Human facors - sarcasm on the flight deck

[Tee Emm]

A recent accident report from Asia pin-pointed the boorish behaviour by the captain towards his first officer, as a contributory factor leading to the eventual crash of an A320 into terrain during a circling approach. The report stated the captain had put down the F/O and been continually sarcastic while questioning the F/O on technical questions in the early part of the flight. The accident report is covered elsewhere on Pprune forums.

I am guessing that few airline operators bite the bullet of cockpit etiquette during the induction phase of new pilots to the airline. Of course there are lectures on the regulatory requirements of Human factors and CRM and other favourite power point subjects -but precious little else on human relations.

Captains and copilots come in all shapes and sizes in the cockpit and often with widely different personalities and in most parts learn to live with the person in the other seat for the duration of the flight.

What prompts the title subject of this post is a minor human factors event in the cockpit of a airliner that occurred some months ago. After hearing the story I tried to visualise the situation from both the captain and first officer's viewpoint and wondered how I would have dealt with it. I am interested in reader's opinions - and please this must not turn into a captain or copilot bashing fest

Captain offers the first officer the first leg of four hours. F/O acknowledges and the flight proceeeds normally up to the time the captain sees thunderstorms on radar 100 miles ahead across the planned track and realises a diversion around them is on the cards. The captain assesses it would be better to make a early diversion necessitating a minor heading change rather than a late diversion with greater heading changes.

F/O is PF and so far has made no indication of studying the position of the storms on radar. Captain calls ATC and requests diversion left of track to avoid weather. ATC gives approval. The captain directs the F/O to turn left on to a specified heading.

"The F/O looks over at the captain and says "So you are taking over control, are you?"

The captain nonplussed at this perceived sarcastic remark, asked the F/O what he was getting at?

The F/O replied that as it was his leg he should be the one to make any decision to divert and in his opinion there was no need to divert so early until a closer to the storm front.

Now I won't discuss the captain's reply but putting yourself in the captain's position how would you have reacted? Did the F/O have a valid point in that he was PF at the time? Or did he exceed the bounds of commonsense and good manners under the situation? Or should he have accepted without comment the captain's direction to turn. Clearly the diversion was no big deal in itself; but it only takes one questionable reaction to the captain's authority to arouse a flash of resentment which can linger for much longer than the perpetrator may realise. Or maybe the captain was too thin-skinned and should have laughed off the F/O's sarcasm?

And should flight deck etiquette be a subject for discussion at crew induction classes? Comments invited.

[Slasher]

Response would depend on whether the RH seater was a
200hr wonderkid of magenta line aviation ancestry or an
experienced senior First Officer (with a tangential line in
between the two extremes catering to those in between).

The F/O replied that as it was his leg he should be the one
to make any decision to divert and in his opinion there was
no need to divert so early until a closer to the storm front.

So it was HIS leg huh? HIS! Didn't know it'd become his private
property. He sounds to me like a cocky little bugger of the latest
breed. A senior FO would not've reacted so.

[PercyWhino]

F/O definitely inappropriate remark.
However.
Perhaps the captain should have brought up the situation of storms along planned route with the FO as maybe the FO hadn't noticed it then seen what the FO was thinking if it was nothing unsafe and was within SOP's why not let the FO divert when he likes, or perhaps the captain could offer up an alternative and say something like "did you notice such and such aswell, the winds up here are from x direction and if we divert now and to the left it will be a smaller heading change and we are also diverting upwind of the weather and therefore we'll have a smoother ride etc"

From our CRM where I'm currently employed basically says if the FO is PF then they are responsible for the flight path management etc, and if they want to do xyz and it is within SOP's legal and safe then why not. Also states that the captain always has the FINAL say regarding the decision, and that the captain if he/she disagrees with the FO course of action should offer up alternatives first before pulling captains rank.

[Capt Pit Bull]

I would say a slightly unhelpful comment by the FO.

But entirely prompted by bad CRM on the point of the skipper.

Capt should have asked the FO what his plan was for dealing with the weather. If the response was unsuitable (vague, unsafe or un commercial) the Captain would then be in a position to make sure the FO and he had the same mental picture of the various factors involved. You never know - sometimes the FO knows something the Captain hasn't realised - but on balance it is the Captains responsibility to overrule the FOs choice of flight path even though it is the FO's leg.

Instead, what the Captain did was blur the lines between the flight deck roles. Cartainly if I was the FO in that situation I would be identifying the possibility for confusion. I'd be thinking along the following lines:

"Was that a one off intervention? Am I responsible for the heading or has the Captain taken it over until further notice?"

Its just like basic training - "I have control / you have control" exists for a reason. Now the FO does not know who is responsible for the lateral flight path! Its bad CRM and bad captaincy.

Personally, I would probably (if I was FO) have said something like: "Will you be organising the weather avoidance or would you like me to deal with it from here?". Hopefully that would be a little less sulky / sarcastic and elicit a clear statement from the Captain about what he wants the FO to do.

[parabellum]

As stated above by others, it would have helped if the Captain had drawn the FOs attention to the situation and discussed their options, having spent a large part of my flying dodging weather I'm fairly certain I would have/already have done.


"So you are taking over control, are you?"




There are a million answers to that remark, including; "No, I gave you the leg to fly but never relinquished command".

[Hansard]

It would have been better CRM if the Captain had said "what are your plans for dealing with the storms ahead?". Many Captains believe that their role is to direct the flight and the FO's actions from start to finish when the FO is PF. The best Captains give the FOs the chance to think for themselves, therefore encouraging/allowing them to learn and develop professionally, intervening only when necessary. If the Captain is directing the action and taking the decisions, the question "who has control" is valid.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The F/O replied that as it was his leg

Misplaced or perceived authority on the FOs part. He might be pilot flying but that does not confer any extra authority nor does it remove authority from the pilot in COMMAND, ie. the captain.

Notwithstanding that but better CRM from the captain initially could have prevented this situation. However, better CRM from the FO following the captains intervention would also have prevented the same situation.

A similar situation occurred when I was an FO. It was a simple case of accept the captains decision but get my suggestion in earlier the next time something happened!

[de facto]

HANsARD,

Quite agree with you.

[Centaurus]

But entirely prompted by bad CRM on the point of the skipper.

Really? Strong opinion indeed. Seems to me that unconsciously the replies so far reveal the respondents favour the warm and fuzzy method of captaincy. To make the co-pilot feel he is wanted, the captain should massage his ego. These replies show how much the Human Factors trick-cyclists have taken away the authority of the captain to run his own ship.

I think the captain was perfectly entitled to navigate the aircraft as he saw fit. The co-pilot regardless of his experience is there as a back-up and support pilot – not a quasi-captain. When the first officer has gained the experience and seniority to be considered for a command, his company will train him for the job. Until then he might be legally second in command and that means he supports the captain in his job - not challenge every decision to satisfy his own ego just to prove that he can. The captain should not be compelled to explain every action he takes just to keep in the good books of his subordinate.

Of course if the captain was doing something outrageously dangerous to the conduct of the flight one would expect the co-pilot as second in command to step in and do something to rectify the situation. But the captain in the example given, was merely displaying sound command judgement – yet is being pilloried by those who see the cockpit crew as a team with the captain acting as “team leader” and he should use the members of his “team” to come to a course of action that they all agree on. In other words, command by consensus. That is not what command authority is all about.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Cantaurus,


Really? Strong opinion indeed. Seems to me that unconsciously the replies so far reveal the respondents favour the warm and fuzzy method of captaincy. To make the co-pilot feel he is wanted, the captain should massage his ego. These replies show how much the Human Factors trick-cyclists have taken away the authority of the captain to run his own ship.

Not being autocratic does not mean having no authority. When you delegate a task to a subordinate you retain responsibility for it, but that does not require snatching the task back at the earliest opportunity. To do so is a sure fire sign of lacking self confidence. Giving a subordinate an chance to operate within (and gradually stretch) his/her skill set is an essential leadership task.

I think the captain was perfectly entitled to navigate the aircraft as he saw fit.

So do I. However, having delegated the control of the flight path to his FO it is poor management to fail to communicate with his FO regarding his modification of it.

The co-pilot regardless of his experience is there as a back-up and support pilot – not a quasi-captain.

Opinions differ on this. Many companies differentiate between commanding and flying. You might not agree with that, but it is the way ther Ops manuals are written. Certainly in my last mob when an FO is the Flying Pilot they are expected to manage ALL aspects of the flight.

Until then he might be legally second in command and that means he supports the captain in his job - not challenge every decision to satisfy his own ego just to prove that he can.

Again, a surefire sign of lack of self confidence. The vast majority of FO 'challenges' are usually because they want to improve their knowledge. It's just authoritarian types that interpret this as a challenge. That's not to say you don't sometimes get folks with an attitude problem of course.

The captain should not be compelled to explain every action he takes just to keep in the good books of his subordinate.

I agree. not *compelled*, but it is good sense to do so when time permits.

yet is being pilloried by those who see the cockpit crew as a team with the captain acting as “team leader” and he should use the members of his “team” to come to a course of action that they all agree on. In other words, command by consensus. That is not what command authority is all about.

BTW I didn't suggest they needed to come to a consensus. That's your inference. I said:

but on balance it is the Captains responsibility to overrule the FOs choice of flight path

Command authority also carries with it responsibilities. Leadership is a balance between team needs, individual needs and task needs. By jumping in as described the Captain sacrificed the individual needs of developing his FO, weakened his team, in order to be sure the flightpath was safe. So, OK in the short term.... the flight path *was safe* after all.

But my position is that all 3 needs could have been met with a little early communication. A little nudge to get the FO thinking (or communicating if he already *was* thinking), maybe some knowledge transfer, *if necessary* a command override. The last resort, not the first.

[The Heff]

I agree with Centaurus. If you consider that the terms 'pilot', 'First Officer' and 'Captain' all come from nautical usage, can it not be assumed that similar nautical practices would also apply?

The pilot steers the ship as per the Captain's command, and that should be without question. However, I don't really believe that anyone would take offense if asked why a decision was made if discussed after the flight in the bar, and that is really the co-pilot's opportunity to learn and develop.

[parabellum]

Having flown with Centaurus, (many moons ago), I know he is not at all an autocratic captain and flying was always enjoyable and informative, but in my latter years of flying I did come across what I call the 'New Age' FOs who invariably have never been in the military and would challenge for challengings sake, rather than for anything productive. A previous poster said; the question "who has control" is valid. I disagree entirely, there is a realm of difference between command and control, but, in the case quoted in the OP, I do believe the captain should have prompted the FO into action by drawing his attention to the weather ahead and giving him the opportunity to participate in the decision making process.

[Denti]

Theres a good reason why aviation has moved forward from those ancient nautical rites.

If a crew behaved like you suggested, The Heff, it would be immediate dismissal for the captain and serious retraining for the FO in my outfit.

[PercyWhino]

If the FO has only ever been told by the captain, we are diverting this way and doing this and offers up no explanation as to why then how is the FO going to learn.
Certainly there will be circumstances when tiime doesn't permit an explanation but why not explain after the flight. "This is what I was thinking and why"
The FO is there to learn as much as they can from the captain so that when their time comes for an upgrade they will be far better prepared for it.

[Brian Abraham]

There was one FO (ink still wet) who told his captain "when I'm flying (PF) I'm in command". Given up flying I believe for a management role.

[Check Airman]

"So you are taking over control, are you?"

I wonder what Captain 411A would have said to that?

His input (as controversial as it could sometimes be) will be missed.

[Slasher]

There was one FO (ink still wet) who told his captain "when I'm flying (PF) I'm in command".

"That right huh? Well...eager young space cadet...the captain giveth, and
the captain can bloody well take it away again! I HAVE CONTROL..."

[Telstar]

And should flight deck etiquette be a subject for discussion at crew induction classes?

Yes!

I am a shorthaul 737 Captain. I fly with mostly low time/Cadet Co-Pilots with 250-800Hrs at the moment. We had some major problems in the company with the quality and lack of assertiveness in the flow of communications from right to left when things were unravelling and the Captain was getting overloaded in the above major cock ups. F/Os advocacy skills were promoted and quite rightly so.

Speaking up and advocating ones position quickly turned into a fresh off the press F/Os constantly second guessing very experienced Captains and generally being a smart arse because their heads were being pumped with white noise and they have totally misunderstood what advocating their position is really for and the time to use it.

In summary advocacy in the communication process: Very, very important. No Captain worth his salt would dismiss it even with the steepest of cockpit gradients. Etiquette: Also very important and should be part of the training for those that need it.

[A-3TWENTY]

The problems with nowaday`s FOs , actually start at home.

These new plastic pilots who grew up shouting and raising their hands to their momes and papas ,and one day decided to communicate their papas they wanted to be pilots are the ones we can not say a word or do anything without squeaming them.
As their momas and papas never told them the word NO , they come to the real life without knowing how to deal with frustration.

And answers like "So you are taking over control, are you?" is the kind of behaviour which makes my blood pressure increase in a second.

In this case , and it happened to me before my answer was: All legs are mine. But I allow you to fly half of them. But it is because I want. It`s not a birthright.
And by the way , I`m not taking over , but if you don`t want keep flying I will. Make up your mind.

I`d like to make clear that I`m not an autocratic at all , I know most people like to fly with me , but these baby behaviours make me crazy.


Furthermore , if I was the FO , I would take it naturally. There are storms ahead , we have to deviate and the Capt. decided to go left. I agree with decision, ok. Heading left.
Such a spoiled kid thinking or behaviour would never cross my mind.And I was FO of old school Captains.

I think that to much time has been spent discussing how Capt. should deal with FOs and no time has been spent teaching FOs how to deal with Captains. Maybe it is making them believe they are the Mr.Rights , suporting what their mamas and papas made them believe with their ultra modern , liberal , permissive education.

[Slasher]

Well said A-3T.

We're getting a lot of magenta children these days coming to
this region, and the spoilt brats amongst 'em nearly all come
from Europe. A few comments I've gotten from these twerps
before I eventually spat the dummy and read the Riot Act -

"YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE CONTROL FROM ME! NO RIGHT
WHATSOEVER!" (the kid caused a terrain warning and just
sat there with his finger up his arse).

"I AM FULLY ENTITLED TO FLY AT LEAST ONE SECTOR!" (both
sectors were snowbound TOs and LDGs in strong crosswinds.
You'd have to be nuts to give it to a 250hr kid and then lose
your job when he skews the thing into a ditch).

There were other verbalities that pissed me off even more but
the above are typical examples.

Never had a problem with Statesiders or Canaks. The Poms are
mainly ok too.

Like you A-3T I was also a FO under very capable old school
captains and before CRM was invented. If you could not fly a
B727 completely raw data with the FD108s off from TOPD to
the ground off a NDB app in reasonable weather you weren't
even considered a pilot's bootlace. The slightest backchat by
a mere 2,500hr brat would bring on the wrath of most of the
seasoned skippers.

[47q]

If we go back to the topic, I would say that the captains reaction triggered the Fo's reaction. This was a case of normative decision making so there was some time to discuss. The Captain could have said ; " what do you suggest about the weather ahead?' Even if he had his own plans in his head. Maybe the FO didn't see it, maybe he had other plans but now he can talk. The Captain could have suggested to divert early around the tunderstorms instead of jumping on the radios. It would still have given the FO the feeling that he was part of the team and part of the decision making process.

The FO's reaction was hostile against the Captain and not acceptable but sometimes better communication skills can do a lot to improve situation awareness and decision making.

The aircraft manufacturers have stated that their jets have to be flown by two pilots, that means the input of these pilots are important. The Captain has the ultimate decision but is it so difficult just to consult the person sitting next to him/her when time permits?

Why would you fly around on your own when you have just p****off the person next to you and in this case they did it both.

I'm not talking about trainees or 200 hour pilots, just fully qualified crews working hard to keep their flight safe.

[Sciolistes]

Some pretty absurd comments about plastic FOs and 200 hour magenta wunderkinds :zzz:
The Captain could have said ; " what do you suggest about the weather ahead?' Even if he had his own plans in his head. Maybe the FO didn't see it, maybe he had other plans but now he can talk. The Captain could have suggested to divert early around the tunderstorms instead of jumping on the radios. It would still have given the FO the feeling that he was part of the team and part of the decision making process.
47q, Absolutely agree! I would go further and say that if the Captain followed your advice, it would have given the FO the opportunity to bring up something the Captain may not have himself considered (traffic, airspace boundary, wind direction, current vs maximum level, etc, etc).

The way I see it is that CRM is primarily about accurately shared situational awareness. Both the Captain and the FO seemed to display ineffective CRM. The Captain ideally at such an early stage should have utilised facilitation to encourage the FO to acknowledge the threat and develop a plan for dealing with it. Having the Captain just decree a course of action without any real discussion when time is not an issue is poor CRM and an explicit lack of respect. In such a case it is the professional duty of the FO to keep the CRM process on track and rather than get defensive and moody, ask the Captain what he is thinking. I always try to assume I have not considered something if the Captain comes up with a different or unexpected decision. Sometimes that is the case, sometime not, in either case I remain open.

If it is sound plan, great go with it. If the FO suspects the Captain hasn't considered something significant point it out. Thusly, both are jointly aware of the weather, their position and the plan. That is effective CRM.

One experience springs to mind. I once had a Captain lambasting me for using the speedbrake. After he finished his tirade (literally) I made it clear why I was using it. I could have avoided the castigation if I had mentioned how strong the tailwind wind was on the final approach track. He would have understood and not have said anything. Terrible CRM on his part, barely acceptable on mine resulting in an unnecessary discussion just prior to a critical phase of flight.

[sheppey]

47q, Absolutely agree! I would go further and say that if the Captain followed your advice, it would have given the FO the opportunity to bring up something the Captain may not have himself considered (traffic, airspace boundary, wind direction, current vs maximum level, etc, etc)In my book, the sarcastic comment by the first officer was clearly and deliberately designed to stir up the captain and the first officer is to be condemned. It doesn't matter one iota whose "leg" it is, the captain was perfectly in his right to direct the first officer to turn the aircraft towards a clear path to avoid potentially severe weather. Despite what the aficionados of CRM may like to think, it was never intended that every operational decisions by the pilot in command should be subject to committee agreement. The flight deck is not a democracy. If it was clear that flight safety was compromised by the captain's command decision to avoid weather ahead, then of course commonsense dictates the first officer should speak up.

The first officers cutting remark to the captain displayed not only contempt of the captain's legal authority for the entire responsibility for the safety of the flight, but it was also petulant and childish. Pandering to the ego and childishness of his first officer has nothing to do with the much hackneyed phrase, CRM - or whatever is the latest weasel word to replace that admirable old fashioned expression "good airmanship". :ok:

[popstar]

Wasn't this very incident discussed at lenth some time ago? Those with better searching skills than mine should find the thread. why is it being re-run?

[Tee Emm]

What prompts the title subject of this post is a minor human factors event in the cockpit of a airliner that occurred some months ago.

As above, I started this thread and it could not have been in previous Pprune contributions. The general subject of flight deck behavior has been discussed in Pprune postings over the years - but the specific incident mentioned was only recent event.

[Sciolistes]

Despite what the aficionados of CRM may like to think, it was never intended that every operational decisions by the pilot in command should be subject to committee agreement.
No, but it is intended that both have shared and accurate view of the current situation. That is less likely if one pilot makes decisions without involving the other. I would say it is the responsibility of the Captain to ensure that shared and accurate view where possible. Ideally, authority should only come into play when required to maintain adequate safety margins.

[parabellum]

Instead of the unnecessary and sarcastic remark from the FO he could just as easily have given his reasoning to the Capt. as to why he had not already reacted to the approaching weather, CRM being a two way street.

[safetypee]

parabellum, :ok:

Which ‘monitoring /intervention’ category (http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/478368-monitoring-intervention.html) would you allocate to the FO?
Was this inadequate behaviour due to poor situation awareness, (little confidence in his understanding of the situation or how it could develop), or with understanding just ill-chosen communication.

[Tee Emm]

Was this inadequate behaviour due to poor situation awareness

No. It was just piss poor attitude and is a generational thing based upon general contempt for authority. The military pull those types into line quick smart but airline managements avoid the issue and pretend it does not exist on their flight decks. The first officer could just as easily have said no problem and turned to the new heading as politely requested by the aircraft captain. There was no loss of face or dignity. It was just a heading change, for Christ's sake. Instead he chose to be a smart-arse. :mad:

[safetypee]

TM, OK. Then by taking your view, but in the wording of the option I gave – “ill-chosen communication”, what are the reasons for this behaviour (attitude).
Is your military solution of ‘pulling them into shape’ a form of behaviour training, or do the military pre select candidates less likely to behave this way, or who are more malleable to training, etc, etc.
Where in commercial aviation does the problem reside, if at all.
The baseline for both types of aviation is the human; there are many variations, good and not so. Is commercial aviation so strapped for resource or finance that pilot selection is less of an option, or is this too a human issue with variation amongst operators. If the latter, then operators (management) will reap what they sow – reduced safety, but then many have short term policies in these areas.
Thus although the example is of individual behaviour, its origin may be wide ranging.

[Sciolistes]

Instead of the unnecessary and sarcastic remark from the FO he could just as easily have given his reasoning to the Capt. as to why he had not already reacted to the approaching weather, CRM being a two way street.
Indeed. But in that case it is the duty of the FO to reinstate a cooperative environment by using CRM techniques to mitigate the Captain's unexplained and clearly unexpected actions; to understand why the Captain is making a certain decision especially if unexpected or seemingly unjustified. He doesn't have to be obsequious, cowering nor aggressive, defensive, but assertive, problem focused and professional...and respond appropriately (i.e. correct an error, accept the decision or suggest an alternative).

[parabellum]

Where in commercial aviation does the problem reside, if at all.


I believe a basic lack of respect for any authority is a large part of the problem, something that just didn't happen in the military, anyone who started their military career with a bad attitude would either change or be asked to leave.

Sciolistes - I may not have phrased it very well but I think we more or less agree!:)

[A-3TWENTY]

Quote:
Instead of the unnecessary and sarcastic remark from the FO he could just as easily have given his reasoning to the Capt. as to why he had not already reacted to the approaching weather, CRM being a two way street.

Indeed. But in that case it is the duty of the FO to reinstate a cooperative environment by using CRM techniques to mitigate the Captain's unexplained and clearly unexpected actions; to understand why the Captain is making a certain decision especially if unexpected or seemingly unjustified. He doesn't have to be obsequious, cowering nor aggressive, defensive, but assertive, problem focused and professional...and respond appropriately (i.e. correct an error, accept the decision or suggest an alternative).

The problem is , nowadays in aviation and our society ,the walls are peeing the dogs.

FOs are the sweet, delicate , cute , sensible person wha has to be treated like a pure virgin victim lady.

I`ve been always civilian , but I more and more agree that those times aviation were full of ex military guys , was at least was more masculine.

It`s gone the time a Captain had a thrusty position in the company. Nowadays we are just the idiots to point out the finger when shi* happens.
:yuk::yuk:

A couple of years ago , one FO was doing the leg and had to comply with a constraint in a STAR. APP requested to reduce speed and in order to comply the airplane started to become high. I advise him - Look watch out the constrain twice. The third time i said :-You have one chance now. Use the speedbrake.
The pampered guy , very upset, strogly hit the spd brk lever and used it.

I , still very calm, after e passed the constraint told him-Look, if we don`t comply the constraint we will have a violation.

His answer: - No problem , send me the bill ! ( and still upset)

So to those who like a polemic over what should not be a polemic at all answer to me:
Shouldn`t this guy deserve a punch in the mouth ?
or

I , as a Captain had a poor CRM because did not allow the kid to have the violation he was planning????

Come on !! Don`t bullshi* me..


a320

[TruthShouldMatter]

So what's the choice?

You hire 200 hour marshmellows that occasionally feel emboldened by CRM to say something or do you want to hire 10,000 hour pilots who you know will be howling at the ridiculous sops, theory, practices, etc. because they know better.

You made your beds.

[Slasher]

Shouldn`t this guy deserve a punch in the mouth ?

In the good old pre-CRM days Twenty you'll recall we settled
disputes after the flight in the car park like men, and not the
poofterised methods used nowadays to cater for these Y-gen
crybabies.

[John Citizen]

or do you want to hire 10,000 hour pilots who you know will be howling at the ridiculous sops, theory, practices, etc. because they know better.

It is not because FO's knows better, it might be because occasionally an FO might know something (that is actually written in the manuals/latest memo's) that a Captain might not know. :eek:

I admit that I am not perfect and I also do not know the books verbatim. However occasionally an FO might know something the Captain might not know and vice versa.

Very often I fly with captains who don't follow SOP's and are not aware of recent amendments, and some of these amendments are well over 12 months old. :eek: They perhaps don't believe they need to study anymore because of their experience or otherwise are just too lazy to study. Quite often they will even enforce their own unique procedures and requirements upon you, which might not be written anywhere or might even contradict to what is written.

Now who thinks they know better ? :eek:

I don't bother trying to tell them as I would rather not come across as a cocky little know it all FO (as has been suggested here). :(

It would be against their pride to have an FO teach them something and they just would not take it well. :uhoh:

"Go with the flow and try your best to have an enjoyable day" is my philosphy. :ok:

One captain actually admitted to me that an FO might sometimes know more ("know better") than a captain. He said because an FO flies with different captains all the times, he might actually learn something from another captain that other captains do not know :eek: Whilst captains only fly with (dumb) FO's all the time and got nothing to learn from them (as some captains seem to think).

No doubt some FO's do have an attitude problem (as seen here on the first post) and perhaps don't know very much but this generalisation should not apply to all FO's. Some Captains aren't perfect either.

[Slasher]

I don't bother trying to tell them as I would rather not come across as a cocky little know it all FO (as has been suggested here).

No problems with professional pilots who DO know their stuff
such as yourself. Its the extremely inexperienced cocky little
****s who DON'T know their stuff and honestly think that they
do that are the real problem.

CRM appeared naturally between very capable professionals
well before this classroom course stuff was first brunged up
(around 1990 I believe). Also the FO would've had command
time in something meaningful prior to joining any major at
1500-2000 odd hours, which meant his input did count for
something....esp operational.

And that still holds true. They've learnt what will kill them and
what won't. The rest is just fine tuning

[john_tullamarine]

around 1990 I believe

In Oz, late 70s or so. AN was at the forefront of early CRM in Oz and embraced the philosophy with some vigour. In concert with Swinburne if I recall correctly. (We're getting older, Slash, gets harder to recall the specifics ..)

[Lord Spandex Masher]

I don't bother trying to tell them as I would rather not come across as a cocky little know it all FO (as has been suggested here). :(

Are you really admitting to being complicit in the non standard operation of an airliner in an attempt to appear modest?

The meek shall inherit the earth.....if they're still alive.

[rigpiggy]

I flew with one guy for the last month, call it familiarity, when I asked for some vectors without asking, as the last trips were pretty much all the same. I realized I probably should have asked, and apologized. However when I make suggestions, I don't want to be blown off. It maybe your leg, but it is my License/Airplane. I probably would have had a beer call that evening for a debrief "over the 1st Pint" after that it comes across as an old P!sstank. Depending how it went, I would either pay for the 1st round and retire, or buy another round. I encourage a very level gradient, and expect the F/O to speak up. I would document the talk in an email to myself, if we had a similar issue after that I would probably have crew sched replace him.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Rigpiggy;

I'm with you on this one. I did once watch from the jumpseat as CRM broke down between a crew and it resulted in mis-set altimeters (which the FO realised immediately, but said nothing) and left the P1 in a hell of a difficult position.

These days part of my pre-dep brief is "if you're unhappy about something, or think I'm wrong sing out quick. BUT don't be upset if I think I need to correct you.

With new FOs on type I also use "if you think you need speedbrake chances are its too late, and in that case use all of it and sort it out from there."

I'm old enough to realise that the 200hr wunderkind (and thats what I was 27 years ago) maybe better educated than me, and I often use the cruise to find out a lot of new stuff, but I need him to realise that within SOPs old age and cunning often have the edge on youth and enthusiasm.

A correction based on humour and understanding, if there's time, or done over a beer and a (relieved) laugh in the bar afterwards just seems to work for me.

SND

[Northbeach]

Captain offers the first officer the first leg of four hours. F/O acknowledges and the flight proceeeds normally up to the time the captain sees thunderstorms on radar 100 miles ahead across the planned track and realises a diversion around them is on the cards. The captain assesses it would be better to make a early diversion necessitating a minor heading change rather than a late diversion with greater heading changes.

F/O is PF and so far has made no indication of studying the position of the storms on radar. Captain calls ATC and requests diversion left of track to avoid weather. ATC gives approval. The captain directs the F/O to turn left on to a specified heading.

"The F/O looks over at the captain and says "So you are taking over control, are you?"

The captain nonplussed at this perceived sarcastic remark, asked the F/O what he was getting at?

The F/O replied that as it was his leg he should be the one to make any decision to divert and in his opinion there was no need to divert so early until a closer to the storm front.

The Captain could have done a better job by telling the FO he was concerned about the upcoming weather and asked what the FO’s plan was for dealing with what they were looking at. (For the casual non-pilot reader remember at 480 knots 100 miles is only 12 minutes away.) I am not saying the Captain is obligated to do so, but it might have avoided the negative result.

The FO comes across as rude and insecure. She/he also seems to be flying under a misunderstanding of what second-in-command means. Did she/he sign the release prior to departure?

It would be interesting to know what the experience level of the FO was as well as the national composition of the crew.

I try to set an open and supportive flight deck atmosphere and maintain as level of a flight deck gradient as I can. Rarely, but it does occasionally happen, I come across a FO that misinterprets my efforts as weakness on my part and then does something that (in my opinion) “crosses the line”. As a background most of the FO I fly with have between 6,000-8,000 hours of jet time, many were previously commanders flying RJs or turboprops and others still command “heavy” 4 engine military transports all over the world. The vast majority of them are a pure pleasure to fly with and I learn things all the time from them. We do not have any 250 hour pilots.

My conclusion; the Captain set himself/herself up for this negative experience by not correctly assessing the FO’s personality or their mindset. To preclude this event the Captain could have brought the weather issue up for discussion prior to initiating action. I would give the Captain only 3 out of 5 stars; just average.

The FO’s response was abysmal; she/he compounded the problem and represent themself in a very unflattering manner. The FO gets 1 star; poor – not disqualifying- but deficient and needing some correction/instruction and/or counseling.

** Sir Niall Dementia, above post, offers some excellent advice here**

A correction based on humour and understanding, if there's time, or done over a beer and a (relieved) laugh in the bar afterwards just seems to work for me.



My 2 cents worth……..given the very limited information I have.

Northbeach

[Slasher]

As a background most of the FO I fly with have between 6,000-8,000 hours of jet time, many were previously commanders flying RJs or turboprops and others still command “heavy” 4 engine military transports all over the world....We do not have any 250 hour pilots.

You lucky lucky bugger! Only rarely do I fly with experienced
FOs who've truly earned the right to sit in the RHS and know
fully what it is to be the SIC. Flying with those blokes makes
any trip a sheer pleasure.

The 250hr hotshots should be yanked out of the copilot seat
(where IMO they don't belong whatsoever) and spend a full
year with their butts confined to the jumpseat keeping their
mouths shut while observing how the professionals do it.

[Northbeach]

You lucky lucky bugger! Only rarely do I fly with experienced
FOs who've truly earned the right to sit in the RHS and know
fully what it is to be the SIC. Flying with those blokes makes
any trip a sheer pleasure.


Most of our FOs could pass their command checkride today, right now. with zero additional study or prep. With the poor economy they have been frozen in place long past due. Fortunately the ice is beginning to thaw and things are beginning to move again. We are currently upgrading Captains for the first time in several years.

Having no movement in the airline is frustrating for both of us (much harder on the great FOs who are without command).

Northbeach

[Slasher]

..We don't have 6000-8000 jet-houred FOs (wish we did) but
a couple of ex-capts off civil Hercs and one ex-CRJ bloke from
the States. Trouble is they're rostered to babysit the Co's new
3000hr "captains" which is why its rare I ever fly with 'em. :(

And yep they could easily be capts tomorrow without batting
an eyelid. In fact it was one of the Herc jocks I hand-picked
as my FO for a charter to snow-bound Russia some time ago
since I have limited experience in blizzards ice and slush in
320s. What he didn't know about cold wx ops didn't matter.

There're only two other FOs in the system who weren't capts
of anything heavy but came with about 5000 FO hours ex-GA
(Metros, Merlins, etc), and did their jet endorsements out of
their own pocket prior to applying. Needless to say that these
blokes are also great (but again rarely flown with for similar
reasons).