Stroppy First Officers - CRM issue

[SpaceBetweenThoughts]

Sometimes I have to fly with one particular First Officer whose attitude borders on insubordination to say the least. He is constantly trying to take charge of the operation and seems to delight in making "put downs" which if I had made when I was an FO years ago would have resulted in the Commander reading the riot act. I have enough experience to be able to let this all flow over me but it's not a very pleasant experience and I am concerned that if he acts like this with other commanders who are less experienced there might be a flight safety issue.

This FO has other business interests (I hasten to add I have no objection to this so long as it does not interfere with his role). As soon as we reached top of climb he announced to me "If you don't mind I have some work to do" and pulled out his laptop and proceeded to write what appeared to be a report.

I think I am a pretty reasonable guy to fly with and like to have a good atmosphere on the flight deck. On the (rare) occasions where, for example, I recently stated to this FO when on base leg being radar vectored that really the max speed was 180 kt he said, in a belligerent tone, "give me a chance!".

Whenever I fly with this individual I feel that he is trying to rush me. When he tried to do this during preflight checks I did say "please don't rush me!". Later when we had finalised the fuel figure I asked him to go out to the refueller to pass same. He then said "Don't rush me!". I manage to suppress my anger and advised him that this was an order!

He has also advised me that on a recent sim check the trainer pointed out that his CRM was poor but that he did not agree with this assessment! (I have to say that I think the trainer was correct).

He does have good handling skills and a good knowledge of the company SOPs etc. But his manner is quite abrasive and sometimes off putting. I have thought of having words with my manager but I suspect that this would be to little effect.

So I make this posting here for advice and comment.

[Boing7117]

Based on your description, he sounds like a :mad:
He shouldn't be allowed to pull out his laptop during a flight and get cracking with "other" work either. It's reckless behaviour. This guy has forgotten what he does for a living and should be ashamed of himself.

He's the type of chap that no matter how wrong or inaccurate he might be in something he does or says he can't help but have the last word.

Can't you just ask your crewing team to ensure they DON'T roster him with you for a while. Maybe if other Captains have a similar experience with him and make a similar request to crewing - someone from above might just take this guy to one side and have a quiet word.... ??

[forget]

Print out your starter post for the next time you fly with him. He does have good handling skills will ease the pain.

[kotakota]

I think the old system we had some years ago , where 3 Captains asking to be not rostered with an individual got things going . I hasten to add that the FOs could also complain and a skipper could also be carpeted.
This individuals CRM is a disgrace . If , God forbid , he becomes a skipper , will he be happy to have a clone in the RHS ? I think not - more likely a pain and a bully. I've seen them all .
Do yourself a favour ( and everyone else ) and shop anybody doing 'business' on the FD.

[parabellum]

If he gets stroppy even before you take off can't you call Ops and off-load him, in the interests of flight safety? I've seen FOs who were excellent handlers, (one was ex red Arrows), but they still managed to stuff up a command course, just couldn't get the double act together of being a pilot and the flight manager. As for the laptop in the cruise, a couple of minutes maybe but any longer, No Way!

[Chesty Morgan]

would have resulted in the Commander reading the riot act

There's your answer.

Something along the lines of:

If you aren't going to do your job properly, and that is the job of a first officer not the captain, then I'll get someone who will. If you don't know what your job entails then have a look in the Part A under the heading of First Officers Duties and Responsibilities. If, after educating yourself, you decide to carry on with the same attitude I can only conclude that you are deliberately acting this way. If this is the case, then it has become a flight safety issue and not only will I offload you I will file an ASR included every minute detail of your behaviour and attitude. You have 5 seconds to make up your mind.

[Lookleft]

CRM doesn't mean that you have to accept whatever attitude the F/O wants to give you. Have a talk with other Captains who have flown with this bloke to get their view and suggestions. This F/O's behaviour will be well known so its not like you are telling taleos out of school. It could be that he tries this attitude with all the Captains or it could be that he only does it with those he knows he can manipulate. Good luck.

[john_tullamarine]

Works both ways .. years ago we had a rather eccentric captain, now sadly not with us - Captain Zero will be known to many readers. As a reasonably senior F/O at the time, I came to a fairly quick understanding with him regarding his numerical eccentricity ... thereafter we were good mates and I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed flying with him. Others found him a right PITA ... horses for courses, I guess.

Point is that there is naught to be achieved by sitting and sulking...if there is a problem it needs to be put on table and sorted out before it poisons the wine in the chalice.

[BOAC]

SBT - if, as I surmise, you do not want to go 'official' with this, I suggest you lay down your flightdeck 'policy' CLEARLY at the briefing stage. It is your flight deck to manage, and assuming you are not operating outwith SOPs and 'normal' procedures, put it to him that if he does not accept that there neeeds to be a chat with management. He has, after all, presumably managed to read Part A by now?

Certainly hearing YOUR side of it, it sounds quite unacceptable behaviour.

[jolly girl]

I have to agree with BOAC on this one, it is up to you as the Captain to set the tone. I'll be the first to admit I have a strong personality (alpha bitch?) and I have noticed that when there is a lack of leadership in a group/situation I tend to assert myself this role, whether it is appropriate or not. Perhaps there is a bit this in play? But the laptop thing is clearly unacceptable, the pax are paying him to fly/monitor the aircraft, not tend to his personal business. (In dubious situations I would always ask myself "How would I explain this to the NTSB?" That generally provides clear path.) It is up to you as the Captain to hold him to standards.
Best of luck with this!

[Sean Dell]

A bit off thread (apologies) - but what is wrong with using a laptop for personal business in the FD? As long as one of you is monitoring the a/c. Is it worse than, sleeping/reading a book/chatting to the crew/etc......

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it, if it's done in the right way.

[Gyro Nut]

Sean, I would agree with you.

If this FO's attitude was a little less abrasive, maybe it wouldn't seem so bad. A lot of Airbus manuals are on the company laptops, so using a laptop in the cruise cannot be disallowed completely. The issue is regarding personal use.

Personally, I would rather keep mentally simulated by keeping busy, even if it means using my personal laptop, whereas some guys like to stare at the instruments as though in a trance.

[GlueBall]

As a captain you may choose to be the PF on all sectors with this chap; it would cool his heels very soon, or better yet: He may call rostering and beg not to be paired with you. :{

[fireflybob]

I think the issue with the laptop is the way that it was announced and assumed that this would be acceptable. It was said as though he was the Captain. This against a background of general insubordination. If an FO asks "Captain are you happy if I just look at my laptop for a few minutes?" then I would generally have no objection. So in summary it's not so much the issue of looking at a laptop it's the assumption of being permitted.

[parabellum]

Agree with that 100% Fireflybob. (In an earlier post I said two minutes which is unrealistic). It is all about attitude, the right one and the wrong one.

[bfisk]

Although I agree with the consensus so far about this individual, here's some more food for thought:

It may not be as glaringly obvious to this person, how he is perceived by others -- I believe most people would not continuously knowingly behave like that, ref various cognitive and behavioral theorems.

With respect to the cockpit authority gradient, it is every bit as much the captains job, as it is the first officers, to make individual adjustments to maintain the optimum gradient. If the FO is being overassertive/authorative, the captain should IMHO make an effort to be even clearer on who is in command. My limited experience show me that the magic gradient only very rarely "just happens" -- it takes a conscious effort. At least as an FO I try to adapt my assertiveness to the captain. Don't know how the rest of you find this idea?

I think this is a really interesting thread, and I do know that I'm putting gasoline to the fire with my above statements, but I feel that stuff like this is really at the core of CRM, and I find this a very interesting case

:)

[fireflybob]

With respect to the cockpit authority gradient, it is every bit as much the captains job, as it is the first officers, to make individual adjustments to maintain the optimum gradient. If the FO is being overassertive/authorative, the captain should IMHO make an effort to be even clearer on who is in command.

bfisk, I understand what you are saying here and your remarks show that you have very much got the CRM message - well done!

Where I would differ though is that a Captain should not have to remind the FO as to who is ultimately in charge. If any FO does not understand this then I would suggest that something basic has been missed at some stage during training (whether at the basic level or later or during, for example, conversion or line training) or even selection. And please don't misunderstand me here - I would be the first to let the FO operate a sector with minimal suggestion or intervention wherever possible. Neither am I inferring that the FO does not question something which he considers is outside the SOPs or unsafe.

CRM works both ways I agree. But what this FO doesn't appreciate is the extent to which the Captain is already making "adjustments" to cope with the FOs attitude and weak CRM.

[Chesty Morgan]

Humpme

There are people out there, first officers and captains alike, who can and do operate properly in the sim or on line checks. I guess that's why they manage to get to where they are.

However, when they are operating a normal line flight they choose to act differently and it is that attitude and approach to their job that leads to situations like the one we are discussing.

[salsaboy]

"There are two kinds of people I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures,

and the Dutch."

Apologies to most of you for the irrelevance of this quote.

[Private jet]

What do the other Captains think of this individual? If it is as you say it is word will get around and eventually back to management who may (if they have half a brain) invite said individual in for a "chat".

[Chesty Morgan]

Humpme, I think we've got crossed wires.

Your last paragraph was what I was trying to get at.

But to address your point about management training for captains. I think it's a good idea in principle. I didn't receive any specific management training but I'd have certainly benefited from it in the "early years"!.

Now I just tell it like it is and this sometimes those guys with the attitude get on their high horse about it.

On a parallel with your idea I think that proper CRM training for first officers is a must. The amount of times I've heard that "I can do what I want because of CRM" (I'm not joking) is ridiculous.

At the end of the day we are all there to achieve the same goal. Only ONE person is in charge but everyone is expected to do their own job to the best of their abilities. If they don't, can't or refuse to then they (should) end up with tea, no biscuits and we end up having these conversations!

P.s. I didn't mean to come across as patronising...I can speak better than I can type.

[Exaviator]

From my experience the comments made by "Jolly Girl" hit the nail on the head and would only add that being in-command is not just about flying the aircraft. And CRM does not absolve you of any responsibilities as Captain.

If you own leadership skills lack the ability to deal with this co-pilots attitude then take it to your fleet manager or who ever is in overall charge of your operation.

Personality clashes left unresolved only lead to an unsafe flight deck. :=

[Willie Everlearn]

Humpmedumpme

If I may?
Airlines AREN'T Air Forces. Right?
They aren't military organizations, there is no chain-of-command, in that (military) sense.
Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid.
I'd say it's a positon of authority more about direction and management. If he/she as Captain runs into personality issues or attitude problems on the flight deck with an F/O, they should be passed on to the Fleet Manager, Chief Pilot or the one responsible for that sort of issue.
Being Captain is about signatures and identifying where and with whom the final blame lands when it all goes pair shaped.
Charm school supposedly taught us all how to get along and play nice. SOPs gave us a technique by which to safely operate the aeroplane. That's all.
Reading through these threads, perhaps F/O Ugly needs to be humiliated a couple of times to give himself a more refined sense of who he really is as opposed to who he thinks he is.
Another way to deal with him would be to NOT let him have a single leg as PF.
Personalities are what they are. No one says you have to talk to him. Stick to operational requirements. Briefings, checklists, operational discussion.
After that?
Silence!
Life's too short and there's no shortage of :mad: flying aeroplanes. Are there?

[parabellum]

Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid


You are using strong words there, Ordering, Bossing etc. Surely the bottom line is, as the Captain, in your brief, you state what will happen, hopefully fully in accordance with SOPs and the FO should have no problem with that? If the F/O wants to buck the system, then, as the captain, you point out the error of his ways and in extremis that may result in both 'telling' and if necessary, 'ordering'. All the time there is the very rare 'stroppy' F/O I don't think those days are gone,the problem has to be solved as and when it happens, passing it on to Fleet Managers and Chief Pilots is not an option thirty minutes before scheduled departure or on reaching the cruise when the non aviation related laptop comes out.

The ultimate responsibility rests with the captain and he has to protect his position, 99.9 times out of 100 he can do this without feeling he is in conflict with his crew.
The introduction of formalised CRM has not removed the captain's authority or changed the authority gradient on the flight deck. Captains may still require to 'tell' or 'order' or 'command' as required to achieve a safe operation but it is the way he does it that matters and that is what CRM is about, not about turning the flight deck into a democratic committee.

[Willie Everlearn]

parabellum

Thanks.
I think you're saying (through a better choice of words) what I was trying to say. Only you've stated it much better. There is a chain of command. Of course. But no one is going to hand out demerits or assign extra duties over the weekend because the F/O is behaving badly as well as being annoying. (we've considered it but all it did was send the corporate lawyers into a tizzy)
If an F/O is being 'stroppy' perhaps we shouldn't jump to conclusions about his/her 'stroppiness' for it could be that the Captains manner, speech, (sideways) comments, or outright rudeness, (and I'm not pointing at anyone in particular) which may be causing this person in the RHS to behave this way. To the point where an insolent/insubordinate attitude (in some individuals) is the result. Then I should think we have a problem beyond CRM.

I once shared a coffee with a crew I hadn't met just prior to a sim session. The Captain seemed likeable, easy going and displayed a great sense of humour... around the coffee pot.
Under sim training however, he was a complete ogre. He treated the F/O poorly. Very condescending and disrespectful. In the end, I stopped the session and told the Capt. his attitude and treatment of the F/O was totally unacceptable. That he needed to lighten up and re-think the two man crew concept before we could continue.
He was shocked because he told me later, he never saw himself "like that". To HIS credit, he has a very different approach to Command these days and has earned the respect of a good number of his F/Os.

You (general term) might then have to take a closer look at the behavior of both parties and not automatically conclude since the Captain feels his/her F/O is being 'stroppy' that the F/O isn't entitled to make it known that he/she feels that the Capt. is being a prat which is possibly causing a personality conflict and behavior problem.
Two sides and two views to each story I'm afraid.

If we've decided this F/O needs to mend his ways then perhaps he too needs to be told in no uncertain terms that his attitude and behavior on the flight deck is unacceptable and that he needs to step back and take a critical look at his behavior. It might also be that the Captain needs to examine his or herself as well.

In the end, not everyone, with or without CRM training, can play nice and get along. I don't care how good or how strict SOPs may be. For some, it just isn't going to work.

[sid Otoole]

My advice would be to say something before this chap gets on duty with a less accomodating captain. It's too late after a major event when everyone says ---- well he was always stroppy. Remember it's always a team effort on the flight deck.

[c130jbloke]

Cannot fault any of the above posts.

However you could just bitch slap the guy within the first 30 seconds of the next time you meet to fly with him :=

Think about it : He does not know it's coming ( so you control the fight and surprise him ) and tell him in a very blunt way that the last trip was the last regarding his manner / attitude / CRM etc.

If he has a problem with it, then turn around and go home - if not then its game over to you.

Might also be worth telling him that other pilots think he is a to§§er too and that the word is out on him - at least you will see by his responce how big his balls are.

Failing all, just lamp him:eek:

[Deano777]

Failing all, just lamp himhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

Hmm, I think this is how chavs in shellsuits would deal with it, I would like to think I'm not flying with anyone who could react in such a way :)

[c130jbloke]

I would like to think I'm not flying with anyone who could react in such a way

Agreed, hence the:eek:.

As for having to stoop low, come the moment there is only chief on the FD. My point is that for both to work in harmony, there has to be a little "adjustment". Based on the description given of the FO in question, doing it bluntly may be the best way forward. If that offends, then by all means let him have his say - but the thread starter has (at least) one ring more than the other guy and it's there for a reason.

[aseanaero]

You've seen this guys basic character , even with warnings , re training etc it will still be there waiting to come out and be difficult and possibly at the worst time , do yourself a favor and get rid of him .

Life's too short to put up with stupid mind games.

[COF&COE]

I normally have a good day out with all at my company but sometimes a few could really do with being told.


It's always been that way.......but no one seems to tell the few.:sad:

Plus ca change.

[Bealzebub]

Flew with a guy the other day who took my kneeboard off the stowage place and then tried to give it to me to put back! me had his arm shrunk in the intervening 30 seconds! Then he spends the rest of the day putting stuff on my seat everytime I got out of it. Then... well I could go on but I won't.

I am not sure what "stowage place" you mean, but let me ask you to consider this. I am often astonished by the number of people who think the centre pedestal is some sort of coffee table. On to which should be placed any combination of their sunglasses, paperback book, mobile phone, biscuits, calculator, personal digital assistant, newspaper, chocolate bar, and various other assorted sundries. Worst still are those optamistic souls who tempt fate by placing cartons of milk, cups of coffee and other items that have the potential to make my (and their) lives very interesting and difficult in the blink of an eye. Whilst the positioning of the architecture might well lend itself to such utility, it is actually there to house most of the radio equipment, and flight control trim units. All of these things I like to be able to have unobstructed visual access to, as well as protecting from unnecessary risk of spillage.

Likewise with the chart and book stowages, I rather like the idea that they house the charts and books I am expecting to find there, without being adorned with somebody elses belongings. Don't get me wrong, I really don't have any problem with somebody putting something down for a minute of two. However why some feel the need to unpack the contents of their flight bag in areas otherwise dedicated to the regularity and operation of the flight, I really cannot fathom.

Maybe by putting this stuff on your seat, the Captain is hoping you will get the subtle hint that he really doesn't want it where you are putting it, perhaps for the reasons I have described, or because of some compelling event in his own experience.

First officers of the world, this is a flightdeck, not your bedside table! If you want tasks to share, we have them in abundance. Tidying up after you is not going be one however.

As you say a few really should be told. Actually those that don't take the hint often are. So you see, there is often another side to the story, and no doubt your willingness to learn and change perspective will make for a better understanding.

[Deep and fast]

Bealzebub

For your information I keep all my stuff in my flight bag and my tea in the cup in the cup holder.

And the kneeboard lives on the coaming until the taxi checks are complete as a reminder and no one has complained so far.
Oh and since you inferred that it is me who needs telling, I am always receptive to constructive criticism. I know there are always ways to improve how you operate and I embrace that fact.

[Centaurus]

Assuming the original post was accurate, then it is clear the first officer concerned is typical of a breed known as Smart-Arse. The term does not need further amplification to those who have been unfortunate enough to be crewed with one - be it captain or first officer.

Putting his type to one side for a moment, the airline concerned needs to have a long hard look at it's recruiting policy. These people can be easily picked during a searching interview. Yet he may have been successful in all the aptitude tests thrown at him but it is the face to face interview that will generally alert an intelligent interview panel to his genetic flaws.

The next traffic light is at induction into the airline, where few airlines that I am aware of anyway, sit new pilots down and explain to them the facts of life on the flight deck. This is a vital lecture and the company lecturer must hammer home the importance of basic good manners. The flight deck is not a democracy. Neither is the bridge of an aircraft carrier or a passenger liner.

Example (and this really happened). On climb there is CB ahead and captain asks the F/O to ask ATC approval to divert 30 miles west of track for weather avoidance. The airline concerned encourages a flat cockpit gradient on the basis that we are all mates together. The F/O pointedly disagrees with the captain's assessment of required diversion miles and says "30 miles is too much - how about 15 miles?"

As the captain, how would the reader handle that sort of reply from the F/O? Would you haggle with the F/O and come to a agreement? - would you demand he do as requested? Would you think it over and decide to agree with the F/O in order to avoid a confrontation?

Would you feel a bit wimpish and say lamely - Oh alright - ask them for 15 miles? After all, the F/O is equal to you in the airline culture.

In fact, the captain demanded the F/O to ask for 30 miles off track. The F/O then called up ATC and asked for 20 miles diversion - with a sly wink to the captain and saying "go you halves?"

Several minutes later, ATC tell the crew to advise when they can regain track. Without referring to the captain the F/O replied "We are clear of weather now - we can go direct ABC from present position." The captain astonished, points out to the F/O there are more radar returns ahead on the next radar scale. "Oops" says the F/O = "I didn't see them."

It is small exchanges on the flight deck like that which are poisonous. The captain can either come down hard on the F/O - or he can grit his teeth and blame it on Gen Y or X or whatever, too much TV as a child and so on.

There are probably hundreds of these examples in any one airline - and it needs to be cut off at the roots during the induction phase of new pilots into an airline.

There is nothing worse when a subordinate deliberately brings up CRM encouraged assertiveness as an excuse for deplorable bad manners on the flight deck or at flight planning stage.

Worse still, if reports to management by either crew member are shelved as too hard on the basis of boys will be boys, and things can be settled over a friendly pint at the pub after work.

And don't be fooled - these instances happen in military cockpits as well as civilian cockpits. Too may readers here have seen movies where the hard military commander dominates the flight deck. They are make belief actors in these movies and play along with old myths from the John Wayne war time movies.

Forgive the ramble - but flat cockpit gradients are just as potentially dangerous as the steep ones. Airlines must prevent these from coming major flight safety issues by setting the record straight during induction.

[ahramin]

There is nothing worse when a subordinate deliberately brings up CRM encouraged assertiveness as an excuse for deplorable bad manners on the flight deck or at flight planning stage.Actually, there are lots of things worse. I do not think you guys get it. CRM is not something designed to take away your godlike powers as Captain. It is some knowledge of human interaction and a set of tools to turn 2 pilots into a crew. Obviously in the above example the Captain failed to manage the crew properly. It is also implied that due to a real or perceived lack of management support, the Captain also failed to address the problem with the F/O later. This means that the problem isn't with one stroppy F/O (rediculous concept), it is systemic to the organization and will continue.

Stroppyness, or any other character flaw, is a problem no matter which seat you are in. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't belong in either one.

[parabellum]

Good CRM is about either crew member being able to make a strong point or correction to the other crew member without upsetting them by the manner in which it is done. That is it.

It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation and for the younger generation of FOs that have never experienced any real environment of discipline and for whom the cockpit gradient is, therefore, a bit of a struggle.

In foreign airlines that employ expats good CRM also helps to compensate for the fact that the Captain is a foreigner and the FO is a National and regards it as 'his' airline and the foreign captain is, he thinks, sitting in 'his' seat.

[Exaviator]

"It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation and for the younger generation of FOs that have never experienced any real environment of discipline and for whom the cockpit gradient is, therefore, a bit of a struggle."

I think you will find that the need was not confined to the military. Back in the dark old ages there were many a BOAC captain that suffered from the "God Complex" Ever read the book "Call me Captain" ? :hmm:

[parabellum]

Same breed, many were, in fact, ex RAF from single crew bombers but some of the older ones had never flown as a First Officer, as in the mercantile marine, the Master was the Master, end of story.

[Zoyberg]

Willie you said..

"Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid."

The first problem is there are F/Os who share your opinion...sometimes encouraged by trainers.

The second problem is this opinion is in direct conflict with every legal statement made in this area.

In the section of my ops manual "organisation and responsibilities"
Sub section "Authority. Duties and responsibilities of the Commander" (note it does not say Captain).

The commander shall:

"(a) Be RESPONSIBLE for the safe operation of the aeroplane and safety of its occupants during flight time.

(b) Have AUTHORITY to give all COMMANDS he deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aeroplane and of persons or property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aeroplane shall obey such commands."

An aircraft Captain / Commander has FULL responsibility for the operation (read any investigated incident report). With this has to come full authority...you cannot have one without the other.

Polite requests are normally the way to go...and they normally work...but when you fly with people who try to reverse the authority gradient you have to deal with that.

If you condone that behaviour not only are you encouraging it but (if the dreaded day comes where you have a major incident developing) be in no doubt you will have these guys making decisions for you.

This is not the time to be wrestling your authority back from the right seat.

[Centaurus]

"It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation

That is one point of view. From personal experience of having flown 3000 plus hours on Lancaster Mk 4 four engine heavy bombers (known as the Lincoln), and crewed as second pilot to ranks from Group Captain and Squadron Leader right down to Pilot Officer and Sergeant Pilot, I can honestly say I never saw one instance of the mythical I AM GOD THE COMMANDER pilot, so beloved of CRM aficionados.

I cannot say the same from my long experience in the airline industry. There was certainly no shortage in that game of arrogant puffed up four bar "captains" who were never worthy of the title. These idiots were the career busters some of which went on in retirement to be tin-pot little Hitlers in the simulator who glorified in their perceived power to make life hell.

The myth of the military pilot being the basis of the huge money making cottage industry called CRM and its half brother TEM invented by the University of Texas aviation trick cyclists, is one of the greatest cons in aviation history.

Of course there was the occasional twit in the military but it is quite illogical and certainly inaccurate to typecast all former or current military pilots as idiots whose pompous attitude to their subordinates on the flight deck was the catalyst for the invention of CRM or whatever important sounding title becomes the next cash cow for a newly graduated aviation psychologist.

[ollycopter]

I work with a couple of captains who have terrible CRM.. One Cap even pointed at her stripes to make a point she was in charge. I understand fully the plight of you but as a Captain, if these snappy comments are coming your way, you nip it in the bud surely. As a Copi its hard.. How do I tell a Captain they have terrible people skills and rub every other member of the crew up the wrong way and take pride in that? To cap this off, one has terrible hands on skill and the other is poor on the SOP front...

[Bealzebub]

Traditionally they make you a judge when you have the experience and the demonstrated maturity and aptitude to fulfill that role. You do seem rather judgmental of these senior crewmembers from your less than lofty perspective?

These captains with "terrible CRM," I assume you mean CRM attributed skills? How did they qualify for promotion, and given the recurrent testing criteria how do they maintain a position in your company with these "terrible" skills? Does your judgment differ radically from those charged with the 6 monthly assesments? Presumably it must, since maintainance of command would normally require at least a consistent ongoing grade of average or satifactory in both the use of SOP's and the notech requirements as part of the overall assesment.

One Cap even pointed at her stripes to make a point she was in charge. Why? What had you done to cause such exasperation?

It really is a fundamental mistake to interpret "CRM" as some sort of universal leveller. In any walk of life and in any industry there are going to be individuals with a spectrum of personalities. There simply will never be a one size fits all character that everybody should aspire to. A lot of emphasis in the understanding of behavioural markers, is in understanding your own. It is how you as an individual can tailor and adapt your own interpersonal skills to best work with the whole range of people and personalities you are likely to meet.

Nobody is perfect. I am not, you are not, and its a fair guess that neither of the two captains you mention are either. However part of the learning process in this job (and many others) is in seeking to understand and adapt to make these personalities mesh with your own in such a way that you achieve the best possible result. We all work with people who for one reason or another we don't particular like. That is just a fact of life. Understanding and adapting to these people often requires a great deal of effort and some time, however there is usually much to be learned from the work required.

Nobody said it was easy, even though trotting out those three letters "CRM" as a universal catch all, often is?

[Willie Everlearn]

In my estimation, command is not about telling your F/O when to start down (unless it is getting to the point where). It`s an opportunity to teach.
It`s not about ordering the F/O to wear a tie during the flight or that his or her shoes need shining. It`s an opportunity to help your F/O elevate his professional appearance to a whole new level.
It`s not about commanding the F/O how far to deviate for thunderstorms (unless the F/Os idea of a deviation is unsafe or inadequate). It`s an opportunity to share your WX knowledge and experience.
These examples are all part of your commanders roles and responsibilities. Having an argument over it on the flightdeck isn`t the solution and neither is giving your F/O the cold shoulder.

Command IS about ensuring the FPLN is accurate and correct. If not, ordering up a new one is a command decision AND as such falls under the command authority of the aircraft commander.
Command IS about ensuring sufficient fuel is on board to safely conduct the flight. Otherwise, ordering up additional fuel (or perhaps ordering that the aircraft gets a defuelling) falls under the authority of the aircraft commander.
Command IS about making sure the weather along the route is flyable and the chosen FPLN alternates are properly assigned.
Command is also recognizing when the filing of a new or revised FPLN may be required when flow control or slot assignments are in effect.
Informing your operations control when it is your opinion the flight needs to be delayed.
This is exercising command.

My impression of this thread, while it`s an excellent dialogue, is that personality conflict on the flight deck (unless I`ve gotten the stroppy context all wrong) is handled by telling/ordering/commanding the F/O who`s the boss and who should be told in clear uncertain terms who`s the commander (perhaps tapping on your Captains epaulets might go a long way to shorten the discussion, but that doesn`t work for me). Some of these notions are simply outside the bounds of command and what makes a good PIC. IMHO

It`s when an F/O flies with a Captain who hasn`t figured out the difference between the two that these stroppy F/Os usually get their dander up.
You might also reverse that by saying when a Captain flies with an F/O who hasn`t figured out the difference between the two....

[TheGorrilla]

To put it in simple terms.... You can use your laptop to run your business mate... I have no problem with that. So long as you can fly the plane at the same time.... By the way... I'm watching you out of sheer curiosity because I don't think it's possible!

:E

[Tee Emm]

Taking your word for it and asuming that your particular F/O is stroppy. The fix is relatively straight forward. You take control and say thank you for your viewpoint - I have control. Then don't give him a leg for the rest of the day. Or the next day until he gets the message. He soon will.

But always be polite about it. Never reason with him and don't be suckered into explaining why you are taking certain courses of action.That is his cue to argue to the contrary whatever you do. Some people are born that way. If he cannot understand why you take a certain course of action, that is his problem - not yours. Unfortunately these characters exist in most airlines and you can either cringe in the left seat and give lame explanations in which case that type of character will seize upon your weakness and give you more stick.

Or you stop the chappie in his tracks. Prevention is better than cure. For some captains it is easy to put the stroppy one in his place. For others it is difficult depending on your own personality. None of us enjoy confrontation, but sometimes you have to cause a crisis to fix a crisis and for some that takes bottle.

[WMUOSF]

Well said John. He was definitely an eccentric and I enjoyed the banter with him when i worked at Tulla.
A fine pilot and sadly missed.

[low n' slow]

Try my method.
I don't know if you have any hotel stops or similar, you'll need it to work as I would never try this in the cockpit!

Make a list of all the times when he's exhibited bad behaviour or a crappy attitude. List what he did and how it made you feel. If there were any safety breaches as a result, point these out.

Ask if he's up for a beer after a couple of sectors. Set the trap.

Grease him up and ask him about his previous flying career. Ask him what made him want to become a pilot. Ask him his defenition of a good pilot.
Point it out to him the few up-sides you see in him, perhaps handling and theoretical knowledge are some points.

Then you ask if he's willing to take some critique. If he's not, then just dont say anything. If he is willing (which he will be, it's the golden rule, if you ask, he has to say yes to not automatically look like an idiot and he knows it), methodically go through your list. Thoroughly explain what he did and how it affected safety. Make him understand that he's far from his goals of being a good pilot. Let him know that he indeed has a problem with the CRM concept. Explain that he needs to be more autentive and listen to people around him.

If I understand this person correctly from your description, he's much like one of our more senior pilots. He's very good in that he can actually fly the plane. He has the capacity, but not the rest. He's an absolute a:mad:e to fly with and to simply suggest something, you need a good and solid plan to put forth this suggestion. You have to make him think that it's his idea from the start. That's the point of making him think about what a good pilot is.
Silent battles in the form of not letting him fly or just treating him with the same attitude never gets you anywhere.

Personally I don't think this type of person should ever make it through flight school, but with todays "pay for you job" thing going on, anyone will make it through. Then it is up to the more senior colleagues to provide a professional upbringing. It is your role as a captain to provide constant instruction, even in the more softer matter such as this. Best way to do this is in a relaxed setting without the uniform. That gives him a way out and he won't feel pressured and this in turn may lead to him actually thinking about his behaviour. I expect he does not have any amount of self critique whatsoever and this is basically where the problem lies. His view of himself does not match reality and this is what needs to change. He has to be made aware of his behaviour. With awareness, half the battle is won.

I don't know who said it first, but my definition of a good pilot is: a pilot that allways strives to be better.

[bfisk]

Hear, hear! Kudos indeed to Low'n'slow.

I think that was an absolutely excellent post. Most pilots develop a keen feel for techical matters -- all knowledge combined into a sense of knowing what needs to be done, and how, factoring in the many variables encountered. LnS seems to have developed that same keen feel when it comes to human matters. Bravo!

One of the best books; that is to say one of the books that have taught me the most about flying, is not flying-related at all. It's called "How to make friends and influence people" -- how about that.

Most of my friends ridicule the fact that anyone may need such a book. I'm pretty good with tech matters, I can remember facts and figures easily enough, but I'm always trying to get my head around people. I find that more difficult than any other operation in the cockpit .But I believe all things can be trained.

[rigpiggy]

Today, cleared onto runway, him head down., me lights and strobes please. Him, No, its not SOP. Me, please do it or I will. I will take it up with CP.

[ahramin]

Today, cleared onto runway, him head down., me lights and strobes please. Him, No, its not SOP. Me, please do it or I will. I will take it up with CP.
Sounds like a situation dealt with easily and professionally. Referring it to the CP will hopefully also ensure that this is not a systemic problem.

A note on CRM courses, specifically the sections on human interactions. If your course does not involve role-play, it can be worse than useless. It could be that the F/O in the above was exposed to the standard Transport Canada CRM course, including the dangers of deviating from SOPs. Putting a bunch of scenarios in front of people and making them think about how to respond to them will help ensure understanding of how CRM is supposed to work. My course has a half a dozen scenarios, ranging from a Garuda like scenario to one similar to the above post.

[Rananim]

Good posts from Centaurus.

The best mix on the flt deck is always 2 senior guys with nothing to prove to each other ie.flat gradient,non-combatant.They neednt be friends or even know each other.Through experience and equanimity,theyre almost able to communicate telepathically,predict each others thoughts and actions.Flat gradient combatant can be as dangerous as steep gradient passive-aggressive.

Very often a stroppy FO will be testing you and will quickly come round after you pass the test.If this isnt the case and hes just a stroppy SOB,then the skipper must read the riot act or the situation spirals out of control quickly.If still no response,then offload the SOB.

[411A]

If still no response,then offload the SOB.
Had to do just that one time only.
Of course he went running the the fleet manager and complained, however it did no good as this turkey had a long previous record of being a malcontent.
He was sent home for three months with no pay.
Never saw him again, either.

[Cilba]

Before flying with an FO I haven't flown with I ensure I have a few quiet words with him either in the crew room or on the flight deck well before departure time. I start by saying that one of the best safety accessories on an aircraft is an FO who will speak up when and as required. I then go on to say that I expect adherence to SOPs and good check list control. I finish by asking which sector(s) he'd like.
Cilba

[Tee Emm]

accessories on an aircraft is an FO who will speak up when and as required.

And that's the rub. Fine words but your kindly thoughts to your F/O are often mis-interpreted as a wide open invitation for your F/O to constantly "coach you or advise you" in a manner known by some as "Fly-By-Mouth"

It takes skill that some do not have, to know when you should button your lips and let the captain run the ship. Constant hinting by an F/O may mean you are indeed a lousy captain or he loves to show "assertiveness" because he simply cannot stop being a back seat driver..

[mikehammer]

A democracy? Yup, in todays politics democracy seems to be where you ask everyone their opinion and then make your own decision anyway. That's not democratic government. It is, however captaincy.

As FO yes thanks, it's nice to be asked, however I do not expect, nor want actually, the responsability of making the decision.

At the moment probably 80% of the time I get it right (I'm not new any more, it used to be 80% wrong!). When that's nearer 100% (nobody's perfect!) I'd like to be captain. Until then feel free to agree with my suggestion at will, but overule at necessity, and then show me how it's done.

Prevent me from suggesting and rule me out of the loop, allow me to command and rule yourself out of the loop.

Nobody said it was an easy job!

[Kelly Hopper]

T'was F/O's handling sector. In the cruise IMC. Then we lost all airframe anti-ice. As it was his sector I asked him what he would like to do?
Response: "What the hell are you asking me for? You are the Captain!"
Nice!

[ahramin]

I think I would have asked the same thing Kelly. I expect the F/O to manage the aircraft as if they are in charge, right until I take over.

On another note, when an F/O, I have on occasion said "If you feel uncomfortable, go ahead and take over, because if this goes sideways, I'm going to leave you holding the blame."

One important thing an F/O does need to be able to do is quickly and completely switch to PNF mode after hearing "I have control".

[flash8]

With all due respect what about prima donna captains? Far more a safety/CRM issue lets face it.

I have flown with Captains that quite frankly I wouldn't trust in charge of a lego set never mind a twin jet.. but there you go.

[Bullethead]

Years ago when I was an F/O there were two instances when it was my sector and things got a little difficult due to adverse weather and I looked over to the LH seat for supreme guidance and all I got was a blank look in one case and "It's all yours ace, I couldn't do it any better!" in the other.

The first case was an approach at night to YPPH (Perth) in a typical nor-westerly howler with driving rain and the X-wind over my limit and a go around from in the flare due a passing downpour the second was a landing at the VTBD (Bangkok), in squally conditions, when the B747 decided to aquaplane after landing and proceed down the runway a little sideways. It was several years before the QF1 incident.

Neither Captain showed any interest in taking over and left me to sort it out. The last thing on my mind was to say something like, "You're the Captain you sort it out."

[PropSyncOff]

Been reading all these excellent posts with great interest. It just goes to show, I guess, how complicated it can be. CRM is terrific; but it in the end is put into play by humans..and that means unavoidable flaws. It's how we react and adapt to these flaws that makes it all work in the end. As an F/O getting close to having my first command I have been watching with great interest how my Captains manage our flights. I have seen lately two opposing styles; and I have been conscious of my actions in each situation: One Captain is very much in command. He will micromange everything to the point where basically all input is a one-way street. I get along with him great on a personal level, though. He was hired as a direct entry Captain. Another one I have flown a fair bit lately is an excellent study. He is in his late 20's, and this is his first command. He uses his F/O's as a resource. He will brief an approach, or an arrival, and will more often than not turn to me and ask if I have anything to add. If I do, he listens and takes it all in and then makes his decision. I appreciate how he interacts with me in managing the flight, and I appreciate that he is very confident in making his decision.

These are very simple examples, but one of the hardest things to do as an F/O is to not "mold" yourself to the particular captain you happen to be flying with that trip. I don't adjust my personality to the guy next to me...I am always just myself and by being consistent, I have (I think) the trust of my commanders; they know what they are going to get. It is not always so easy; but my job is to help make the flight a safe one. It takes two, and I hope that when my turn for a Command position comes around I will be able to draw on all my experiences in a positive way.

Not really sure where I was going with that.... just got me thinking when I read the original post. I know people like that, and I have flown with people like that. And trying to manage such aggressive personalities is really difficult: I guess we all have to establish our boundaries, and be consistent in our actions. It is always difficult to cross the line between "having a nice fireside chat" and actually going to the company or operations or crewing or CP etc. But it sometimes has to be done and we do it hoping something positive will come about.

Done with my little rant :)

[Bullethead]

Talking about Stroppy First Officers, what about Stroppy Second Officers?

I was an F/O on the B747-400 and had about 6,000 hours on that machine alone and I flew this very nice approach into LHR years ago and the Second Officer attempted to debrief me on the preceedings. I nearly fell out of the seat as did the Captain.

When I recovered I pointed out that if any debriefing was to be done it would be by the Captain and not by the S/O.

Great snapping sea serpents, my ATPL was at least five years older than this twerp.

I haven't see him since so I don't know what he's like these days.

Takes all types I suppose. :rolleyes:

[PENKO]

But did he have a point?

[Bullethead]

But did he have a point?

Dunno, if he did I wasn't going to let him utter it. I guess that made me a 'stroppy First Officer', at least in relation to this 'stroppy Second Officer'

The particular Captain made no comment about my flying but agreed with me telling the Second Officer to pull his head in.

[Silver Spur]

G'day,

What BH wrote about his SO was "SO AWSOME"... I am amazed how you didn't tell him off rite away. Anyways, just a few weeks ago, I was operating as safety FO, the occupant of the RH seat was a DEFO doing his first sector of line training, while the CN had been an Instructor for about 8 months.

The Trainee FO was PF, and asked the CN to do the B4 start, after the subsequent Cxlist completion by CN, this trainee said: "It wasn't done that way in my previous outfit, and their Cxlist works better than it is here, you know, paying attention to this small little :mad: (yes he said :mad: on his first line training sector) what made my previous outfit considered me to become commander"

....... we pushed back like 7 minutes late, coz the CN decided that I should replace him in the RH, and that sector became another observation flight for this poor guy.....

[ahramin]

Talking about Stroppy First Officers, what about Stroppy Second Officers?

I was an F/O on the B747-400 and had about 6,000 hours on that machine alone and I flew this very nice approach into LHR years ago and the Second Officer attempted to debrief me on the preceedings. I nearly fell out of the seat as did the Captain.

When I recovered I pointed out that if any debriefing was to be done it would be by the Captain and not by the S/O.

Great snapping sea serpents, my ATPL was at least five years older than this twerp.Amazing that we still have pilots who think that their ego is more important than their profession.

I don't care where the input is coming from. If it is valid, it is important to me to listen.

[Bullethead]

I don't care where the input is coming from. If it is valid,

That's exactly my point, with this guys level of experience on the aeroplane, and in total, and the fact that, in this particular airline, Second Officers are not licenced to make, or assessed on, take offs and landings, I didn't consider anything he was likely to come up with to be valid. The Captain backed me up.

[Bearcat]

I have a cordial relationship with my F/O's. Those that dont play ball and are out of line.........well put it like this, they know who's daddy when the day's done. This rarely rarely happens and I find my f/o's top notch, willing to learn and those coming up for command like hoovers dragging info from you. In all facets of the airline game you'll get the odd one that will pull against you, is rude to ccm's and demanding, walks through doors ahead of you and doesnt hold door....basically disrespectful.....not on my watch.:ok:

[Oleo]

Going back to the original post, there is no question this FO's attitude is lacking. By putting up with it you just encourage this bully.

Most of the time a word to the wise is sufficient. This guy knows exacty what he is doing.

Reading the riot act is not necessary. You should always be polite and respectful, as though you had an audience, and not say anything you could regret later. A quiet word before the flight and avoid any conflict on the flight deck is preferable.

These guys know the game. They know you are the one ultimately responsible for the flight. No you don't have to be buddies, but there should be an "open, friendly and relaxed" atmosphere on the flight deck.

I don't think a stroppy FO (or stroppy captain for that matter) should be so easily wiped off as a "personality conflict" as it lets the individual off too lightly.

You need to politely illuminate the error of this guy's ways, or you are being neglectful of your own duties.

CRM includes keeping the lines of communication open, but always with respect.

If the going got tough, can you rely on this guy to back you up to the best of his abilities? If he can't see sense, offload him and find one of the majority FOs who are professional.

[D O Guerrero]

Hypothetical situation:
Low houred FO on a medium jet with about 500 hours on type flies with Captain of about 4000 hours. The FO is from an integrated fATPL background and is in his first job. The Captain from a single engine, done-it-the-hard-way background and has only ever flown for this one particular low-cost carrier (I'm not saying either is better!).
The Captain's attitude is that he knows better than the people who write company SOPs and regularly disregards them when PF. The FO has a good knowledge of company SOPs and adheres to them unless there is a very good reason not to. Not only does the Captain disregard SOPs but he expects the FO to do the same and brings up point of debate constantly while the FO is PF during the "sterile cockpit" phases of flight and the cruise. Eg - "why did you wait to set standard til then?", "why are you entering descent wind forecasts in the FMC?", "why are you getting out of your seat to open the FD door? use the switch" etc etc. The answer to his questions are invariably "that's the SOP".
The Captain also has an abrasive personality and likes to do things his own way. He likes to argue the point that he is right, but never concedes that the SOP way might be the correct way. He constantly crosses lines of responsibility (Eg by making AFDS inputs when he is PNF) and has almost no interest in the FO's contribution to the operation. When the FO tries to debate any kind of SOP point in the cruise or on the ground, the Captain's response is bordering on aggressive. The Captain is also constantly rushing to make up time, even when there is no delay. The FO feels constantly pushed and flustered and has never flown with anyone else of such a character. He also feels like his initiative is stifled and despite trying to remain professional and rise above it, after some hours of this he does not feel over inclined to help the Captain out. This is the 2nd time they have flown together and the first day was no different.
My question is this - what would you do if you were the FO in question? Attempts to discuss the points have failed. Would you speak to management? Or just ask rostering not to roster you to fly with him again?
Ok so its not really hypothetical, but nevertheless, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts....

[cscan8973]

This guy is going to be a hazzard soon, looks like he thinks he knows everything and does not repect the captains opinion or knowledge. He needs to be put into his place before he causes an accident. People need to work together on the flight deck, if they dont things go wrong.

[tonker]

I am the orchestra(FO), and you are the conductor(Captain)

Everday we play out exactly the same song. Its called the "SOP"

Some like to conduct the song this way, some another. I don,t mind, as long as he sticks to the music who cares. If he wants it rock and roll, cool. I don,t care because we are all different and it makes him happy. As long as it is the same song!

One thing us orchestras should always remember. If things go bad, ultimately they always end up blaming the conductor.

[parabellum]

If you have a good working relationship with your rostering department then yes, you can ask them not to roster you with this (very bad and unprofessional) captain, such requests often find their way back to management anyway, certainly if they get more than one request.

Once this chap realises he has been 'fingered' ,from what you say of his attitude, you can expect him to get even more aggressive and defend himself by going for you, declaring you to be incompetent etc. hence his continual badgering of you, so, at this stage, going to management may not be the way ahead but eventually you may have to if rostering can't help.

[dug the dog]

If they had a flight engineer sitting between them, then this nonsence would not happen!

[Bob Lenahan]

It wouldn't?

[wileydog3]

Willie Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid.

Sounds like a CRM class gone awry. The last part of PIC is "command'. Not 'consensus'. And it just sounds like a continued erosion of the authority of the PIC. It seems some believe the 4th stripe merely indicates a pay raise.

Good leadership skills usually obviate having to 'command' or 'boss' anyone around but occasionally one has to get the attention of those you are leading or at least working with.

And yes, there are Capts who fail to demonstrate leadership. And there are F/Os who push the envelope.

From the initial post, THIS F/O is creating problems. Unnecessary problems. The guy is a rogue. And he will most likely continue to create problems with increasing consequence until someone exerts their authority and challenges him. Or at least gives him reason to change behavior.

[beamer]

Random thoughts :-

SOP's are just that - standard procedures for standard operations and here I include the majority of non-normals. There are however situations which require a degree of lateral thinking that go beyond' standard procedures'. You can call this what you will, airmanship, experience, thinking on one's feet, intuition, no matter what - perhaps the Hudson Airbus incident is a case in point - how many times do we practice a double engine failure immediately after departure followed by a ditching ? SOP's are great, we always had them but they were not known by that name and certainly there were less of them. A new generation of pilots believe that SOP's are the panacea for all evils but they are not; they are a great set of building blocks but they don't give every answer and some of the younger troops have not yet grasped that fact.

Make no mistake, there are plenty of 'dodgy' captains as well as FO's/SO's. I would hesitate to categorize myself however ! We have the SOP zealots at one end of the spectrum all the way through to the downright gash at the other end. The balance lies between extremes with a slant to the former rather than the latter. There are Captains who are bullies - probably coincidence but so many of these seem to spend a lot of time calling themselves Captain way beyond the flightdeck. There are First Officers who will not stand up for themselves and will happily allow the Captain to screw up. There are Captains who are probably a little too unassertive allowing both junior pilots, cabin crew, crewing and operations to push them into corners where they really do not want to go. We have junior pilots in the right hand seat who believe they have the whole operation sorted out - I had one the other month who opened up his laptop halfway across the Atlantic in order to watch Top Gear ! ( did not stay open for long !!! ). Guess what, these characters have always been with us and probably always will despite the best efforts of CRM,MCC, psycho-babble testing etc. One former Company of mine employed people on the basis that they would fit in with their prospective colleagues - they obviously had to have the licence and the experience but would they fit in, would they be team players or arrogant individualists - say what you like, the policy seemed to work quite well.

Lost and much lamented Flight Engineers did not always solve these problems - plenty of cases where any two out of three on the flight deck ganged up on the third !

Huge generalization but as a group we are somewhat egotistical, arrogant and selfish, it seems to go with the territory, why I'm not quite sure. As a result we will have clashes on the flightdeck, we will have differences of opinion and attitude to our job. CRM has helped without doubt but it does not weed out all the problems, something we all need to remember from time to time !

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Great perspective frombeamer and wileydog.

As an F/O I think it is always easy to assume, out of the two roles on the flightdeck, we have the tougher deal. A requirement to rapidly assess the character and personal preferences of your captain, how they like to operate the a/c (harking back to beamer's point about the SOP to Gash spectrum) and all the while keeping them within their comfort zone with regards your own performance. And of course laughing at their jokes and sympathising about the ex-wife/annoying teenager/costly second mortgage etc.:p

The more experience I get I realise it is actually a lot more difficult from the LHS, and I think certainly the F/O in question in this thread would do well to remember this!

My question is this - what would you do if you were the FO in question?

D O Guerrero

Personally I wouldn't avoid flying with the guy, it would be avoiding the problem. I would choose from two options. Option 1, at the pre-flight briefing politely inform the captain you don't wish to fly any sectors as PF that day. This (should) prompt the question why, and it is up to you how you answer.

Option 2 is to carry on with the day as normal, if you feel you are being pushed into operating outside of your comfort zone, hand over control and once on the ground explain the reasons you decided it best the captain have control, and that is the way you think the rest of the day should be.

If he constantly deviates from SOP all you can do is operate within them. Personally I wouldn't go to management unless you really feel you have to. I have a friend who went to management over an incident with a captain and it made life difficult for quite some time after. I think the best way is always to speak to the captain about whatever it is and take it from there.

[D O Guerrero]

Good points from you all - thanks. I decided to do nothing for the moment. If I fly with him again, I'll deal with it head on if necessary.
Thanks for making some of the more sensible comments I have read on PPRUNE...

[wileydog3]

bitmorerightrudder As an F/O I think it is always easy to assume, out of the two roles on the flightdeck, we have the tougher deal.

It surely can be. That depends on the crew and the Captain's pacing.

I came back off a medical and spent six months in the right seat flying with some Capts who were not hired when I checked out and some who had flown right seat with me.

The workload was quite different. It took a while to get on pace with loading the FMS, running the checks and checklists and watching while we taxied to ensure we were complying with the clearance. I saw how easy it was to overload a F/O with multiple tasks. I also understood how and what the Capt was thinking. When I returned to the left seat, I remembered the workload in the right seat and deliberately decided to slow my pacing down.

A really good crew makes it all look easy. And a crew where there are problems makes almost everything a major effort. And it often is.

[A37575]

One former Company of mine employed people on the basis that they would fit in with their prospective colleagues - they obviously had to have the licence and the experience but would they fit in, would they be team players or arrogant individualists - say what you like, the policy seemed to work quite well.


There is also a company in Australia that during the interview which is run solely by the Personnel people (aka HR) and there is not one single technical question asked of the candidate. Every question is on the subject of flight deck conflict resolution. The result is they are recruiting a tribe of pilots whose technical knowledge is unknown apart from the fact they hold a pilots licence, but they know the HR answers off pat having spent significant dollars being coached by a professional firm who specialises in interview techniques.
But in the subsequent simulator sessions ask these pilots what do they know about avoiding storms using airborne weather radar or the risks involved in climbing and cruising with actual altitude 4000 ft above optimum, most hadn't a clue. Some even arrive at the sim wearing designer aviator sunnies over the head and carefully ripped expensive jeans. These are the captains of the future..heaven help the passengers on a dark and stormy night over the Pacific.

[poina]

I'm with glueball, he will never fly a leg and if I don't like his radio work, override that too! Just don't be like my last company and have a fist fight on short final between capt/fo. At least on that one the fe reached up and engaged AP. Both were fired of course.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is also a company in Australia that during the interview which is run solely by the Personnel people (aka HR) and there is not one single technical question asked of the candidate. Every question is on the subject of flight deck conflict resolution. The result is they are recruiting a tribe of pilots whose technical knowledge is unknown apart from the fact they hold a pilots licence, but they know the HR answers off pat having spent significant dollars being coached by a professional firm who specialises in interview techniques.
But in the subsequent simulator sessions ask these pilots what do they know about avoiding storms using airborne weather radar or the risks involved in climbing and cruising with actual altitude 4000 ft above optimum, most hadn't a clue. Some even arrive at the sim wearing designer aviator sunnies over the head and carefully ripped expensive jeans. These are the captains of the future..heaven help the passengers on a dark and stormy night over the Pacific.

I've had two interviews not unlike that, one as a Flight Test Engineer for a business jet manufacturer, and one managing a large flying laboratory - both were about 90-95% "soft skills", and the general assumption seemed to be that my CV said I knew all the technical stuff so there was no point in bothering to check. (A bit irritating since in both cases I'd spent a couple of weeks preparing; on the other hand I was offered both jobs so shouldn't complain too loudly.)

Without doubt soft skills have an important place and have to be got right - but personally I also want to know that the people I'm employing, or flying with, can hold their own when everything hangs on a weather forecast or judgement of serviceability of an aircraft as well.