Greedy captains who won't let you fly

[DFC]

So the co-pilot did not do a take-off for a whole year - and you blame the Captain alone?

What ever happened to the 3 take-off and landings in the last 90 days?

What happened to the requirement for an operator to keep an check on crew currency?

Did an alarm bell not ring inside the co-pilot's head 91 days after they had done their last take-off or landing?

Most companies that operate multi-crew require a 50/50 split unless special airports or conditions dictate that it is a Captain only take-off or landing.

The main reason for that is legality and the 90 day rule.

I would not employ that FO because they simply don't know the basics.

They were willing to operate illegally rather than say anything.

As someone said earlier did this also apply to busting minima, carrying defects, field lengths and 100 other issues?

If the original poster is a manager then they also benefited from saving the cost of having to fly this co-pilot in a sim or with a TRI.

If the company told them to fly on a 10 day trip away when their medical was due to be done would they say "sure no problem"?

[falconeasydriver]

Sweet mother of.........

I thought attitudes like those portrayed by SNS3Guppy, Green Cactus, and to a lesser extent olster disappeared shortly after..well, you know what I mean.
Olster, you may have tried to give the impression of broaching the middle ground, but comments like

However....at the end of the day it is the captain's licence that is potentially on the line if it goes wrong even on a normal day -this should be known by all parties -ie a sector given away is not a 'right.'

Do very little to advance that particular thought.
The very notion that its the Captains License thats on the line misses the essential point that its everyones livelihood/neck/life that matters..and shows by inference or design that you have missed the point.
2 heads are better than one, command or PIC is about management of your resources, its certainly not about the PIC having the attitude of "gear up and shutup sonny"

SNS3Guppy, whilst I agree with the basic premise of the responsibilities of the PIC, again comments such as

The sheer arrogance of assuming that you'll get every other leg, or that you should get every other leg, or that you're owed anything in that cockpit, is dead wrong. This has nothing to do with CRM. CRM can go on quite perfectly regardless of who is talking on the radio, and regardless of who is manipulating the controls.

If you are the copilot, you are not owed every other leg, nor do you have any such right. You have a privilege at the discretion of the Captain. The captain is the pilot in command, not you.

Merely highlight an approach of a bygone era and bely an ingrained attitude? its certainly not arrogant to want to fly a sector in turn, within of course the limitations set down in the Ops manual, not as you would assert in relation to someone who couldn't be trusted with a wet noodle....perhaps the command decision in that case would have been to highlight their deficiencies and get it addressed?

Sadly, this attitude seems to be far more prevalent in the corporate world than the airlines. It is also a reflection IMHO of the personality types attracted to the more varied and at times less strictly regulated area of operation.
Corporate has more than its fair of these types...quite simply they can get away with it, as they tend not be subject to the standardization and/or the checks and balances that you will find in any decent sized airline operation.
The F/O in question needed to speak up, he needed to find a way to utilize his communication skills in such a way to impress upon the PIC that he was not comfortable/happy with the situation....
It would appear ostensibly that in SNS3Guppy and Greencactus's cockpit, he would at the very least have recieved a lukewarm reception

[FlyMD]

Among the many duties of a captain is making sure that his FO is a competent and adequately trained replacement for the pilot in command. Of course the mission of moving the airplane and its passenger safely, economically and comfortably comes first.

A pilot who cannot balance these priorities, i.e. operate safely while still giving his FO adequate time at controls, is in the wrong job altogether.

However,if the FO, despite best efforts from himself and the captain, cannot be trusted to adequately steer the aircraft, then the FO is in the wrong job, and should be removed immediately!

Sometimes it will happen that as a captain, you choose to perform a leg as PF that normally would have been attributed to the FO. Explaining the reason for this decision to the FO in a thorough manner is an important duty of the commander: some day said FO will be confronted with the same decision, and if he is not able to make that decision based on reasonable criteria, you will have failed him badly.

It's not rocket science, people.....

[ehwatezedoing]

So SNS3Guppy and Green Cactus what are you doing if your SOP dictate a 50/50 policy between Capt and F/O ?
You just toss it aside !?
And I'm not talking about this lame excuse of having to fly with incompetent first officers. It's up to you to bump up their "competences"

As FlyMD wrote:

However,if the FO, despite best efforts from himself and the captain, cannot be trusted to adequately steer the aircraft, then the FO is in the wrong job, and should be removed immediately!

[NuName]

Reading some of these posts makes my guts roll over, what do some of these guy's do in thier spare time, walk on water. We fly airplanes for christs sake, thats all. It requires a skill, sure, then so do lots of things. Lighten up, even with your 4 bars your still a mortal. Makes me wonder where these "Captain Bligh's" got their breaks.

[SNS3Guppy]

Among the many duties of a captain is making sure that his FO is a competent and adequately trained replacement for the pilot in command.

This is patently untrue.

The duty of the pilot in command is to take final responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight, and to ensure the flight is operated legally and safely.

The duty of a training department is to ensure that the First Officer is capable of performing his duties.

I was once told point blank by a copilot that my job was to make him a captain. I very quickly assured him that while I was a qualified line training captain, I wasn't being paid for that role, nor was it in my job description in my assignment at that time, and no...my job most assuredly was not to make him a captain.

A pilot who cannot balance these priorities, i.e. operate safely while still giving his FO adequate time at controls, is in the wrong job altogether.

Absolutely wrong. Generally one allows the first officer to fly every other leg, but there is nothing mandatory about this, and there is no reason for the first officer to expect it. It's not the first officer's command, nor the first officer's airplane. Ultimate authority for the outcome of the flight doesn't belong to the first officer, but to the captain. It's his airplane. He owes no duty to the first officer to let the first officer taxi, take off, land, or fly.

In most cases, sharing legs is just fine, but this is never an obligation.

It's up to you to bump up their "competences"

It most certainly is NOT. That's the function of a training department and check airmen on the line, as well as individuals who are being specifically paid to train. When I'm not being paid to do any of those things, I'm not going to take on or assume those extra duties, especially for no pay. I'm not going to assume the liability of being an instructor when my job isn't to instruct. I don't have that obligation, nor that expectation, and in point of fact, I'm not permitted to do so unless it's a company assignment.

I am a fully qualified instructor. I hold a check airman endorsement and letter from the FAA. When I'm acting in the capacity of either of those roles, all good and well; I'll do what's required and what's best for the student, the company, the aircraft, and the operation. When I'm not assigned to those duties, neither you, nor anyone else, has any right nor expectation that I will mentor you, teach you, or that I'm obligated in any way, shape, or form to make you anything but what you're employed to be. Period.

That's not bad CRM. That's not bad form. That's the way it is in the light of day. Being a PIC does not imply one has a duty to turn other's in the cockpit into a PIC. It simply does not work that way. There is no regulation which supports such a concept. Only if the operator assigns and employs a captain to do so, has the captain any business attempting to help turn a copilot into a captain. End of story.

So SNS3Guppy and Green Cactus what are you doing if your SOP dictate a 50/50 policy between Capt and F/O ?

I've probably flown for more operators thus far in my career than you'll ever see in your lifetime, and in a far more diverse background of operations, too. I fly internationally, and have done for a number of years. I've yet to see any operator that mandates that the copilot flies every other leg. In fact, every operation for which I've ever worked, and every operation with which I've ever been acquainted, has made the policy of splitting legs to be at the captain's discretion.

Presently I operate globally, and my employer has a very firm policy reinforced with memos, notes, and clear language in the company General Operations Manual, which states that the copilot should have no expectation to fly, and that it's at the captain's discretion. Period.

In practice, most of the time, flights are split every other leg. However, flight into special use airports, short runways, low weather conditions, gusting crosswinds, slick runways, or any other circumstance that the captain feels he should fly, the captain flies. Period. If that means flying 2 or more legs in a row, or taking a leg out of "turn," so be it.

You're telling me your operation actually has a policy that says the copilot WILL fly every other leg? Now THAT's stupidity.

I thought attitudes like those portrayed by SNS3Guppy, Green Cactus, and to a lesser extent olster disappeared shortly after..well, you know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. Come right out and say it, if you can.

Attitudes that the pilot in command is really the pilot in command? You find me a licensing agency on the planet earth which provides pilot licenses or certificates which says otherwise. Disappeared? No, it's the law, and it's universal, whether it's in an airline cockpit, military cockpit, corporate cockpit, or otherwise. The pilot in command is, in fact, the pilot in command.

You find me a policy or regulation which stipulates that the copilot WILL fly every other leg. I've never seen one. You can't find one.

You'll find plenty of policies which suggest, not mandate, that the copilot flies every other leg at the discretion of the captain. You think this is poor cockpit management? Explain that to the airline, corporate department, defense department, or other agency which has the policy, then.

2 heads are better than one, command or PIC is about management of your resources, its certainly not about the PIC having the attitude of "gear up and shutup sonny"

Nobody here has suggested any such thing, in any way, shape, nor form. Not remotely so.

Whether a copilot flies every other leg or not has no bearing on a smooth running, professional cockpit. Whether a captain allows a copilot to fly a given leg has nothing to do with accepting input, listening, following procedure, adhering to checklists, or operating safely.

Again, flying every other leg is not a right. It's a privilege.

2 heads are generally better than one, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with flying every other leg. Two heads can still be better than one regardless of who flies the leg, and if the captain flies three legs in a row, then two heads can still be better than one.

You're assuming facts not in evidence, reading into the script that which hasn't been said, and you're making things up. Stick to the facts. The fact is, nobody said anything that could possibly be construed as "gear up and shut up, sonny," except of course, you.

Guys what happened to the idea that up front you have two professional pilots working together for a common aim, the safe operation and carriage of passengers from A to B.

Nothing has happened to that idea, and nobody, least of all myself, has suggested anything to the contrary.

Such an idea, however, has nothing to do with who flies the next leg.

You don't understand the difference?

In my cockpit the First Officer carries as much responsibility as me, I dont want a co-pilot who thinks that as I roll off the end of the runway he is going to fold his arms and say, it's nothing to do with me Captain, how is this idea breeding Captains for the future.

Nobody wants a copilot that folds his arms as you roll off the end of the runway, but that has no bearing on this discussion, and is irrelevant to the topic at hand: flying every other leg. Further, nobody has suggested any such thing, except you.

In your cockpit, the First Officer does not share as much responsibility as you, if you hold a pilot certificate issued by any governing body on the planet earth. You tell me which governing body provides such a responsibility to the second in command, that it requires of the pilot in command. The fact is that the PIC has the final authority, and the ultimate authority and responsibility for the flight. Not the SIC.

A SIC does have a responsibility, but it is not commensurate with that of the PIC, regardless of the department, agency, nation, airline, department, or company for whom you work. No licensing agency, be it FAA, CAA, or other, provides the same authority or responsibility for the SIC that is required of the PIC. If you think otherwise, you are either very, very new to the cockpit, or don't understand the regulations which govern you.

Take a long look in the mirror gentlemen....you wanted CRM, ...you wanted to hire 200hr marshmellows, passing on experienced pilots because you couldn't control them...

Now you got 200hr punks in the right seat armed with CRM telling you how to fly...you made your beds.....now you get to sleep in it, for years, and years, and years....

I certainly didn't want 200 hour pilots in favor of experience, but that's not my decision.

I certainly do want CRM, or any of the other iterations that are present today. Human factors is a critical part of cockpit operation in a crew environment, and resource management is still a crucial part of cockpit operation even in a single pilot cockpit.

A 200 hour pilot, or a 700 hour pilot attempting to make demands, however, especially demands regarding flying every other leg, is neither a necessity of human factors nor CRM, and is out of line. A request, and a discussion about the copilot's needs, sure. No problem. A demand or expectation on the part of the copilot? Not allowed.

[KirkyMS]

Sir, i´m deeply sorry, but you definitely have the wrong attitude and should change from the cockpit to the next lawyer´s office asap

Most likely you can get money there for simply doing a standard job without extras ...

[Big Pistons Forever]

SN3Guppy


I find your attitude very sad

Quote "When I'm not assigned to those duties, neither you, nor anyone else, has any right nor expectation that I will mentor you, teach you, or that I'm obligated in any way, shape, or form to make you anything but what you're employed to be. Period." Uquote

You were not born a captain. I find it hard to believe you made command only flying with captains who took the attitude quoted above and that it was simply the training departments responsibilty to develop you for command and not theirs. I bet a lot of your Captains went out of their way to get you ready for your command a service you state you are unwilling to give to your FO's.....

[SNS3Guppy]

Sir, i´m deeply sorry, but you definitely have the wrong attitude and should change from the cockpit to the next lawyer´s office asap

You're unable to refute anything that I've said, then? Very well.

Poster after poster has whined about an evil, archaic attitude, yet every single statement I've made on the subject has been factual, and correct; hardly my opinion.

Can you find a flight department, airline, organization, agency, company, or other which has a policy to the contrary? A regulatory body which has a different concept or definition? You cannot.

What you have then, is a failure to comprehend. Work on that.

[Chesty Morgan]

A pilot who cannot balance these priorities, i.e. operate safely while still giving his FO adequate time at controls, is in the wrong job altogether.

A first officer once started telling me how he was going to fly my aeroplane and what speeds he was going to fly. All of it non-standard.

I pointed out to him that as I was the captain he would be flying the aeroplane the way I wanted him to and that would be in compliance with standard operating procedures, using standard speeds and the way he was trained and paid to fly it. This is how I expected him to do it accepting that occasionally a departure from sops or standard speeds might be required it was still my decision whether we did or didn't.

He started arguing with me about the best way to do this, that and the other and that HIS speeds were better than the standard speeds. This is whilst the passengers were boarding.

My response was that it may well be the case that his way of doing things might be better but that is not the way the company wanted us to operate. Also as a first officer he did not have the authority to depart from what is standard. However, if I was willing to listen to his suggestions.

He then stated, very matter of fact, that it was his sector and, therefore, he could do whatever he wanted or felt like. He didn't fly any sectors that day. He didn't fly any sectors the next time he flew with me and so on and so forth.

He eventually got the hint, apologised and his attitude, at least with me, has changed and he's become a pretty good all round operator.

This first officer had decent handling skills and was experienced with the company and the aircraft. However, he had a, very, very poor attitude.

So FlyMD, would it have been better for me to let him do whatever the hell he wanted to with my aeroplane and 150 fare paying passengers?

[FlyMD]

Chesty, I don't understand your question, sorry. How can you take my statement about adequate time at controls, and apply that to a totally unrelated story about an FO who doesn't understand the concept of "chain of command"????

Being at controls and being in command are two completely different things, surely you understand that?! I'm gonna assume you didn't take time to read my post properly..

Guppy: delegating your FO's training and recency to the "training department"? Do you really work in GA?

[SNS3Guppy]

I had a similar experience with a first officer. I handled it in a similar manner. When I discussed it with the Chief Pilot and the head of the training department for that operator, I was told in no uncertain terms that I shouldn't have permitted the first officer to fly.

In fact, I was told that I should have delayed the flight and had a different first officer put on board. I was told that had I contacted the chief pilot's office at the time, they'd have fired the first officer and replaced him, no questions asked.

I didn't feel that was necessary, nor would that have been my preference to handle the matter. In fact, that's not how I handled it, though I found it very interesting that both the Chief Pilot (and assistant Chief Pilot) and Director of Training were very unified in their decisive view of the situation.

Guppy: delegating your FO's training and recency to the "training department"? Do you really work in GA?

I surely do, and I see no difference between any segments of the industry in which I have worked, be it corporate, charter, military, airline, cargo, ambulance, government contract, etc.

The pilot in command is always pilot in command. The good-feeling notion that the captain is there to train the copilot is superfluous and without merit, save for a particular, specific job in which the captain is so charged (and hopefully so paid).

Now, I've worked for fractional operators and charter operators in which the new-hire was sent to Flight Safety International, or CAE Simuflite, and type rated, or given an initial course, and hired as a F/O. In such a case, when it's time to upgrade, the F/O will undergo upgrade training. If the company wants me to train the F/O for upgrade, then that's fine. Give me the designation, the specific training and checkride to hold the official qualification for that company in that position, and then pay me accordingly...and put it in my job description.

Being a captain doesn't make one a training captain, and unless the company is going to pay for it, don't assume it's my job. It's not.

You may want to be a captain. That I may be a captain doesn't automatically mean I'm obligated to make you a captain, teach you to be a captain, or do anything other than my job. My job doesn't automatically assume that I'm obligated to train you. I have every right to expect that you'll show up in the cockpit ready and trained, and capable. If you're not, that's not my problem.

Likewise, don't show up assuming that I owe you the next leg. I don't.

Chesty, I don't understand your question, sorry. How can you take my statement about adequate time at controls, and apply that to a totally unrelated story about an FO who doesn't understand the concept of "chain of command"????

Chesty gave you an excellent example. The first officer didn't deserve to fly the next leg, and consequently wasn't allowed to do so. That's about as on-point as you can possibly get. Moreover, it was the correct call.

[johns7022]

Maybe some realities should be included in this discussion.

- Anyone here flying two crew with no auto pilot...- no
- Anyone here think that the FO, 'flying the plane' on autopilot is really doing anything more then being watched by the capt who will step in an take over - no

Personally I am comfortable enough in the plane to let who ever is flying, do all the flying knowing that I am ahead of him enough to take over if I have too...that said...let him fly....10,000 hours later he won't care anymore then I do who moves the heading bug....

To take a chill pill, let the kid wiggle the controls, take over if you have too...

The caveat..there are times when I feel I need to get something done and don't feel like being a flight instructor...so I step in on that hand flown SID, where things happen too fast for the FO...don't need an alt bust....or give the passengers std rate turns and F16 climbs all day...

[falconeasydriver]

OK SNS3Guppy, at the risk of banging my head against the proverbial brick wall, let me be specific....

No, I don't know what you mean. Come right out and say it, if you can.

When it was realized within the aviation community at large that a steep cockpit gradient was completely at odds with a safe and effective cockpit environment....the late 70's to early 80's if I'm not mistaken.
Of course in this instance, I am assuming 2 or 3 suitably qualified and able individuals in their respective seats.

Then this little gem,

You find me a licensing agency on the planet earth which provides pilot licenses or certificates which says otherwise. Disappeared? No, it's the law, and it's universal, whether it's in an airline cockpit, military cockpit, corporate cockpit, or otherwise. The pilot in command is, in fact, the pilot in command.

Where on earth did I suggest that? however, I suspect that YOUR interpretation of the rules and regulations relating to your duties and responsibilities would fall foul of a more modern mindset.
The impression you give SNS3Guppy is exactly the "gear up and shut up" that I described.
Perhaps though in retrospect, I am being unfair? perhaps the impression you are attempting to convey differs from my narrow assessment here on PPrune?
Your language however would suggest otherwise, it suggests a steep gradient, an autocratic authoritarian philosophy..perhaps trained into you from a military background?
In any case, whilst undoubtedly you are a very experienced aviator and I'm sure, will quite happily inform me of how wrong I am.....the views in respect of the tone, context, and how you have expressed them IMHO have no place on a modern flight-deck.
I speak from the lowly position of a pilot who has operated narrow and wide-body jets in a training capacity in both the airline and corporate environment. I also spent some time teaching guys how to fly and fight in fastjets, so I have some relevant experience myself.
My experience however would suggest that you SNS3Guppy are completely certain of your position, my views in your opinion (I suspect) are merely a fluffy huggie feely ways of screwing things up..when whats really needed is a take charge guy in front to sort it out

Chesty, well done to you sir...and quite right too, showing us all that its not just the preserve of the leftseat to be autocratic and arrogant

[Chesty Morgan]

FlyMD,

A pilot who cannot balance these priorities, i.e. operate safely while still giving his FO adequate time at controls, is in the wrong job altogether.

My point? That flight would not have operated safely had I allowed the F/O to be pilot flying.

According to you however, I am in the wrong job because I didn't allow him his even share of flying duties. Duties which he, and others, expect to be given as a right.

[FlyMD]

Ok, I see you're not interested in debating the issue, only in "winning" the argument, Guppy; otherwise you would not deliberately misunderstand my posts. I'll let my first post stand as is and retire from this p#ssing contest.

Chesty, nope, did not say or imply what you suggest. 50/50 time at controls is a good policy, the captain however overrides that policy if he has sound reasons. Failure to lead an immature FO is a different matter altogether, not the subject of this thread.

Bye now

[SNS3Guppy]

When it was realized within the aviation community at large that a steep cockpit gradient was completely at odds with a safe and effective cockpit environment....the late 70's to early 80's if I'm not mistaken.
Of course in this instance, I am assuming 2 or 3 suitably qualified and able individuals in their respective seats.

Which has nothing, of course, to do with who flies the next leg. You make far too many assumptions.

Ok, I see you're not interested in debating the issue, only in "winning" the argument, Guppy; otherwise you would not deliberately misunderstand my posts. I'll let my first post stand as is and retire from this p#ssing contest.

I'm not interested in debating, but I am interested in the truth. That you'll walk away and leave it with your first post is well, as your first post was flawed. Asked, and answered.

The impression you give SNS3Guppy is exactly the "gear up and shut up" that I described.

That's not the first time in this thread that you're dead wrong, but probably also not the last.

Your language however would suggest otherwise, it suggests a steep gradient, an autocratic authoritarian philosophy..perhaps trained into you from a military background?

Ah, just as I thought. Wrong again.

My experience however would suggest that you SNS3Guppy are completely certain of your position, my views in your opinion (I suspect) are merely a fluffy huggie feely ways of screwing things up..when whats really needed is a take charge guy in front to sort it out

That really depends. If your views are that the F/O is owed and obligated every other leg bar nothing, then yes, your views are fluffie huggie feely ways of screwing things up.

What's needed is a first officer that exercises the same decorum that's required of the captain, and who doesn't demand what isn't his.

[Chesty Morgan]

FlyMD, I'm a bit confused.

You say I'm in the wrong job if I allow the F/O adequate time at the controls but I'm unable to operate safely. Then you go on to say that it's ok to not let him have a go if I have good reason, one of which is being unable to operate safely if I allowed him to operate as pilot flying.

Which is it?

[DFC]

I agree with part of what is being said here.

A pilot in the left seat who is not a qualified instructor and/or who is not there to teach should not be doing so. Far too many line captains try to teach the co-pilot some neat tricks that the line trainers have to unteach.

As has been said training is 100% the responsibility of the training department.

However, I would highly recoemnd that everyone in the left seat think long and hard about everything that they do so that when they are operating the pilot in the right seat will look over and think "I want to be like that pilot" rather than the situation of "When I am a Captain I won't do that".

While the PIC can dictate that the co-pilot will not fly the leg (or any leg), they are obliged to ensure the co-pilot remains current and also legal.

Otherwise they don't let the co-pilot fly for some time and when they do "offer" the leg the co-pilot says "sorry but I have not flown for a while and in the interests of safety I would prefer not to.

Explain to your chief pilot why they had to pay for unexpected co-pilot training and I can guarantee some specific guidance from the company regarding the importance (in terms of both cost and safety) of keeping the co-pilot current when possible.

[learner001]

"I am this…"
"I am that…"
"My cockpit…"
"My aircraft…"
"My aeroplane…" etc...

Pretty sad, indeed…

nuf said...

Kind regards, learner . . .