Dallas Dispute - Qantas Crew stood down.
Originally Posted by The Don
Six pages about a delayed flight. I don't think there will be enough bandwidth available if something serious was to happen.
Which reminds me...b@gger Lara, Dallas is coming back. Prune can take a back seat for a while!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like the QF Captain that took off in the B747 with the IRSs still aligning (in the mid 90s I think). The support pilots verbally objected but didn't physically stop him. They dumped a massive amount of fuel and returned. Same bloke?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I am reading some of these posts and am agast at some of the logical falicies that have developed. Every 2nd post either refers to what a great bloke the SO is and how much of a See You Ee Tee the CA is. In either case, none of that matters.
What is significant are 2 issues: 1) How did the conflict fail to be resolved to the point that the flight was delayed? Did it escalate to the point where teamwork disintegrated? 2) Was it the case that either the SO or the CA didn't understand the SOPs? I emphasise this point because all the CRM in the world does not help you if you don't have technical competance.
I can empathise with any CA who is trying to deal with a subordinate who is sticking to his guns (a favourable trait) over an issue where they are wrong and will not be shown the truth. These people can be absolutly infuriating to deal with, especially if issues of ego come into it and they refuse to be convinced, even when presented with overwhelming evidence! -remember: what's right, not who's right.
It could well be that the CA was right and the SO wrong. It could also be the other way around. Let the facts come out. What is occuring here is that people are basing conclusions regarding the situation in accordance with a bias. To be specific the Fundumental Attributional Bias.
Attributional bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always had hoped that Pilots were smarter than this.
What is significant are 2 issues: 1) How did the conflict fail to be resolved to the point that the flight was delayed? Did it escalate to the point where teamwork disintegrated? 2) Was it the case that either the SO or the CA didn't understand the SOPs? I emphasise this point because all the CRM in the world does not help you if you don't have technical competance.
I can empathise with any CA who is trying to deal with a subordinate who is sticking to his guns (a favourable trait) over an issue where they are wrong and will not be shown the truth. These people can be absolutly infuriating to deal with, especially if issues of ego come into it and they refuse to be convinced, even when presented with overwhelming evidence! -remember: what's right, not who's right.
It could well be that the CA was right and the SO wrong. It could also be the other way around. Let the facts come out. What is occuring here is that people are basing conclusions regarding the situation in accordance with a bias. To be specific the Fundumental Attributional Bias.
Attributional bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I always had hoped that Pilots were smarter than this.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience in aviation, the same names keep appearing when trouble brews.
It reminded me of a famous incident when I was a DC10 F/O in the 70's. There was an altercation between the Capt., notorious for his short fuse, and the F/E over a minor navigation indication problem. After several minutes the Capt. ordered the F/E to pull a circuit breaker, whereupon the entire area navigation system failed and was unable to be resurrected.
It reminded me of a famous incident when I was a DC10 F/O in the 70's. There was an altercation between the Capt., notorious for his short fuse, and the F/E over a minor navigation indication problem. After several minutes the Capt. ordered the F/E to pull a circuit breaker, whereupon the entire area navigation system failed and was unable to be resurrected.
Anthill, all you have to do is read posts on this forum to discover that many pilots are not very smart. 
I don't quite agree with your view that the opinion of how good a bloke the S/O is or that the Captain is a 'known personality' is not relevant. I do agree with your two points in the second paragraph. I believe that these issues of personality and fact/competency are related. I am sure most pilots have seen personality types that can deal with differing views and manage the flight deck environment such that all crew feel confident they can speak up if they are not happy. Such personality types tend to 'bring out the best' in people and every one feels they are working together as a team. On the contrary, some personality types turn the flight deck in to an arena to showcase their own ego, and everything turns in to a pissing contest.
Managing and dealing with conflict in the flight deck is a management skill that is required from a Captain. Dealing with a difference of opinion over a technical issue should not be a big deal (regardless of whether the other crew member is right or wrong), especially if the aircraft is on the ground.
If the 'known personality' is a F/O or S/O and the Captain has good management skills, I believe the command position of the Captain helps to settle or resolve any flight deck conflict. If the 'known personality' is the Captain, it can be extremely difficult for the remaining crew to deal with the situation. This is why there is some relevance to the situation of the personality types of the people concerned.
I don't quite agree with your view that the opinion of how good a bloke the S/O is or that the Captain is a 'known personality' is not relevant. I do agree with your two points in the second paragraph. I believe that these issues of personality and fact/competency are related. I am sure most pilots have seen personality types that can deal with differing views and manage the flight deck environment such that all crew feel confident they can speak up if they are not happy. Such personality types tend to 'bring out the best' in people and every one feels they are working together as a team. On the contrary, some personality types turn the flight deck in to an arena to showcase their own ego, and everything turns in to a pissing contest.
Managing and dealing with conflict in the flight deck is a management skill that is required from a Captain. Dealing with a difference of opinion over a technical issue should not be a big deal (regardless of whether the other crew member is right or wrong), especially if the aircraft is on the ground.
If the 'known personality' is a F/O or S/O and the Captain has good management skills, I believe the command position of the Captain helps to settle or resolve any flight deck conflict. If the 'known personality' is the Captain, it can be extremely difficult for the remaining crew to deal with the situation. This is why there is some relevance to the situation of the personality types of the people concerned.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 23rd Aug 2012 at 00:54.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Melbourne
Age: 77
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread highlights some very interesting issues that have never been completely sorted since the introduction of CRM.
When CRM first came to pass we were told we had to take into account all of the opinions and concerns of all crew members right down to the lowest member of the cabin crew and even passengers. But listening to people is quite diiferent to taking ultimate responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. The SO and FO have every right to voice concerns and often they have saved the day but they are not in command it is the Capt who has to listen and then make the final descission based on all that has been put forward.
Also very little has been mentioned on this thread about what part Fatigue, Stress and Pressure plays when having to make difficult descissions when in command, perfectly correct descissions do not always come out well when clouded by pressure ot tiredness.
The outcome of this ongoing QF problem will be most interesting.
When CRM first came to pass we were told we had to take into account all of the opinions and concerns of all crew members right down to the lowest member of the cabin crew and even passengers. But listening to people is quite diiferent to taking ultimate responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. The SO and FO have every right to voice concerns and often they have saved the day but they are not in command it is the Capt who has to listen and then make the final descission based on all that has been put forward.
Also very little has been mentioned on this thread about what part Fatigue, Stress and Pressure plays when having to make difficult descissions when in command, perfectly correct descissions do not always come out well when clouded by pressure ot tiredness.
The outcome of this ongoing QF problem will be most interesting.
Nowhere in the original article does it say what the dispute was about. We seem to have developed group think that it was about operational / CRM issues and spun off on those tangents.
But what if it was about something different, eg tour of duty limits. This flight has a tour of duty limit of 18 hours, which may be extended to 20 hours at the pilots' discretion. Thunderstorms delayed the departure, possibly pushing the ToD beyond the 18 hour limit. What if the S/O said he was not extending (which he is perfectly entitled to do) and then the CPT started bullying him to change his mind?
But what if it was about something different, eg tour of duty limits. This flight has a tour of duty limit of 18 hours, which may be extended to 20 hours at the pilots' discretion. Thunderstorms delayed the departure, possibly pushing the ToD beyond the 18 hour limit. What if the S/O said he was not extending (which he is perfectly entitled to do) and then the CPT started bullying him to change his mind?
Last edited by Bleve; 23rd Aug 2012 at 02:22.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya gotta laugh though, it's incidents like this that make aviation such an interesting career, every time you go to work there's a new series of rumours and cock-ups to catch up on.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread highlights some very interesting issues that have never been completely sorted since the introduction of CRM.
Last edited by HF3000; 23rd Aug 2012 at 02:58.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While arguing to the point of not being able to complete a flight hints at a smidgen of unprofessionalism, it's really impossible to draw any firm conclusions about anything without seeing a transcript of the conversation. It would certainly be interesting to see. Maybe one of the pilots had a legitimate concern, maybe they were both just stubborn … who knows? But removing them from the flight does seem prudent until things can be investigated—impossible to comment on the suspension without knowing exactly what happened in the cockpit.
It could well be that the CA was right and the SO wrong
But the farce *allegedly* that developed is the skipper's responsibility alone. Any captain worth a grain of salt should have the people skills to manage a difference of opinion amongst crew with absolute ease and professionalism.
It's not rocket science. It's people skills (and acting your age).
Caring Understanding Nice Type
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pprune makes me laugh.
Well, I think this thread has gone on long enough and served its purpose.
Recommend closing it Mr Moderator. Let the name calling and blame throwing begin again when (if) a report gets released.
Well, I think this thread has gone on long enough and served its purpose.
Recommend closing it Mr Moderator. Let the name calling and blame throwing begin again when (if) a report gets released.