Greedy captains who won't let you fly
BLets return to the original post. I do not think any experienced Captain would think the circumstances as described by the first poster (no T/O and only one landing in a one year period) would be described as "normal". Something was clarly wrong in this cockpit. In a 2 crew cockpit both pilots have to be qualified and capable of all tasks. I can not see how this is the case when the FO doesn't do any handling. Since as was so vehemently pointed out the captain has all the responsibilty how come he gets a free pass on this one. Either the FO is incompetant, in which case the Captain should refuse to have him on the flight deck, or the Captain is not competant to perform the PNF duties in which case he should be relieved.
But at the risk of injecting some common sense to this argument I think the highest likelyhood is that the Captain is simply a ego driven jerk. So if you are an FO unfortunate enough to be saddled with one of these jerks well I can offer the example of my expereince after finding myself in a very similar circumstance.
Step 1: During a quiet moment between flights I asked the Captain what I had to do to gain his trust in allowing me to fly some legs. I basically got the reply "nothing as I am the Captain and I will fly when I feel like it".
Step 2: At the start of ever flight I requesed that I fly the leg. The response was almost invaribly "No"
Step 3: I went to the Chief Pilot and requested a check ride stating that since I was never allowed to fly there obviously was a problem and I wanted to know where I stood. This got the CP's attention as it appeared they allready had concerns with this Captain. The CP showed up unannounced and indicated I was to fly the first leg and the Captain the return. It was an unmitigated disaster as the Captain pooched almost all of the PNF duties. His leg back was not much better as he spent so much time being mad at me that he was not paying enough attention to his duties. The CP immediately required he only fly with a training Captain, whom he so managed to piss off by being such a jerk, that he was terminated : .
But at the risk of injecting some common sense to this argument I think the highest likelyhood is that the Captain is simply a ego driven jerk. So if you are an FO unfortunate enough to be saddled with one of these jerks well I can offer the example of my expereince after finding myself in a very similar circumstance.
Step 1: During a quiet moment between flights I asked the Captain what I had to do to gain his trust in allowing me to fly some legs. I basically got the reply "nothing as I am the Captain and I will fly when I feel like it".
Step 2: At the start of ever flight I requesed that I fly the leg. The response was almost invaribly "No"
Step 3: I went to the Chief Pilot and requested a check ride stating that since I was never allowed to fly there obviously was a problem and I wanted to know where I stood. This got the CP's attention as it appeared they allready had concerns with this Captain. The CP showed up unannounced and indicated I was to fly the first leg and the Captain the return. It was an unmitigated disaster as the Captain pooched almost all of the PNF duties. His leg back was not much better as he spent so much time being mad at me that he was not paying enough attention to his duties. The CP immediately required he only fly with a training Captain, whom he so managed to piss off by being such a jerk, that he was terminated : .
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greedy captains who won't " let "you fly
Co pilots
Lets say you hire a C152 and go out for a trip with a fellow Pilot you know, who has some hours on that type and a lot less experience then you. You have hired the airplane and are the PIC, but your letting your friend fly today. You takeoff on a great sunny day, but when returning to the airfield the wind is gusty and weather is not great. Its within the limits of the plane....just.
Now are you telling me you wouldn't be thinking if he screws this up its my fault as I've hired the airplane. Thats kind of how it feels when a company gives you an expensive plane to Command. Its not yours but you know if it goes wrong your the one that will end up in th sh*t. A Captain can't always grab the controls so will have to trust your ability to handle the plane or as is easier sometimes, just do it themselves.
Do your job, listen and learn and earn their trust and you will get to fly.
Simple
Co pilots
Lets say you hire a C152 and go out for a trip with a fellow Pilot you know, who has some hours on that type and a lot less experience then you. You have hired the airplane and are the PIC, but your letting your friend fly today. You takeoff on a great sunny day, but when returning to the airfield the wind is gusty and weather is not great. Its within the limits of the plane....just.
Now are you telling me you wouldn't be thinking if he screws this up its my fault as I've hired the airplane. Thats kind of how it feels when a company gives you an expensive plane to Command. Its not yours but you know if it goes wrong your the one that will end up in th sh*t. A Captain can't always grab the controls so will have to trust your ability to handle the plane or as is easier sometimes, just do it themselves.
Do your job, listen and learn and earn their trust and you will get to fly.
Simple
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a similar experience with a captain who ran the airplane with an iron fist, had a violent temper, and who did everything but talk on the radio. He went too far, and I approached the Chief Pilot to discuss the problem.
The Chief Pilot knew the problem well, and immediately said "If you're here to talk about Bill, you can do an about face and leave my office. I've heard it all, you've got nothing fresh to add, goodby."
I said "No, I don't want to talk about Bill. I want to talk about me."
"Okay," said the Chief Pilot. "In that case, come on in. Have a seat. Now, what can I do for you?"
"I don't want to fly with Bill any more."
"I told you not to talk about Bill."
"This isn't about Bill. It's all about me. I'm apparently a terrible copilot and can't do anything right. I refuse to fly with him any more, to protect him from my faults."
"You can't refuse. You're the only one I have left who will fly with him; everyone else has refused."
"Then indeed there is a problem, because I won't fly with him any more."
Now that pilot displayed poor airmanship and a bad attitude as a captain. He refused to listen to complaints about pushing fuel, he did everything he could to be obnoxious, from threats in flight ("I'll put a gun in your mouth and blow your brains all over this cockpit"), or ordering the copilot to key the mic while he profanely berated ATC in the background. Those are the characters that we have attempted to weed out with current CRM training and human factors education.
Pilots who recognize and understand that the legal responsibility for the flight rests with the PIC aren't the enemy. Just correct.
While the case of the first officer in the original post appears to sound like a captain exercising unrighteous dominion, the fact remains that the first officer never has a right to fly every other leg. It is always a privilege.
Flying, in fact, isn't a right, but a privilege conferred by certification. We have neither right to fly, nor to operate a leg. Never the less, when a pilot in command is designated, the choice of who operates the controls on a given leg is his.
To those who suggest that this in some way diminishes the ability of either crewmember to operate professionally with a free and open exchange of information, I would say that such have no real concept of CRM. CRM does not depend upon flying every other leg, nor does it mystically break down if the captain flies two legs in a row. To think otherwise is utter stupidity,and to make connections between dots which do not exist.
The Chief Pilot knew the problem well, and immediately said "If you're here to talk about Bill, you can do an about face and leave my office. I've heard it all, you've got nothing fresh to add, goodby."
I said "No, I don't want to talk about Bill. I want to talk about me."
"Okay," said the Chief Pilot. "In that case, come on in. Have a seat. Now, what can I do for you?"
"I don't want to fly with Bill any more."
"I told you not to talk about Bill."
"This isn't about Bill. It's all about me. I'm apparently a terrible copilot and can't do anything right. I refuse to fly with him any more, to protect him from my faults."
"You can't refuse. You're the only one I have left who will fly with him; everyone else has refused."
"Then indeed there is a problem, because I won't fly with him any more."
Now that pilot displayed poor airmanship and a bad attitude as a captain. He refused to listen to complaints about pushing fuel, he did everything he could to be obnoxious, from threats in flight ("I'll put a gun in your mouth and blow your brains all over this cockpit"), or ordering the copilot to key the mic while he profanely berated ATC in the background. Those are the characters that we have attempted to weed out with current CRM training and human factors education.
Pilots who recognize and understand that the legal responsibility for the flight rests with the PIC aren't the enemy. Just correct.
While the case of the first officer in the original post appears to sound like a captain exercising unrighteous dominion, the fact remains that the first officer never has a right to fly every other leg. It is always a privilege.
Flying, in fact, isn't a right, but a privilege conferred by certification. We have neither right to fly, nor to operate a leg. Never the less, when a pilot in command is designated, the choice of who operates the controls on a given leg is his.
To those who suggest that this in some way diminishes the ability of either crewmember to operate professionally with a free and open exchange of information, I would say that such have no real concept of CRM. CRM does not depend upon flying every other leg, nor does it mystically break down if the captain flies two legs in a row. To think otherwise is utter stupidity,and to make connections between dots which do not exist.
To those who suggest that this in some way diminishes the ability of either crewmember to operate professionally with a free and open exchange of information, I would say that such have no real concept of CRM. CRM does not depend upon flying every other leg, nor does it mystically break down if the captain flies two legs in a row. To think otherwise is utter stupidity,and to make connections between dots which do not exist.
The original poster wasn't complaining about the Captain flying two legs in a row he was complaining about a Captain who never let the FO fly the aircraft during a period of a whole year. Your earlier comments imply that this is acceptable, my personal opinion is that this situation is unacceptable under virtually any circumstances. It ultimately reflects incompetance on the part of the Captain because as you took took great pains to correctly point out, he/she is ultimately responsible for every facet of the aircraft operation and in this particular case appears unable or unwilling to fully use the FO on a two crew aircraft. I find it impossible to believe that effective CRM can exist under such circumstances so I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this one.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 31st Aug 2010 at 00:03.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your earlier comments imply that this is acceptable, my personal opinion is that this situation is unacceptable under virtually any circumstances.
I find it impossible to believe that effective CRM can exist under such circumstances so I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this one.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy - you simply missed the point - I do agree with what you say, but it really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. We should not be discussing or questioning the rights or duties of a captain here - so why are you defending this so vigilantly ?
Captains are also human and they also make mistakes - you sound, as if you don't ever question yourself or would never let yourself be challenged by a copilot... I hope it isn't like that in real life - we don't know you, but you give the that impression and others in this forum read the same out of your posts. I respect you for all your experience, however your attitude is dangerous and there are many accidents on record with some very experienced captains. CRM teaches us to watch out for such characters. Maybe a copilot will save YOUR life one day.
Back to the subject:
I agree with Big Pistons forever - if this copilot only had this issue with this particular captain, then we can assume that this captain has a serious issue with this copilot or an ego-issue with himself. The copilot should have adressed the issue to a trustworthy senior collegue or management, so that an explanation and resolution could be found to why this situation existed between them, in particular. But it seems that the copilot did not have anyone to really talk to and that is the problem that I have already stated in the beginning of this thread.
These issues simply do not belong in any cockpit, that is why they have to be sorted out on the ground and if that is not possible, then personal consequences for either one of them should follow, initiated by themselves or the management involved. If this copilot had no issues with the other captains (which the original thread poster clearly implies), then surely this may be an indication, that this particular captain is a prick...
He decided to carry the problem around with him for a year and felt miserable and made him decide to quit the job and go and fly somewhere else. That is the sad part of the story.
The true reason why he never had a chance to be Pilot flying with this captain, will never be known to us - but that is an essential key for discussions in this thread.
Captains are also human and they also make mistakes - you sound, as if you don't ever question yourself or would never let yourself be challenged by a copilot... I hope it isn't like that in real life - we don't know you, but you give the that impression and others in this forum read the same out of your posts. I respect you for all your experience, however your attitude is dangerous and there are many accidents on record with some very experienced captains. CRM teaches us to watch out for such characters. Maybe a copilot will save YOUR life one day.
Back to the subject:
I agree with Big Pistons forever - if this copilot only had this issue with this particular captain, then we can assume that this captain has a serious issue with this copilot or an ego-issue with himself. The copilot should have adressed the issue to a trustworthy senior collegue or management, so that an explanation and resolution could be found to why this situation existed between them, in particular. But it seems that the copilot did not have anyone to really talk to and that is the problem that I have already stated in the beginning of this thread.
These issues simply do not belong in any cockpit, that is why they have to be sorted out on the ground and if that is not possible, then personal consequences for either one of them should follow, initiated by themselves or the management involved. If this copilot had no issues with the other captains (which the original thread poster clearly implies), then surely this may be an indication, that this particular captain is a prick...
He decided to carry the problem around with him for a year and felt miserable and made him decide to quit the job and go and fly somewhere else. That is the sad part of the story.
The true reason why he never had a chance to be Pilot flying with this captain, will never be known to us - but that is an essential key for discussions in this thread.
Last edited by Propellerpilot; 31st Aug 2010 at 13:20.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vanpilot,
This is a totally different situation becasue in the example you use you are not in the position of having the company tell you that the co-pilot was capable of performing to the required standard.
If your ops manual says "Captain only landing when crosswind above XX" then that is the case. If not then the company has spent a lot of money training and checking this other pilot on your right and they have released them as safe to operate to the relevant limits.
You might remind them of what the crosswind is and ask them if they are happy to do the landing (with a reminder to go missed at the first sign of trouble) but if the company has told you that they are capable then who are you to say they are not?
Good companies have stabilisation criteria and have clear SOP's for what the PF does when the other says "go arround" - note no mention of rank or seat here!!
I think that anyone who has been flying for a long time will know that the cavok arrival on a calm day is more likely to cause a hard landing than the one where they are working their socks off all the way down.
Now are you telling me you wouldn't be thinking if he screws this up its my fault as I've hired the airplane. Thats kind of how it feels when a company gives you an expensive plane to Command.
If your ops manual says "Captain only landing when crosswind above XX" then that is the case. If not then the company has spent a lot of money training and checking this other pilot on your right and they have released them as safe to operate to the relevant limits.
You might remind them of what the crosswind is and ask them if they are happy to do the landing (with a reminder to go missed at the first sign of trouble) but if the company has told you that they are capable then who are you to say they are not?
Good companies have stabilisation criteria and have clear SOP's for what the PF does when the other says "go arround" - note no mention of rank or seat here!!
I think that anyone who has been flying for a long time will know that the cavok arrival on a calm day is more likely to cause a hard landing than the one where they are working their socks off all the way down.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a bunch of airline pilots wandered into the bizjet area by mistake...
Anyone with enough hours, and a long trip ahead, who's comfortable in the plane, is going to let the kid fly as much as he wants.....it's not like we need to build hours anymore....in Part 91, no one is wearing stripes and quoting from company handbooks and SOPs manuals...
If the kid can fly, let him fly, if he can't then you let him run the autopilot until he can.
Anyone with enough hours, and a long trip ahead, who's comfortable in the plane, is going to let the kid fly as much as he wants.....it's not like we need to build hours anymore....in Part 91, no one is wearing stripes and quoting from company handbooks and SOPs manuals...
If the kid can fly, let him fly, if he can't then you let him run the autopilot until he can.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crocodile syndrome
This thread is surely both sad and interesting.
How come that a few of the almost godlike PIC's here with "more experience than me or others ever will have" totally misses the point of their opponents? Isn't CRM a tiny little bit about actually try understanding what the other guy in the communication actually is trying to say and not desperately trying to find some detail to attack with wild energy?
For example Mr Guppy seems to think the whole thread is all about sharing the time fiddling with the yoke down to the minute.
Does anyone getting command all of a sudden become god and know everything best, without exception ever? If so, well done in selecting them, weee
/Only a poor confused F/O
PS1 admit it now Guppy, you're already planning a reply telling me that I'm totally wrong, period!!
PS2 Crocodiles have quite a oversized yapper compared to their ears, wonder how many fries they wear on their shoulders?
How come that a few of the almost godlike PIC's here with "more experience than me or others ever will have" totally misses the point of their opponents? Isn't CRM a tiny little bit about actually try understanding what the other guy in the communication actually is trying to say and not desperately trying to find some detail to attack with wild energy?
For example Mr Guppy seems to think the whole thread is all about sharing the time fiddling with the yoke down to the minute.
Does anyone getting command all of a sudden become god and know everything best, without exception ever? If so, well done in selecting them, weee
/Only a poor confused F/O
PS1 admit it now Guppy, you're already planning a reply telling me that I'm totally wrong, period!!
PS2 Crocodiles have quite a oversized yapper compared to their ears, wonder how many fries they wear on their shoulders?
Assuming that the 700 hour co-pilot was not an utter utter di*khead, if the Captain did not give him a sector in a year, it indicates to me that the Captain was suffering an inflated ego (no-one could do it as good as him) or a chronic lack of flying ability (if his co-pilot let it slightly out of tolerance, he would be unable to recover it). Either way, the Captain would appear to have been in need of some serious counselling. It is a shame that the F/O sat on it for so long, but understandable in one young not wishing to rock the boat.
When I first started out as a DC3 F/O, the company ops manual actually had a statement that said ALL Captains were expected to mentor their co-pilots. If you couldn't or wouldn't agree to that, you did not get a command. On one occasion when it was my sector, we had an engine failure soon after takeoff and the Captain let me handle it all the way back to the landing and taxi-in. I have never forgotten that man, because he could REALLY fly an aeroplane, so it was nothing to do with my ability being better able to deal with the problem. He could have - and would have - taken over at the first sign of me losing it. As a Captain these past 42-plus years I always tried (though probably failed) to live up to the standard and example that he set.
Another Captain I have never forgotten was an absolute pri*k. Never gave the F/O a sector unless there were no pax on board. Great confidence-builder, not! It was not just me - all the F/O's complained about him.
But occasionally, if the F/O has been unduly cocky, I have taken them down a peg by witholding the 'privilege' of a sector or sectors, and on rare occasions if I have deemed the approach or landing too difficult for their level of expertise I have taken over, in the obvious interests of safety. Generally however, I have always tried to give the F/O the more demanding sectors, on the basis that they would benefit more from the experience than I would.
So, as I leave the cockpit, I hope my former F/Os don't remember me too badly - even the few I needed to treat a bit harshly by now hopefully have matured and are now good skippers themselves.
When I first started out as a DC3 F/O, the company ops manual actually had a statement that said ALL Captains were expected to mentor their co-pilots. If you couldn't or wouldn't agree to that, you did not get a command. On one occasion when it was my sector, we had an engine failure soon after takeoff and the Captain let me handle it all the way back to the landing and taxi-in. I have never forgotten that man, because he could REALLY fly an aeroplane, so it was nothing to do with my ability being better able to deal with the problem. He could have - and would have - taken over at the first sign of me losing it. As a Captain these past 42-plus years I always tried (though probably failed) to live up to the standard and example that he set.
Another Captain I have never forgotten was an absolute pri*k. Never gave the F/O a sector unless there were no pax on board. Great confidence-builder, not! It was not just me - all the F/O's complained about him.
But occasionally, if the F/O has been unduly cocky, I have taken them down a peg by witholding the 'privilege' of a sector or sectors, and on rare occasions if I have deemed the approach or landing too difficult for their level of expertise I have taken over, in the obvious interests of safety. Generally however, I have always tried to give the F/O the more demanding sectors, on the basis that they would benefit more from the experience than I would.
So, as I leave the cockpit, I hope my former F/Os don't remember me too badly - even the few I needed to treat a bit harshly by now hopefully have matured and are now good skippers themselves.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captains are also human and they also make mistakes - you sound, as if you don't ever question yourself or would never let yourself be challenged by a copilot...
In the case of the copilot at the outset of this thread, the general assumption is that the copilot is not at fault, and that the captain is at fault. We don't know this; we don't know either individual.
We do know that the copilot knuckled under for a year in fear of making waves. We do know that the captain elected not to let the copilot fly. We are told that the captain has been let go.
The copilot does not have the right, nor place, to demand to fly every other leg.
Whether the copilot ever flies a leg should have zero impact on the copilot's ability to do his job or function professionally in the cockpit. Of course the copilot should want to fly and to progress; this is natural. Why take a job if it doesn't lead to a command position? Never the less, if one's professionalism or ability to communicate openly in the cockpit is hindered by one's bad attitude about who got to fly this leg or that, then one has no business in the cockpit. Such is the stuff of which a poor crewmember is made. The copilot's ability to perform at 100% in the cockpit should never in any way be contingent on his flying, or not flying a leg.
CRM and professionalism on the one hand, and flying a leg on the other, are separate and distinct subjects; not in the least interrelated.
Some years ago while flying for a fractional provider I was assigned a new copilot. This individual would have been lucky to find his backside with three hands, let alone two. During a departure one day, I was given a left turn and then asked to intercept an airway. The intercept didn't lend to use of the FMS, but would be an easy intercept using the nav radios. The copilot couldn't figure out how to do that...set a frequency and twist the course needle. He didn't have a chart open, and then told me he didn't know how to read the chart to find the information. I was flabbergasted, to say the least.
I discovered that allowing him to fly a leg with passengers on board was a very bad idea, confirmed by the Chief Pilot, and other captains with whom he had flown. In fact, I learned that every other captain with whom he had flown had written a letter to the Chief Pilot recommending his termination. I would later write a similar letter; one of two that I ever felt necessary to write in my career.
One morning I had a dead leg to fly in two parts, with a fuel stop. I told him I'd take the first leg, he could have the second, assuming good weather. He was a very weak pilot, and I didn't trust him in busy areas, complex airspace, or in weather. At the fuel stop, we checked the weather, and it was bad at the destination. I told him it was his leg, but that I might fly the arrival. He told me he didn't agree with my decision, but would abide by it. I told him he didn't have to agree, and that of course he would abide by it. I told him to take the time he needed, as he told me he didn't work well under pressure, and didn't want to be rushed.
At an uncontrolled field, he took a half hour to start engines and taxi to the runway; a short distance. Not a problem; unusual there, but not a problem. We had all night. During the taxi-out, as I read the checklist, I got to the challenge "Takeoff Briefing."
"We'll take off, and turn left." He said. That was the whole brief.
"Okay," I said. "How fast, on the takeoff."
"We'll go fast." he said.
"How fast? Tell me about your speeds."
"About one eighty." was his reply.
"How about speeds on the runway?" I prompted. "What about your takeoff speeds?"
"We'll speed up to one eighty, and somewhere in there we'll takeoff." he replied. Obviously this wasn't going anywhere.
"Okay," I said, "Let's stop here on the taxiway, for a moment." We stopped. Let's say that at eighty knots, you get a fire indication. What are you going to do?"
"I'm going to say 'You've got it!'," he replied, and said "I'll turn the airplane over to you."
That was the only wrong answer. He had not only no idea about how to do a takeoff briefing, but no idea about how to reject the takeoff. I prompted him on how he might reject the takeoff, if needed. He got the procedure wrong. Not even close. Now, bearing in mind that we were together for the entire week, and every night he went out to party, and never cracked a book or made any effort to study, and clearly had no concept about aircraft procedures, cockpit procedures, or the crew environment, I prompted him further:
"Alright, then. Let's tackle this from a slightly different angle. Let's say you're at FL410 and you hear a bang. Your ears pop. You're cold, it's hard to breathe. Your ears and your teeth hurt. The windscreen frosts. It's loud. What do you do?"
He had no clue. He stammered and stuttered, and after about twenty seconds I asked him what had just happened. He admitted he had no idea. I told him that we just had an explosive depressurization, and that he'd just killed us both. I'd lost consciousness, and all I expected from him was to execute the memory emergency items. The only thing I expected, really, was that he put on his oxygen mask.
I then repeated the scenario to him again, and asked him once more what he would do. A repeat performance, and he again had no idea what to do. I noted that we'd just been over the identical scenario, and that I'd just given him his actions. He asked why I cared about that scenario. I explained to him that we were about to fly. He'd just finished telling me that my job was to make him a captain, and that I owed him legs and instruction. I explained that I expected him to do his part, that while I was under no obligation to give him legs or make him a captain, I would bend over backward to help him in proportion to his dedication to helping himself.
I explained that when I was assigned an airplane, I treated it as my own. For the duration of my acting as PIC, as far as I was concerned, I owned the airpane; I treated it as my own, with the same care I'd give if I actually owned it. I expected him to do the same; it's only professional. Accordingly, I explained that before giving him a leg in that multi-million dollar airplane, I expected that he would know and understand the most basic elements of operating that airplane. I further told him there were really only two of the 14 memory procedures that I expected him to intimately understand; how to reject the takeoff (or go, as the case may be), and what to do in the event of an environmental emergency such as a depressurization at altitude. He neither knew, nor understood, either one. In other words, I expected him to show up to work ready to do his job.
Enroute on that leg, he confessed that he knew nothing about weather or weather radar. I took advantage of a long leg segment to conduct a class on weather radar, and some weather theory. We used diagrams, paper, and had a hands on discussion with the onboard equpiment. As we approached the destination, we found the weather had deteriorated with a great deal of convective activity.
This new copilot then went on to tell me that he thought I should fly through the thunderstorms, that he felt I was afraid of them because I was avoiding them, and that he had once flown through a thunderstorm in a Piper Seneca, and didn't think it was that bad. Given his own devices, he had no qualms about flying into the weather. There was plenty of magenta on the scope, but he thought we should fly through it, save fuel and time. I did the arrival and landing.
The culminating experience with him was an arrival into Las Vegas, Nevada. With winds straight down the runway and a nice long runway ahead, it wasn't something I anticipated that he could screw up. Prior to departing Napa, california, he again told me he couldn't be pressured, and that he didn't work well under pressure. On arrival to Vegas, we were sequenced into the daisy chain, and I reminded him to not be in a rush to get off the runway. On short final, we were told to plan minimum time on the runway, and to exist as soon as possible for 767 traffic to follow.
I again reminded the new pilot to not be pressured, and to let it roll. On landing, he stepped hard on the brakes. This particular airplane had sensitive carbon brakes, and no antiskid. The airplane pulled left, and at first I thought he was aiming for the first runway access. I realized he had locked up the brakes, and yelled for him to get off them. He became nearly catatonic, locked up, and unresponsive, and I had to physically remove him from the controls. We stopped just short of the runway edge. The main tires were severely flat-spotted, and ballooned out, as though about to fail.
After getting the airplane to a parking spot, I asked the company to send a mechanic and a second airplane, and then asked the copilot to write a narrative of the event. I told him not to take any blame, as I was the PIC and would write a report accepting full responsibility. I explained that the safety department would want a statement, and that I needed a report from him identifying the facts as he saw them. I asked him to write the report without any regard for me or anyone else, and to identify what had happened, as well as any causes. I told him that if he felt I had contributed to the situation, to say so, and to feel no concern for any recrimination. Strictly for the sake of safety.
He loudly demanded to know why he should have to file a report, saying it wasn't his airplane and he didn't have anything to do with the event. "It's your problem," he said. "I shouldn't be held accountable, because I wasn't the PIC." He then paraded around in a crowded GA FBO terminal, with clientele coming and going, making loud jokes about how funny it would have been to open the door and spill vodka bottles on the ground, and other such things.
Perhaps needless to say, he never flew a leg when he was with me again. We were assigned together on several more tours, despite my own protests. No other captain in that operation ever let him fly a leg again, either. He remained with the company for another year and a half, eventually being fired when he failed a training event at a professional training association.
One could easily say that this individual represents the exception to the rule, and I agree. He was the exception, and fortunately there aren't that many of them. They do exist, however, and this individual continued to fly as a First Officer for a year or more without flying a leg. He simply couldn't be trusted. A number of individuals gave it a shot, and finally on the recommendation of a well recognized global training organization, he was fired.
That individual didn't receive an unfair shake. People gave him every chance in the world. Neither my refusal, nor that of any of the other 50 or so Captains who flew with him exercised poor CRM, shut him out unfairly, or put him in a cockpit with a skygod. He was simply incompetent. He was quick with a lawyer, but not quick enough; eventually his own incompetence did him in. A whole case study could be written on him.
The fact remains that he was never owed a leg, whether he was God's greatest gift to aviation, or whether he was the greatest idiot ever to take flight. He'd managed to get through his pilot certification. He'd managed to instruct, and to fly a little freight. He had managed to pass the interview, initial training, and his checkrides, but he was still about as incompetent as any pilot I've ever met.
Now many here will likely continue in their self-righteous indignation that a captain might take his responsibility and rights seriously as the law allows and requires...but the fact is that the copilot does NOT have a right to this leg or that, and simply because the copilot cries that he's been wronged, doesn't make it so. The copilot is in no position to demand; it's not his flight, nor his airplane, nor his command. That is the bailywick of the captain.
We don't know the copilot that is described at the outset of the thread is a good guy or a bad guy, and that's really up to the company to determine. The company has apparently determined that the captain is a bad guy and has terminated him. The original poster indicated he believes the copilot is a good guy. It's not my intent do judge the copilot one way or the other with regard to his flying skills or abilities.
My sole concern is the demand to fly, or the assumption that the copilot is owed a leg. He is not. End of story.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The copilot does not have the right, nor place, to demand to fly every other leg.
Here is the nub of the issue. The co-pilot should not need to demand to fly (on average) every other leg.
Frankly, skippers who withhold handling as a way of making a point simply demonstrate their own poor leadership. If you have a copilot that is clearly unsafe, either by attitude or competence, then it needs sorting.... you could pop a blood vessel (**) on the next sector and if the F/O isn't fit to inherit command then they shouldn't be on the aeroplane. Suspend them or sort them out; whether you are a line trainer or not.
People can learn at any time, it won't always be during formal parts of training. As far as I'm concerned whether its line training or not, as the senior pilot on board you automatically have an informal training responsibility. If a co-pilot is doing something dangerous, or even just less economically, you would provide corrective feedback would you not? And you'd hope the error wouldn't be repeated. That's on the job training, and its part of every Captain's responsibilities.
As the chief training captain at my first airline told me when I completed line training as an F/O: "Now you can really go and get learning". And frankly, he knew what he was about and talked a hell of a lot more sense than some of the people on this thread.
And of course sometimes captains learn things from their F/Os as well, especially if changing type and going left to left and flying with a type experienced F/O. These are actually the only times I've take more than half the sectors on a tour (unless required by low vis ops or similar). If I'm new in the left hand seat I explain to the f/o that I'll being doing 3 out of 4. The challenge here is to retain command authority whilst making good use of the expert knowledge from the F/O.
But likewise if I get a new f/o not long out of line training then I'll give them as many extra legs as they want. I generally make them do 1 a day as PNF to keep up to speed on those duties as well, but apart from that, "fill yer boots".
** as an aside, much of my airline experience has included flying with very low hour co pilots, and frankly quality training beats raw hours hands down. We had a guy about a week out of line training conduct a triple diversion in pretty bad weather after his skipper collapsed medically. My point being that the aircraft have multiple crew for a reason, carrying someone around for days (or weeks!) whilst you hamfistedly bludgeon them into submission by witholding handling is an act of self righteousness your passengers might one day regret.
pb
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The co-pilot should not need to demand to fly (on average) every other leg.
The blame, fault, or other could very well be put on either side of the fence, however. That the copilot doesn't fly may be the fault of the captain or copilot, but in any case, the copilot still has no right to every other leg.
Convention dictates that the operating load is shared, and in most cases, it is. One shouldn't be so fast as the bulk of the posters in this thread to assume that the copilot is owed something, or that the captain is at fault in the event a copilot isn't doing the flying.
I'd note too, that I'm familiar with some types of operations in which one may go the first year or two or more without hardly touching the controls, and this is perfectly acceptable in those types of situations.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Away
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very simple. The captain works for the operator. So if the FOM (OM-A) requires that he should give the controls to the FO for at least 50 or 75% he must follow that rule.
If the situation is not safe it should be pointed out to the Chief or the training manager or the safety pilot and resolved. There are ways of fixing substandard performance for the FOs (or Captains of course)
The captain does not own the aircraft. He just operates it according to the FOM of the company and the JARs or FARs or whatever...
So, if the company requires the 50/50 or at least 25% rule, that is exactly what he must follow. It is the Captains responsibility to point out if the FO is not up to standard (and since he is not an instructor and since it it not a training flight, he does not need to instruct the FO). He has all the right to take over controls at any moment. But he can not deliberately brake FOM rules of the company. Worst case he can decide not to fly with the FO in question due to substandard performance in the future.
Then it is up to the training dept to fix the problem.
If you are the Chief (I assume), you should talk to the Captain why he doesn't follow the requirements written in the FOM of the company. I'm sure he will explain you his reasons why he thought that the FO should not be at the controls.
Very poor CRM on both sides.
LC
If the situation is not safe it should be pointed out to the Chief or the training manager or the safety pilot and resolved. There are ways of fixing substandard performance for the FOs (or Captains of course)
The captain does not own the aircraft. He just operates it according to the FOM of the company and the JARs or FARs or whatever...
So, if the company requires the 50/50 or at least 25% rule, that is exactly what he must follow. It is the Captains responsibility to point out if the FO is not up to standard (and since he is not an instructor and since it it not a training flight, he does not need to instruct the FO). He has all the right to take over controls at any moment. But he can not deliberately brake FOM rules of the company. Worst case he can decide not to fly with the FO in question due to substandard performance in the future.
Then it is up to the training dept to fix the problem.
If you are the Chief (I assume), you should talk to the Captain why he doesn't follow the requirements written in the FOM of the company. I'm sure he will explain you his reasons why he thought that the FO should not be at the controls.
Very poor CRM on both sides.
LC
Guppy
Your description of your FO paints a picture of overwhelming incompetance in the right hand seat.......so I have two questions
1) If you had dropped dead midflight on a nasty weather day, would this person be able to safely land the aircraft, something the passengers should be able to depend on ? If not how are you properly exercising your authority as PIC by allowing the situation to continue ?
2) Why did you not simply exercise your captains discretion and refuse to depart with this individual in the right hand seat ? After all in an earlier post you related how you refused to fly with a overbearing and abusive Captain ?
Your description of your FO paints a picture of overwhelming incompetance in the right hand seat.......so I have two questions
1) If you had dropped dead midflight on a nasty weather day, would this person be able to safely land the aircraft, something the passengers should be able to depend on ? If not how are you properly exercising your authority as PIC by allowing the situation to continue ?
2) Why did you not simply exercise your captains discretion and refuse to depart with this individual in the right hand seat ? After all in an earlier post you related how you refused to fly with a overbearing and abusive Captain ?
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 1st Sep 2010 at 04:14.
, he was born in the left seat.
Nope just old school.
If I have a good FO that's nice (as long as he is properly deferential) but if I get a weak FO I have no responsibility to train him (as was clearly stated in an earlier post) I will simply tell him not to touch anything because, well you know, I am so good I don't really need an FO....
In his world CRM means Captain Remains Masterfull
If I have a good FO that's nice (as long as he is properly deferential) but if I get a weak FO I have no responsibility to train him (as was clearly stated in an earlier post) I will simply tell him not to touch anything because, well you know, I am so good I don't really need an FO....
In his world CRM means Captain Remains Masterfull
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the Captain's decision as to who does the flying...always has been, always will be.
Latest CRM nonsense notwithstanding.
However, I normally give away much of the flying...more time to read the newspaper.
Actually, I think he's a flight engineer.
You know the type, rambles on incessantly.
Latest CRM nonsense notwithstanding.
However, I normally give away much of the flying...more time to read the newspaper.
Please BPF,
Guppy was never an FO , he was born in the left seat.
Guppy was never an FO , he was born in the left seat.
You know the type, rambles on incessantly.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy:
You're chasing the point that F/O must always without exception have a certain amount of legs like the famous knight chased his windmills. Does anyone without a mental disorder actually think that a totally worthless pilot (like the one you nicely described) are supposed to even continue flying, and even less b in control of the plane? And who's actually letting him to do so in "his" aeroplane?
The point of more interest would be, and also the thread point, that a normal or above average F/O got banned from touching the controls. The blame for this can be discussed and i enjoy reading your posts. It seems though as some captains have got very sensistive toes that a simple F/O or less experienced F/C should stay well clear of
The thread shows the sides of "management by fear" that are going on in many companies. Where i am it's further up the ladder than captains the fear tactics are going on. My impression is often that a boss/captain that have a great need to repeatedly to state his position does that as a lack of natural leadership talent. It's a way of realizing that one cannot solve it well so it's time to take the second best route and just pull rank loud and clear. Of course that's better than inverting the cockpit gradient but it's far from the best solution. Most F/O:s can normally sort out who's the boss in the cockpit easily by just tilting the head and count bars on the shoulder, if less than on the other guy then he's/she's the boss, tadaa
I also get to wonder with the stories about the horrible F/O i've heard how it's so hard to even get an answer from companies when applying. Are the HR-departmens really doing a good job here?
A few captains I've flew with (of course not many) has been horrible at flying, the pax must be spilling their whisky the whole leg and it's not a cloud or gusty wind in the area. The fun part is that they are often the more nervous types when they are not in control. Are one judging others based on their own abilities?
All the best - T
You're chasing the point that F/O must always without exception have a certain amount of legs like the famous knight chased his windmills. Does anyone without a mental disorder actually think that a totally worthless pilot (like the one you nicely described) are supposed to even continue flying, and even less b in control of the plane? And who's actually letting him to do so in "his" aeroplane?
The point of more interest would be, and also the thread point, that a normal or above average F/O got banned from touching the controls. The blame for this can be discussed and i enjoy reading your posts. It seems though as some captains have got very sensistive toes that a simple F/O or less experienced F/C should stay well clear of
The thread shows the sides of "management by fear" that are going on in many companies. Where i am it's further up the ladder than captains the fear tactics are going on. My impression is often that a boss/captain that have a great need to repeatedly to state his position does that as a lack of natural leadership talent. It's a way of realizing that one cannot solve it well so it's time to take the second best route and just pull rank loud and clear. Of course that's better than inverting the cockpit gradient but it's far from the best solution. Most F/O:s can normally sort out who's the boss in the cockpit easily by just tilting the head and count bars on the shoulder, if less than on the other guy then he's/she's the boss, tadaa
I also get to wonder with the stories about the horrible F/O i've heard how it's so hard to even get an answer from companies when applying. Are the HR-departmens really doing a good job here?
A few captains I've flew with (of course not many) has been horrible at flying, the pax must be spilling their whisky the whole leg and it's not a cloud or gusty wind in the area. The fun part is that they are often the more nervous types when they are not in control. Are one judging others based on their own abilities?
All the best - T