Flybe pilots fired after flight deck row

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Unbelievable story....
Two experienced airline pilots were sacked after having a furious row on board a plane when they encountered turbulence.


The incident occurred when Captain Stephen Bird and First Officer Stephen Akers, both aged in their fifties, were flying from Exeter, southwest England, to the Spanish city of Malaga, last May, an employment tribunal heard yesterday.
Just before the plane took off, Bird told his co-pilot that he had not completed pre-flight paperwork "cos you're my bitch," The (London) Times reported.
The atmosphere took a turn for the worse when the aircraft later encountered turbulence. Akers asked Bird to fly around some dark clouds for safety reasons - advice which the captain ignored.
In the argument that followed, Akers allegedly said Bird was a "control freak" and told him to "f*ck off."
According to senior pilot Stan Wood, who investigated the incident, the "massive breakdown" between the two men - who had been "yelling at each other" in the cockpit - had posed a "potential risk to [the] safety" of the crew and passengers.
The return flight from Malaga was reportedly made in virtual silence, with Akers reading a newspaper.
Both men filed complaints against the other with their employer budget airline Flybe and were sacked following an investigation.
They are appealing their dismissal. The tribunal hearing continues.
Read more: https://www.newscore.com

[DCS99]

Why was I unsurprised to find a link to a Daily Mail article at the end of `the post?

[DB6]

Was in The Times yesterday as well, so not complete Mail crap. Seems a bit harsh but probably more to it than meets the eye e.g. not the first time, previous problems etc? If not then harsh and humourless. Banter should be obligatory!

[Cacophonix]

They both got fired! Life's a bitch.

[AndoniP]

In general terms, if you're going to have banter then firstly make sure your colleague is up for it... after all, there's nothing worse than saying something in jest when people take it seriously and to heart - you've got to gauge whether they will be receptive to a bit of a laugh, because in this day and age in many occupations there seem to be more uptight people who are ready to complain about you - not sure what it's like in airline cockpits though.

I assume that the CVR was analysed in this instance and action taken? A question from SLF - are CVRs checked after each flight? Or only when there's a complaint or problem from the crew?

I can't find the article on the Times website, but have found links to the Mirror and Metro - so I don't know whether it's worth posting them :suspect:

[DB6]

The Times it may be, but quotes captain as having 1,100 hrs and f/o 2,000. Hmmm.

[El_Presidente]

DB6 The Times it may be, but quotes captain as having 1,100 hrs and f/o 2,000. Hmmm.

which could potentially be why there was friction - Captain may well have been bumped up thru time served with flybe, and first officer a recent joiner? Then perhaps the old willy waving contest to see who is more superior, both professionally and in likeness to Dan Dare?

Anyhow, when you are entrusted with the safety of another persons fleshy pink body (or a hundred or so), save the bitch slapping for after hours. Perhaps behind the hangar, after a few sharpeners.

:}

[macdo]

they were idiots to put this issue in writing, should have been sorted in the carpark, followed by a quiet request to avoid being rostered together ever again. This sort of stuff happens in all airlines, but if the management get wind of it, you can expect the world to fall on your head, I'm afraid, cause they will be protecting their own butts before yours!

ps you can use the term 'paper-bitch' but you have got to be damn sure the guy/gal you are using it to has a sense of humour.

[apruneuk]

People moan about the growth of the CRM industry, but time again accidents and incidents occur that are due in whole, or in part, to human factors issues. It might be an idea if companies paid more attention to personality fit for their type of operation at the recruitment stage rather than relying on the training and safety departments to sort out the mess at a later date. Don't hold your breath, though!

[Hamish 123]

Seems very low hours for both of them - especially the co-pilot. Apparently 50s, ex RAF sqn ldr, but only 2,000 hours? Even if he'd been FJ, doesn't that still seem low for what seems to be a permanent commission type?

[retiredOK]

This situation is not unusual in the flightdeck but in this case seems to have gone ballistic quite quickly. The captain should not have said such an inflamitory statement to the F/O and he should not have responded so agressively, however the big problem is with Captain Stan Wood who has blown this whole thing up out of all proportion and will only diminish his standing with his colleagues and be talked about for ages whenever Flybe is mentioned. All three should have gone off to the pub when off duty and sorted it out over a beer..... Its been done before, including the biggest airlines.I suspect there was no safety implications in the incident despite what Captain Wood says were the reasons for their dismisal because maybe he was a little macho as befitting an ex W/O in the marines

[CaptainSandL]

AndoniP,

Re “I assume that the CVR was analysed in this instance and action taken? A question from SLF - are CVRs checked after each flight? Or only when there's a complaint or problem from the crew?”

CVRs are very rarely checked, maybe once or twice a year in a typical airline and then usually at the AAIBs request who will not divulge its contents to anybody. In general CVRs are there for post accident analysis and should never be used for disciplinary events.

[DB6]

Hamish, very low hours - especially the captain (captain = ATPL = 1500 hrs min). Either the hours are the wrong way round or totally wrong - but journalists never do that, do they :hmm:?

[Tyreplug]

I believe that there is a zero missing from the Captain's hours. Yes it seems a very harsh result to me. HR release the the hang man's trap door not a line manager

[spyder105]

This reminds me of a story told in a memoir of an World War II C-47 radio operator.
They flew from the US to Oran with stops in Iceland and England. Before leaving England they spent a while carrying out logistic flights throughout the area.

On one flight the Co-pilot was flying and the Captain did not like the strong crosswind and told him to go around. The Co-pilot felt he could hack it and continued the approach, at which point the Captain pulls a .45 and places it against his head. End of the argument.

Back at base it was decided that it would be best to never pair these guys again.
Soon after this the squadron launches on the final leg to Oran. Two aircraft had mechanical problems and turned back. Of these 4 pilots two are unable to fly for various reasons so of course the only pilots left to crew a repaired C-47 are the two who were never to be paired again. Unfortunately the radio operator was not on this aircraft for this flight but I'll bet that was also a mighty long,quiet flight to Oran at 140 knots.

[fincastle84]

Sounds more like inter service rivalry to me, RM v RAF. What a pair of prima donnas, they both deserved to be fired. CRM at its very worst.:ugh:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

There is more to this than is reported.

I know both of these chaps - suffice to say that one of them is an utter *unmentionable* and has been offered some advice about behaviour on the flight deck before.

Wouldn't do to be saying which one though.

[ShotOne]

If that is the case, unfortunately this outcome makes it less likely that other "difficult" types are brought to book. Who is ever going to report any sort of disagreement now?

[RVF750]

In deed. In this case the Line manager, Capt Wood would have had to investigate the incident but decisions and suchlike would go to higher levels. Tarring the Great and very much respected Capt Wood in this thread is unwarranted. I would request you remove the post.

As this case is surrently undergoing a tribuneral, it is probably again not helpful to anyone to either name or comment on here at this time.

[Montgolfier]

"cos you're my bitch,"

As bad as it looks on paper, that's the kind of thing that could either be a good natured bit of ribbing or an obnoxious, belittling insult depending on the context of who was saying it to whom, and in what tone. Spandex's "more" to the story obviously pertains to that context....and we're not privy to it.

But macdo is spot on....what a pair of idiots for reporting each other, once it had gone that far. With risk assessment skills like that, they may not be a massive loss to the industry.

[max nightstop]

I guess it is a typo but I would like to propose that the word "tribuneral" is adopted into general usage to mean "a tribunal with a predetermined (wink) outcome of dismissal".

[itwasme]

Regarding experience etc, looking at his Linkedin profile:

stephen akers - United Kingdom | LinkedIn (http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stephen-akers/33/537/644)

I'm guessing that the Sqn Ldr (Retd) was not a service pilot, but someone who made a late career change into the flightdeck.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Looks like the national press picked the up from the local Western Morning News in Exeter. It appears the first officer has history hence Capt Bird said Mr Akers then called him a “control freak”, to which he replied: “Now I can see why you have had issues with other captains.”

Their story is below
A captain was sacked along with a first officer after calling him his “bitch” before a flight in which they had a furious row.

Captain Stephen Bird used the term to describe his senior First Officer Stephen Akers ahead of the Flybe Embraer jet flight from Exeter to Malaga in Spain.

They fell out again before landing in Malaga, when Captain Bird ignored Mr Akers’ request to avoid the “dark clouds”, sparking a furious row. Mr Akers called Capt Bird a “control freak” and told him to “f*** off” before refusing to shake his hand after they returned to Exeter and landed the aircraft. The pair yesterday represented themselves in an unfair dismissal case against Exeter-based Flybe.

In his statement Capt Bird, from Northam, North Devon, said banter was commonplace between work colleagues.

When Mr Akers asked if he had completed the flight log giving details of fuel, weather and the destination, Capt Bird said he hadn’t done the paperwork “cos you’re my bitch”.

Capt Bird said his comment was made in a “clearly jovial manner” with no-one else present and was said in “jest”.

He said he did not realise that former RAF squadron leader Mr Akers had “found it offensive” and later offered him his sincere apologies.

But during the flight to Malaga there was turbulence over the Bay of Biscay and the seatbelts warning sign was switched on.

During the descent to the Spanish airport, Mr Akers urged Capt Bird to avoid a weather formation, but he said he was reluctant to take his advice because as an experienced captain he had to take into account the implications as they were already running 25 minutes late on the flight in May last year.

He claimed Mr Akers was becoming very “agitated” and insistent. They clipped the edge of the bad weather and Capt Bird conceded that it was “worse than I expected”.

Flybe found there had been a “massive breakdown” between the pilots that could have put passenger safety at risk.

Capt Bird said Mr Akers then called him a “control freak”, to which he replied: “Now I can see why you have had issues with other captains.”

The captain then said if Mr Akers continued to argue with him he would have no choice but to report the incident to the company, to which Mr Akers replied “F*** off”, the Exeter tribunal panel was told. The row lasted several minutes but the plane and passengers landed safely.

The return flight was in “virtual silence”, with Mr Akers reading a newspaper and they landed after a “perfectly safe and uneventful” trip. Once on the ground, Capt Bird said he always shakes the hand of his First Officer, but Mr Akers told him: “You owe me a f***ing apology.”

The skipper said: “I was shocked by his reaction.”

Both pilots phoned their manager, Captain Stan Wood, about the incident and he told them to file an Air Safety Report. They were both later sacked.

Mr Akers said he was concerned about the weather on the flight because two weeks earlier his plane had been struck by lightning and severe turbulence. He said Captain Bird had told him: “I am the Captain, just fly the plane.”

Capt Bird has 1,100 hours flying time and Mr Akers 2,000 hours, the tribunal was told. Both had clean disciplinary records.

The tribunal continues.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Looking at Mr Akers profile I have to say I've met many of his ilk in my time. Ex forces RAF Sqn Ldr on a non flying desk job and career change to flying instructor at Stapleford,Kidlington and Cabair says it all.
He probably forgot he was not sitting alongside one of his students. No doubt a few of those will be along soon with their version of flying with him.

[boofta]

I'm grossly offended reading about this situation.Who can I complain
too, it's just not on having to read such things.
I will put money on the ex RAF dickie wacker's attitude being
the root cause of the problem.
Should have stayed in the service old boy.

[BALLSOUT]

Capt Bird has 1,100 hours flying timeI don't think so!

[dwshimoda]

Maybe they mean 1,100 hours on type - the 190's are quite new to Flybe.

[korrol]

Consider a hypothetical situation. A pilot is mortified by an insult from the captain prior to take off .
Can that pilot justifiably quit the flight deck and refuse to fly with that captain? Do airlines have regulations to cover such eventualities - and what would the legal position be? ...and would there be a CVR of the incident?

[Cacophonix]

Being called somebody's "bitch" is likely to cause offence (no matter how jovially it was said) in the air and on the ground and in any profession!

However the general lack of empathy, CRM and the mutual provocation shown by both parties in this case probably justifies the final harsh sanction by the airline. Sometimes it just pays to button it. The result of this spat is going to reverberate though these guys careers if they ever resurrect the flying part of them again.

[jamestkirk]

caveat: Apart from the terrible CRM, this is............

COMEDY GOLD

This industry is full of and attracts fruitcakes.

And it looks like he has a hard time staying in one flying job.

[Tableview]

Being called somebody's "bitch" is likely to cause offence (no matter how jovially it was said) in the air and on the ground and in any profession!

Not sure, I used to work with an openly gay guy and he often referred to himself as my 'bitch' and everyone around us took it in good spirit. I think it was clear to all that we were on good terms.

[Hotel Tango]

Banter is fine if the two (or more) concerned know each other well (good mates etc.). In situations like these where FD crews may not be that well acquainted it would be prudent to be very selective about the type of banter one might use. Based on what I have read here I can certainly understand why the company elected to sack both parties.

[Ivan aromer]

I expect this will be discussed at alot of CRM courses this fall, especially where there is a high proportion of ex mil guys joining.
Should be fun.

[root]

I assume these guys probably had some sort of history between them before this incident.

[caulfield]

Airlines in Britain have really plummeted.Go back twenty years and you had some nice places to work.Now youve got a lot of back-biting,grassing,fiddly annoying procedures and just a generally depressing workplace(smoking on the deck?Youre fired!No Yellow jacket?Right youre fired!Chewing gum in class?Youre fired!)
Pilots now pack their sandwich box and flask,don their little yellow jacket,say "yes sir,no sir 3 bags full sir" to the security tyrants,lock themselves into their computerzed flight deck and spend 4 hours pushing buttons afraid to take the AP out in sunny ALC and do a visual in case the big bad wolf CP back in Blighty gets a report that they were seen flying the plane and werent stabilized at 20 miles.
I was FO in late 80's and had a riot in Dan Air.There was no CRM,no SOP,no grassing,no yellow jackets,no bs.There was the Captain andsomething called airmanship.We took our cue from him or her and knew our place.0.5% were tyrannical and thus posed a CRM threat but who says life is a bed of roses?You learned to adapt.99.5% were gents and you learned a lot.
I worked abroad ever since and have enjoyed moments but wont forget my time in Dan when flying was fun and there was no bs.If I woke up tomorrow and somebody said to me "You can work for Easy or Ryan but theres nobody else left" I'd find something else to do quicker than you can say "politically correct".

[MaximumPete]

When I made a request, through the proper channels, not to fly with a certain first officer I was advised that if I pursued the request my services would be terminated after over thirty years with my company. I took early retirement!

MP

[WIWOL92]

He was a blanket stacker in the RAF, so I can see why the career change!

[dontdoit]

I've got a better idea. Safer not to employ any ex-military people. Problem solved.

[Ivor Fynn]

Dontdoit - Rest of post self edited to stop me lowering myself to your level!:ugh:

Ivor

[fmgc]

I too guess that there was some history here between them.

Whilst I hate to generalise I am going to none the less.

When I was a young Captain I found that the ex-RAF fast jet guys would have a superiority attitude, thinking that they really should be the ones in the left hand seat. Also thinking that they knew exactly how the Company should be run and how they should manage their staff as if the RAF way is the only way.

Now I am an older more experience Captain it is not quite prevalent but still there.

We are just about to promote some very young guys, but very very competent, to the LHS and I do worry about the command gradient being eroded.

I think that guys coming out of the RAF should have some sort of exit counselling, explaining that there is some competency outside of the RAF. It must be very difficult for them, to go from school into the RAF and not been in the civilian world to fully comprehend how things are on the other side!

BTW ex Herc, C17 and Tristar guys, great guys on the whole.

[Otto Throttle]

The problem is not ex-military pilots per se, as there are many very fine and capable ex-mil pilots both at Flybe and elsewhere (and yes, some of them even flew fast jets back when the RAF actually had cash to go flying). The problem is people who have an inflated sense of their own worth, can't handle advice or criticism and little or no ability to manage relationships with others. This problem is not exclusive to aviation either.

Unfortunately pilots, and more particularly the a/c commander, are effectively operating as managers, yet most have absolutely no training or experience in this area. It often leads to problems with inter-crew relationships on both sides of the door as this is one area the pilots can't resort to a checklist and some fail miserably in attempting to manage the issue. I doubt there is a single airline pilot who hasn't witnessed one of their colleagues make a complete fist of managing a crew issue, or even done so themselves. I know I have.

[ShotOne]

What happened to the culture of open safety reporting? File an air safety report...and we'll make it your dismissal letter!! Doesn't make me want to travel with flybe!

[Greek God]

Of note I Think is that this chap was not an RAF trained pilot. Not sure if ex nav, eng, or admin but that alone brings a wealth of possible issues. Even the most arsy FJJs could understand CRM issues and had at least some experience in that area.
Agreed it would be an interesting case study. We all have had those on the FD we would rather not have had, but egos are fragile things and there seems very little mechanism within the industry to deal with issues like this. This fellow seems to have had CRM problems before but has he been made aware of them. If he has & not modified his behaviour then he deserves his lot.
Furthermore and as a counter; with an FO generally the flow of info / criticism / advice is from left to right, however, once you move to the left feedback all but dries up and the loop becomes terminated, hence as a skipper you need to develop a higher awareness of your own crew interaction and strategies to deal with awkward situations.
At the end of the the day the FD is no place for conflict - fly within each others box, bottle any antagonism and sort it out on the ground after!:ouch:

[virgin camel]

There is a picture of these blokes in the Daily Rag…. They are not young blokes and I presume would have had some life experience behind them…
Both clearly immature and the company just needed an excuse to bid them farewell …..CRM is not hard for most people. On a difficult day flying with a ****, I just do my job. Its like having sex with an ugly girl. There will be an ending.

[Cacophonix]

I guess the whole ex military pilot thing is a double edged sword. Sure, some (small minority) self ordained ex military sky god may feel that he/she is better trained and better able than a civilian Captain who has generally come to that seat another hard way but then there are those military. types who will acquiesce to seniority out of habit and that is just as bad in terms of CRM (e.g. this may have been part of the issue in this case)

Air Florida Flight 90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90)

Ultimately it comes down to attitude, professionalism and a sense of humour and the ability to get on and fly in the way expected in the civilian market and I suggest that the ability to adapt and get over the differences in training and background from both a civilian and a military sense is the key to what a safety conscious and commercially astute outfit is looking for. In other words if you want to get on, don't do whatever it was these guys did!

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Let's not forget British European Airways Flight 548.

[Tableview]

Or KLM/Pan Am's contretemps at TFN. (Capt Jacob van Zandten).

[Alexander de Meerkat]

Caulfield - I should not worry too much about Ryanair or easyJet offering you a job as it is not going to happen any time soon. Regarding Political Correctness, I cannot speak for Ryanair, but easyJet employs pilots from every background known to man and employs numerous non-PC pilots. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they all get along just great. Regarding adherence to SOPs, yes that is one of our failings - we like pilots to adhere to them. And yes, we actively would not employ pilots for whom that is an issue. Strange, but there you have it.

Regarding the case in point, my understanding is that the FO was a late-arrival career FO who never flew in the RAF. All this stuff about employing ex-mil pilots is completely irrelevant here as he wasn't one. The Captain was faced with a nightmare FO, and I have considerable sympathy for him. There is no doubt he could have handled the situation better, but in his defence it was not an easy one to deal well with.

Slightly bizarrely, I notice that the two pilots involved are now fighting FlyBe TOGETHER in their battle against unfair dismissal - CRM appears to have prevailed after all!

[talkpedlar]

...taking your grievance to a tribunal..and as a consequence having your name and photos splashed all over the media... is not exactly career-enhancing? :ugh:

Speaking personally, as a recruiter, I could not and would not, consider either of these two gents.

I nevertheless wish them both well.

[Sean Dell]

There's a short story written by James Thurber (1939) which I find most relevant here .....

[korrol]

...So it looks as though we will all have to wait a while before we hear the outcome of the case because the employment tribunal has "reserved" its decision - which means that, rather than announcing the result in the tribunal chamber at the end of the proceedings, it's to be published in written form at a future date.

Under cross-examination Captain Bird had been asked ask whether the argument had potentially put his passengers in danger, as his whole attention was not on flying the plane. According to the Daily Mirror he replied: “Of course it did. It was a distraction.”

Flybe's Chief Pilot Ian Bastow is reported as telling the tribunal he did not want them to fly again. In an abnormal situation, he said, if the crew did not work together, “it is quite likely the end result will not be desirable”.

[Rabski]

Honestly... Pair of pigs a***s.

We all sometimes fly with people we would not engage with socially, but that's no different to any real-life situation.

That's reality. To allow the cockpit situation to descend into that state takes real skill on both sides.

Fire the pair of them? Absolutely right.

I can be a real pain to fly with, because I like things done right, but I'm still socially adept enough to realise what's appropriate and what isn't.

If your people-management skills are so poor as to allow that sort of situation to develop, then I wouldn't be that happy with your other skills either.

Pathetic frankly. Both of them.

[Nil further]

Spent 6 years at flybe a while back .One of the biggest problems it had was that it allowed this sort of thing to go on un-checked.

I should have had a kick up the a**se myself a few times and there were a few downright loonies in the place , most of whom knew that they would never get a job anywhere else.....they are probably still there.

It was a source of considerable concern to me that any complaint about the catastrophically poor behaviour was met with a shrug of the shoulders .

As it happens I knew the skipper in this incident and the fleet manager .I remember them both as reasonable guys .

Now working for a major airline which does not allow "no-fly" lists .

[IcePack]

Mmm Rabski, I wonder what your colleagues might say.
When CRM 1st came into our world some Airlines conducted an anonymous questionnaire. Some Captains were so shocked at the perception of themselves by others, they went sick for a while.
As for these two. Well these things happen, but they should have not flown back.
It will be interesting to see how the tribunal reacts as they are not aviation professionals.

[Tinribs]

I remember Maximum Pete's event very well, I was involved on the edge

He saw a CRM problem and tried to avoid it by keeping away from the FO till the dust settled

The Company were frightened of the potential for the FO to cause trouble and manipulated mp out

They lost a great deal of front on the issue and it was the cause of many thinking again about where they wanted to work

[Rabski]

"Mmm Rabski, I wonder what your colleagues might say.
When CRM 1st came into our world some Airlines conducted an anonymous questionnaire. Some Captains were so shocked at the perception of themselves by others, they went sick for a while.
As for these two. Well these things happen, but they should have not flown back.
It will be interesting to see how the tribunal reacts as they are not aviation professionals."


I hope (and I'm pleased to say that experience suggests) that my colleagues would say that I can be a disruptive, ornery, foot-stamping git at times, but that's because ultimately the buck stops here. If I see something that I think compromises my safety and that of those around me, I'll damned well say so. I always have done. It hasn't cost me a job yet (though it's come close a couple of times) and in only a very few years I'll be sitting in my rocking chair dribbling gently into a nice claret. And the way things are going, I'll be bloody glad to, to be honest, but that's another matter.

For the moment, I'll keep saying, nice and loud, if something isn't right. Equally though, I try to always keep my right ear open. I try never to be overbearing to anyone sitting on that side of me, because like it or not, we all make mistakes sometimes and that seat is usually the place where those mistakes are picked up before they turn into a real problem. If I've missed something, or God forbid, screwed something, I want someone next to me to feel they can tell me so, quickly and without fear, before it all goes pear shaped.

Naturally, I never set anything incorrectly, never miss a decimal place and generally am perfect. However, one day I might not be. ;)

The people sitting to your right aren't idiots by a very long stretch and any left-seater who treats them that way is heading for major problems sooner or later. There's a reason for having two seats, and mostly it's because we need assistance and two pairs of ears and eyes. Sometimes, we need help. Big time. If it's ever my day for all the holes to line up, then I'd much rather the guy or girl to my right is happy to work with me, rather than in the middle of a massive sulk.

It's not just CRM, it's basic human interaction and decent manners. Banter is fine, but I would never call someone 'my bitch' unless I knew them extremely well. To do so otherwise seems to me to be asking for exactly the situation that developed in this instance. Quite possibly the FO was a stick of dynamite waiting to go off, nevertheless, in this instance the captain lit the fuse.

Not only poor people management skills, but basic bad manners.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Interestingly the F/O has on his LinkedIn profile that he is a member of the Pilot Recruitment International group and Professional Pilot Employment Search group, but there's no mention of his departure from FlyBe:E

[jungle drums]

I will throw some petrol on the fire -

Of the ex-airforce crew that I flew with (maybe I had a bad run or it could just be me,) the worst of characters were the ex trash hauler 'white glove' brigade, closely followed by the ex-RAF non flyers (one ex eng gives me nightmares) who got out and then started flying.

Generally insecure :mad: with big chips, big egos, and piss poor handling skills and matching PQs.

Taught me a lot about what not to try and emulate.

With the occasional exception.

The ex-fj and even the navy guys always seemed to be relaxed because they had nothing to prove and their CRM skills were better because it was new to them and they had to try harder....

[korrol]

A few more facts have emerged overnight on the updated Daily Mail website which I don't believe were published in last week's tribunal coverage:- (Flybe pilots sacked after one called the other 'his bitch' before mid-flight bust-up | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132088/Flybe-pilots-sacked-called-bitch-mid-flight-bust-up.html))

The Mail says the reason CVR evidence was not used was because the recording of the row on the way to Spain was apparently wiped automatically on the return flight to Devon.(Was there no way to preserve this - assuming either pilot had wished to?....And should not a recording have been preserved anyway if - as alleged - both pilots were "yelling at each other" and, as was later stated, there was a potential safety issue?

The Mail says:- "Captain Bird had been on sick leave for seven months and on anti-depressants after a messy divorce, said Mr Akers." (It isn't clear from that quote whether Mr Akers was alleging the Captain Bird was on anti-depressants at the time of the flight - but if he was, could there be parallels with the case of Captain Clayton Osbon - the JetBlue pilot who was forcibly excluded from his flight deck after bizarre behaviour back in March this year? JetBlue described that incident as a "medical situation".)

[Alexander de Meerkat]

Rabski - if you are by your own admission 'a pain to fly with' because you 'like things done right', you can surely identify with the Captain's dilemma. You do not strike me as someone who woluld be tolerant of a stroppy FO. When I read your discussions here, I am not filled with excitement at the thought of being your FO - I do fully accept, however, that the written word can be misleading and you may be a great guy. What I would say here is that there are no perfect Captains out there, and most of us have mishandled situations at one time or other. Indeed, were you to delve into Chief Pilot Ian Baston's past you will find some significant errors on his part. The point I am making is that none of us can stand up perfectly to examination and there is a place for grace here. It may be these were 2 nightmare guys and FlyBe were given an opportunity that was too good to miss. My gut feeling is the Captain was unlucky and should still have a job, but others with more knowledge may have a different, and indeed more insightful, view of this situation.

[Landflap]

Definitely with Rabski on this. The Buck does stop with the LHS. CRM has been interesting and has great value but the promoters have to realise that the Regulatory Authorities & the Law will site the Captain as being ultimately responsible. Command decisions made by committee have no place in a heavy, fast moving, transport aircraft. If so, let the Regulators & Law makers change everything to give the "committee" full responsibility. A softening of command attitude by the CRM pundits is causing many events like this. Not all reported.

No -one would wish a return to the "Papa India" incident at LHR. In my FO days, I would have instant respect for who-ever was in the LHS; operationally. I might have disliked many, personally, but it never spilled into the flight deck. Many times, I would return home and think "well, that's exactly what I do not want to be like", but, uniforms on, back to having to understand the chain of command concept.

During Command Training, I needed to have the "FO kicked out of me". A neighbour, happened to be a TRE/IRE pulled me up over the fence and told me I was likely to fail as I was "not assertive enough". "Needs to take hold of the ship, more". I took his advice , went to the RADA for acting lessons, became an absolute tyrant to my kids & passed.

CRM tried to kick the Captain out of me. I resisted. So far, no incidents. One very near, when a FO who I thought was a personal friend suddenly went bonkers. Something I had done to help flipped him completely as he accused me of undermining him, interfering with "his" duties and being patronising at all times. Good grief. Was it something I said ??? (!). A firm calming down of the incident was given by me. I offered to have him replaced but suggested that it would not be good for him. We got back in one piece, very professional, actually, but have not renewed our friendship for some 5 years.

Firm leadership by this Captain (referred to in the thread) encouraged by strong Company back up and not this mamby pamby CRM world would have stamped out the awful atmosphere.

[Al Murdoch]

Landflap, I'm just wondering, did this outburst lead you to examine your own style of leadership? I mean that's what we're talking about here - leadership. And if so, what did you learn? I'm genuinely interested btw - this isn't a dig at you.
Every Captain has the right to stamp his own style on the flight deck and as far as I can tell there is nothing in the CRM principles that bypasses the Captain's right to Command.
I'm not for one second saying this is you, but there are a lot of people who bash CRM because they don't understand what it is trying to achieve. As far as I am concerned it is about the Captain using what he has available to him to achieve the best outcome. You get the best out of people by motivating them to do well for you. That is good leadership and that is what CRM is about.

[Checkboard]

The Mail says the reason CVR evidence was not used was because the recording of the row on the way to Spain was apparently wiped automatically on the return flight to Devon.(Was there no way to preserve this - assuming either pilot had wished to?....And should not a recording have been preserved anyway if - as alleged - both pilots were "yelling at each other" and, as was later stated, there was a potential safety issue?

korrol - the CVR is only used in accident investigation. It doesn't matter if it were over-recorded or not, it wouldn't be available for this incident.

You get the best out of people by motivating them to do well for you. That is good leadership and that is what CRM is about.
True - but some are easy to motivate, and some difficult. Most FO's are a delight - however a very very few act like surly teenagers, requiring to be personally convinced of every decision rather than trusting to the experience of the Captain making that decision. Liable to argue every 50:50 bet on weather avoidance with their own decision. Borderline insubordinate.

A day with a guy like that can be extremely tiring and very trying, regardless of the good humour and CRM skills you bring to the position.

[Al Murdoch]

This is true, but I think a lot of people allow this situation to develop to a point where an outburst or an argument is the only remaining option. Firmly nipping this kind of behaviour in the bud at the earliest option is the only effective solution. Then you can get on with the day.

[captplaystation]

Checkboard,

With you 100% on the last paragraph.

It is possibly a generation thing, and definitely a "nationality" thing (thinking of a very flat country here)

Sometimes we have to remind our colleague that the old joke
"Crew Resource Management" =

We are "The Crew"
You are "The Resource"
I am "The Management"

Is in fact not a joke, but a statement of legal fact.

Oh BTW, I am only a cantankerous old sod when someone takes the p1ss, I do usually try (& hopefully succeed) in keeping that in reserve for when it is needed ,as a last resort.

As Al has said, the best option is to identify/eradicate it early in the day, lest it rear its ugly head even higher later, to everyones disadvantage.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

[QUOTE]The Buck does stop with the LHS. CRM has been interesting and has great value but the promoters have to realise that the Regulatory Authorities & the Law will site the Captain as being ultimately responsible. Command decisions made by committee have no place in a heavy, fast moving, transport aircraft. If so, let the Regulators & Law makers change everything to give the "committee" full responsibility. /QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct that the flight deck is not a level playing field nor a democracy. The Captain has the final authority, always.

It is also beneficial from a teamwork perspective for a Captain to demonstrate an awareness that he/she does not carry the responsibility alone and that poor decisions or actions leading to incidents/accidents reflect heavily on all crew members tasked with operating the aircraft. In practice it isn't just the Commander who will be held responsible. The Cargo 737 (DHL?) incident at EMA/BHX resulted in both crew members being dismissed, as did the Emirates tail scrape in Melbourne. The ATR that ran out of fuel and ditched in the Med saw both pilots given prison sentences by an Italian court(I don't think either actually ended up in the clink).

While clearly a good F/O knows when, if and how to assist the Captain, with assist being the clear emphasis, the few guys i have noticed gain a reputation with others as "difficult" during my career are those who operate under the "Buck stops with me and me alone" theory. I am not suggesting this is at all your outlook Landflap but it can be a common theme amongst the very few Captains I have encountered who seem intent on regarding everyone but themselves as the enemy. They are usually the ones who have ultimately forgotten that the responsibility does lie to a certain degree with the "team", even if the higher percentage of responsibility will always wrest in the LHS. A co-pilot who forgets their place in the chain of command or who does not understand the remit of a First Officer is I'm sure just as much of a problem.

In the FlyBe case neither pilot has dealt with the situation particularly well but as Kingfisher mentioned, would the situation have escalated to the level it did if the Captain had simply decided to avoid the weather? As always, easy to judge from a distance. I do have some sympathy for both pilots.

[Al Murdoch]

Playstation - I am a 100% CRM advocate and even though you may feel your explanation of CRM is cynical, I think it's spot on! :ok:

[MaximumPete]

I would not be very impressed as a trainer if I saw a captain going through bad weather simply because they were running late.

A very dubious command decision?

[Rabski]

"Rabski - if you are by your own admission 'a pain to fly with' because you 'like things done right', you can surely identify with the Captain's dilemma. You do not strike me as someone who woluld be tolerant of a stroppy FO. When I read your discussions here, I am not filled with excitement at the thought of being your FO".

With respect, I didn't say I am a PITA to fly with, I said I can be a PITA. And by that, I meant mostly with management, though even there it's only if I feel something constitutes a potential risk. I try to keep generally friendy and encouraging to anyone sitting on my right. As I said, they're there for a good reason and one day, one might save me from an almighty one. By the grace of good luck, I've only ever had a few near ones, but who knows? Tomorrow might be my bad luck day and if it is, I want assistance, not the blind following the blind, or worse, resentment.

That said, and having discussed with a few in other companies, I think that in some places the training of CRM needs to be looked at. In some cases, I feel it weakens the position of ultimate responsibility too much and could potentially lead to a 'who the hell is in charge here' situation. There are just a few occasions where you do have to make it clear who calls the shots, though there are ways to do so without causing friction. God forbid, but if I ever have to say 'my aircraft', I don't want to have to explain the decision if the hounds of hell have just broken loose.

Yes, the buck does stop here and there have been one or two cases when I've had to make it clear that there is just one captain. However, I must say that with one or two years experience, it has been extremely rare and when I've had to do it, I've always tried to take the time to explain my decision afterwards. FOs are captains in training. To treat them as inferior in any way whatsoever is going to cause resentment and that's the last thing anyone wants.

I have to put up with enough insubordination and sulks from the damned electronics I'm stuck with so I certainly don't want it in human form as well.

And slightly off-topic, I encourage FOs to hand fly as much as my SOPs allow. In my experience it's a confidence builder and a trust builder. Not to mention a good way to stop standards slipping.

[beamer]

In 36 years of flying ( gulp ) I can only remember a couple of occasions when things went a little astray.

Firstly, when flying as an FO on a 1/11 and teamed up with a very under-confident albeit technically experienced Captain ( funny how I always flew the thing in bad weather ). A little too quick for him one morning whilst still on the ground - his teddy went out of the window and a subdued day followed !

Secondly, years later, when flying with another Captain ( run out of co-pilots again ) - swapped seats after first leg and it all went a bit astray. Sorted out with a handshake in the cruise - he was a mate before the 'incident' and has remained so ever since.

Forget about all this civ/mil debate - there are clowns from both backgrounds but fortunately these events as reported in the tabloids are few and far between - at least I hope they are !

[RAFAT]

Of course we should remember NOT to tar all ex-RAF types with the same brush as some previous posters have done. I remember an ex-RAF Sqn Ldr Herc jockey who joined Flybe on the Q400 fleet as an F/O, and he was an absolute pleasure to fly with; he was fully aware of his duties and position in the flightdeck chain of command. He did occasionally look like a Sqn CO as he went about his pre and post-flight tasks in the crewroom, but never (that I saw) used his former position to bully, initimidate or apply undue influence over his colleagues.

Come to think of it, exactly the same can be said of a former Engineering Sqn Ldr who I also flew with on the Q400.

In this particular case I know the Captain and flew with him when he was an F/O, but I don't know the F/O so can't really comment.

[punkalouver]

It is almost 20 years ago at the company I used to work for where there was an altercation on a 19 seat turbine aircraft(no autopilot) descending in IMC to a fairly extreme airport in terms of terrain. The pilots were stupid enough to write each other up with the new captain losing his captaincy.The F/O was the type that pissed off many and the captain was a bit of a jerk as well.

The F/O's report was along the lines of...

During conversation with another aircraft, the captain made a slanderous comment about the copilots mental capabilities on the radio. This prompted a physical reaction from the copilot in the form of a blow, to the captain's right shoulder. Further reaction from the captain took the form of a blow to the co-pilots head.

Meanwhile the captain wrote along the lines of.....

There had been casual banter on the company frequency. A comment was made by myself, which the F/O took offense to, even though there had been some good natured "ribbing' earlier in the flight. The F/O then punched me in the shoulder with enough force to disrupt my profile of descent while in a cloud layer with no visual references. I took the time to stabilize my descent and then I returned the shove with equal force and explained that considering the aircraft situation that this type of behaviour would not be tolerated in the cockpit, fun or not. This occurrence was witnessed by the passengers.

[Airbubba]

korrol - the CVR is only used in accident investigation. It doesn't matter if it were over-recorded or not, it wouldn't be available for this incident.

In the U.S., this was pretty much true in the past. However, lately the trend over here has been to harvest conversation on the CVR as part of an 'incident' investigation. I'd almost guess the CVR recording could be used in the U.S. if the argument was made that the CRM problems affected the safe conduct of the flight.

If you have an event that is reportable to the FAA, they and the company safety folks can listen to the CVR recording from what we have been told. If an antiskid controller fails and you blow tires on landing, the whole CVR recording becomes fair game from an incident I've seen.

Many aircraft manuals still have the old boilerplate text that says that only the last 30 minutes are recorded. The new CVR's have solid state memory recording, most retain at least two hours and the 'erase' button mandated decades ago by law sorta works but the recording can be easily recovered from what I've been told by our safety people. I'm sure when the cockpit cameras are installed we will be given every assurance that they will only ever be used for safety, not discipline. And, I'm sure over time things will change.

An example of conversation not directly related to operation of the aircraft being exploited for analysis is in the Colgan 3407 crash in Buffalo. The crew members discussed commuting to work and sleeping in the crew lounge. The posthumous CVR testimony of the Colgan crew was cited in congressional hearings, in my opinion somewhat out of the scope of the original CVR mandate.

There are inevitably a few CVR CRM urban legends that seem to float around. Many seem to involve crews of mixed gender (uh, by that I mean one male, one female). A comment, act or accusation that is inappropriate occurs and someone's job is saved by pulling the CVR circuit breaker to preserve evidence of what actually happened. I know these stories are true because they always start 'Now, this is no s**t!' ;)

[BugSpeed]

Airbubba,

"An example of conversation not directly related to operation of the aircraft being exploited for analysis is in the Colgan 3407 crash in Buffalo. The crew members discussed commuting to work and sleeping in the crew lounge. The posthumous CVR testimony of the Colgan crew was cited in congressional hearings, in my opinion somewhat out of the scope of the original CVR mandate."

I have to disagree old chap. This was DIRECTLY attributable to the accident; they were fatigued. That fatigue resulted in an eqivalent alchohol intake, it is suggested, that would have put them at least twice over the UK drink drive limit in terms of mental capacity.

We'll leave the Q400's design features alone for this argument as its about CVR's, and indeed this thread isnt really about CVR's or Colgan! However, the CVR in that case proved that, along with company IT material, both pilots were not fit to fly.

From my experience those with something to hide tend to be the only people afriad of CVR's...

Yes, the CVR is a very valid and useful tool. If you follow your SOP's you have nothing to worry about.

[rgbrock1]

Al Murdoch wrote:

You get the best out of people by motivating them to do well for you. That is good leadership and that is what CRM is about.

A good leader is only as good as the people he leads.

[Al Murdoch]

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that.

[4Greens]

Was involved in introducing CRM to a certain airline. Nearly all our difficulties were with Captains who felt that CRM was an intrusion into their command prerogatives.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

The personal disputes discussed here extend far beyond the flight deck. Imagine the same conflict in an operating theatre?

However there are other issues in places like the Far East where it is not acceptable to question a senior person.

One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269 is a good example.
On the day of the crash, the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 [9] departed Bangkok’s Don Mueang International Airport, Thailand at 14:31 local time en route to Phuket International Airport as flight number OG269.[2] The flight crew consisted of captain Arief Mulyadi, an Indonesian national and the Chief Pilot of One-Two-Go Airlines, and a former Indonesian Air Force pilot, first officer Montri Kamolrattanachai, a Thai national who had recently completed his flight training with One-Two-GO’s ab initio program. The aircraft was carrying 123 passengers and 7 crew members. OG269 was the fourth of six flights between Bangkok and Phuket that Arief and Montri were scheduled to fly that day.[2]
On approach to Phuket, captain Arief made several radio communications errors including read-back/hear-back communications and misstating their flight number. First officer Montri was the flying pilot.[2]
Another aircraft landed immediately prior to flight 269 and experienced wind shear. That aircraft's captain contacted the tower and reported wind shear on final and cumulonimbus over the airport, a report audible to all incoming aircraft. Air Traffic Control requested flight 269 acknowledge the weather information provided and re-state intentions. Captain Arief acknowledged the transmission and stated his intention to land.[2]
OG269 conducted an ILS approach just north of the centerline on runway 27. As the landing proceeded, ATC reported increasing winds at 240 degrees from 15–30 knots (28–56 km/h; 17–35 mph), then to 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph). Captain Arief acknowledged the reports. ATC requested intentions again. Captain Arief said, “Landing”.[2]
As the aircraft descended to 115 feet (35 m) above ATL, its airspeed dropped. Captain Arief repeatedly called for more power as First Officer Monti attempted the landing. The aircraft continued to descend and fell below 50 feet (15 m) above ATL, causing the auto-throttle to reduce engine thrust to idle. One second later, First Officer Montri called “Go Around”. This was acknowledged by the captain. The first officer then attempted to transfer control of the aircraft to captain Arief. There was no verbal acknowledgement of this from captain Arief.[2]
The pilots retracted the landing gear and set flaps for go-around. The aircraft pitch changed from 2 degrees to 12 degrees as the aircraft climbed, its engines still at idle. Airspeed fell and the aircraft climbed to a maximum altitude of 262 feet (80 m) ATL before beginning to descend. For 13 seconds the engines remained at idle. The aircraft pitch angle decreased to near 0 and then the throttle was manually increased two seconds before impact with an embankment along the runway at 15:40. The aircraft was severely damaged by a post crash fire.[2]

And the NTSB concluded
The cause of the crash was found to be due to a combination of human performance and operational issues, including: Human Performance:[1]
CRM issues, including attempted transfer of control of the aircraft at a critical moment
Failure of either pilot to apply power while attempting to regain altitude
Fatigue issues as both pilots had worked illegally excessive hours for the week and the month

[kaikohe76]

Surely Folks, any Flight deck is a place for tact, consideration & respect, yes & also including the odd bit of humor & light heartedness at times too. I was rather lucky that the great majority of Flight decks I was ever on, were just like this.
We will always get I suppose, the very odd, total beakdown of relations & respect between any Crew Members, that's life, however outside the aircraft is obviously the place to sort this out, hopefully having all parties having cooled down first.
Great pity this particular event & there may well be more to it than meets the eye, but going on details as so far reported, to me the Company had little option, in the action it took.

[korrol]

More has emerged in local newspapers from the proceedings of the employment tribunal which has been hearing the appeals of former Flybe employees Captain Stephen Bird and First Officer Stephen Akers against their dismissal after their now-famous flight deck contretemps .It now transpires the tribunal heard that FO Akers had threatened to take Captain Bird out for a fight after they landed at Malaga.

Their line manager Captain Stan Wood, who led the investigation into the conduct of the two pilots, told the tribunal that FO Akers had "reacted inappropriately" when he swore at Captain Bird . Capt Wood told an Exeter employment tribunal hearing: "Swearing at your captain during the flight is completely unacceptable."

Captain Wood said FO Akers should have requested another pilot take over for the return trip to Exeter because of the "massive" fall-out between the pair and that "He chose to put the safety of innocent passengers and crew members at risk by operating the return flight.".

Captain Wood also said "In my view, Stephen Bird did not act as a captain should have and had no appreciation whatsoever for the potential consequences of his actions. As the captain, and therefore commander, of the aircraft he had ultimate control of the aircraft." He said "Stephen Bird should have taken control of the aircraft on approach to landing. He chose to engage in the argument with Mr Akers, which exacerbated the situation.We could not guarantee that they would have been able to cope with a serious incident that may have arisen on the return flight given the atmosphere and ill-feeling towards each other." Captain Wood said it was "completely inappropriate" for the two pilots to fly back to England after such a heated argument.

Captain Robert Horton, general manager of jets at Flybe, told the tribunal that his first concern was Capt Bird's reference to Mr Akers as "his bitch".Capt Horton said: "As an experienced pilot I would never refer to someone who I was about to spend the next six to eight hours with in those terms, particularly in safety- critical conditions such as flying". "To me" , he said "this is a form of bullying. It is not tolerated at Flybe." He concluded both pilots were "equally culpable for a very serious breach of safety procedure".
The full version is on Pilot 'threatened to fight' Flybe captain | This is Exeter (http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Pilot-threatened-fight-Flybe-captain/story-15890696-detail/story.html)

[Bigmouth]

How about blaming the Chief Pilots, HR, and management in general for hiring, keeping and promoting/upgrading these idiots who have no business being in a rhs and much less a lhs.
We all know who they are, yet can´t seem to get rid of them.

[Alexander de Meerkat]

All FlyBe have done here is undermine every Captain in their company. Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is vital to back your captains. Despite the clear failings of the Captain here, I do not see him fitting that category. The FO is a clear cut case, but not the Skipper.

Landflap - CRM was made for people like you, who have no idea how difficult they are to work with. Sadly the very people who most need CRM training are those who least embrace it.

[Checkboard]

Captain Wood said FO Akers should have requested another pilot take over for the return trip to Exeter because of the "massive" fall-out between the pair and that "He chose to put the safety of innocent passengers and crew members at risk by operating the return flight.".
It should have been the Captain's decision to offload the FO (being responsible for the flight, and with the legal power to offload anybody)- not the FO's decision to offload himself.

... and I think I would certainly offload an FO offering a bout of fisticuffs in the carpark!! :ouch:

[kaikohe76]

Alex de Meerkat,

You may be right & know more about this incident than I, but would you like to be sitting in the pax cabin with the wx at destination, zero cloudbase viz 50metres, with this particular Skipper. Very unfortunate incident & there can be no winners at all, to me it appears both the guys are as bad as each other.

[Otto Throttle]

Flybe management haven't undermined their Captains (or FOs for that matter). They have instead made it abundantly clear that they expect us to act as professionals and to treat our various colleagues, whether flightdeck or not, with due respect. I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

[JammedStab]

How about blaming the Chief Pilots, HR, and management in general for hiring, keeping and promoting/upgrading these idiots who have no business being in a rhs and much less a lhs.
We all know who they are, yet can´t seem to get rid of them.

Some people always want to blame everyone else instead of the guilty parties. There may be higher up fault in some cases but certainly not always. The reality is that when you hire someone, they are usually hiding any negative aspects of themselves and in reality, you don't know if you are hiring some sort of problem personality person whether they are a liar, a cheat or a bigmouth.

[fireflybob]

How about blaming the Chief Pilots, HR, and management in general for hiring, keeping and promoting/upgrading these idiots who have no business being in a rhs and much less a lhs.

Bigmouth - agree totally!

These things don't just happen - it isn't rocket science to get to know who is becoming a "prima donna" - any management worth it's salt would have spotted this a mile off and taken action. I feel that by sacking both pilots this takes the spotlight off the management. It would seem this was a badly crewed flight from the start for all sorts of reasons.

However notwithstanding CRM, "stroppy" FOs are around and need to be handled accordingly - if necessary this means offloading said FO. The Captain has overall authority for the flight (even if he is b*****d to work with!) and there are some FOs around who also seem to think they are "God" and have no idea of what it is like to have overall responsibility for the operation, although they think they do.

Am all for good CRM but some of this "touchy feely" stuff has now gone too far. That said, good Captains have to have "style adaptability". A year or so I flew with a (very competent and nice) FO who had recently been released on line. He said to me in conversation "They dont teach you during line training that it's different flying with different Captains" My reply was "and when you get into this seat you'll find that different FOs are different to fly with". There followed a big "thinks" bubble - I don't think he had looked at it from that point of view before (understandably).

When I started as a young Second Officer in 1971 there were many more "character" Captains to fly with. I made it a personal rule that I would always fly with whoever I was rostered to fly with and, notwithstanding flight safety, do everything I could to work with them and operate as a team. I often found that much could be learned from some of the old b*****s who in fact were quite amenable if you came along with the right attitude.

This whole incident is symptomatic of what is wrong with our industry these days (and indeed one could say our society). The flight deck of an aircraft is not the place to have an argument, by all means sort it out on the ground, of course.

In my opinion, for this event to have occurred is a failure of the "system" (or in this case the obvious lack of one) rather than the individuals.

[40&80]

It is good... at last.... to see the standard of debate improving with people who actually know what they are talking about due real life experience posting.....getting back to what pprune was all about many years ago.

[millerscourt]

40&80

Are you referring to your previous posts by any chance?:rolleyes:

[Capt Hook]

If this was all sparked by a disagreement over weather avoidance, then the Captain should have done as the F/O suggested. Why as a Captain would you generate a conflict over an issue such as this; it is not as though the F/O was insisting that they fly through the weather!

Indeed, it is odd that the Captain elected not to take the safer option. Was this all part of an attempt to stamp his authority on the F/O? The article reports the Captain as saying “Now I can see why you have had issues with other captains”; did the reputation of the F/O result in the Captain behaving in an atypical manner?

I have little sympathy for either party involved, as each contributed to a situation that presented a risk to their passengers and crew. The tribunal cannot give them their jobs back, but can only award compensation, and I think it highly unlikely that either will work in commercial passenger transport operations again.

I have flown with many pilots over the years, some I liked and some I didn’t (I daresay they had similar views about me). One thing is certain though, if any of them held the view that they would never fly with me again then that is a failure on my part not theirs.

As previous posters have commented on the CVR, it is also worth mentioning that many CVR systems are ‘looped’ tape systems (A319 only maintains last 2 hours of conversation); if the ‘main event’ happened on the way to AGP then it would have not been available for analysis on arrival back at EXT.

[Artic Monkey]

Regarding the weather, as with all these stories you never get told the full story, and there's a fair amount of detail missing from the report which makes you suggest the captain elected not to go around the weather for the sake of not going around it, which is actually a fallacy.

[Bigmouth]

Knucklehead Fo´s are a pita and a nuisance, but any Captain worth his salt should know how to deal with them. You don´t have a right-seat-captain without a left-seat-FO.

Having a knucklehead in the left seat, on the other hand, is a real problem. CPs that will listen to an FO´s complaint about a problem Captain are few and far between. CPs that will take action are virtually non-existent.
If you hired a liar, a cheat or a bigmouth then be a man, own up to it and rectify it.

[BugSpeed]

Well said OttoThrottle! Totally agree.

[kaikohe76]

Otto Throttle & fireflybob,

Well said, calm accurate & well reasoned posts, can only totally agreee with you both.

[fitliker]

What do you think might have happened if either of them refused to fly the return leg:confused:

[korrol]

We're still awaiting the outcome of the tribunal hearing of course but, with the best will in the world, the long-term prospects of both appellants can't be very bright.

One of the most poignant aspects of the whole affair is how these two men - who, just hours earlier, had been in secure, well-paid, and probably pensionable jobs, with every expectation of seeing their careers through to retirement - suddenly both found themselves out on the cobbles.

Rewind time to the fateful day. That morning neither of them would have dreamt for a moment that this routine flight would be their last. The hours of study, all those exams and medicals and check-rides, the licences, and the honing of their skills over the years, were all about to be rendered useless.

The Mail reported that " Since his sacking, Captain Bird has not found any work despite applying to be an estate agent and work at a tile factory. Despite his flying skills, he said his future may be as a handyman."

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the affair, surely most pilots will feel a twinge of sympathy for the predicament in which both men now find themselves.

[777boeings]

Sorry Korrol, I take your point but at the end of the day, this is a grown up job and if crew are unable to conduct themselves in a an adult manner, then I for one have no sympathy for them. Everyone has a choice.

[bakutteh]

Sigh, fellow pilots are almost always our worst enemies.

I hope Capt. Bird does not lose heart; lesson learnt albeit at great cost but there are always opportunities elsewhere.

[BBoyo]

I suspect they reported the incident because these days we are expected to report anything untoward that happens during a flight, however trivial. Thus it is becoming a habit. We feel uncomfortable if we walk away from a duty with a guilty little secret, that perhaps the other guy might decide to report after all. Yes, in the good-old-days this sort of silly happening would have been sorted out over a pint. But the good-old-days are gone, if not forgotten.

[Alexander de Meerkat]

I am one of those who thinks like korroll, and feel a considerable sense of sympathy for both guys' predicament, but more so for the Captain. Nonetheless, like korroll, I cannot help but reflect that both guys never started their day with any other intent than having a normal day out. They were not criminals and however foolishly they behaved when faced with a conflict situation, they were not intending to let things go as much as they did. Very sad.

[jumpseater]

fk: What do you think might have happened if either of them refused to fly the return leg

Thats easy, the return leg would have been cancelled or delayed until a replacement crew, (sense would determine both parties returned non-flying to base as they were both reporting each other), were sent out to recover the flight. No different in airline response to a crew member going ill down route.

Capt and F/O then interviewed at base, and a slim chance that one or both of them may have kept their job.

[Landflap]

Alexander, your post 83 of 24 April contains a curious swipe at "people like you" when you don't know me and , clearly, have misuderstood my post. I suggest it is people like you who have embraced CRM as a means of voicing a otherwise insignificant contribution. I do not get drawn by trolls & dont get drawn into debate where a point has been misunderstood. Let me just reiterate. If & when the Regulatory Authorities hold everyone in the chain culpable, I will gladly adopt some of the weird CRM thinking that goes into the decision making process.Some of the less weird I already adopt & promote.Always did. At the present time, when operational, only the Captain will have to account, finally and conclusively.

It is possible that you have missed this point too. A quick illustration is that, recently, facing a real possibility of having to exercise discretion in order to complete a duty, a junior CA said to me that there was "no way" that he was going to exercise "his" discretion. Funny, thought it was mine ! Bought him a coffee & had a gentle discussion about who is, actually, finally, charged with responsibility & why "my" manual refers to "Captain's discretion".

Got it, Alex ? Safe flying. Six miles high & at eight miles a minute sometimes requires decisive commands and intent.

Have a go and take CRM into the Battlefields of the Mid East (currently) and a few Generals might not like being referred to as "People like you ".

[eagle21]

A quick illustration is that, recently, facing a real possibility of having to exercise discretion in order to complete a duty, a junior CA said to me that there was "no way" that he was going to exercise "his" discretion. Funny, thought it was mine ! Bought him a coffee & had a gentle discussion about who is, actually, finally, charged with responsibility & why "my" manual refers to "Captain's discretion".


If that crew member feels unfit to fly the last sector you can use as much discretion as you like that they are not going anywhere.

[sidestickbob]

In our company it is up to individual crew members as to whether or not they exercise discretion. EVERYONE has the right to say no, they don't HAVE to operate just because the captain says so. A captain who completely ignores his crew isn't a very good captain. Being the captain of an aircraft doesn't give you the right to play god - although some people seem to think it does...:rolleyes:

[fireflybob]

Whilst I would agree that a good aircraft Commander will take into account the information from his crew about their fitness for duty in law there is only one person who can exercise discretion and that is the aircraft Commander.

Yes there is a requirement that he/she "consults" with crew members before reaching such a decision but, in my opinion, if he/she consults with his crew and they say "we're all too tired to continue" he is still legally entitled to say "Well I am exercising my discretion, we are going to continue the duty to XYZ etc" because he/she had consulted with the crew.

As a crew member you can say "I am not fit for duty and am therefore standing down as crew" but legally you cannot say "I am not exercising my discretion" because only the aircraft Commander can do that.

[fireflybob]

Yes, yes, we all know you have stripes up and down your arm and have the power of God ... yawn, yawn. But, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. Are you suggesting that as a Captain it would be a good call to 'tell' 'your' crew that 'you' are going into discretion whether they like it or not. Are you suggesting that crew members should blindly follow the Captain's instructions 100% of the time.

With respect DDee737 I think you are missing the point - I am stating that IN LAW it is ONLY the aircraft Commander that can exercise discretion.

Yes, of course, I agree totally that the Commander should take into account the views of fellow crew members but that does not change the fact that, legally speaking, it is only the Commander who can exercise discretion whether other crew members agree with that decision or not - as I stated before they are quite entitled to report to the Commander that they are unfit for duty.

In the case which you listed, DDee737, from what you say the Commander did not consult with his crew which is in breach of the regulation. But of course, legally speaking, he can consult with the crew and still decide to exercise discretion.

[sidestickbob]

Guys, guys, the real question here is:

Can the Captain FORCE/INSTRUCT/TELL/COMMAND another crew member to go into discretion???

I have read and re-read our OPS MANUAL this afternoon and I'm still not totally sure of the answer. I think LEGALLY the answer is YES, but PRACTICALLY (and sensibly) the answer is NO. This is only how I interpret the document.

It is true that discretion can only be exercised with the Captain's permission.

I know someone who works in the FTL department at the CAA so I'll check with them and post back. It is an interesting question and I would like a solid answer.

[dash6]

Legally the answer is yes. Though you may have to justify it. Extracting crew from a rich target shopping environment,or a beach destination,will excercise all your CRM skills!:}

[Tu.114]

Interesting question indeed... I have just consulted my OM-A with regards to this. While it says that the extension of the duty periods must be "acceptable to the commander after consultation with all other crew members" and therefore lays the responsibility and the decision at the commanders feet, it also says in the section "Crew Health Precautions" as follows: "A crew member shall not perform duties on an aeroplane if he is not able to fulfill applicable medical requirements, is in any doubt of being able to accomplish his assigned duties, if he knows or suspects that he is suffering from fatigue or feels unfit to the extent that the flight may be endangered".

So while the final decision on go or no go is the commanders, it seems that every other crew member coming along for the flight in violation of above mentioned paragraph is violating OM-A rules himself and on his own account.

This leads me to the conclusion that factually, a NO GO can be decided by every legally required crew member while a GO can only be declared by the commander in case of no NO GO has come up. Sure, this might have to be explained without tea or biscuits present lateron, but the OM-A seems clear on this.

[sidestickbob]

Tu144,

I think you've hit the nail on the head especially with your last paragraph.

I have to say that having read through most of the posts on this topic, how disappointed I am that there are still some pilots who won't embrace CRM and, even worse rubbish it. In my experience these people are the ones who need it the most - it is because of this now tiny minority that I have to attend a CRM course every year.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Can the Captain FORCE/INSTRUCT/TELL/COMMAND another crew member to go into discretion???.

Yes, because, in my experience, ten out of ten cabin crew haven't wanted to go into discretion because they "can't be arsed".

In this case it is reasonable to persuade/encourage compliance. Or indeed command!

But, we digress.

[dash6]

Spandex. You are real!:D

[eagle21]

If a cabin crew member declares to be unfit for a flight due to fatigue there is nothing you can do to force them to operate, simple really.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Yes there is. Find out it if they really are fatigued!

Or do you just take them at face value?!

Simply explaining the process that they will have to go through if they are officially fatigued has a better effect than a double espresso!

[dave747436]

DDee737 expounds:
Yes, yes, we all know you have stripes up and down your arm and have the power of God ... yawn, yawn

And then lectures captains on their CRM skills.

[Tu.114]

Lord Spandex Masher,

You have piqued my curiosity. In my company, calling in unfit to fly requires a written explanation to the respective fleet chief / head of cabin operation - no less, but no more either. And such an explanation will satisfy everyone involved, if credible, so there will be no hurt feelings on any side. This is what Standby duties are for, amongst others.

So I cannot help but wondering: What presumably horrifying prospects do F/As face in Your company under the same predicament?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

114, I'm talking about a case of becoming "fatigued" after one or two sectors.

In which case they'll be offloaded and grounded immediately until an investigation of the ASR (they or the captain must file one for fatigue) has been completed.

They will also be probed (for want of a better word) about why they have become fatigued after a couple of sectors. After all they weren't fatigued when they reported or they wouldn't have reported, would they?!

Explaining that usually results in a "well I'm not actually THAT tired".

[Neptunus Rex]

There can sometimes be a middle path. I once had a flight that experienced delays which would mean exercising discretion to fly the sector back to base. My FO was chirpy (his sector) but the Chief Purser told me that one of the junior girls was mildly unwell and unfit to operate. The rest of the crew were all fine. No problem. With 14 CC (happy days of yore) we had enough crew to operate legally up to several juniors light, after all, we were a top airline with full service. The unfit CC deadheaded back and everybody was happy.

[captplaystation]

The effects, and consequences, for the operation, and you, depend on the operation/company concerned.

Short-haul Lo Co Europe (yep, blue & yellow) I always tried to do it (consult), however, I knew the bullsh1t associated with an unscheduled nightstop, and found that even more tiring than just doing 1 more sector to get home (no transport booked, no transport paid for, no hotel booked, no hotel paid for, no nightstop kit/shirt- my fault of course- etc etc) However, I always asked, is everyone OK with this ? & added, if not, feel free to speak to Ops & explain your situation, however, that is YOUR decision, & I advise you ,just be aware of who you work for,& how well they will take this news.
Not undue pressure/influence, but some more "junior" crewmembers were (for their own sakes, not mine , I didn't really care) better offered an honest assessment of their future career prospects with their current employer, before they got too carried away.

I doubt if Air 0'Leary was in the minority in NOT wishing to hear news like this.
Lets be honest here guys, unless you are seriously out of it, is it really worth the hassle ? & if you REALLY are, you are too tired to care, so you will live with it.
Maybe it is way, way, different in Big Airways/Lufthansa/wherever, but most of us poor sods living/operating in the "real world" will, rightly or wrongly, try to keep the show on the road, influenced in no small way by the anticipated grief of the "unscheduled night-stop arrangements" :rolleyes: & the (lightly concealed) repercussions, Crewing can be REALLY awful in some companies.

Get real.

[Coffin Corner]

C'mon chaps, the relevance of the discretion discussion to the original topic is what? The mods will only delete it.

[captplaystation]

You are right. . none, well, what is a bit of thread drift here & there . . . .all very CRM Capt/Crew related though, so not as irrelevant as we could make it with a bit more effort. ;)

[Coffin Corner]

Very true ;)

[Ye Olde Pilot]

In simple terms it appears to me that this crew were not going anywhere apart from termination of their careers as the scenario unfolded.

The F/O appears to have an attitude problem and the captain also demonstrated
a juvenile approach to command. I suspect they had flown together previously.

Excellent example of two people who having worked hard to get where they were then pressed the self destruct button.

A lesson to others and worth mulling over:ok:

[Alexander de Meerkat]

'General' Landflap - it is not really credible to say you don't get drawn by 'trolls' or get drawn into debate when a point has been misunderstood. That just adds to the picure of intolerance and intransigence you have already created, albeit possibly erroeously. If you are on this forum making some of the statements you have been among your fellow professionals, you cannot reasonably expect to then say there is no room for debate. Wonderful as it may be to run a cockpit where edicts are issued and no one questions your exceptional insights and judgements, you are not in that environment here.

Regarding being a 'troll' with 'an otherwise insignificant contribution', I will leave it to others to decide if that is the case. My observations are that CRM has been vital to the necessary culture change in our world, and I have wholeheartedly enbraced its value to aviation. Incidentally, the fact that Generals do not like to be questioned might go some way to explain why people like General Douglas Haig presided over 420,000 British casualties in the Battle of the Somme, including 60,000 on the first day. Perhaps a bit more questioning might have been quite helpful. The Generals of the Air, whose style CRM was brought-in to cramp, were for the first time challenged in their behaviour patterns - and they bitterly resented it. Very few people in our industry would question the fact that those who hate CRM so much are often the most difficult people to work with, and that those who need to learn the most from CRM are those who see least merit in it. You may be a great guy and your FOs all love you, but you sure do not come across as that here.

[korrol]

AirBubba, Captain Hook and BugSpeed made some interesting comments earlier in this thread about the admissability or otherwise of CVR evidence in the Employment Tribunal - the consensus being that it's not allowed unless it's an Accident Investigation which of course an Employment Tribunal isn't. .

There may be some doubt about thsi however. It appears that CVR or Flight Recorder evidence is NOT somehow "privileged" and unavailable to the courts.

In the Bird/Akers case the original CVR recording had been overwritten on the return flight but clearly the Tribunal had considered obtaining this evidence and would have done so had the recording been still extant. The fact is that an Employment Tribunal is a court of law which does have powers to subpoena evidence it regards as relevant.

Courts have won disclosure of the CVR voice recordings before - a recent example was the "Linatex v Kreitsky" Blackbushe case where the lawyers acting for insurers obtained a court order requiring the AAIB to disclose the contents of the cockpit voice recorder.

And of course no one can assume data will be automatically wiped over time . In Jersey an Employment Tribunal heard an appeal against the dismissal of a Flybe pilot who'd lost his job after carrying out a non-SOP take-off in a Dash8-Q400.

Apparently Flybe’s SOP say take off should be at a stable speed and use a 15 degree pitch............. However as this aircraft look off from BHM it was levelled at about 15 feet above the runway rising to 45 feet whilst accelerating to approximately 170 knots and was then pitched up to 27.5 degrees and climbed at over 7000ft per min to its assigned altitude of 6,000 feet. This included the aeroplane making a turn at a bank of 45 degrees. In fact the aircraft overshot the prescribed altitude and reached 6,420 feet, dropped to 5,700 feet, and was finally stabilised at 6,000 feet.

In the normal course of events the Flight Data from this aircraft would have been automatically sent wirelessly to a central server for review by the Flybe's Flight Data Manager. However in this case, for some reason, it wasn't.

It was perhaps bad luck for the captain that two months later when the same Dash 8 (being flown by someone else) was subsequently involved in an incident in Paris. This led to all the on-board data being reviewed - and lo and behold what came to light was the spectacular take-off from Birmingham two months earlier.

[taxi_driver]

Two big Ego's, and the cockpit wasnt big enough for both of them. A more humble approach, and recognition of ones own shortcomings is certainly healthy.

So arrogant , they each thought they could report each other and emerge whiter than white themselves.

My only concern: That when flying with a complete nut case, people become afraid to speak up. The case centres around whether Flybe took a balanced decidion to dismiss them both, based on this one incident, or whether they took into account evidence of both pilots previous conduct.

[JPJP]

Union Professional Standards Committee ?

Any dispute between cockpit crew can be taken directly to Pro Standards, or may be referred to them by the Chief Pilots Office. The role of Pro Standards is to mediate and in some cases educate pilots in cases like this. It might have turned a pissing match between two pilots into a 'learning experience', rather than the end of their careers.

[40&80]

This may be true in the US but I have not read of it in the UK.
Both sound like suitable material for any Arabian Gulf airline management positions.:ok:

[wassupman]

Shocking to hear that the both pilots behaved unprofessionally continued to argue and unfortunately this is not new.

In my opinion Flybe has done the right thing to terminate their employments as they clearly have neglected the safety of the passengers and putting their egos in front. If they have a point to prove, it should have been done at debriefing or taking up within the management, HR, etc.

Clearly team playing did not exist here, the Captain failed to show the leadership and take full responsibility


Thinking of this I feel terrfied especially anything knowing can go on in the cockpit.

Both should not appeal and be allowed to work as aircrew as they pose a threat to the flight and passengers safety.

Shocking!

[Airbubba]

Any dispute between cockpit crew can be taken directly to Pro Standards, or may be referred to them by the Chief Pilots Office. The role of Pro Standards is to mediate and in some cases educate pilots in cases like this. It might have turned a pissing match between two pilots into a 'learning experience', rather than the end of their careers.

This may be true in the US but I have not read of it in the UK.

Professional Standards, a union committee, has helped everyone keep pilot issues from escalating. Where I work there is nothing similar in the mechanics union and recently a senior maintenance manager whom I know as a neighbor said how much he wished there was something like it on his side of the airline.

[captplaystation]

Sorry to be "devisive" (if that is a word ? ) but this is a UK thing, & (avoiding the flack-maybe) a "thing" that will particularly affect those of a certain age, and even more so if one, or more, of them worked for the Queen.


Thanks for platitudes from the West side of the pond, but really, they won't listen :rolleyes:

[BobnSpike]

Professional Standards Committee: Never take it to The Man when you can take it to The Brothers

[DozyWannabe]

"Crew Resource Management" =

We are "The Crew"
You are "The Resource"
I am "The Management"

In all seriousness, a good manager will listen to the people they are responsible for, evalute what they've said - and whatever the outcome offer to take the time to explain their final decision whether they agree or not.

Now, obviously final approach is not the time to explain this - but I suspect that if this position is explained at the briefing or during pre-flight it'd go a long way to fostering a good working relationship. If you develop a reputation for doing this then the explanation may not even be necessary over time. Being brusque, irritable or salty with language doesn't necessarily make one a bad manager, and - at the other end of the scale - neither does being a "cold fish", as long as expectations have been set.

Bad managers can run the gamut from being openly hostile towards their subordinates to simply overruling or ignoring them - but the key factor is neither setting expectations nor being willing to provide an explanation of why at the appropriate time.

A bad manager in an office environment can make things difficult and eventually untenable - a bad manager in the flight deck can be lethal.

Oh BTW, I am only a cantankerous old sod when someone takes the p1ss, I do usually try (& hopefully succeed) in keeping that in reserve for when it is needed ,as a last resort.

If true (and especially if on the occasions when cantankerosity(?) ;) is necessary, you offer an explanation as to why it was necessary), then you're a good manager.

For what it's worth, I've encountered good managers who at one time or another had to be incredibly hard on me (one even put me on a disciplinary) - but because they offered to explain the situation at the appropriate time I didn't resent them for it. Likewise I've had bad managers who tried to be my mate when things were OK but turned into martinets and tyrants when the fit looked like it was going to hit the shan. A couple then tried to be my mate again when things had calmed down and seemed put out that I remained professionally detached from then on.

I've passed a lot of water since then, but I think the key issues are communication and trust. Communication I've tried to explain above - trust on the other hand is more complex and I don't think I could scratch the surface, but I do believe that trust begins with effective communication. Ultimately a captain can chew an F/O out to within an inch of his or her life, but if our hypothetical F/O is aware that this will only happen if absolutely necessary - and that they're entitled to an explanation of why it was necessary once on the ground (maybe even in the bar), then the chances are they'll be more inclined to put their trust in their skipper and think about what they could potentially learn as opposed to thinking "Right, you :mad:...".

Naturally there are extreme examples where this wouldn't have made a difference (KLM4805 and BEA548 spring to mind), but therein lies the cautionary tale for captains in command - namely that you'd better be pretty d*mned sure you're right.

[Private jet]

A lot of flightdeck "upsets" these days are down to the mix of civilian/ex military. For some reason, military aviators have been indoctrinated with the dogma that their sh1t does not smell and that they are sky gods. Perhaps it would be best if they remained as career military pilots, got some more medals and marched back and forth past the cenotaph a few more times. Funny how civvy flying has such "low standards", but they can't wait to get into it??

[beamer]

Perhaps you need to have done both to actually gain a genuine perspective ?

[lurkio]

I'm sorry Private Jet but that is a grossly unfair comment on the majority of ex forces personnel flying in the civvy world. In my experience the modern day ex mil pilot is a pleasure to fly with and, without exception, an excellent operator. Not only from the stick and rudder perspective but also from the technical side as well. As a group I find that they are more self critical than most and are open to constructive crtiticism as that is the way they were trained. Things were a little different 25 years ago, there were one or two bad apples who made a simple day out a bit of a chore but by and large they have now retired and moved on. You may not remember the old Atlantic Barons, vastly experienced pilots but just as much a pain as the bad mil guys. Thankfully now that CRM is required reading the message is being absorbed before most people go near a sim or flight deck and has therefore had a positive impact, but as in all walks of life one or two may just get through.
Nobody is perfect but both sides can learn a lot from each other and with the gov seemingly trying to shrink mil aviation to it's bare minimum there will be a lot more ex mil guys coming to a seat near you soon. Some will have wanted to stay in longer and some will have done their time but at the end of the day I will welcome their skillsets just as much as I would any civvy pilot.
Oh and I've never flown anything more military than a 747 on a trooping contract so no bias.

[pilotmike]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm struggling to understand why the F/O is coming in for so much flack here. OK, by some accounts he might allegedly be a 'difficult type', but that doesn't alter some important points:

1. It seems the whole mood of the flight was set by the captain calling the F/O his bitch before they even started engines. Now this is not clever, not in anybody's book, under any circumstances. Unless you know someone really well, and are on VERY best terms, with a somewhat childish 'school playground' level of 'humour', you must be prepared to pay a high price for such a stupid remark. He did.

2. It appears the captain chose to ignore the F/O's suggestion to avoid a cell which he later apparently admitted was worse than he expected. By doing so, he put everyone at unnecessary risk, including the F/O, who clearly didn't want to be subjected to the avoidable weather any more than the captain's insulting, juvenile, patronising 'humour'.

Although it is reported that the F/O's subsequent behaviour was not ideal, after the captain set the scene with these two large errors of judgement, it is totally understandable. Anyone would feel aggreived after such disgraceful behaviour shown to them, behaviour completely unbecoming of a professional pilot, which has no place on a flightdeck.

Sadly there are too many of this captain's type, though now there is one less, and rightly so, with judgement that poor.

[judge11]

Private jet; what utter and complete drivel!!

The military pilot has come through an exhaustive selection and training system and will have been exposed to flying operations that you could only dream of doing on your flight sim. They have been taught to plan, think and manage from day one and if some of that is carried over into the more touchy-feeely-don't upset anyone-civvy world then that is understandable. The nature of service life makes you flexible and, for the majority, assimilation into the civilain world is straightforward.

Military flying (even for the 'truckies') is a different ball game compared to the civil world and undoubtedly some mil pilots might need more time to adjust but never underestimate their ability or experience. They have more in their little finger than you'll ever have at the front of your Citation. That's not to say that your basic handling skills are any less good than a military pilot's but the 'world' in which they have been operating would, in the main, leave you standing.

And I'm not an ex military pilot.

[ei-flyer]

pilotmike,

Anyone would feel aggreived after such disgraceful behaviour shown to them, behaviour completely unbecoming of a professional pilot, which has no place on a flightdeck.

I wouldn't... No, I really, really wouldn't...

You need to lighten up my friend, it's this attitude to a bit of banter that causes these situations to flame up.

Let's look at it another way, the captain makes a joke that 99.9% of the human species understand is a joke, then the FO laughs it off and gets him back later. End of scenario. No shouting, no tantrums.

People take themselves way too seriously...

[Flow Wedge]

Private Jet.

I am a Sky God who excretes odourless faeces. I have medals, and have cenotaphed. I have bombed, recce'd, and displayed. I now drive a 'bus using my left hand. I have reached my Heavenly status by my own self-aware based study and by communicating with all those that I have ever encountered whilst aviating. By communicating I mean asking open questions and then, perhaps crucially, LISTENING to the response. My Sky God status has been garnered through understanding that admitting mistakes is as important as proving, through sheer natural ability, Sky Godliness.

I have reached my Heavenly status by understanding that effective CRM is the best way to mitigate the myriad variables that routinely catch out the blockheads. The moment the gradiant steepens the show becomes more open to compromise. It's about asking and LISTENING. There are some fantastic exponents of this simple process from all backgrounds. You're assertions demonstrate perfectly your pre-concieved ideas would be, in all probability, an effective barrier to the best of safe operations.

[judge11]

ei-flyer

"the captain makes a joke that 99.9% of the human species understand is a joke" and therein lies the problem: accounting for the 0.1% that don't find it funny - which is their right. A more 'mature' crew member may not appreciate or even understand the nuances of modern vernacular which might, indeed, cause offence.

From previous posts on this matter, it would appear that both parties had 'form' and, as the buck does stop in the left-hand seat, I'd suggest that judgement and tact were not being appropriately displayed by the captain.

[slowjet]

Flow Wedge, careful, you will drive Meerkat into an uncontrolled frenzy . You are, of course, completely correct. 40&80 attempted to congratulate all on a reasonable debate but was, sarcastically, slammed by Millersourt. Catplaystation, as always, excellent post. Judge 11, good pseudonym, balanced reasonable judgement. Meerkat loves to have the last word & enjoys bringing down the debate quality by swingeing personal attacks. Very sad and a bit of a worry. I am definitely on side with Landflap here, along with Rabski and others who understand the fearsome responsibilty given to Commanders. No need to have a sarcastic swipe at these guys.

Back on thread, the bmi incident showed a flare up, exacerbated by the Captain. Safety was compromised & the Capt should have acted firmly to calm things down rather than further create a potentially dangerous atmosphere. I do not like dismissal though. Severe disciplinary action on both should suffice unless they both have a record of this sort of behavior.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Judge 11

Your previous post responding to Private Jets was just as bad as his....

Flow wedge's despite being tongue in cheek was crap also..."I have displayed, I have cenotaphed" ......you sounded like a tosser... sorry, just cant miss an opportunity to tell everybody how great you are even when you're trying to be funny you probably make civvy pilots eyes roll in company and you never know

And I fly a private jet.

Heres me thinking it was about getting the job done safely regardless of flying background....

Flybe is better off without them both, you can have banter and a laugh without calling somebody a bitch whilst maintaining safety standards, the FO should have respected the seat if not the bloke kept it in his trousers instead of waving it around

Some time ago I might have advocated that Flybe back up the Captain to the hilt, probably now things have moved on and he probably had to go....if nothing else for the morale of the FO's

[Flow Wedge]

Oh dear. Hook, line and sinker.......:} if only you knew the whole truth......:) I love it when their eyes roll.....:rolleyes: at least they've listened.

Any ways, this is a rumour network, isnt it. I've also been to the moon.

Let me remind everyone. it's about a personal attitude that, played correctly, can overcome the most onerous of situations. It requires non-willy(fanny) waving nous to best mitigate, on both sides of the console.

Sounds like both were equally culpable.

Shame really, coz it ain't rocket science. (Which it most certainly was when I went to the moon).

[G-SPOTs Lost]

However you want to make yourself feel better about your personality go right ahead. :ok:

[P6 Driver]

Private Jet.

I am a Sky God who excretes odourless faeces. I have medals, and have cenotaphed. I have bombed, recce'd, and displayed. I now drive a 'bus using my left hand. I have reached my Heavenly status by my own self-aware based study and by communicating with all those that I have ever encountered whilst aviating. By communicating I mean asking open questions and then, perhaps crucially, LISTENING to the response. My Sky God status has been garnered through understanding that admitting mistakes is as important as proving, through sheer natural ability, Sky Godliness.




Having read that, I've got a fair idea of what you're doing with your right hand while flying with the left...
:O

[Coppi]

P6,
spot on!
:}:D

[Flow Wedge]

Yeah, tickling the furry prawn. :)

What sport!

[Torque Tonight]

Unfortunately Flow Wedge seems to be making exactly the same mistake as the Flybe captain. If you're going to do 'humour' it better be funny, otherwise you'll be considered a d1ckhead by everyone around you, to the detriment of the task in hand.

[Flow Wedge]

Just a couple more and we can move on.

Did I mention my exchange tour with the Americans?













F-16s....Luke, late 80s. :rolleyes:

[judge11]

Ah! It didn't take long for the purile comments to emerge.

G-Spot: my comments were based on fact; Private Jet's was mere conjecture and misconceived stereotyping.

The 'job' can be done equally well whether you have received flying training in the civilian sector or the military. The only difference is that, in my opinion, the ex military pilot brings with him/her a bucket-full of skills and experience that the civilian pilot cannot have access to. Of course, if those aren't channeled constructively and beneficially into the civilian sector (and it doesn't only apply to pilots but also to ex service personel entering the civilian job market) then it is wasted.

However, I would suggest, and experience tells me, that they bring much more to the table than the majority of civilians at the same datum of age/hours.

[Cows getting bigger]

I suspect FlyBe are glad to be rid of both these chaps. Sadly the company lost an excellent pilot, captain, mentor and gentleman the other day through the dreaded big C. A couple of sectors with Pat G would undoubtedly have taught these guys far more about CRM than a few books and ten dozen pprune posts.

[Checkboard]

the ex military pilot brings with him/her a bucket-full of skills and experience that the civilian pilot cannot have access to.
I'm curious now. What secret branch of physics do the mil guys have access to which civilians don't? :confused:

[BBoyo]

Ho-hum., early in my flying career a wise old bird said to me, 'no matter how experienced you are and how good you or anyone else thinks you are, you are really only as good as your last landing.'

A Captain made a silly remark; perhaps he'd been watching an American crime movie the night before, or listening to Rap music on his car radio as he drove to work. Perhaps that cloud up ahead really didn't look so bad...clouds can be misleading. Perhaps the FO was a bit over-sensitive, and suffered from I-can-do-better-than-you complex, who knows? But the fact is, it could just as easily have been a moment's distraction, a misunderstood clearance, the wrong button pressed at the wrong time, or the right button not pressed at all. Flying is an uncertain business, and it is too easy to get into trouble even before you start having shouting matches on the Flight Deck.

On another day, with another pairing both these pilots were probably paragons of professionalism, or at least comfortably within the boundaries of what is acceptable. They just made a pig's ear of their relationship on that day, on that flight.

Perhaps the correct response to their misfortune is, there but for the grace of God...

Oh, and CRM is important. It is nothing more than common sense and applied psychology. I actually think it should be taught to we pilots by professional psychologists, not keen FO's ( no insult intended ) who do their best, but don't have the background. If you think that applied psychology is hokum, just ask yourself why it is that when you go into a Supermarket for a pint of milk, you inevitably come out with seven other items. The rest of the world has been applying psychology for years, by comparison in this business we are still tending to believe the world is flat.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Judge

Your comment on purile posts beginning did make me chuckle....

I actually agree with your post and your sentiment but did you need to include?



that you could only dream of doing in you flight sim

and if some of that is carried over into the more touchy-feeely-don't upset anyone-civvy world then that is understandable

They have more in their little finger than you'll ever have at the front of your Citation.



If I need a q400 landing on a afghani dirt strip all you need is to post on here and wait 8 pages there'll no doubt be somebody along telling you how well qualified they are to do it. Problem is we're just trying to get the paying public to their holidays and back in a safe efficient manner. We all have our personal experiences of people civil and military some good and some bad.

You don't need to loiter long in the Mil forum long to see/hear the lord flashhard types competing with each other and I occasionally wince that these are the people that I'm currently sharing the skies with and it won't be long before I'm sat next to them..

On the other hand it took 6 years for an ex mil guy that I worked with to (when pushed) admit to doing some rotary flying out of Hereford.

I simply find the latter guy easier to have a lot of respect for.

[BBoyo]

Us and Them...Them and Us!

Over the years I have met all sorts of ex-military pilots and have found them to be as surprisingly diverse as non-military pilots, both in attitude and ability. I would say the cross section is very little different from that of civilian pilots.
As for experience in little fingers, it all depends what you have been doing in the past and its relevance to what you are doing now; I have known plenty of airline pilots, now plodding the skies, who have in previous lives landed little aeroplanes on dodgy bush airstrips in Africa, or on remote Canadian lakes. Wing and a prayer stuff with no radio aids and no back-up. So is that any more or less relevant to doing a night landing in a howling crosswind at Gatwick or Berlin, than is roaring around at 250 feet in a Tornado? Please don't answer, I couldn't bear it!

We're all the same chaps. I refer you to my previous posting...only as good as your last landing, wherever you come from.

[Dawdler]

Perhaps the FO was a bit over-sensitive, and suffered from I-can-do-better-than-you complex, who knows?This could be due to the fact (if we are to believe the figures) that the FO had more hours than the captain? In my opinion, both were at fault. The captain for his initial remark, and perhaps not explaining adequately his decision to go through the weather. The FO for definitely apparently reading the paper when he should have been doing his job. Both for allowing the situation to develop to the stage that it did.

In my own experience, as a manager of a service department (exhibitions) in an international company, my job was to make the other departments look good. I had to work with managers from all other departments in the company. Some of these were friends, others not so much, but whatever the personal relationship, I was judged on the look (and the success) of the stands. There was one manager with whom, for a variety of reasons, I did not "get on". The personal relationship, I hope was not reflected in my department's standard of work.

These two should have borne that in mind.

[Bigmouth]

You know, I don´t know either one of them and neither do most of the posters here. I have no idea who deserved what. But for this to have happened, at least one of them would have had to have an attitude and thus a reputation. Which means that somebody in charge didn´t do his/her job and nip this in the bud (meaning on the ground, a long time ago, back when such attitude/behavior was first noticed) before it ever got out of hand.

[BBoyo]

BIGMOUTH

'nipped in the bud before...Yes, a very good point. I think you might just have hit the nail squarly on the head.:D

[frontlefthamster]

And of course, extending Boyo's logic, anyone who hasn't been binned by management has the right to act as they wish in the flight deck... 'Rights and responsibilities', anyone?

Extending the analogy: I fear that while Bigmouth may have caught the nail with a glancing blow, he's probably still nursing a bruised thumb or finger...

Either way, the two pilots concerned are a disgrace to the profession. Or what's left of it.

[sharksandwich]

Having read this thread with interest, my view is that once the "incident" had been brought to official attention, it was inevitable and just that they would both be sacked:Colgan Air Flight 3407 springs to mind as an example of the consequences of not concentrating on the job in hand.Reporting themselves immediately afterwards just demonstrates how deeply they were involved in their disagreement, and how little involved they were with the wider implications!

[mini]

One bad day in the office and your career is toast... :eek:

[autoflight]

These two dudes likely already knew they had a problem with each other.

Prior contact with management could have resulted in one or both retaining their job. In the absence of pre-settlement, one of them needed to call sick before take-off, to reduce the known risk. The first to "complain" or the F/O, is not automatically the one needing further training or dismissal.

Pre and post CRM I have requested to not fly with a couple of pilots and in another earlier case, while still an F/O on probation, I made it clear enough that I would not fly with an alcoholic captain who soon lost his job. In all these cases I am certain that actual military backgrounds was not a factor.

It is hard to risk a job, built up security and seniority for principles. It has always turned out that it is not that I refuse, but how I approach my company to solve a safety problem.

Crew management is not just CRM. Every contact with cockpit and cabin crew members should be with a thought at the back of the mind that you would, by example, encourage them to walk on burning coals for a safe flight. Just part of the job, like proper rest, check rides, sim, studying FOM etc.

Sometimes, as an expat, there may be cultural considerations that prevent your best efforts resulting in a sufficiently safe flight. The choice may be to resign or stick to your minimum safe principles and risk dismissal.

[WorkInProgress]

Now we have exhausted nearly every possible angle about this subject, whats this 'fanny waving' all about that flow wedge mentions? That i'd like to see whether it be on the flight deck or in the bar after!!!!

[Private jet]

This is not a black&white issue, yes there are many shades of grey. I expressed an opinion, as anyone on here is entitled to do & it is this; In this day and age if you pursue a career as a military pilot that should be your career, end of. Military people go on and on about superior, no expense spared training, combat experience, blah blah blah.......well, if its so good, STICK WITH IT. Do not arrive in our world with a nice easy conversion (multicrew IR, with help from the taxpayer, who, btw paid for your training in the first place) and expect slavish respect for your military "credentials". You ex mil people, are, to be honest, "johnny come latelys" so apply the principle of rank, that you seem to respect so much, and learn from the civvy whos more senior to you. Unless you are being arrogant and hypocritical of course. Too many mil pilots treat civilian flying as some sort of pension scheme. This seems to be a modern phenomenon. I've known ex RAF pilots from the 60's/70's/80's who have come into the "real world" and have been willing to learn & been good blokes and everyone has got on superbly. Something is very wrong with the "modern" airforce..... Oh, btw i did fly a Citation a dozen years ago....& i learnt a lot from it too. I now fly an aircraft thats much more luxurious than a tornado/typhoon/C17 whatever, and thats what aviation is all about; getting from A to B,fast, safely, and in comfort. Goodnight.

[jungle drums]

Unfortunately, the private/business jet community probably has a disproportionate number of irrational egotists with sociopathic and psycopathic tendencies who are unemployable elsewhere.

On behalf of the more sane, rational and socially enlightened members of the business/private community - I apologise for the post above by 'Private Jet'

[Alexander de Meerkat]

Thank you jungle drums for your excellent summing up. Private jet - your posts about ex-military pilots are completely irrational and are broadly similar to someone who was mugged by a black youth 25 years ago hating all blacks for the rest of his life. You may indeed have met some bad apples from the RAF, but they are few and far between. I have met a handful of people who believe military fast jet training was superior to civilian training. I have been through numerous military fast jet and civilian airliner courses and none was better than my British Airways Airbus course at Cranebank. Fast Jet training teaches you to fly a particular fast jet in that role and nothing more. I found RAF training hard work and with some truly dreadful instruction. My civil training had many positive aspects and taught me how to fly a civilian airliner in all weathers, and for the most part the instructors were very good. When I left the RAF, I took the view that what was past was past, I now had new tricks to learn and that was that. Bearing in mind you need so much more experience to be a civilian Captain than a military one, I can only commend the quality of the Captains I have found in civilian life and their level of professional knowledge. As with the civilian world, RAF folk come in all shapes and sizes without any particular personality predominant. I find your sweeping generalisations totally inaccurate and bearing no relation to my own personal observations of the real world. I suspect most other people will feel the same.

[oxenos]

We should stop being horrid to Private Jet. Anyone who has to struggle through life with a chip that big on his shoulder deserves our sympathy. Even if it has left him unbalanced.

[JW411]

I can remember a captain on an airline that I used to work for who had exactly the same attitude as Private Jet.

He was known by everyone (including the girls) as the Unaccompanied Minor".

[NG_Kaptain]

I can remember a captain on an airline that I used to work for who had exactly the same attitude as Private Jet.

He was known by everyone (including the girls) as the Unaccompanied Minor".

Was that at "Britain's Worst Investment Abroad" ? There was one there by that nickname.

[ratpackgreenslug]

I can remember a captain on an airline that I used to work for who had exactly the same attitude as Private Jet.

He was known by everyone (including the girls) as the Unaccompanied Minor".

Most unfortunate JW, although I'm sure that everyone (including the girls) spoke very highly of you.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

not a good post private jet...

That said and if I was Private Jets barrister...could I argue that the mil pilots leaving the services now are not the same product that left ten years ago....

There's lots of complaining about serviceability, lack of flying with some mil guys struggling to crack the minimum standards put out by NATO...

So you can't have it both ways chaps steely eyed aviators bringing all the acquired skills you've learnt to the civil market or well trained coffee drinkers that are at best not very current....discuss

And before I get flamed and we all get told we've got more skills in little fingers etc etc, these are views from mil guys in the mil forum so don't shoot the messenger.

It's a shame there's not more mil guys in corporate, I always feel a bit sorry for the ex mil guy struggling to make 5-600 fpm with the autopilot engaged in the Virgin 340-600 crossing the M25 out of LHR....and struggle to think of a transferable skill he's applying (emer/abs excepted). Maybe he/she has had his fill of excitement and the money's more important who knows.

There certainly more hands on in corporate and the salarys are comparable eventually

[JW411]

NG Kaptain:

No, I never flew for But Will It Arrive.

[teeteringhead]

Having read the whole thread before posting (as many others clearly haven't) I will say again in an attempt to remove an irrelevance .....

Akers the FO WAS NOT AN EX-MILITARY PILOT!! :ugh: Ex-Military - yes. He was a Supply Officer (aka storeman/logistician/blanket stacker) He was a Pilot - yes. He "self-improved" and hours built as an Assistant Instructor AFTER LEAVING THE MILITARY.

So whilst all these views on military trained pilots in airlines are fascinating (sic) and show that "chips with everything" (on shoulders) are not confined to the military - these views HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO THIS INCIDENT OR THREAD.

Akers WAS NOT MILITARY TRAINED!! Now do you get it.

Yes - I know I'm shouting - for the benefit of the hard of thinking ......

[fireflybob]

I think we should stop thinking in terms of so-and-so is "military" etc. Everyone is an individual. Over the years I spent a fair bit of my time "converting" ex military pilots when they entered their first airline job in the civil environment. (I speak as one who was not in the military). The vast majority of these pilots applied themselves diligently and fitted well into the civil environment and made a huge contribution. A tiny minority had "issues" (but then again that happened with some who were civil trained) which had to be addressed during training but this was rare.

From a different perspective, after a family bereavement and the need for child care etc meant I could not continue as an airline pilot for a few years, I became a Military Flying Instructor. As you can imagine this was an interesting experience but have to say that the support, training etc I was given from my military instructors was second to none. They went out of their way to make me feel comfortable in the environment and also competent.

A lot also depends on the Company culture. The way the Board treats the management reflects in the way the Chief Pilots etc treat their Captain and crews. This, in turn, affects how Captains treat their crews and, incidentally, how cabin crew treat the passengers. In a well run and managed Company the type of incident which started this thread would never have seen the light of day.

In conclusion let's start working as a team - if people have a "chip on their shoulders" then perhaps we should find out why and start suggesting some solutions.

[Chris Griffin]

Truly an unedifying event for all involved.

Private Jet, your post was amazing and entertains me greatly. I just pray you're never in a position of influence.

G-SPOTs lost - I would strongly caution against quoting from the mil forum on todays issues. I know for a fact that very few currently serving mil people frequent that forum (1 possibly 2 from the superbase near Oxford), with the majority of contributors being ex military types of a certain vintage with a very out of date and inaccurate perception of current problems.

You get buffoons in every walk of life - with the military there's no exception, you just get on with the job as a true professional. From what I've seen so far its not that much different from the civilian sector.

[John Boeman]

fireflybob, I have to say that your last post was like a breath of fresh air on this thread.

Up to now it's been mostly a lot like an extended version of the few minutes of a Jeremy Kyle show I once watched - an appalling washing of dirty linen in public. I would have been a lot happier reading the discussion about this if the names of the individuals involved had not been in the public domain. As it is it just makes me feel very sad for both of them.

[rog747]

to find this sort of Jeremy Kyle behaviour happen on a UK flight deck beggars belief...why did it get this far to fall apart.
i think firefly bob sums up completely what could be wrong with lo-cost airline management today.

these Flybe pilots were acting like 2 little spotty chavs off an estate or 2 gang wannabee's from south London...
'you are my bitch' springs to mind...not least bit funny...nor
would it endear you to anyone, let alone to your colleagues/peers.
dare none of us would use that phrase to anyone except someone you knew that close had the same ' banter' tolerance as you did...
if the skipper had said that to his no.1 CC then there would be
a tribunal fluttering around for sexual harassment/bullying before you could
say '2 teas, no sugar please'.

my best mate always burps then breathes it all over me...we laugh
and THAT is being tolerant. (and disgusting lol:yuk::O)

shame these guys lost their careers over such playground antics but
these antics have no place at work at FL310 in bad wx with 75 people strapped to your bottoms.

[cactusbusdrvr]

It is a shame that this escalated to both losing their jobs. It is unnecessary when you think that there are so many resources available for them to settle this before it gets out of hand.

Pro standards is perhaps a concept that should be adopted outside of the US. At my airline we have people from every background imaginable. I have had F117 stealth fighter pilots to one fellow who had never flown a turbine aircraft before he flew with me on the 757. He had about 15 thousand hours in the DC3 and was a great stick. If someone acts like a ******** it is not if they are ex military or civilian or whatever. That was their personality to begin with and it will take outside intervention by someone they will respect to effect change. That is where pro standards come in. It is peer to peer counseling and you only pick guys that have a high reputation to be on that committee.

We also have a no fly list. If there is someone you cannot stand then you can designate that person to be on your no fly list. You will not be paired with that person if you are a reserve or you will not be assigned with them during the monthly bid process. We bid using a preferential bidding program (PBS) and the program looks at the no fly preferences as part of the bidding process. No one outside of pro standards and the chief pilots office knows who is or is not on a list. Most of us have never used it. The F/Os use more than the captains so they don't have to put up with the few idiot captains we have. That has save a lot of problems in the past. It is actually good for the company because you have no cancellations due to someone bailing off the trip because they cannot get along with the other guy. The system has worked well for us for a long time.

[Burpbot]

Ok so a lot of people have had a say, and in my opinion been very unprofessional by slating two fellow pilots (not including ex mil/corp pilots) that they have never even met! These near two hundred posts are based on a newspaper article that's facts are based around the captain having 1100 flight hours! I can state for fact that is way below the companies requirements.

The only statement I spotted that made any factual reading was the comment "you find buffoons in all walks of life!"

I hope if any of you sky gods ever find yourself in a sticky situation, you all deal with it perfectly, and hundreds of posts on prune about how fabulous you are appears this thread.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

@ChrisGriffin

That's probably true regarding the relevance of most of the posters are in the mil forum but and it's a big but ...

Clicky (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/420361-nato-concerned-over-raf-training.html)

Way off topic and no relevance to flybe.

[sAx_R54]

...The Captain was faced with a nightmare FO, and I have considerable sympathy for him... How was it possible to arrive at such a conclusion so early on?:confused:

[sAx_R54]

@ADM:

...your posts about ex-military pilots are completely irrational and are broadly similar to someone who was mugged by a black youth 25 years ago hating all blacks for the rest of his life...

Another interesting segue!

[fade to grey]

It's amazing how the thread got so far off the topic.
We can't even compare RAF pilots with civilian, because the FO wasn't a military pilot.
You can't generalise - the capts I flew with in Squadron2000 who were ex -military were great chaps.
two ex-mil guys I met elsewhere were complete c**ks, funnily enough neither were pilots in the service (one was ex ATC, one ex-eng), with small shoulders on their chips.
The biggest bell-end I ever met was an ex-navy chopper boy who declared when myself and the FO came to the bar in s***** L****, late, "where have you been - having a w**king race ?" - to which I replied "No, that must be an Airbus thing ".
I guess that demonstrates how one guy's idea of humour, may not translate well to the receipient, in this case , me.

[Al Murdoch]

Well it made me laugh... Must just be you.

[Burpbot]

I refer to my last post! Oh how I chuckled about the people that blast opinion on here! Let they never set foot on my flight deck and goodbye prune my life is richer without you!!! I'm not sure any real pilots frequent the forum?????

[Dan Winterland]

Revisiting: "Can the Captain FORCE/INSTRUCT/TELL/COMMAND another crew member to go into discretion???".

In Hong Kong where the ANO is an annex of the Civil Aviation Ordianance, it states that it's not permissable to force someone to work when they are fatigued. So if a crewmember tells the commander they are tired and he/she tells them that they have to work, the commander is commiting a criminal act.

[slowjet]

Dan, way off thread now but just to re-iterate. No captain worth his salt will "tell" other crew members to "go into discretion" . People seem very confused about this. The discretionary power is given to the Commander and the Commander only. That is why it is called "Captain's discretion". NOT, "First Officer's discretion", or "cabin crew's discretion" or "Flt Ops discretion". The Captain may exercise "HIS" discretion to extend a Flight Duty Period IN CONSULTATION with other crew members. As a previous Poster intimated, this is the anomoly. We are not Doctors, or Psychologists etc. So, how on earth do we evaluate. Quite simple. If a Crew member tells me that he/she is too tired, pissed off, miserable etc to operate beyond the FDP, I will readily agree & have him/her offloaded reminding that he/she will have to explain to the Flt Ops Dept. why he/she was unable to agree to the Captain's intention to exercise HIS discretionary power to extend a FDP >! Blimey, not THAT difficult is it ?
Burbpot: great post. Don't leave. We do need more balanced posts like yours & I agree with your suspicions. Loadsa trolls & quite a few dysfunctionals empowered by anonomous postings. Good fun though ! Rather embarassing though. Watch them all come out & attack this post ! Geeees, time for the pub !

[Dengue_Dude]

Sadly, gone are the days of the 3 man flight deck. I would have been honoured to be the Captain's bitch. :}

Failing that, I could have held him while the co-pilot put the nut on him :ugh:

Makes you proud to be a professional doesn't it?

[lurkio]

Dude, you were this Captain's @#!*% but I wouldn't have called it an honour.

Professional? Well I suppose they pay me.

[govig]

"The biggest bell-end I ever met was an ex-navy chopper boy" (fade to grey a few posts ago)

Snap! and he now works for the CAA on a ramp check near you......

[Teevee]

Gents, I take on board all the caveats and I am only SLF ... but having been scared silly by a minor contretempts taking place between the front seat occupants of a car when I most certainly did NOT feel safe I would be terrified by the prospect of something like this happening up front in an aircraft when there is a lot less chance of pulling over for everyone to have a chance to calm down.If it DID happen in any way shape or form, I would feel a lot safer knowing measures had been taken to prevent it in the future.

[bonneville01]

"the big problem here is Capt Stan Wood" Really! Capt wood was tasked to investigate after a flt safety investigation and obviously found a case to answer. He had no part in the incident or their dismissal.I hope you don't run an airline!

[GuinnessQueen]

Is there any further information on this and the outcome of the tribunal? I've tried reviewing the law pages and searching for tribunal details but to no success. I'm hoping to use this case as a discussion point for a Command upgrade CRM course.

[korrol]

The employment tribunal hearing the case of Flybe pilots Captain Stephen Bird and First Officer Stephen Akers has ruled that Flybe was right to sack both of them - it's been announced today.

Both men , who are are in their 50s,had claimed unfair dismissal and had sat side-by-side during the three-day hearing earlier this year.

The row they allegedly had with each other was not captured on the cockpit voice recorder because it had been wiped on the return flight. Flybe had argued that said any breakdown in crew relationships caused a ‘potential risk to safety’ of passengers, crew and plane.

Captain Stan Wood, who led the inquiry into the bust-up, said it was completely inappropriate for the two pilots to fly back to England after such a heated row. He said: 'In my view, Stephen Bird did not act as a captain should have. As the captain and commander of the aircraft, he had ultimate control of the aircraft. Stephen Bird should have taken control of an aircraft on approach to landing. He chose to engage in the argument with Mr Akers which exacerbated the situation.

Akers claimed that some people in Flybe hated ‘ex RAF people’ and patronised and humiliated him.

Employment Judge Christopher Carstairs is to reveal what he calls "the tribunal’s full reasons for their decision" later but confirmed today that the unanimous judgement of the tribunal is that the respondent (Flybe Ltd) fairly dismissed the claimants.'