Border between being assertive or arrogant/rude

[Boeing 777-300ER]

Just finished my annual CRM refresher and one of the excercises simulated being on a boat which was about to sink in the middle of an ocean. Our group of 4 had to decide which items to take with and put in order which items were the most important.

To cut a long story short, 2 of the guys were in agreement that a certain item should be put on top of the list as the most important. I was after another item. The other guy did not offer an opinion. I placed my argument for some time. The other guys placed their item first after I 'gave in' with reservations.

At the end we discussed the excercise and it happened that the item I was after was indeed number 1 on the priority list (according to a survival expert).

My question is this: was I assertive enough? In my opinion I was not, even though the other 2 guys 'hijacked' the discussion (they are best friends and me and the other guy were left out a little).

On the other should I have kept pressing on with my argument without portraying an image of being arrogant or rude?

The problem is that with such group excercises there are not any right or wrong answers.

Any help on the matter would be greatly appreciated as I have being pondering on this question for 2 days :ugh:

[isi3000]

Did you try to explain why it should have been first or did you just state that it should have been? A good argument as to why could have settled it...or a vote :ok:

[Centaurus]

Let's look at this real life scenario. Captain meets his first officer for first time and asks the first officer which leg he would like to fly? F/O shrugs his shoulders and says he doesn't care as long as he gets equal share..

Captain completes fuel figures and shows the total to F/O with the comment "are you happy with these figures?" F/O says no - there is too much fuel. Captain puzzled asks why there is too much fuel aboard. F/O replies that he (F/O) calculates three tonnes less than captain's figures. Captain then points out it is a tankering sector and that is why he has additional fuel aboard. F/O grunts.

Captain gives F/O the leg and during descent it is clear the F/O is behind the profile. Captain suggests F/O should take necessary action to get back on profile asap due getting close to airfield. F/O says he is working on it but does nothing effective except speed up and gain more energy. Captain gets edgy and suggests that best get the landing gear out to create drag. F/O says OK in a minute...Captain exasperated says gear going down NOW and F/O grunts. Aircraft barely attains a stabilised approach by 500 afl. After close down the captain asks the F/O if he would have changed his flight profile earlier given they were high from 10,000 ft downwards. F/O says "if you hadn't bloody interfered with my descent planning we would have made it in OK..."

And that is what happens when CRM becomes the catchword for everything.
So called CRM has destroyed the "old fashioned" good manners and respect that was once a feature of a well run cockpit.

[Pilot Pete]

So called CRM has destroyed the "old fashioned" good manners and respect that was once a feature of a well run cockpit. Hold on a minute there...... The archetypical 'old fashioned, well run cockpit' was a dictatorship where the captain was god and the other cockpit occupants warmed the seats. We all know how good this was for flight safety.

The modern cockpit is a much safer place with the introduction of CRM. What has changed is society in general and much of your 'old fashioned' good manners and respect is lost on the younger masses. However, the individuals that display such undesirable traits are few and far between in the flight deck in my experience and the situation you describe is not one that I have come across. Most guys welcome the input if they are getting it wrong and certainly are happy to talk about it in a much more positive, open way once the engines are shut down, grasping the opportunity to learn from the experience. I was certainly like that when I was in the right seat and continue to be so in the left.

It is easy to make up an example of 'failed CRM', but put it into context. For every failure like the one you describe there are several successes due to CRM.

PP

[Rightbase]

My two pence worth..

Boeing - the real quandary is what is the best possible outcome.

At its worst, with two non-listening votes carrying fixed mindsets, they are part of the problem. So the theoretical possibility of a better outcome if they were different is as relevant as a better outcome if the boat wasn't sinking, or if you were on Southend beach rather than in mid-ocean.

If there isn't sufficient time to solve the problem of the non-listeners, you do the best you can with them as they are.

You deal with the situation as it is, making the best of a bad job if necessary.

And picking up on Centaurus:

So you're too fast on finals and the FO is taking too long to come round to your way of thinking ....

CRM orthodoxy or ( the payload + your life + the airframe + the FO )?

No contest!

So going back to the original scenario, you pick up the No 1 choice and sit on it whilst they decide on the other three.

Or you tell the scenario inventor that you don't give two figs for putting them in order so long as your number 1 choice is on board with you. Putting them in order is simply training mischief to generate unnecessary and inappropriate conflict.

What the exercise leaves out - crucially - is the role of captain, and if anything, the (imho flawed) exercise demonstrates the need for it. In an emergency, wisdom, judgement and experience need to be recognised and used, and in time critical situations to be used without democratic debate.

For my money, CRM is about establishing an environment in which that can happen smoothly, effectively and instantly if a time critical situation arises.

And the captain must be especially skilled at recognising the wisdom, judgement, experience, skill and knowledge assets of the whole team.

[Boeing 777-300ER]

Thanks to all for your feedback.

It is indeed true that modern cockpits are a safer place today with the advent of CRM. Nowadays a lot of emphasis is put on assertiveness during initial CRM courses. At times I fear that we are going too far and so meet the occassioanl too assertive or maybe arrogant F/O.

That's why I came with this dilemma on these forums. Pressing on with my argument during the CRM excercise might have sounded as arrogance whilst resting my argument might be perceived as weak or not being assertive. After all I could have been 'wrong'.

[low n' slow]

B777:
Would the outcome have changed significantly if the problem had been solved your way? I think we all judge the importance of things by looking at what the outcome will be. Lets say I'm between a rock and a hard place. Which errors will create the biggest danger?

I think of the outcome versus the working environment. In as many situations as possible, one should avoid being too assertive. Once you draw the line and start dictating, out goes cooperation and with that a great deal of safety.
I think your action shows that you were more focused on maintaining the cooperation and valued this higher than the outcome, that is, if the problem was solved your way it wouldn't have made much difference. I think this simply reflects a healthy attitude towards situational awareness and cooperation. It would be interesting to see though, where you draw the line, that is, when the outcome is very important and there is a erronous descision being made and you know it.

Centaurus: CRM is not a recent invention. It's simply management-speak for "he's a good guy to work with", "airmanship", "captaincy", etc. etc. Just because one acts the fool in the cockpit and behaves like a dictator and then gets upset when the commander intervenes in the flying, you can't take cover behind the proverbial CRM shield. I know many do it, but the same rules that have allways been in force, still apply. Smirking at high fuelfigures or when someone flies the plane a bit slower than Vmo/Mmo is simply poor airmanship, ie. that person has poor CRM becase it puts negative pressure on the other pilot.

/LnS

[SNS3Guppy]

A few months ago we had some similiar group exercises. I've done them time and time again. I got the same kinds of exercises, this time with some slight twists. As I heard the scenario, I had my decision in mind before even reaching for the pen. Very straight forward. I knew that everyone else would come to the same conclusion, because it was clear. No other possible outcome.

Imagine my surprise when I found a wide divergence of opinions. I don't know that there's any great need to be agressive in aserting one's viewpoint in these exercises, but what did come out was the ability to listen to others and learn. As I heard other's viewpoints and the questions they asked, my observations fell flat. They had ideas I hadn't even considered, and suddenly the scenario took on an entirely different meaning. I could have pressed on with my view, but in the end it would have been entirely wrong.

By working with the group, we opened up our thinking and solved the problem. This was the point of the exercise; it was a group effort in which no one person was correct. We all coordinated our discussion to include each member of the group to come to the proper end...perspective was provided. No loss of group leadership occured. There was no breakdown in the discussion.

Perspective.

[goudie]

After all I could have been 'wrong'.

And that was the problem B777, you probably displayed a lack confidence in your decision therefore other crew members lacked confidence in you and took over.

[Boeing 777-300ER]

Yes I think having a strong personality and confidence affects the group's outcome. In a way it is good however very dangerous if in the wrong

[bArt2]

1. The aim of these exercises is to show that a group working together will get a better result them if they would work alone.

2. Assume that you have 2 persons that need to explain or defend something to a group. person A is talking nonsense because he does not know what he is talking about but he is convinced about him being right and explains with a LOUD VOICE and a lot of CONFIDENCE. Person B is an expert in the matter and explains everything correctly, but he is a bit timid, and is not so confident while talking to the group. The result will be that person B will not be taking so serious as person A and the group will tend to believe what A said. At least that is my experience.

Greetings, Bart

[Lydia Dustbin]

B777

In a group environment the rules can be quite simple. There are many ways of skinning a cat. If a group decide to go about a particular task and it's not quite the way you would do it but the outcome will be safe, if, despite your input the group still wish to proceed down their original route then it saves a lot of stress and time, just to go along with it ,PROVIDING you believe it is safe to do so. If however, you believe that the actions about to be followed could or would compromise the safe conduct of the flight then you must assert your position until you are heard and listened to. There are countless First Officers who have allowed the Captain to take them to the scene of the crash.

I think in the exercise you did the right thing, as you were tasked with an ideal outcome rather than one where if the solution were wrong you all (in the exercise) forfeit your lives (or at least a stack at 3pm on the last day instead of 5pm :))

[ARINC]

Just having done yet another Human factors course these old chestnuts were trotted out again...

Risky shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization#Risky_shift) and group think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)

Don't automatically assume groups make better decisions. :=

[woodyspooney]

Retired after 41 years of flying and with almost 2 decades as a trainer and checker, here is my 2 cents worth. A young pilot newbie normally have problems with the question of arrogance and assertiveness.......after ten years or so on the RHS as a result of going through both hardcore skippers and softie lambs, he/she will be able to be mature enough to distinguish between the two and exercise good judgement. It all boils to maturity and a willingness to learn. For those who are recalcitrant and intransigent, it's a lost cause!

[fireflybob]

If you look at "conformity within groups" it is much more difficult to get your point accepted if you are "on your own". In a big group if there is ONE other person who agrees with your proposal it is much more likely that your proposal will be accepted by the group.

[411A]

Let's look at this real life scenario. Captain meets his first officer for first time and asks the first officer which leg he would like to fly? F/O shrugs his shoulders and says he doesn't care as long as he gets equal share..

Captain completes fuel figures and shows the total to F/O with the comment "are you happy with these figures?" F/O says no - there is too much fuel. Captain puzzled asks why there is too much fuel aboard. F/O replies that he (F/O) calculates three tonnes less than captain's figures. Captain then points out it is a tankering sector and that is why he has additional fuel aboard. F/O grunts.

Captain gives F/O the leg and during descent it is clear the F/O is behind the profile. Captain suggests F/O should take necessary action to get back on profile asap due getting close to airfield. F/O says he is working on it but does nothing effective except speed up and gain more energy. Captain gets edgy and suggests that best get the landing gear out to create drag. F/O says OK in a minute...Captain exasperated says gear going down NOW and F/O grunts. Aircraft barely attains a stabilised approach by 500 afl. After close down the captain asks the F/O if he would have changed his flight profile earlier given they were high from 10,000 ft downwards. F/O says "if you hadn't bloody interfered with my descent planning we would have made it in OK..."

And that is what happens when CRM becomes the catchword for everything.
So called CRM has destroyed the "old fashioned" good manners and respect that was once a feature of a well run cockpit.

Quite frankly, I couldn't agree more.
Very well said.

First off, I could see a problem from the very first, if I was in the referenced Captain's shoes.
Captain meets his first officer for first time and asks the first officer which leg he would like to fly? F/O shrugs his shoulders and says he doesn't care as long as he gets equal share..


I seems to me that said First Officer has forgotten his manners, and indeed it could also be said that he has just a tad little chip on his shoulders, and this can be further confirmed by...

F/O says "if you hadn't bloody interfered with my descent planning we would have made it in OK..."


Said First Officer clearly has forgotten just whom is in Command, and for those who still might not be sure, it most definitely is not said First Officer.

IF I ever came across an F/O like this, he would be referred to the fleet manager for additional training...and would quite likely receive same, directly from said fleet manager, usually with a suspension from flying duties, and told to go home and not return uintil he finds his manners.

[Pugilistic Animus]

After the recent frenzy of silly theories on Pprune --all I can say about FO's is that when you are confident:ok:--confidence is great---knowledge and competence ---are great:ok:---- arrogance sends you to oceans---and for such a huge gap in knowledge [V1, Vmc, Vyse, WET RWYs]---I'd firmly suggest they cool themselves and those hot egos and listen to someone who knows what they are talking about:*

Because in aviation we only have two types of terrain --mountainous and non-mountainous and most of the non-mountainous is oceanic

and really the mountains don't understand CRM and you CAN NOT LIE to an airplane

I with 411A and Centaurus WRT to Respect and manners:ok:

PA

[fireflybob]

Being assertive is NOT about being arrogant and/or rude, quite the opposite in fact!

Assertiveness means (amongst other things) being respectful of others feelings and views and their right express them in an adult manner. It also means that you should also be able to do the same and be listened to with respect.

[AtoBsafely]

B777,

Rest assured that you weren't too far off the mark! Yes, you could have been more assertive/forceful - but at what cost? You opted to keep group harmony with what you thought (correctly) was second best. In the real situation that was a reasonable, and (without details) I think best solution. Unless the item was essential - in which case I am sure you would have been a lot more forceful- you are better off.

If you really are on that sinking ship: your companions will kill you a lot faster than the lack of almost any piece of equipment. The group may not be correct 100% of the time, but they are all you have at the time.

Next time, trust yourself a bit more, use a bit more authority, but stay in the group - unless they are going to Jonestown. Ultimately, you just have yourself and your own judgement.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Not-so-clever F/O asked one of my colleagues - his Captain for the day - which sectors he would like to fly.

Captains response - " Well thank you, I'll fly them all"

[Cloud Bunny]

It always amazes me when discussions like this come up in that there are F/O's out there who think they are beyond learning. I can remember sitting on the Jumpseat as a Safety Pilot opened mouthed as a day one trainee Cadet started to debrief the Captain on HIS performance both as a trainer and his flying of the aeroplane and then disagreed with everything the Training Captain had to say during his debrief.
I couldn't believe it and it was all I could do sit there and keep my mouth shut. I've got over 1500hrs on the 737 now and still I take every opportunity to ask questions, pick up little tid-bits of information, take all advice that comes my way and use every flight I do as a tool to learn more and more. I would never dream of scoffing to a Captain who thought that things were starting to go belly up and made a few suggestions to rectify the situation. Once at the gate have a discussion, find out what had gone wrong and learn from it. I fly with some really good and experienced Captains - people like Slim Shady (although I don't actually fly with Slim I'm just using him as an example of the sort of guy it's always worth listening to) and it's a pleasure to feel that you're getting better and gaining more valuable experience every flight.
However, back to the discussion CRM has definately had a positive effect on life up the sharp end and improved safety without question. It's important to realise that we are there to work as a team to make sure all the mistakes are kept to a minimum.

[411A]

Not-so-clever F/O asked one of my colleagues - his Captain for the day - which sectors he would like to fly.

Captains response - " Well thank you, I'll fly them all"

Made my day, that did...:ok:

In forty years of professional flying, only once did I have a First Officer that was 'not especially nice' and argumentative.
He was referred to the Fleet Manager...who promptly sent him home for three months, with no pay.
Many complants from other Captains, apparently.

[banana9999]

Just finished my annual CRM refresher and one of the excercises simulated being on a boat which was about to sink in the middle of an ocean. Our group of 4 had to decide which items to take with and put in order which items were the most important.

To cut a long story short, 2 of the guys were in agreement that a certain item should be put on top of the list as the most important. I was after another item. The other guy did not offer an opinion. I placed my argument for some time. The other guys placed their item first after I 'gave in' with reservations.

At the end we discussed the excercise and it happened that the item I was after was indeed number 1 on the priority list (according to a survival expert).

My question is this: was I assertive enough? In my opinion I was not, even though the other 2 guys 'hijacked' the discussion (they are best friends and me and the other guy were left out a little).

On the other should I have kept pressing on with my argument without portraying an image of being arrogant or rude?

The problem is that with such group excercises there are not any right or wrong answers.

Any help on the matter would be greatly appreciated as I have being pondering on this question for 2 days :ugh:

First of all I don't believe it matters if item A or B was #1 on the list. However if the other two chaps would have turned-out to be correcr then, our of interest, would you have bothered with this thread?

You put your case and you were "outvoted".

[Boeing 777-300ER]

banana9999

However if the other two chaps would have turned-out to be correcr then, our of interest, would you have bothered with this thread?

I think you missed the whole point. The question was never whether I was right or wrong. My question is how much should one press on with his argument? One could be right or wrong and, as you rightly said, it doesn't matter which item should be top of the list.

It was a CRM excercise and each presented his case and arguments in favour of the particular item. It's a matter of how much one can be assertive without giving the impression of being 'aggressive' or too cocky.

Thanks to all for your thoughts. Any more imput would be greatly appreciated. We can all learn from our own experiences I guess

[justcurious]

If you have the chance, the film "12 Angry Men" with Henry Fonda is tailor made for this aspect of CRM.

Twelve Jurors in a capital case. Eleven firm jurors, one hold out. Good example of reasoned dispassionate assertion. I use it in initial courses.

[Admiral346]

@justcurious:

One of the best movies ever made. Anyone nor knowing it, should try and watch it.

Same is right for "Inherit the wind", with Spencer Tracy leading a great argument. He is smart and tricky, getting his point across all obstacles.

Watch 'em

Nic

[turbocharged]

I'm wondering why you were doing this particular activity. You sometimes see this sort of exercise as part of an attempt to demonstrate that collective decision-making is often better than individual D-M (synergy). Was it to illustrate conflict resolution? Was it to show assertion v aggression?

What was the objective of the session? What was the facilitator doing? How was it all debriefed?

[Pugilistic Animus]

Some these CRM scenarios seem like they were concocted by Misses Tooey, because they all seem like a bunch of Hooey:}

seriously how do these 'ground think 'tanks' help pilots' ?

Only aeronautical knowledge--airplanes aren't run by committees and think tanks but by procedures and practice--how does this type of CRM scenario teach how to effective use all available resources available in the AIR not the GROUND?------ because these committees --- are on the ground!!!!--and most everything on the ground is useless to pilots:ugh:

I think accident/incident discussion is FAR, FAR more productive...

we need to cease with these 'Oprah and Dr. Phil' playtime sessions and STOP CRASHES!!!!!

PA

[mikehammer]

There's a captain in our company who's theory is that a relaxed cockpit leads to more input (which may be valuable, may be rubbish, but is input nonetheless). However this never undermines the fact that he's the boss, and the final decision and, importantly, responsability, lies with him. Moreover, in the above "real life" scenario, I suspect that the FO would have found himself spoken to much earlier, and quite right too.

I enjoy most of all flying with this particular chap, have learned oceans of useful stuff from him ever day, don't feel I cannot suggest anything (although if it's daft he'll tell me with a grin) and frankly I think I perform better when flying with him. I've done some stupid things, and been informed in no uncertain terms, but back on the ground I've learned why.

The atmosphere is less stiff and so is the flying because of it. However he's so good at what he does I think he has more in reserve than some and can handle a daft inexperienced FO's flying to a greater degree. The most frustrating thing about flying with him is wondering why it won't do that for me.

Neither of us are spring chickens, so I am inclined to agree with PilotPete about the "younger masses" to which he refers.

Interestingly, in this debate the real life scenario stems from the FO's rudeness to the captain, rather than the other way around. Is this always the case?:E

[pilotbear]

Some these CRM scenarios seem like they were concocted by Misses Tooey, because they all seem like a bunch of Hooey

seriously how do these 'ground think 'tanks' help pilots' ?

Only aeronautical knowledge--airplanes aren't run by committees and think tanks but by procedures and practice--how does this type of CRM scenario teach how to effective use all available resources available in the AIR not the GROUND?------ because these committees --- are on the ground!!!!--and most everything on the ground is useless to pilots

I think accident/incident discussion is FAR, FAR more productive...

we need to cease with these 'Oprah and Dr. Phil' playtime sessions and STOP CRASHES!!!!!


well this post just proves the need for more understanding of the CRM concept. The fact is it is people and their interactions that cause incidents more than mechanical breakdowns.:ugh:

[no more nite flights]

Yes.Im an old hairy ass Captain and seen it all.Had many an arrogant,over confident f/O on Flt deck...same scenario...you meet in crew room..no pleasantries definate chip on shoulder..dissagrees with anything you come up with...fuel/performance/reserves etc...gets very tiring..you know your in for a lousy day..guy cocks up descent planning despite several prompts..would you like the gear etc to get back on profile...no way!!...he s an ace...end up on finals double the height and requesting "orbit to loose height"...takes a/pilot out and hand flies orbit at 15flap loosing speed below target speed..several more prompts ...for crappy landing.try to debrief,not interested but admits "several captains think Im a cowboy!!!"I agree I say which prompts a look of disdain ."Maybe we should talk to base Captain if you dont like my flying" Im told!..in disbelief I walk away from this guy with a mega chip on both shoulders.I think CRM really has gone too far and encourages this sort of behaviour in Flt deck.At the end of the day the CAPTAIN is in command of the aircraft with all the responsibility that goes with it.We are seeing too many arrogant,overconfident ,insolent trainees in the right hand seat,all well balanced individuals with chips on both shoulders!....I could go on.Im sure many Capts have experienced the same scenario.....

[kuntakinte]

No mas, no mas.........well said! No more of this insolence. CRM has become the battle cry of incompetent nit wits masquerading " thinking "pilots.

[Non-PC Plod]

CRM is about getting the right balance - not about letting the F/O do whatever he likes so you dont hurt his feelings! For No More Night Flights' hypothetical example, a hypothetical CRM assessment might be:

F/O: Poor on cooperation (not considering others, conflict solving); poor on leadership & management skills (planning and coordination, maintaining standards); poor on situational awareness; poor on decision making (risk assessment & option selection

Captain: OK on cooperation and SA, but poor on leadershp & management (ineffective use of authority & assertiveness) and poor on decision-making.

CRM is not just massaging your colleagues' egos, its about demonstrating the appropriate behaviour for the situation. Letting the FO fly dangerously is not appropriate, and would result in a failed CRM assessment for the captain.

A cowboy F/O has to be put in his place, otherwise one day, god forbid, he will be a cowboy captain!

[roljoe]

"At the end of the day the CAPTAIN is in command of the aircraft with all the responsibility that goes with it.We are seeing too many arrogant,overconfident ,insolent trainees in the right hand seat,all well balanced individuals with chips on both shoulders!....I could go on.Im sure many Capts have experienced the .."

Totally agree with this feeling, and more and more difficult to handle..
and the worse the f/o will be, the quicker he will complain to the fleet manager about your interventions in the process..to save the day..

[Pugilistic Animus]

A long boring technical lecture during cruise sets all the little snots straight:E
not that I've flown with any of those recently-----

the answers are simple, if you want improvements
1. Burn 'em all out in ground school---- don't even let the incompetent losers near a transport aircraft:E
2. Don't let misses Tooey give lessons on airmanship
3. These are NOT my words they are a Quote from Old Smokey --and it applies across the deck
"Trust Nothing Trust No One" :ok:

4. Just do the job it isn't difficult [or at least the airside of things should be easy---easy like pie
5. Nothing replaces knowledge --especially knowledge tempered with experience

Most importantly---Never Say the word 'Dood':yuk:---on the FD--a VERY common word used [from CVR's] especially at part 135 carriers---before the fatal accident-

PA

[glawkshuter]

CRM: A complicated method of allowing the FO to pipe up without the worry of losing his job, when the capt is about to wreck the plane. Hire better pilots, CRM will be much less of an issue and ergo FOs using CRM to beat on capts.

[Non-PC Plod]

But if F/Os are "beating on " Captains, they arent using CRM, they are just being D***heads!!!

[Pilot Pete]

no more nite flights

I think CRM really has gone too far and encourages this sort of behaviour in Flt deck.At the end of the day the CAPTAIN is in command of the aircraft with all the responsibility that goes with it. CRM has nothing to do with encouraging that sort of behaviour in F/Os....their complete lack of understanding of it does, coupled to the wrong attitude. Your second sentence is interesting in so much that you singularly failed to exercise your command authority in the scenario you relayed and allowed the situation to go much further than it should have done. If alarm bells weren't ringing when he refused your 'suggestions' they damn well should have been when he requested an orbit and then started to mishandle the jet even more. I think Non-PC Plod assessed your scenario and summed it up quite nicely. Funny how the F/O was not the only one with the CRM issues........:rolleyes:

PP

[hec7or]

What is puzzling me is why do we still hear about CRM related problems if the psychometric tests at interview have any value.

Last I'd heard is that there is still no definative pilot profile available, they still use a management profile for recruitment, which must have its limitations.

[308GT4]

Assertiveness and arrogance, a fine/undefined line? (I don't mean manners)
I have, as an F/O, on 4 different occasions, with 4 different captains, been 'instructed' : "You can go!".
Each scenario was identical. We are lined up and fully ready. However, my clock was started as the heavy (Jumbo size) rotated. We are in a bottom-end scale medium. On all occasions, much less than 2 minutes had elapsed. Yes, there were cross winds.......on the ground, and we had both engines functioning normally~~~~~
The last time turned ugly there and then. I was arguing with the captain, and he saw my resistance to his decision as insubordination. Till today, I can feel that uneasy feeling lingering when we fly together. I can assure you, it does NOT go down well when you resist the commanders command for you to go!
Any objective/learned/experienced comments?

[Pitch&Fan]

CRM should never be understood as any type of replacement for good manners, or reasonable social skills. CRM could / should be viewed as a living toolbox, filled with skill tools, and knowledge tools, to be used when appropriate.

CRM is simply a sub-element of the Human Factors subject, and as such, is something that we are expected to learn, consider, and apply on all flights.

A simple observation of the various conflicts (wars) that are going on around the world should be ample evidence that we don't generally get along ---as a rule---.

I fly for a national carrier with a fairly homogenous pilot group-culture, and even here we need to be very careful with some of our colleagues. That said... Not all of us find the same guys difficult.

CRM is a professional skill, and as such, it is most certainly not meant to water down the captain's authority, or command responsibility.

The captain stays the captain. It's just that now we have found a way to get through to those who are more ego-centric, as well as those who are simply normal...!

CRM does not replace manners or seniority (as in "experience").

Cheers

Pitch&Fan

[Centaurus]

I walk away from this guy with a mega chip on both shoulders.I think CRM really has gone too far and encourages this sort of behaviour in Flt deck.At the end of the day the CAPTAIN is in command of the aircraft with all the responsibility that goes with it.We are seeing too many arrogant,overconfident ,insolent trainees in the right hand seat,all well balanced individuals with chips on both shoulders!....I could go on.Im sure many Capts have experienced the same scenario.....

I know of one major SE Asia airline where the captain has full authority to turf the culprit off at the next suitable stop and ask for a replacement. Of course the captain is required to explain his actions later. But a stress laden flight deck simply because of a seriously bad news second in command is a flight safety hazard and should be treated as such. Of course there are always two sides to every story and the SBNSIC will have the opportunity to give his version of events.

[Dash7Ace]

:ugh:laughs

[peatair]

Can any of you guys please explain why you cannot have (a) assertiveness and (b) good manners and (c) CRM at the same time? Is the answer that there are still too many prima donnas and cockpit Gods?

[Tee Emm]

Ok captains - how would you handle this one? Capt PF notes CB on radar and asks F/O to ask ATC for diversion 30 miles east of track due weather. F/O squints at radar picture and says how about 15 miles east, that is all you will need. Capt again tells F/O to request 30 miles. F/O calls ATC and requests 20 miles east due weather. Captain fumes but too late to counteract as ATC says clear 20 miles and report when able to regain track. As aircraft reaches 15 miles on the way to avoid CB in front, the F/O calls ATC and says we are clear of weather and now taking up heading to regain track. Captain furious and points to more CB on next scale and demands in future F/O do what he is bloody well told. F/O shrugs shoulders and goes on reading his newspaper in the RH seat.

Should the captain do the warm and fuzzy human factors thing like confrontation avoidance and merely remind the F/O of who is in charge? Or should the captain rip his guts out after landing? Should the captain send in a formal report? And as this particular F/O is well known for his casual attitude should he be dismissed from the airline as a safety hazard.

[Boeing 777-300ER]

Tee Emm

I know the feeling. Airlines today are teaching F/O's to be assertive. Rightly so may I add. The problem is that we have gone too far and F/O's are now questioining the Captain's decision or judgement.

This is way I posted the question. When is one being assertive or arrogant?

[SNS3Guppy]

How should the captain handle that one? When the captain asked for 30 nm and the copilot advised 15, the captain should have keyed the mic and made his request directly to ATC. Nothing prevents him from doing that.

When the F/O continued to be insubordinate, the captain had full grounds to take that approach to the chief pilot following the flight. Further, if it was one leg of several, at the next stop the F/O should have been put off the flight and the flight terminated until a suitable replacement could be found.

I would have no problem at all taking that kind of attitude to task...and yes, if that attitude is persistent in the cockpit, then the F/O should certainly be dismissed.

It's one thing to speak out about a safety issue. However, when the captain makes a conservative call and the F/O reduces the margin of safety, that's the exact opposite of being positively assertive. That's dangerous. The F/O doesn't have the right, nor is it his or her place, to advise the captain that he's being too conservative.

I wouldn't put up with it for a minute.

[low n' slow]

The F/O clearly doesn't have a clue about what his duties are.
He needs a rude awakening into real life and I would as a commander wait until being on ground and then let him know in a very exact manner what I'm not happy with. There are a couple of things one has to considder though:
1) do I have to do further flights with the same copilot on that same day?
2) how much experience does the F/O have?
3) does he show other signs of not being in the game as regards to begin a good colleague?

If I have to do further flights with him, I'd go easy. You don't want to create a bigger problem than it really is. Telling someone you're not happy will envoke hard feelings so it has to be done in such a way that that persons performance isn't decreased. If I bring my colleague down, I bring my self down...
That's where experience comes in. An FO with 2-3000 hours will have a broader base to stand on when someone tries to change his/her behaviour. It may be a good thing but it can also be bad. Good because there will be some substance in subsequent discussions. Bad because his behaviour will be more rigid than an F/O with 200 hours.
And if he's a friendly dude otherwise and just happened to fail on this item, then there's a good chance that only a small hint will be enough to set him off in the right direction.

I flew with a captain that called field in sight when I was still happily cruising along at level with 70 miles to go and no field in sight what so ever. It resulted in a missed appch because he, in effect, took control over the flight without keeping me in the loop. I was actually furious, but because he's a decent guy otherwise, I decided to ask him what his views on calling visual approaches were. As he explained, I began to understand his way of thinking and I then began to explain my view and tried to make him understand that if I'm flying the the plane, I want to be in control of when my IFR approach becomes a visual approach. He didn't understand my point, but what I made him understand was that it is very important to me that things are handled that way. I never raised my voice and never showed signs of irritation, only very exact comments. In the end he agreed to never call for a visual approach unless I'd said that I had the field in sight, eventhough in his world it was just nonsense.

Perhaps this could be a way for you to handle that F/O. Ask him what his thoughts are, make him ventilate what he was thinking and then explain to him what your thoughts were in that situation. Explain that it is important to you that he shows that he's able to execute your commands. If that's during cruise, what about if something catches fire and you're forced to take "uncomfortable action" in some way. He might not understand, but if you explain that it's important to YOU, he has to follow it. As long as you argue with facts about WX avidance and company regulations he will allways be able to mouth back. But for personal preferences, he can't say anything.

/LnS

[Non-PC Plod]

Tee Em,

There's only one answer to this one. A hard right to the solar plexus! (after the flight, of course). If this pillock shows such complete disrespect to other people, as well as complete inability to work as part of a crew, he deserves to be not only out of the cockpit, but in the gutter too!

[mikehammer]

I understood CRM was an attempt to rule out the situation where, as for example in the case of the Tenerife collision, the PNF does not feel unable to speak up when they feel something is dangerous.

In the above example of weather avoidance and the subsequent insolence from the FO, my opinion is that he had no business interfering: there is no danger in a 30 mile avoidance, and certainly no grounds for disobeying a direct order from the Captain. As I recall from lectures, there remains a gradient of authority in the flightdeck, and, whilst it is not supposed to be so steep as to lead to danger in the rare circumstance such as Tenerife where the Captain made the wrong decision, it remains nevertheless a gradient. Authority still of course is in place, that's why there is a commander and a FO.

If the FO in question was puzzled, then explaining (after first following the order) something along the lines of it probably being due to his own inexperience, but would 15 miles have been enough, would most likely result in a good explanation and even the FO may have learned something.

Most, if not all of the time a polite discussion will nomally put something straight in the head of a less experienced pilot. Nobody minds sensible questions, how else will we learn? However taking unilateral decisions usurping the authority of the commander, unless he is about to kill you - and you better be sure of that, is not acceptable and is not the aim of CRM.

As has already been stated, this is not an area of CRM. The M stands for management, there was no management in this example: only conflict.

[bucket_and_spade]

I'm what you'd call a low-hours pilot, new to commercial flying on a medium twinjet.

As cliched as it sounds, I learn something new every day (having a relatively sparse knowledge-base at the minute!), often from the captain I'm flying with. It's great because there's always a different take on doing the same thing. I lump everything together, pick out the things I think make more sense or those that I've seen work well and slowly come up with my own way of doing things which I think will work.

When I'm PF I like to make the decisions based on this slowly increasing knowledge-base...right up to the point that the captain suggests a different way of doing things. 99.999% of the time the suggestion doesn't have any safety connotations at all - it's simply a suggestion on how to fly the approach, or a recommended wx avoidance path, or s/he bringing a trend I might not have noticed to my attention. Unless something makes an FO uncomfortable (safety-wise) for some reason, I fail to see what benefit there is in trying to assert authority/argue over issues/requests that have NO SAFETY IMPLICATION AT ALL. When it's been appropriate (low workload) I've often asked, if I wasn't sure of the reasoning behind a suggestion/request, for the captain's thought process, interested in his/her take on things and also offered why I was following a certain course of action so the captain (especially if they are a trainer) understands my take. If I spout something out that, on hearing it myself, I realise is bo****ks, I'll happily refer to myself as a muppet and get over it! If it's busy, we can speak in the crew room.

The best captains I've flown with allow for the fact that I'm relatively inexperienced, let me make minor mistakes and don't over-the-top prompt if it's purely a matter of technique rather a question of safety etc. The most vivid memories I have are minor mistakes such as where I've been allowed to burn a few extra kilos of fuel by levelling off, dirty, a little earlier than I really needed to or bringing the speed back a little too early/cautiously, resulting in dragging it in a bit. The best learning tool is doing - I'll be very aware of making a similar mistake again, having seen the result first-hand, and so will hopefully avoid it in the future!

As has been said before on other threads it's sometimes quite tricky as an eff-oh, having to be a bit of a chameleon depending on the captain you're with that day.

To sum up my view of things - I want to be good at my job and enjoy it, I see myself as an apprentice-captain i.e. a future captain in training. It's the captain's aircraft (his/her names on the paperwork and a leader is needed) and it's a two-person operation to fly the aircraft properly and safely. In the vast majority of cases, routine decisions made have no safety implication at all - most of the time I don't think it's worth jeopardising the channels of communication by being unnessarily argumentative/tenacious. This isn't being submissive - it's being rational and appreciating the big picture. No one always gets the balance right.

The story a few posts back about wx avoidance was an eye-opener. I can't see any benefit in approaching the scenario as the FO did. By the sounds, the operation wasn't any safer and all that resulted was a p***ed off skipper, a breakdown of the relaxed relationship (with an obvious and required authority gradient) which seems to work well in the cockpit and a spoilt day out :bored:

Early days so I've not come up against any real CRM issues yet but in my (very) short-lived experience of things so far - things seem to run perfectly smoothly and a healthy open channel of communication maintained by a relaxed, friendly cockpit atmosphere and a we're-in-this-together/the-mission-comes first mentality. I think you should always give the other guy time to notice something/correct before mentioning something yourself if it's not time-critical. "Just the before takeoffs then we're set." when the other guy was busy and is about to line up having forgotten them, "We're looking for 180 on the speed." when the other guy has forgotten to bring the speed back on ATC's request, are usually the kind of things I'll spout out. When I get prompts like this I always acknowledge with a "Thanks.". Everyone's happy and there's no aerial bust-up!

Will keep reading this thread with interest,

B&S

P.S. Sweet Jesus - this has turned into an essay - wasn't the intention!

[low n' slow]

B & S, sounds like you've got the jist of it, a good post.

/LnS

[Tony Hirst]

Captain furious and points to more CB on next scale and demands in future F/O do what he is bloody well told.
It seems to me that the Captain could have done a better job of keeping the F/O in the loop. If the F/O asks a question or offers and alternative then it is a clue that maybe either the F/O does not have as complete a picture as the Captain or perhaps a more complete one.

[low n' slow]

Tony, that's allways the goal as I see it. My situational awareness should be that of the captains and the captains situational awareness should coincide with mine. This is however never the case. We will allways have a different take on things. It can range from small insigninficant things to things that can bring the flight down.

The most dangerous being things that are often very obvious and standard. Items where I'm taking for granted that the commander has not overlooked anything.
I remember one time, we were flying a normal departure, no SID or anything, just direct to the first point. I notice all of a sudden that the captain isn't flying the flight director. I see that the autopilot isn't engaged and I haven't heard a call to engage it either so I'm taking for granted that he's flying manually and just doing a very poor job of it.

All of a sudden, he notices the discrepancy and makes a comment of that the autopilot is doing a very poor job of flying the flight director. I comment that it is not engaged.

Apparantly, he'd tried to engage it, but he made no callout so I missed it. It never engaged properly and he didn't check it a second time. If he'd never made the comment of that the autopilot was doing a poor job I would never have been let in on his little secret. In this case it was also poor SOP as we actually don't have a call for this. But it shows the significance of talking to each other of what we are doing or planning to do. Forgetting this and taking things for granted keeps the two SA loops far apart and the goal is to have 2 coinciding loops or at least a communication between so as to find diffrences.

LnS

[sleeper]

Tony,

quote "It seems to me that the Captain could have done a better job of keeping the F/O in the loop." Unquote.

If the captain asks for a 30 mile offset, you either ask for a 30 mile offset or question him about the distance, time permitting. If, like in this example, he changes the request on his own accord, it is plain insubordinance.
As a captain I would have steered the airplane to a 30 mile offset and ask him to coordinate such with ATC.
While on the said course, and safe from cb's, we would have a little discussion about the matter. And I mean discussion, not a lecture.

[PantLoad]

I still love the movie scene where John Wayne (F/O) slaps the XXXX out of Robert Stack (C/O). :D


Fly safe,

PantLoad

[Pilot Pete]

It seems to me that the Captain could have done a better job of keeping the F/O in the loop. What part about "CB straight ahead, ask for a 30nm diversion east of track" is not keeping the F/O in the loop? ANY pilot with a couple of ounces of brain cells would realise from that statement that the captain wanted to turn the aircraft 30nm east of track to avoid the CB.:rolleyes:

Now, if the F/O thought that was excessive he could have called for it from ATC and then had a quick question of the captain to assertain his thought process. If after having a discussion he still thought it excessive he could log it away for future reference. Being extra safe costs HIM nothing, the company a little extra fuel burn and the flight a few extra seconds. When (if) he moves to the left seat he will get a whole new perspective on his comfort/ safety margins, believe me.

Perhaps the F/O was not keeping the captain in HIS loop?

PP

[Tony Hirst]

Sleeper, Pete,

I don't think there is not enough information in the above scenario to have a specific debate. I don't think the above scenario is about Capt and F/O nor about authority or subordination, my view is that it is really about PF and PM.

Therefore, my previous comment is non specific and limited to the PF asking for something that doesn't correspond with the PM's view of the world. With rgeard to the above scenario, there is no mention of the PF pointing out the extended radar scale to the PM until the PM effectively queried the request. So it seems to me the whole exchange could have been avoided with more specific communication on what the 30nm offset was meant to be avoiding.

That is my interpretation of the scenario, if others' is different then no problem. Regardless, that is my reasoning.

LnS,

It is good to read war stories. Even from my very limited experience I can see how rapidly the two views can diverge too!

[simmy]

To Bucket and Spade

You've certainly got the right idea but my instinct says that you can do better for yourself.
Do not be a chameleon. Be B & S. Do not try to please the other pilot - please yourself. That way YOU are performing and if you get something wrong you will learn from it. If you do "it" to please the other pilot and get it wrong......well there's no answer to that.
But my main observation from your post is that "things" are done differently by different pilots and you are picking their best ideas. Well SOPs should eliminate the different ways tasks are carried out. Compliance with the SOP is the measure of the safe operation as tried and tested by the manufacturer and the management (and with a lot of help from the authorities.) I did think that we had moved away from individual preferences - which is a real problem for training departments - but obviously not.
Nevertheless, as I have said, your post shows that you are certainly the person for the flight deck. Reading through this thread it is sadly obvious that there are some out there who shouldn't be!

[jolly girl]

Boeing,
Did you ever ask this question of your instructor?