Captain you must listen!

[Spex]

Can anyone help me out with a reference to the regulations in regards to multi crew opps: situation is when a captain is making an error, and is fixated/distracted/ignoring you, what process/actions/words of notification and eventually taking are required?
Cheers

[S76Heavy]

I'd think the 2 challenge incapacitation rule: you call out twice your concerns and proposed action, and if the captain does not respond you take the controls while stating "My controls" and return the aircraft to a stable and safe flight path.

When safe and stable, you assess your next steps. If the captain really is incapacitated, you ensure he is securely strapped in and cannot interfere with the controls while you plan for a precautionary landing due to a medical emergency, if he is not it may be a tad more difficult..

Expect to explain yourself afterwards, but don't let the fear of it kill you and your passengers.

If the captain overrules you, he did respond to the challenge. Still, ensure the safety of the aircraft but you have to know what you are doing.

[lexxie747]

a captain making an error?

[Young Paul]

The authority gradient within the flight deck or between flight deck and cabin has been a safety issue throughout the history of commercial aviation, and continues to be so. It would be wrong to describe it as the cause of accidents, because all accidents are the product of a unique chain of circumstances. However, there are accidents where issues within the flight deck have been part of the chain of causes. KLM at TFN, and the Staines Reservoir are two such; Kegworth one where the cabin crew assumed the flight crew must be right when they had information that might have saved people's lives. It was that last incident that kicked Human Factors training, which became Cockpit Resource Management, which became Crew Resource Management (CRM), into being.

The reason, ultimately, for the other thread I started (about captains who expect cabin crew to wait on them during the flight, rather than provide food and drink (http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/454046-flight-deck-crm.html)), is that this looks to me like a failing CRM regime. People talk about crew and flight deck "working as a team", but the impression that the cabin crew are basically waitresses and downroute entertainment is not really compatible with an understanding that they are part of the crew required for the safe operation of the airliner - it certainly doesn't accord them equal status as team members. "All part of one team" becomes nothing more than a slogan that is recited at the annual CRM training day to get a tick in the box. (Yes, yes, I know "command authority blah blah blah" - I am one! If the few captains who bang on about it most concentrated more on good leadership and less on worrying about people "counting the stripes", it would be better for the industry.)

The same applies within the flight deck. If CRM is to work, there has to be open communication within the flight deck. CRM doesn't mean "people have to deal with the fact that I'm like this". It means that you learn to understand and correct for your own weaknesses, and in knowing yourself better, you get better at bearing with other people. Captains should be the best at this - they should be the ones with the most life experience!

There are a few times when immediate action is required from pilots pretty much without reference to anybody else. The threat of CFIT is one. TCAS RA is another. Explosive decompression is another. In these circumstances, do what you need to do (in accordance with the procedures you have had drilled into you) to assure the safety of the aircraft. Other than that, both pilots should be working together for the safety of the aircraft. That means communicating, agreeing courses of action, understanding consequences and implications together, accepting challenge. That's part of the reason there are two people in the flight deck. Yes, the captain is finally responsible. No, it shouldn't incapacitate decision-making. But the fo is not just there for trim purposes.

[Tee Emm]

Other than that, both pilots should be working together for the safety of the aircraft.Fine words and worthy of the greatest CRM `Facilitator`.

`Working together` does not mean the captain must ask the first officer or second officer his opinion for every tactical decision. It should never be a committee situation. There is no room for a voting democracy in the cockpit much as some crew members would love that.

Since the first mention of CRM (which was originally aimed at curbing arrogance in some captains and a very tiny minority at that - although every captain eventually became tarred the same brush) CRM principles have been either deliberately abused by some subordinate crew members or been genuinely misunderstood.

Tact and good manners has been replaced in some Western cockpits by downright smart-arsing designed to promote one-upmanship where the unstated aim is to impress the captain with eager-beaver way ahead of the aircraft attitude.

This inevitably leads to latent hostility when the captain finds himself pushed into a corner and having to explain every decision he makes to the satisfaction of his first officer. Some say it is a generational thing where teen-agers watching too much TV and laughing as the actors play at kids who steal laughs at the expense of their parents who are seen as `wrinklies`.

This generalised and ill disguised contempt for good manners is part of Western society nowadays and it shows on the flight deck where challenging the captain's every small decision is seen as `cool`.

Well, it is not `cool` at all. This sort of juvenile behaviour in some first officers is unnecessary, irritating and in the worst case flight safety can be compromised.

Of course, dangerously incompetent actions or decisions by the captain must be challenged by the first officer. As second-in-command that is one of his responsibilities. But where a certain type of character challenges for the sake of challenging in order to establish his position in the pecking order, and thus forces the captain on the defensive and accountable to his subordinate for even minor actions or decisions, the time has come for firm action by the captain to stop the rot and quick-time at that.

CRM does not mean open season on captains - although it is going that way; except in some Asian cultures where first officers are culture driven to being `your most obedient servant et al"...

[A37575]

you call out twice your concerns and proposed action, and if the captain does not respond you take the controls while stating "My controls"

The problem arises of course if the captain chooses not too meekly hand over the controls to you but instead tells you pull your head in. Company SOP's never address the physicality of how you safely take over the controls, but chicken out and leave the dirty work to the poor young copilot.

CRM manuals offer all the right words you must say to the captain -but then go no further. For example, what is the most expeditious method of grabbing the controls from the captain? After all you don't want to hurt his feelings and cause loss of face. Generally, attack is the best form of defence, so a karate chop to his throttle arm will cause intense pain and with a bit of luck the captain will relinquish the throttles. But what of his other hand on the control wheel? How do you reach that? A fight over the controls could easily lead to a jet upset. Then who has the responsibility for recovering from that? The first officer who grabbed the controls from the captain? Or the captain who refused to accede to the first officer's demand that he hand over control?

Suggested physical action needed to assume control from the captain needs to be comprehensively covered in company SOP's. Remember the old adage "Actions speak louder than words?" Perhaps a copy of "Unarmed combat for Dummies" should be carried on the flight deck alongside the QRH.
It would make interesting reading for the PNF on long flights and backed up with long meaningful non-threatening glances across the cockpit would remind captains their first officer is not someone to be trifled with.:ok:

[S76Heavy]

I believe that when the situation has gone as far as stated by the OP, CRM has long gone out the window.

But when the captain chooses not too meekly hand over the controls to you but instead tells you pull your head in he has essentially solved thefixated/distracted/ignoring you bit that seemed to worry the OP.

Ik am part old school, part new school. I started flying when CRM was being taught in flying schools, but became an F/O to the old generation of captains. I have had good and bad examples and decided to emulate the good ones and let the bad ones teach me how not to treat my F/Os.

I'm sure that some of my former F/Os will think of me as a "good one", some may beg to differ.

But every time the safety of the flight comes first. If the F/O knows his stuff he should be able to decide if and when to act, and when to shut up and accept the captain's authority while he decides to to it differently in the future.

Where I fly, we can get killed in seconds. There is no time nor room for stupidities, we all need to know what the heck we're doing out there.
Taking over controls is a big step. All the more reason to try and prevent escalation up to that point. But if it becomes necessary, do it with just the safety of the flight in mind. And be prepared to lose your job over it.
If you are not, you are not convinced enough that it is the right thing to do. It might just be the chip on your shoulder then that causes you to grumble.

Tee Emm, I don't believe in asking the F/O for his opinion every time I decide. I do tell them what my intentions are and expect them to pipe up if they have an opinion that matters AT THAT TIME.
I also expect some feedback after the flight, because that is what I give. It is part of a mutual learning process.
When I fly as an F/O, I try to make the captain look good by performing the flight as good as possible. The guy who signs the tech log gets the ultimate decision, I will give my opinions when I feel appropriate but accept a "not now" decision by the captain.
After all, we should have the same goal, just possibly different ideas on how to get there while operating within the limits of the Ops manual.

CRM does not mean we should all be friends, but we should pool our resources to generate the best possible decisions to be used during that trip.

[MountainBear]

CRM works wonderful when everyone on the "team" consists of reasonable, rational, experienced individuals. CRM is a 'good thing' in that situation because it gives the team a framework to use to make themselves better and ensure the safety of the flight.

The problem arises, of course, when not all the members of the team act in ways that other members of the team perceive as reasonable or rational. HFM people talk about the "safety of the flight" as if that is an easy metric to define. It's not. It's not always easy or obvious at the time to determine if another crew member action jeopardize the safety of the flight. Such a metric is subject to a great deal of hindsight bias.

I appreciate Tee Emm post because I think he points out that reality that any framework can be abused by people who are intent on abusing it for their own purposes. I'd argue that doesn't make the framework bad; it simply shows up the quality of the individuals using it.

[S76Heavy]

I agree, Mountainbear.

CRM works best with people who probably did not need to be told how to use it in the first place.

Nevertheless, it is one of the tools we're supposed to use and we'll always, and in hindsight, be judged on it by those who sit behind desks.

Best make sure we're alive to be judged..

[Sciolistes]

CRM works best with people who probably did not need to be told how to use it in the first place.
I suspect there is a sterotype who believes he has station and as such is not overly receptive to such concepts. But in my experience of flying with Asian captains who never received such training in their 'home' airlines, I have seen, with two exceptions these guys buy fully into the concept over the last few years. I remeber my first flights with some of these guys, I was thinking "oh boy!", but the transformation across the fleet has been truely impressive.

So I think that it is not necessarily the case that those who were not CRM minded cannot be brought on board.

[Spex]

so does anyone have a reference to the regulations by any chance?
Cheers

[S76Heavy]

@ Sciolistes: offcourse there is a lot of stereotyping if only in an effort to keep posts concise; in reality there are more shades of grey than black and white.

I am most interested in your experiences with the Asian pilots and why you think they were able to embrace the principles of CRM. Sounds like the CRM training landed as well as those pilots putting a serious effort in, so good show all around.