse says "it's my patient, I'll decide what goes on in this operation?" Not hardly. Not even if it's a nurse-practitioner, an experienced OR nurse, or a Physician's Assistant. Not even an intern. The surgeon will remain in charge, period. It's his patient, his operation, and while others may assist, cut, medicate, anesthetize, treat, monitor, or help...it's the doctor's show. the first one to insist that no, it's their patient can certainly expect to be not only removed from the operation, but likely fired or not brought into the OR again.

Now it's in context. Service? Leadership? No. A job to do.

Look at it this way: if a FO and the cabin crew know that the Captain will do for them everything s/he can, won't that instill a high level of trust, respect, teamwork? In addition, it will in turn motivate the FO and FA's to do everything they can to support the CA and his goals which are: safe operation of the jet, earn a living and making the company money. Once a crew is highly motivated to do these things all of the little ego battles, turf battles, and "drama" go out the window.

Regardless of the captain's actions, it's NOT THE FIRST OFFICER'S AIRPLANE!!!

The actions and duties of the first officer are not predicated on how nice a guy the captain is. It's not a case of the first officer doing the minimum for a captain he doesn't like, or the maximum for one he does. He's being paid as a professional, he has a job description, and he needs to do it, period. He's not paid to like it, but paid to do it. He's not paid for his method, but his result. He's paid to assist the pilot in command in operating the flight.

The captain does not have need of bowing down to his subordinates; it's the subordinates who adapt to meet the needs of the captain.

I fully agree that leadership is best defined by serving those whom one leads. However, the cockpit isn't a popularity contest, nor a democracy. Whether or not the captain leads or is a fine leader, whether or not he posesses the qualities of a fine surgeon or a CEO, the duties and responsibilities, and limitations of the FO remain unchanged...and are not predicated on the leadership of the captain. The FO has a job to do. It does not include assuming authority beyond his own, and it certainly does not include failure to remain open to the instruction of the captain.

parabellum

30th Apr 2008, 20:45

I think what we have here is an interesting but largely untried theory, (RS3AV) versus tried and tested practice, (SNS3Guppy and others).

The theory may work for a few but the practice is a one size fits all and is known to work.

Pugilistic Animus

30th Apr 2008, 20:45

professionals---I think this is what I'd call doing the job--see

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-_i-hVlE8

not very difficult now is it?

Bealzebub

30th Apr 2008, 20:52

The definitions I gave were from the Oxford English Dictionary, so I don't mind that you don't agree with them.

The high levels of trust, teamwork and respect are what we encounter nearly everyday that we go to work. They work across all the crew relationships and beyond. However the problem that is the subject of this thread is how to handle a situation when that relationship isn't working. The Captain must then decide what corrective action to either allow or to take. In a time critical situation that decision needs to be prompt and effective.

If he feels the best course of action is to resume a handling role, then that is what he does. The First officers feelings and ego can be addressed on the ground, because they are not the imperative.

Robert Scott and Earnest Shackleton may have been remarkable leaders, but unless I am mistaken neither of them ever had an uncooperative or unresponsive F/O to deal with while they were barrelling out of the sky towards Earth at one mile every 12 seconds. Although it is a mildly interesting side note, that I recently had Earnest's great grandsons as one of my crewmembers for a recent series of flights.

All of this talk of gradients and servants and leadership and egos and authority is great in a classroom or in a thread such as this, but the reality is, that just like understanding the sublime working intricacies of an engine, if it catches fire you better know what to do quickly. It is not a time to be debating the abstract qualities of human relationships.

411A

1st May 2008, 03:43

All of this talk of gradients and servants and leadership and egos and authority is great in a classroom or in a thread such as this, but the reality is, that just like understanding the sublime working intricacies of an engine, if it catches fire you better know what to do quickly. It is not a time to be debating the abstract qualities of human relationships.

Quite true.

In 40 years of professional flying, only once did I, personally, have a problem with a First Officer.
I took control, and landed the aeroplane..an L1011.
The F/O was so annoyed that he packed his flight kit and walked off the FD.
He complained to the fleet manager.
The fleet manager was no easy mark, and as there had been several complaints from senior Captains, said First Officer was sent packing...to a lower fleet.
He was not welcome there either, apparently, and spent three months at home with no pay, on suspension.

Sooner or later these folks are found out, and as for a future command...in their dreams.:E

Brian Abraham

1st May 2008, 05:27

Had to smile when a young 20 year old joined the company having just obtained his license. At a pilots meeting in the first week of his employ he spent some time telling the crusty 20,000 captains that they had the wrong take on how things should be done, and later insisted that when he was flying, he was in command. Hear that he has gone on to become a captain and carries respect in the industry.

john_tullamarine

1st May 2008, 07:30

.. with exposure to the real world ... often comes wisdom and a measure of humility.

Man Flex

1st May 2008, 10:22

It came about that last night we ended up discussing this very subject (it was the F/O that brought it up). In the relatively short time he had been with the company he had heard of situations, like the one described and others where the F/Os attitude was effectively undermining the Captain's authority. This F/O was truly shocked and concerned to learn that such events occur and it was rather refreshing to hear that his view was that it is the Captain's aeroplane and he must accept the Captain's overall greater experience. This is not to say that this F/O was subservient - perhaps the opposite but he has one thing that others don't possess... RESPECT.

He went on to suggest that the cockpit environment was like a marriage. You are going to work with this person for ten, eleven or more hours each day and the idea is that you work together, respect each other's point of view, share tasks and if necessary compromise to avoid confrontation. Is this not what CRM is all about?

(PS. It was interesting too that he described the MCC course as being much more interested in honing the challenge and response aspects rather than seeking out ways of interacting within a two crew environment that requires an authority gradient. He suggested that this course failed to overcome the single pilot mentality that is installed from one's earliest days of flying.)

ssg

1st May 2008, 15:28

A pro is someone you pay, and because they are paid you expect a level of service and results. The more you pay, the more you EXPECT to get in return.

Service, standards, ethics, morality...all vary...especially in aviation. If there was really any kind of a standard, a higher bar or litmus that was actualy trying to be achieved in this industry then we wouldn't be employing 350 hour FOs in our airliners, or typing 1000 hour captains in GIVs. Enough said.

A volunteer is a 'get what you pay for type of thing'

SNS3Guppy

1st May 2008, 16:45

A volunteer is a 'get what you pay for type of thing'

That may be true in some arenas. However, I've worked as a volunteer firefighter and EMT...and we trained to, and performed to the same standards that any paid department did. Same response times, same quality of service.

Pay is far from the only determining factor in "what you get," and has little to do with professional performance.

Centaurus

2nd May 2008, 11:58

There is one captain on an aircraft. If things go wrong he wears it bigtime. Some captains are weak preferring to try to be a good friend all the time rather than being in charge. This is quickly sensed by a first officer who consciously or unconsciously will feel the captain is underconfident in his position of authority and consequently unreliable in an emergency situation. The first officer then feels empowered and will try to run the ship.

For instance the captain should be constantly watching the unfolding weather scene ahead on radar and from his experience decide which is the safest course of action. The operative words are "based upon his experience." While it may happen the F/O is PF for that leg, the decision which way to avoid threatening weather should not be a consensus. The captain should direct the F/O to take the avoiding action by giving him instructions on what heading and airspeed is needed. It should never be the case where the F/O is given a choice as this amounts to the captain abbrograting his responsibility. The F/O certainly may disagree and if the captain has commonsense he will reconsider his decision in light of his F/O's reasoned advice.

Too many times however the captain is inwardly afraid of "upsetting" the F/O and in the interest of maintaining perceived flight deck harmony, and under the guise of CRM decides to let the F/O dictate the course of action. That might be all very well if the F/O is in the LH seat undergoing command training. Once the captain resorts to weedling such as "Don't you think it might be a good idea to reduce speed?" or "Looks like some weather ahead - which way do you want to turn?" then he is asking for trouble. He becomes a friend and confidant instead of the captain running the show. There is no place for democracy on a flight deck.

Admiral346

2nd May 2008, 23:03

Yes, there's no place for democracy on the flight deck, I agree.

But the way I run things in the cockpit, I very much so let the FO make up his own mind on how to circumnavigate the weather, and if he voices his decision and I find it to be safe, he/she may very well proceed with the plan. Making your own choices gives you experience, and there is no better teacher.
I don't feel like I am giving up authority and only on rare occasions have I had to use some stronger words like a simple "No, I don't want that.". This always put the power back into my hands, even with the oldest FO within the company.

nic

cjam

3rd May 2008, 00:21

Centaurus said "Some captains are weak preferring to try to be a good friend all the time rather than being in charge. This is quickly sensed by a first officer who consciously or unconsciously will feel the captain is underconfident in his position of authority and consequently unreliable in an emergency situation. The first officer then feels empowered and will try to run the ship."
I think there is some truth to this, however I don't think it is always because the captain is "weak". I think that it is more just a difference in styles and some f/o's need the autocratic leadership to feel like the Captain is in command. I have been an f/o where I had little confidence in the Captain and actually felt that if it turned to custard I would effectively end up running the show, this may or may not have been how it panned out but that was the feeling i got from the Captain. I have been a Captain where one f/o obviously felt he had a bit more command input than I thought was ideal, and on looking back I think this was because I was too friendly and relaxed for this particular individuals personality to feel like I was in command. I have learned and now I am more autocratic when initially flying with someone new and become more relaxed as time passes and the relationship is better established. I think that it is a fine balance getting great teamwork going in the cockpit. I reckon most crews have very good teamwork due to SOP's and basic maturity, but for great teamwork the relationship has to develop more than that and in a positive way, while maintaining the authority gradient where it should be. Respect for the captains authority by the f/o is essential.

low n' slow

7th May 2008, 20:54

RS3AV:
Very interesting and well written post. Have flown with some commanders falling into this leadership theory and I must say they have been the best ones.

/LnS

mercurydancer

13th May 2008, 21:56

sns3guppy

I hope I'm not splitting hairs but I am interested in CRM or "Team" rescource management in a healthcare setting, and specifically in OR. I do find topics such as this very interesting and informative as in the mian responsible professionals do behave in similar ways in high-risk situations.

You posted - "The doctor leads a surgical team in a heart operation. Now it's a crew environment. You think the doctor is going to cow down to a nurse when the nurse says "it's my patient, I'll decide what goes on in this operation?" Not hardly. Not even if it's a nurse-practitioner, an experienced OR nurse, or a Physician's Assistant. Not even an intern. The surgeon will remain in charge, period. It's his patient, his operation, and while others may assist, cut, medicate, anesthetize, treat, monitor, or help...it's the doctor's show. the first one to insist that no, it's their patient can certainly expect to be not only removed from the operation, but likely fired or not brought into the OR again. "

The example of the OR is far more complex than that of an aircraft in flight. The surgeon is not entirely responsible in the same way as a captain of an aircraft. The anesthesiologist is responsible for the patient - it should be this way as anaesthesiology is not straightforward and needs a professional to take command of the patients well-being. Although the patient is common to both the surgical and anasthesiological teams, they often work within thier own team structures and conflict arises when the two team objectives diverge.

The surgeon is responsible for the surgery alone... and as for the OR nurse overrruling the surgeon, it happens and should happen. Consider this - a surgeon has left a swab inside a patient and is going to close the wound... the OR nurse knows this and can in fact order a "go around" (if you will permit me to use that term) and insist that the surgeon finds the errant swab and if the surgeon doesnt comply then he may be the one being fired. The power gradient between a junior nurse and a senior surgeon may be huge, but if that a surgeon wants to close the wound and a junior nurse says "swab count incorrect" then the surgoen has no alternative. He MUST comply.

I doi hope that you dont find my post too irritating but please remember that CRM and airline safety in general is being held in high esteem by healthcare professionals and hence my interest in this forum.

Pugilistic Animus

20th May 2008, 04:25

oh yes I forgot to mention that the Oxford english dictionary IS ON THE GROUND---and everything on the ground is crap to pilots

PS I hate the ground and anything associated with it:E

oskar

1st Jun 2008, 21:15

I find this a very interesting subject also. Ive also had certain issues relating to crm also. Example: first officer is flying, everything looking good, first officer starts bringing speed back to get nice stable approach and the captain advises the first officer to keep the speed high, first officer still feels comfortable and listens to captain, few miles later first officer advises of intention to bring speed back, captain says keep speed up. (no instruction from atc to keep speed fast. First officer getting a little bit uncomfortable, can see getting high and fast. captain then requests visual approach, knowing aircraft high and fast. First officer brings back speed , asks for certain configuration, captain then starts questioning at a critical stage why aircraft is high and fast and Captain non helpful, increases pressure on first officer at a critical stage of the flight, critises and then gives lecture to first officer on the roll out. My question is at what stage if any captains out there would like to answer, would you decide to to let a situation get like this. Is the sake of saving 2 or 3 minutes worth the hassle of a go around or was the captain inconsiderate and arrogant to his co pilot by ignoring his intentions without further guidance. All answers welcome

Centaurus

4th Jun 2008, 13:51

recognised that the granting of any a/c handling was a privilege and not a right!

Reminds me of another life when I was a copilot on Lincoln bombers and on my arrival at the squadron as a brand new 200 hour Wings graduate the Commanding Officer made me welcome with a nice cup of tea in his office. He was a decorated Wing Commander with impeccable manners and I was a lowly Sergeant. This Wing Commander had been shot down in flames by four Japanese Zeros while flying a Catalina and four of his seven crew were killed. He was captured and spent the rest of the war years in the infamous Changi Singapore prison.

After the war he was repatriated and resumed duties. Over tea and bikkies he pointed out I would fly as a second pilot with no take off and landings until I reached 300 hours on type or nine months with the squadron whichever came first. He reminded me of the need for good manners in the cockpit and no swearing. Good manners meant thanking the captain for the landing if and when I was offered one.

I saw him last year and he is a sprightly 90 years old. I was invited to share tea and bikkies with him just like 50 years ago. His manners were as ever - impeccable.

Back about 15 years ago, I was CFI of a flying school and flew a Cherokee Warrior to a country airstrip to meet up with my very first captain on the Lincoln. He too was a former RAAF bomber pilot flying Lancasters over Europe in the grim days of WW2. I brought with me some old photographs of our squadron days only to find that at age 80 he was nearly blind and really could not see them. I told him how I always remembered him giving me my first landing in a Lincoln when it was good manners to say thanks for the landing.

After tea and bikkies under the shade of a large gum tree, I offered him a circuit with me in the Warrior - just for old times sake, you understand...
He happily accepted and I was able to talk him around the circuit because he could not see the ground nor see the instruments apart from a blur. On final I talked him down like a visual GCA and told him when to flare and hold it. He was aware of the grassed airstrip and I held my hands close to the wheel as he flared and touched down gently. He couldn't see to taxi back to the gum tree where his wife and labrador retriever was watching from their old car - and so I taxied for him.

After the prop stopped and the mags were switched off, my old instructor turned in his seat and patting my shoulder said "Thanks for the landing, JL...."

Don't see much of those manners in todays flight decks...