View Full Version : Captain or Manager?
Time for a new CRM topic it seems!
Is it time to change the whole current culture idea of the "Captain" into the idea of the "Flight Manager" in order to get the accident rate to move down again?
The idea of Captain and First Officer as Pilot Flying leg for leg in normal, safe flight conditions works well. But what about when it is not a safe flight condition?
There are these constant and common known areas of threats to airline flying, which are still contributing to the majority of accidents, i.e., weather, emergency and abnormal a/c mechanical problems, night flight, unfamiliar- alternate airport, congested airspace, etc. The pilots are meant to be able to sort these things out and do most of the time, but there are those times where they don't and they should have. Why is that? 6 out of 10 airline accidents the Captain was the Pilot Flying, when the accident should not have happened at all. The one person who should be managing the flight's safe progress is the one most occupied.
The concept of the Captain- Monitored Approach is a small, narrow glimpse of this idea. Is it time to greatly expand on this to include ALL the known hazardous flight situations? Whenever there is departure, enroute or arrival weather conditions, an abnormal a/c system problem, congested airspace, night flight, alternate airport, etc. the F/O will be the Pilot Flying and the Captain becomes the Flight Manager. The pilot with the most experience in the a/c type and that airline operation and, most importantly, the one with the final responsibility, is then in a better position to observe any deviations or doubts about the flight's safety. This also gives the F/O a more direct input being an active safety defence, having control of the aircraft rather than having the age old and still current problem of somehow convincing the Captain that there is a threat developing, i.e., the F/O on the KLM 747 at Tenerife, etc., etc.
Captains don't need to constantly prove that they can fly their airplane. What they do need to do is constantly manage their airplane's safety. There was a gas plant explosion a few years ago in Melbourne, Australia and the coroner's findings included that even though the workers in the control room were all trained and competent, there was no one person managing the overall situation. Logical really, isn't it? Ship captains don't steer their own ships, even at 5 knots let alone 500 kts., and space mission commanders don't steer their own space shuttles, even several hundred NM from the nearest CFIT situation. Airline Captains still fly our airliners like they did in the 1920's!!!
What do you think?
BlueEagle
19th Jul 2002, 12:21
A great post that will, hopefully, generate a lot of discussion.
Just a minor point on statistics though, yes, Captains are flying for 6 out of every 10 accidents but that is partially because an emergency has occured and the Captain has assumed control from the F/O, albeit in an unrecoverable situation. The CVR and FDR will now show the Captain to have been the PF.
Captains will need to maintain their skills not just to fly a normal line trip but also to cope with emergencies, so flying the 'monitored' approach all the time may have a negative effect on a Captains handling skills, if not his thought process.
Well, that's two minor points, but this subeject is huge so it will be interesting to read all the varying view points.
BlueEagle,
Just to clarify the 6 out of 10 stat. This comes from the following N.T.S.B. safety study:A Review of Flight crew- Involved, Major Accidents of U.S. air Carriers, 1978 through 1990. report no. NTSB/SS-94/01. NTSB, 1994.
In that NTSB study of FLIGHT CREW CAUSED accidents, the F/O was the PNF in 30 (81%) of the 37 accidents reviewed. So the stat. is actually closer to 8 out of 10 captains as pilot flying in CREW CAUSED accidents.
Captains would stay current with Pilot Flying skills emphasized on their simulator sessions with min. vis. approaches, max. cross wind landings, etc. Could also stay approach current with a one hour, rostered session once a month on approved CBT flight simulators. I wonder how many captains are truely, ALWAYS current on all types of approaches, not just the ILS?!
b55
Your statement about ship Captains not steering ships at 5 knots is just NOT true.
Have been on 12 ocean cruises to date (13th shortly) and have found that in nine out of ten harbor approaches and docking maneuvers, the Captain (Master) operated the main engines, rudder and bow/stern thrusters from the bridge extension. Where a harbor pilot was required, he boarded just outside the harbor and gave advice only (which was listened to absolutely) during the approach to dockside.
Now about Captains flying aeroplanes.
Has it ever occured to you that some just really like to fly, especially hand fly?
And, where aircraft control is degraded, who better than to fly the machine...an experienced and well trained Captain, or a junior First Officer with little practical experience?
OTOH, where it is going all pear-shaped due to mistakes by the Captain, he should absolutely listen to and be prepared to explain what he is doing, and why (if there is time).
Now I know that F/O's enjoy flying the aeroplane, but you must realise that the ideas you expound will have rather limited success.:rolleyes: ;)
TheMagus
20th Jul 2002, 07:58
b55 has a very valid point...
...but there is no reason to make the captain PNF as long as everything is working fine.
When things start to go haywire it may be a good idea for the captain to hand over the actual flying to the co-pilot leaving himself free to analyse the situation and communicate with others that can give him advice and help. After all, the actual flying of an aeroplane is not that difficult unless something like strutural damage has messed it up.
I believe this is more or less what captain Haynes did when his DC-10 spontaneously scrapped one of its engines. He had the co-pilot fly the plane and the instructor that came to help handled the thrust on the remaining engines leaving himself free to handle the situation together with the FE.
When things go very wrong it may of course be a good idea for the captain to handle the controls at some point so that he can feel the aircraft for himself for a while (which Haynes also did).
If the captain insists on doing the flying himself he uses part of his capacity for this thus degrading his performance unnecessarliy.
OzExpat
20th Jul 2002, 11:30
I think that I can see both sides of this discussion - and a good discussion it is too! It's time has certainly arrived. However, I suspect that, in most cases anyway, when push comes to shove, the Captain knows that he's going to be held responsible for the outcome - if it is somewhat less than successful.
Now, human nature being what it is, I reckon that most Captains will want to be in control of the aeroplane. Yes, sure, the FO will undoubtedly be well qualified to handle the aircraft but, given crew rostering arrangements - especially in large airlines, there is a very real possibility that the FO will be an "unknown quality" to the Captain.
Will he be likely to entrust the flying to his FO in any sort of emergency? Notbloodylikely... methinks. Like I say, this is human nature. We've been able to modify a certain amount of "human nature" thru CRM and that has had many beneficial effects, when properly implemented.
Perhaps CRM has to take that next step, down this path.
It's a difficult path tho! It deals with the most basic of human instincts... the will to survive! A Captain is probably (emphasis on "probably") the one with the best chance of a successful outcome. The stats are probably a bit jaded, as one poster has already - and quite logically - suggested. How difficult will it be for a Captain to hand over control to the FO in a dire emergency?
I think its worth investigating this concept because there's no real data on the result of such actions, aside from the illustrious Haynes example, already stated. That could well be the model on which a CRM course can be built, but the command psychology needs to be addressed at the same time, for the benefit of all us lesser mortals who still reckon we're bullet-proof... or something!
For the discussion:
This idea does NOT include "good" flying conditions( no common threats are present): leg for leg is good then, of course.
and
This idea does NOT include making the actual abnormal or emergency landing, of course. Even the captain-monitored approach has the captain to do the actual landing.
grusome
21st Jul 2002, 02:16
I think this is an excellent discussion point - indeed, I have used the technique on two occasions (both engine out) that come to mind.
In one, the FO flew to touchdown/rollout, and in the other I took over rolling into the ILS at the FO's request.
I did cop a bit of flak from the dinosaurs for letting the FO do the landing, but he had previously demonstrated his competance to me in training, and I thought then, as I do now, that it was the right decision.
It's a matter of circumstance. For instance, I don't think I would ever have gone that way in a DC3.
Gru
PS. I meant to mention that the process must include continuous monitoring of FO performance, including perceived confidence levels. As always, the Captain must take over should FO performance decree it.
For 411A
The analogy of the ship's captain moving at 5 knots was when underway only, NOT the obvious potentially dangerous situation of docking the ship at its berth. I suppose the equivalent situation to docking a ship for airline pilots is the captain-monitored approach, with min. vis. with rain, max. crosswind, etc. when it again should be the airline captain doing that type of landing, just as the ship's captain is doing a docking.
b55
You might be interested in the following...
In twenty years of flying the Lockheed TriStar, have had three engine shutdowns, two for high vibs and one because the number one thrust lever was stuck at the cruise power position.
In all three cases, the First Officer was flying at the time, and he continued to do so, including landing and rollout.
Why you may ask? The answer is...in all three cases, the F/O was well trained and had demonstrated accurate flying skills on previous occasions, including hand flying to 200'/600m. So you see, it perhaps is done more than you think.
TheMagus
21st Jul 2002, 07:47
I agree with OzExpat about human nature, but then human nature is to a great extent what CRM is all about. In my CRM training I have never even considered the idea of modifying human nature, that's not the purpose of CRM and I have never heard any of my colleagues express such ideas. What we want to achieve in CRM training is an understanding of how we humans function in basically the same way as we understand the aircraft we fly and their strengths and limitations.
We can, however, modify viewpoints to some extent. Being in control is one such viewpoint as "being in control" does not automatically mean holding the controls.
I don't think there really is two sides to this discussion, only a big jumble of aspects to consider. There can probably never be a clear cut and simple solution to this, or any other situation, that will work every time. The NTSB report that b55 quotes also mentions that over half of the PNF co-pilots involved in the 37 accidents had less then 1 years experience.
It has to be a judgment call left to the captain to make in each situation, the important consideration being that the captain should choose the method that minimises his own workload and that situational awareness is maintained. A very fresh co-pilot, or a co-pilot the captain does not trust, will increase the demands on the captain.
At the same time the captain will want as much performance as possible from the co-pilot (and the rest of the crew) which he will not get unless they have some self confidence.
It's always easier to describe things using a scenario so here goes...
Let's say we have a take-off in a medium or heavy jet. The co-pilot is PF and he has a couple of years experience but the captain has only flown with him once before.
Take-off is at night and at 1500 feet they are IMC.
At 2500 feet, with the aircraft cleaned up and climbing nicely one engine fails.
If the captains first action is "Engine failure no.1! My controls!" he is basically saying to his co-pilot "Step aside little boy, you're not good enough to handle this" and in the process he is reducing his co-pilot to "a little boy". Whether the co-pilots pride is hurt is irrelevant as hurt pride has no place in this cockpit. However, the captain is going to need his assistant but he has probably reduced his assistants self confidence to "a little boy" by declaring him incompetent thus reducing the flight crew from two to one and a half. He might even have steepened the authority gradient to the point where the co-pilot becomes a passenger.
If the captains actions are to call the engine failure and to start the appropriate actions while leaving the co-pilot to do the heading/altitude/airspeed stuff he will bolster the co-pilots confidence and most likely get better perfomance from him but he also needs to keep half an eye on what the co-pilot is doing with the aircraft. If the captain takes the controls he will still have to monitor the co-pilot in the engine failure actions and possible attempts at relighting it.
If the co-pilots flies fine during the first few seconds he is likely to continue doing so but if the co-pilot is going to lose his marbles the captain needs to catch this before it happens. This can be easier than one might think; ask the co-pilot questions once every few seconds.
"How does the aircraft feel?"
"What is our airspeed?"
"What is our heading?"
If the answers get tight lipped or if he stops answering he is about to lose it and the captain should definately take over.
If he appears to be fixated on one instrument or initiates a turn in the wrong direction before turning the correct way he may be about to lose it.
If we add other difficulties to the scenario such as weather, terrain or performance the situation might be better solved by the captain doing the actual flying but he should then consider letting the co-pilot know why he is taking control.
Eastern 401 (Everglades) and a bunch of other tragedies have shown us the importance of always having one pilot flying the aircraft and maintaining situational awareness. When things start to go wrong this becomes even more important.
Again... there is no way anyone can say what is the best way, only the captain can say in any given situation and in my reasoning there is no such thing as "pilot error". The pilots always make the correct decisions in all situations considering the knowledge and information they have and how they percieve the situation.
PPRuNe Towers
21st Jul 2002, 19:52
A vitally important point from the Magus above.
While monitoring a colleague or trainee's performance those three little questions are a life saver:
"How does the aircraft feel?"
"What is our airspeed?"
"What is our heading?"
In terms of this discussion the questions themselves are almost immaterial - they just simply and very effectively establish whether someone is tunneling/oversaturated long before any visual signs. Hearing shuts down first just about without exception.
If you've any doubts regarding this spend the next few trips asking this of the person next to you after their landing. What was the wind read out was when landing clearance was given? Over a month or so you'll become pretty convinced of the value The Magus offers us with those comments and thoughts above.
Rob
flapsforty
22nd Jul 2002, 08:25
PPT, would you pls explain to a non-pilot your last alinea?
In your experience does the PF usually know the answer and does this means he/she is not as a rule overburdened?
Or is the opposite your experience?
And do you mean that the question should be asked so that the pilot NF can check if his own perception of the PF's status was correct?
Purely out of interest.
PPRuNe Towers
22nd Jul 2002, 10:42
Experience levels and abilities vary flaps but in general the landing pilot given a clearance only registers that and not the wind figure that was passed. Concentration on the final stages of landing means many pilots shut down hearing in proportion to how demanding they are finding the task.
This is a simple and safe demonstration of the effect The Magus describes in the main body of his post.
This is entirely normal human behaviour - just ask your partner a simple, utterly banal question when they're concentrating on a technical task and note if you have to repeat it. The questioning technique is just a very simple but very effective tool in our armoury to assess a colleague's position in a constantly shifting situation.
Rob
OzExpat
22nd Jul 2002, 11:15
And, if the banal question gets a banal answer, everything's kosher! :D
flapsforty
22nd Jul 2002, 12:22
Understood.
Thank you
flt_lt_w_mitty
22nd Jul 2002, 13:15
FF - it was always amusing training trainers and seeing the 'patter' dry up progressively as the runway got closer.
"Banter/patter" approaching the airport/runway. Hmmm, some here must have been trained by Airboos.
Conversation approaching the runway should be limited to
Standard company calls,
Requested flight director/FMC mode selection (if needed),
Confirmation of landing clearance if late clearance expected.
and NOT...how is the weather, what time is it, how does it feel, what does it look like.....etc.
IF you expect the new younger guys to DEVELOP standard operating procedures, they need an example....NOT some Captain who cannot keep his mouth shut with nonsense.
Period. :rolleyes:
BlueEagle
23rd Jul 2002, 00:00
In defence of flt_lt_w_mitty I THINK he was only referring to the kind of 'patter' one expects from a trainer teaching a student rather than every day line trips with the stanard Capt./FO configuration.
for the topic discussion
If it is true that this idea of "captain as manager" for abnormal and emergency situations is actually being used by crew more often than we realise(i.e., Capt. Al Haynes,United) and it now seems to have acceptance under these type of situations, does it then have enough merit to make it an SOP for all the known and easily recognised "threat" situations that are always found in the airline work environment and continue to bring airline crew and pax to a deadly end(Capt. van Zanten,KLM, etc., etc., etc.)? Hidden or latent danger is what is bringing most of our fellow pilots to grief. Leaving it to the individual pilot to decide is hapazard and is not changing the flight deck culture to a better standard for the future needs of this industry. Is it time to change who we are and what we do?
Everyone likes progress but, no one likes to change!
Pegasus77
23rd Jul 2002, 17:22
Hey 411A, what's up? I seem to agree with all your posts in this thread! (and was stunned you let the FO fly the engine-out-landing)
I used some time to get over my own pride of just having learned how to steer an aircraft, and then handing over control just then when the fun starts i.e. with hydraulic problems or an engine failure.
Then I realised, in some years I will be captain, and I would like to use my experience then to end the flight in the safest possible way, which might be to let the FO fly, but which might very well be to take over for the approach.
My company has as SOP to let the FO fly during an emergency, so the captain has his brain cells free for managing, and afterwards, when everything is setup for the approach, he takes over control to land the airplane. He is required to do that in a "critical flight", which is not further defined. It is left to the crew to make that interpretation.
Therefore the captain-manager in an emergency situation is made SOP, for the rest it seems good CRM to me, if both pilots have 50% hands-on flight time. Maybe the A380 gets an Admiral-position, where the Admiral can dine with the First Class passengers, and every 4 hours inquires about the progress of the flight?
P77
Wiley
23rd Jul 2002, 22:09
If I’m PF, I always brief that in the event of an engine failure or any emergency on takeoff, I will hand over to the FO after the after take off checks are complete, (ie, after any recalls, the clean up and any immediate non normal checklists are complete). If he’s PF, I tell him not to expect me to take over in the event of a problem. (Obviously, if he’s not coping, like any captain in the same situation, I’d take over, but I’m not about to mention that in any briefing, and I must say, these days I fly with very few FOs with whom I think that would ever be a problem.)
There may be a better way to ‘skin the cat’, but if there is, I haven’t found it yet. However, I’d be very happy to hear of someone else’s favoured system if they think they’ve got a better one.
In this day and age, with an operational and engaged autopilot providing what amounts to a third pilot in the crew in almost all situations, the old argument of not allowing an inexperienced FO to handle the aircraft in an emergency is almost no longer an issue.
The above procedure, in my opinion at least, has many advantages over any other I’ve seen. It is the best, most efficient use of all assets available to the captain. The FO has a clearly defined primary role – fly the aircraft and manage the flight path, in particular keeping the aircraft well away from any ‘cumulo granitus’ – leaving the captain relatively unloaded to do want he’s paid to do – manage the entire situation without trying to play at being a one arm wallpaper hanger by flying the aircraft as well as trying to do everything else he must do.
It damn near halves the talking on the flight deck in a non normal situation, (which has to be an advantage in itself), allowing the captain to deal directly with ATC, the purser and the pax without the ‘filter’ the FO sometimes imposes on any instructions the captain may give him. This is particularly important when the FO might not have English as his first language (which can be a large factor in my current airline).
This is not to say that the captain is handing over control of the situation to the FO. He remains the directing pilot, (or perhaps a better word, the ‘manager’ of the situation), directing the FO in how he wants the aircraft configured and positioned. However, he, (the captain), remains infinitely better placed to maintain a good total situational awareness by not risking becoming fixated on trying to fly the aircraft while attempting to manage the whole show.
I have to admit that I usually take over just before commencing the approach, but this isn’t because I believe the FO couldn’t do as good if not better job than I could. It’s more a combination of the fact that in the sim, the checkie usually wants to see me do the SE landing or SE missed approach (and besides, we can't have the young whippersnapper having all the **** fun). This takeover does have a very positive aspect. On taking over, I ask the FO to sit back, now unloaded himself, and review everything he’s seen me do and to suggest any improvements or better ways he thinks the situation might be handled. Some damned good suggestions sometimes come of this.
I think in a real situation, which I have had thankfully very few, particularly if a go around was a probability, I’d leave the FO as PF all the way to landing and take over only on clearing the runway – but that ‘FO’s review’ before commencing the approach is worth its weight in gold, even if it means another trip around the holding pattern before commencing the approach.
edited for typos
Pegasus77
Surprised you say? Well, the airlines that I have flown with over the years have INSISTED that First Officers have the ability to (hello, are you alert?...surprise surprise...) HAND FLY the aeroplane. DO NOT rely on the autopilot, it can lead you down the primrose path (older machines, years past)...newer machines have better autopilots, but I wonder, where have the flying skills gone?
Also have been in flight crew training for a VERY long time...and the guys I have trained in the past/present have the best that I can provide. None complained. :rolleyes:
A very interesting post from b55.
You should follow whatever procedures your company has prescribed unless you have a good reason for doing otherwise. We all know it is easier to monitor someone else's flying and nit pick, then when we are engrossed in the flying ourselves.
Also a valid and interesting point about with the F/O flying then s/he is not put in the sometimes difficult position of having to question the captain's actions.
If I am concentrating on doing a decent job of flying OEO (for a couple of minutes till I get it trimmed out and get the autopilot engaged) and the chap next to me starts quizzing me what my heading is and what my airspeed is when he has a functioning set of instruments in front of him, I would be rather irritated to say the least. If anything is deviating then the call is "airspeed" or "heading". I'm not superhuman and OEO has my shirt sticking to the back of the seat in the sim sometimes. If the captain hasn't got something better to do than to measure the F/O's excess capacity (or lack of) at a time when they can both be expected to be fully occupied, then the punter's should be worried.
If that is your company procedure and the F/O is not making a dogs ear of it, then let them get on with it and the captain can do the managing with all the benefit of their extra experience.
BlueEagle
25th Jul 2002, 10:26
The whole point of asking the F/O questions he should be able to answer easily is to check that he is still 'in the loop', has a bit of capacity to spare to be able to acknowledge the simple questions thus ensuring that he is not getting/has not got overloaded and can safely continue to fly the aircraft whilst the captain sorts out the problems. If there are no or very wrong answers it is time for the captain to assume PF duties and give his F/O a break whilst he gets himself out of the 'tunnel'.
crackerjack
30th Jul 2002, 10:45
I feel that some of you are missing the point, flying is the easy bit!! imho it's a prerequesite, not a luxury, most of the skippers I fly with will cheerfully admit that several of the fo's "handle" the aircraft better than they can. However I would suggest that most of them are far better at seeing the "big" picture.
It's a team effort guys not a competition.
On the other hand, if LHS is going to say "I have" every time the engine fails, that's great 'cos my base checks will be much easier in future. In fact I might mention it to our management who will be thrilled at the amount of simulator time this'll save.........