C R M in private flying . . . . . .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C R M in private flying . . . . . .
Following on from the discussion on "Senior Moments" in another thread . . . . .
I'll start the ball rolling. I quite often invite front-seat passengers to "have a go" on the control column (safe height and location, of course !). Most think it great fun. But I also make it quite clear when they must touch NOTHING ! ! This topic has arisen from Pace's hair-raising tale on the other thread.
Q. Multi-crew flights need CRM; single crew flights need "no-touch" passengers ?
Discuss
Discuss
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have 3 rules that every front seat passenger must agree to before flight:
1. Do not touch anything unless you’re invited too.
2. No puking.
3. No screaming.
Regards,
White Bear.
1. Do not touch anything unless you’re invited too.
2. No puking.
3. No screaming.
Regards,
White Bear.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think CRM can be a serious issue in GA flying - if you have two qualified pilots.
Not so much on aircraft control when airborne - the two are hardly likely to be fighting over the controls - but in the go/no-go decision before the flight, and in exercising various options w.r.t. weather ahead when airborne.
I've done some stupid things when flying with another qualified pilot - in these cases it was an instructor apparently much better qualified than I was (I am not and have never been an instructor; not even a CRI).
I remember flying into a SE UK airport once, and flying the last half an hour in IMC, with the ILS flown through the bottom bit of what turned out to be a huge very dark CB. Pretty damn difficult. Then, just to make sure I didn't go to sleep, a circling approach to land (yeah I really love doing a RH circling approach especially in these character-forming conditions). The wind at 1000ft was about 60kt across the runway, within limits on the surface. I let him land the plane.
If I had been alone, I would have taken exactly one look at the MSLP chart and popped down a local bar instead (it was in a pretty pleasant European city).
A really stupid abdication of responsibility, thinking that the other bloke knew something about weather that I didn't know.
And I've done this kind of thing more than once. Get an instructor in the plane, even as an informal passenger, and I end up taxiing down the wrong taxiway, almost guaranteed
I think a lot of pilots chuck away a lot of what would be their normal planning decision rules when they fly with somebody who they think knows what he's doing. Might even happen with two plain PPLs because each may think that the other one would "say something" but neither says anything to the other.
The other bit of "CRM" which is really crucial is to keep decisionmaking in the cockpit, meaning do not let ATC push you into a corner. It's happened too many times. If there is some serious weather 20nm ahead and ATC will not grant a 30 left/right etc despite repeated requests (never had this happen in the UK) then declare a pan or a mayday and just get on with it. Enroute ATC have radar and they are paid to sort it out. And if refused a landing (e.g. due to lack of PPR) and you are on the minimum fuel to alternate, declare a mayday at the slightest delay and land. Work with ATC but do not be afraid to make the key decisions.
Not so much on aircraft control when airborne - the two are hardly likely to be fighting over the controls - but in the go/no-go decision before the flight, and in exercising various options w.r.t. weather ahead when airborne.
I've done some stupid things when flying with another qualified pilot - in these cases it was an instructor apparently much better qualified than I was (I am not and have never been an instructor; not even a CRI).
I remember flying into a SE UK airport once, and flying the last half an hour in IMC, with the ILS flown through the bottom bit of what turned out to be a huge very dark CB. Pretty damn difficult. Then, just to make sure I didn't go to sleep, a circling approach to land (yeah I really love doing a RH circling approach especially in these character-forming conditions). The wind at 1000ft was about 60kt across the runway, within limits on the surface. I let him land the plane.
If I had been alone, I would have taken exactly one look at the MSLP chart and popped down a local bar instead (it was in a pretty pleasant European city).
A really stupid abdication of responsibility, thinking that the other bloke knew something about weather that I didn't know.
And I've done this kind of thing more than once. Get an instructor in the plane, even as an informal passenger, and I end up taxiing down the wrong taxiway, almost guaranteed
I think a lot of pilots chuck away a lot of what would be their normal planning decision rules when they fly with somebody who they think knows what he's doing. Might even happen with two plain PPLs because each may think that the other one would "say something" but neither says anything to the other.
The other bit of "CRM" which is really crucial is to keep decisionmaking in the cockpit, meaning do not let ATC push you into a corner. It's happened too many times. If there is some serious weather 20nm ahead and ATC will not grant a 30 left/right etc despite repeated requests (never had this happen in the UK) then declare a pan or a mayday and just get on with it. Enroute ATC have radar and they are paid to sort it out. And if refused a landing (e.g. due to lack of PPR) and you are on the minimum fuel to alternate, declare a mayday at the slightest delay and land. Work with ATC but do not be afraid to make the key decisions.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: london
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i fly a lot with another ppl and we have often discussed crm training and ppl in ga. Whilst this is not a multi crew environment even in the twin there is always going to some interaction. This may be as you say just in the go no go decisions but in the air there are lots of issues that one will discuss as the flight progresses.
We always discuss how the non flying pilot could help in an emergency and what they could do to help in that event. I have wondered if there was something the ppl flying as p1 in a single pilot craft with another pilot could learn from all the lessons taught for crm in a multi crew setting.
I agree io that often one feels differently about go no go decisions when more than one reasonably experienced ppl are flying together
We always discuss how the non flying pilot could help in an emergency and what they could do to help in that event. I have wondered if there was something the ppl flying as p1 in a single pilot craft with another pilot could learn from all the lessons taught for crm in a multi crew setting.
I agree io that often one feels differently about go no go decisions when more than one reasonably experienced ppl are flying together
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I think no matter who you fly with its important to take command and act as a Captain. It is easy to fly with someone you consider to be better or more experienced and to wait for them to make decisions.
They make mistakes too. I remember doing a jet recurrent with an examiner who had 30000 hrs on every Boeing made. Apart from being the old type and bombastic he asked me to do a clean landing. Acting as my co-pilot he bugged my VREF at full flap speed. And then shouted because I was 30 kts high on his bugged VREF passing through 200 feet.
I smiled sweetly and commended him on trying to catch me out on VREF with the aircraft clean.
he almost choked on himself when he realised his mistake but I let him off the hook with a way out and earned myself no end of Brownie points
Shared flight in a single pilot aircraft is more a case of knowing who is doing what not who is captain and it is important to clear up with a pre flight briefing on what each pilots duties are. Ie " you operate the radios, select and confirm radio and nav frequencies with me. I will operate all the controls. I will operate the throttles, I will select flap, I will select gear etc. As Captain you must state every function you carry out to me and I will confirm.
On a multi crew aircraft so many functions including throttle, flaps and gear are carried out by the co-pilot, throttles are fine tuned on the takeoff roll etc. so much so that a strict format is used defining those duties.
In the relaxed atmosphere of a light aircraft with two pilot friends extra caution has to be taken regarding who is doing what as that is a recipe for something being missed.
Pace
They make mistakes too. I remember doing a jet recurrent with an examiner who had 30000 hrs on every Boeing made. Apart from being the old type and bombastic he asked me to do a clean landing. Acting as my co-pilot he bugged my VREF at full flap speed. And then shouted because I was 30 kts high on his bugged VREF passing through 200 feet.
I smiled sweetly and commended him on trying to catch me out on VREF with the aircraft clean.
he almost choked on himself when he realised his mistake but I let him off the hook with a way out and earned myself no end of Brownie points
Shared flight in a single pilot aircraft is more a case of knowing who is doing what not who is captain and it is important to clear up with a pre flight briefing on what each pilots duties are. Ie " you operate the radios, select and confirm radio and nav frequencies with me. I will operate all the controls. I will operate the throttles, I will select flap, I will select gear etc. As Captain you must state every function you carry out to me and I will confirm.
On a multi crew aircraft so many functions including throttle, flaps and gear are carried out by the co-pilot, throttles are fine tuned on the takeoff roll etc. so much so that a strict format is used defining those duties.
In the relaxed atmosphere of a light aircraft with two pilot friends extra caution has to be taken regarding who is doing what as that is a recipe for something being missed.
Pace
I've done some stupid things when flying with another qualified pilot
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm struggling to find references but this is a fairly well established phenomenon, called "risk shift" I think. A small group accepts a greater level of risk as a "team" than any of the individuals would on their own.
Even though the co-pilot seemed to do all the work
while the captain sat there looking all important it was very much you are in command if we crash and die at least its your fault My first flight as Captain was a mixture of elation " this ship is mine", puffed out chest etc. to absolute dread that the guy in the right seat was relaxed at the thought that you are boss and if we crash its your fault
But once you fly as a Captain you are a Captain. In that left seat it doesnt matter who the hell is in the right you are the Captain and when the guy in the right knows that you are the CAPTAIN
if you get my gist.Pace
Last edited by Pace; 2nd Jan 2009 at 23:13.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely endorse everthing in 10540's post above (I don't always agree with him)! It should be printed out and nailed up at every GA club in the country. The only time (so far!) I almost totalled an aeroplane was a lovelly L4 Cub, when, as a low-hours PPL, I gave the landing to an FI of vast experiece (he was also a commercial pilot) who was not tailwheel qualified. I was awsruck by his 'status', but it almost lost us the aeroplane (and maybe our lives). Luckyly I grabbed it back and we just about survived. That Cub, which had seen WW2 service, still flys today. But it almost got demolished on a disused RAF airfield in Yorkshire in the mid '80s due that 'awe' factor.
Even more worrying is the modern tendency for PPLs to consider the radio a primary flight control, and always to be in awe of the man in the darkened room many miles away. CAPTAINCY is what it's about! YOU are in command, and legally accountable. Never forget it!
SSD
Even more worrying is the modern tendency for PPLs to consider the radio a primary flight control, and always to be in awe of the man in the darkened room many miles away. CAPTAINCY is what it's about! YOU are in command, and legally accountable. Never forget it!
SSD
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I fly with another PPL holder I sit on my hands if I'm in the right seat. I will scan for traffic, watch the instruments and listen to the radio but I accept that I am not operating the aircraft. However, that does not stop me doing a thorough flight plan beforehand and helping with the pre flight inspection or filing a flight plan if requested. It is interesting to watch and learn from pilots operating an aircraft type I am qualified to fly. Other than that I use the "You have control, I have control" method to transfer control between pilots. Never felt the need to intervene yet as I have never seen anything dangerous, but it is a valid point to consider what to do if that occurs. It may be useful to have a discussion on exactly who does what while still on the ground beforehand.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 69
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's too many quotes to cut/paste - but I'm not sure I agree with the "Who is *doing* what" principle. I tend to subscribe to the "Who is *responsible* to the authorities for whatever was done".
This brings us right back to "Who is the commander of the aircraft?".
The "You do the radios, I operate the controls" does *sound* a little like PPL's playing at being airline pilots, especially in a single crew aircraft - what difference does it make?
If, for example, left seat physically flies it, right seat does the radio - then right seat tells left seat that you are cleared to enter airspace, or climb to Flight Level nose bleed - but you susbsequently get reported for a level bust or airspace infringement - who will carry the can?
If 100 hour handling pilot suffers an engine failure, sets up perfectly for a field to land in, but 1000 hours "passenger" says, "Hmm, that field over there was better" and 100 hour pilot goes for it - then misses both......who is responsible?
I flew with a guy a couple of months ago. As I *always* do in the particular scenario we were in, I offered him the choice. He elected to be the commander. During a subsequent, genuine, undercarriage failure (Piper Arrow), he left the traffic pattern of the airfield we were at to investigate.
During his investigation, the aircraft climbed into controlled airspace without a clearance. Had we been reported, it would have been his neck on the line. Before you bite me, I was not in a position to help him with a warning.
"Who is *RESPONSIBLE* to the authorities?", is the question that I pose to all my licenced acquaintances.
This brings us right back to "Who is the commander of the aircraft?".
The "You do the radios, I operate the controls" does *sound* a little like PPL's playing at being airline pilots, especially in a single crew aircraft - what difference does it make?
If, for example, left seat physically flies it, right seat does the radio - then right seat tells left seat that you are cleared to enter airspace, or climb to Flight Level nose bleed - but you susbsequently get reported for a level bust or airspace infringement - who will carry the can?
If 100 hour handling pilot suffers an engine failure, sets up perfectly for a field to land in, but 1000 hours "passenger" says, "Hmm, that field over there was better" and 100 hour pilot goes for it - then misses both......who is responsible?
I flew with a guy a couple of months ago. As I *always* do in the particular scenario we were in, I offered him the choice. He elected to be the commander. During a subsequent, genuine, undercarriage failure (Piper Arrow), he left the traffic pattern of the airfield we were at to investigate.
During his investigation, the aircraft climbed into controlled airspace without a clearance. Had we been reported, it would have been his neck on the line. Before you bite me, I was not in a position to help him with a warning.
"Who is *RESPONSIBLE* to the authorities?", is the question that I pose to all my licenced acquaintances.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with Keygrip's comments. If one is flying and the other doing R/T then that isn't really CRM as there is no specific flight oriented goal ascribed to those divisions of tasks and activities.
Without want to teach grandma to suck eggs (what the hell does that mean anyway?) CRM is the acceptance of fallibility and personal limitations, it is a process of situational awareness maintenance, risk mitigation and resource awareness which is just as relevant to single crew situations. In many ways single-crew CRM encapsulates many attributes of basic airmanship, but without the wishy washy platitudes.
Multi-crew ops are effectively an extension to the core fundamentals of single-pilot CRM - additional procedures to help ensure that the flight deck crew have the same situational awareness picture. The allocation of duties and tasks is a means to that end not the end in itself.
The reason in an airliner that the PM (pilot monitoring) handles the R/T, moves the gear, updates the FMC, etc, etc is not just to permit the PF from concentrating on the critical task of monitoring the flight path, but to also keep the PM in the loop. One example is in the cruise, enter icing conditions, it is the PF's responsibility to request anti-ice, the PM's responsibility to switch on anti-ice. This is a trivial activity and would have been much quicker and easier if the PF just flicked the switches himself. But it is more important that both know the state of the aircraft.
So if sharing a flight and wanting to split the tasks I recommend discussing how splitting those tasks will keep both guys in the loop and the sense situational awareness and aircraft state is the same between the 'crew'.
It is part of the JAA ATPL theory. Modern SOPs deal with issue quite well. For example we have criteria that define a stable approach. If we aren't stable then we go-around, no debate. I think the psychology in a modern well run airline is fundamentally sound in this regard. One example from my recent experience was as we approach the top of descent I got weather for the destination, the wind was on just over our tailwind limit and the SCT ceiling was on our circling minima. We decided not to try an approach and to divert prior to the descent. I actually wondered if we had been over cautious, perhaps we should have had a go, a thought that now treat with incredulity.
Without want to teach grandma to suck eggs (what the hell does that mean anyway?) CRM is the acceptance of fallibility and personal limitations, it is a process of situational awareness maintenance, risk mitigation and resource awareness which is just as relevant to single crew situations. In many ways single-crew CRM encapsulates many attributes of basic airmanship, but without the wishy washy platitudes.
Multi-crew ops are effectively an extension to the core fundamentals of single-pilot CRM - additional procedures to help ensure that the flight deck crew have the same situational awareness picture. The allocation of duties and tasks is a means to that end not the end in itself.
The reason in an airliner that the PM (pilot monitoring) handles the R/T, moves the gear, updates the FMC, etc, etc is not just to permit the PF from concentrating on the critical task of monitoring the flight path, but to also keep the PM in the loop. One example is in the cruise, enter icing conditions, it is the PF's responsibility to request anti-ice, the PM's responsibility to switch on anti-ice. This is a trivial activity and would have been much quicker and easier if the PF just flicked the switches himself. But it is more important that both know the state of the aircraft.
So if sharing a flight and wanting to split the tasks I recommend discussing how splitting those tasks will keep both guys in the loop and the sense situational awareness and aircraft state is the same between the 'crew'.
I'm struggling to find references but this is a fairly well established phenomenon, called "risk shift" I think. A small group accepts a greater level of risk as a "team" than any of the individuals would on their own.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, let me say that one of the most pleasurable parts of private flying is sharing that pleasure with other people...and there's nothing wrong with letting another person have a go at flying the airplane.
So far as CRM...I have a policy of performing all checklists challenge and response, all briefings out loud verbally, regardless of whether I'm flying single pilot solo, or in a crew environment with one or more other crewmembers present. Same practices, same procedures. Even if I'm alone I perform the full brief out loud.
I firmly believe this practice and this consistency creates a safer environment. I practice this the same in a Pawnee as I do in a Cessna 172 as I do in 747.
When other pilots or crewmembers are involved, there should always be a clear understanding of what is to be accomplished, by whom, when, and where.
Don't forget that human resources are only one aspect of CRM. Cockpit resource management applies also to the arranging and preparation of charts and flight documents, radio setup, etc. CRM is just as applicable to single pilot operations, VFR or IFR, as it is to a crew cockpit environment.
So far as CRM...I have a policy of performing all checklists challenge and response, all briefings out loud verbally, regardless of whether I'm flying single pilot solo, or in a crew environment with one or more other crewmembers present. Same practices, same procedures. Even if I'm alone I perform the full brief out loud.
I firmly believe this practice and this consistency creates a safer environment. I practice this the same in a Pawnee as I do in a Cessna 172 as I do in 747.
When other pilots or crewmembers are involved, there should always be a clear understanding of what is to be accomplished, by whom, when, and where.
Don't forget that human resources are only one aspect of CRM. Cockpit resource management applies also to the arranging and preparation of charts and flight documents, radio setup, etc. CRM is just as applicable to single pilot operations, VFR or IFR, as it is to a crew cockpit environment.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keygrip and 10540's posts - excellent. Could not agree more with this. I too have fallen into the trap of "the person in the right seat is perceived to be more experienced and for the sake of egos ..... etc etc etc", but .....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last two companys I have worked for who ran single crew ops and multi crew it has been an unwritten rule that its called single ops for a reason. Even if there is a fully qualified pilot sitting in the RHS seat it is still run by the LHS as single crew.
They may off load by asking said person to get ATIS, contact company or fly it for a bit while they sort the NAV out or plates. But during taxi, TO, climb, approach,land and after landing. It is all done single crew with no input from RHS.
Experience has shown that if you knock the pilot out of his flow for the flight there is a decrease in the safety of the flight.
Unless you have a set of SOP's designed for multi crew and the crew is trained in using them you are setting yourself up for potential problems.
They may off load by asking said person to get ATIS, contact company or fly it for a bit while they sort the NAV out or plates. But during taxi, TO, climb, approach,land and after landing. It is all done single crew with no input from RHS.
Experience has shown that if you knock the pilot out of his flow for the flight there is a decrease in the safety of the flight.
Unless you have a set of SOP's designed for multi crew and the crew is trained in using them you are setting yourself up for potential problems.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread was started from another thread where I recounted a near gear up landing In a Seneca five twin that happened to me.
This was into an airfield wih no published instrument approach and only a NDB and DME.
Having gone through all the pre landing checks with low cloud and v poor vis I as the commander had my eyes fixed on the runway numbers for landing.
At that point the aircraft ran back into scud cloud and I told the elderly pilot in the right seat that I was going around.
In that split second as I was still pearing out on my spoken word of go around he reached over and lifted the gear.
At the same time the aircraft came back out of the scud cloud with the numbers visible. I cancelled and elected to land.
It was as I went to flair the aircraft that I glanced down to see all three greens extinguished. I instantly went for full power and a go around.
This was not a case of who was Captain or having someone with more experience in the right seat but an odd mix of single pilot and CRM which in this single pilot aircraft was not defined or communicated and not helped by us both trying to keep the runway numbers in view.
That then took the discussion to the fact that especially with the recession and pilots sharing costs and flying should there be a set structure for PPL CRM in single pilot light aircraft?
At present there is none and the other pilots duties can range from loading the GPS only to as one poster put it playing at Airline pilots.
In PPL flying even during the course of the flight the interaction between the two pilots and the duties carried out can change maybe as one pilot gets bored.
When the going gets rough both pilots making up there own duties and maybe not even communicating those actions can be a recipe for an expensive mistake.
The question maybe should be " should there be a custom made CRM designed for multi crew in light GA single pilot aircraft and what should that be" ?
Pace
This was into an airfield wih no published instrument approach and only a NDB and DME.
Having gone through all the pre landing checks with low cloud and v poor vis I as the commander had my eyes fixed on the runway numbers for landing.
At that point the aircraft ran back into scud cloud and I told the elderly pilot in the right seat that I was going around.
In that split second as I was still pearing out on my spoken word of go around he reached over and lifted the gear.
At the same time the aircraft came back out of the scud cloud with the numbers visible. I cancelled and elected to land.
It was as I went to flair the aircraft that I glanced down to see all three greens extinguished. I instantly went for full power and a go around.
This was not a case of who was Captain or having someone with more experience in the right seat but an odd mix of single pilot and CRM which in this single pilot aircraft was not defined or communicated and not helped by us both trying to keep the runway numbers in view.
That then took the discussion to the fact that especially with the recession and pilots sharing costs and flying should there be a set structure for PPL CRM in single pilot light aircraft?
At present there is none and the other pilots duties can range from loading the GPS only to as one poster put it playing at Airline pilots.
In PPL flying even during the course of the flight the interaction between the two pilots and the duties carried out can change maybe as one pilot gets bored.
When the going gets rough both pilots making up there own duties and maybe not even communicating those actions can be a recipe for an expensive mistake.
The question maybe should be " should there be a custom made CRM designed for multi crew in light GA single pilot aircraft and what should that be" ?
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with Keygrip's comments. If one is flying and the other doing R/T then that isn't really CRM as there is no specific flight oriented goal ascribed to those divisions of tasks and activities.
One should be that in light GA only the handling pilot should touch the controls or engine management, flaps, gear etc.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are using CRM out of context.
What I think you are looking for is a general set of SOP's for two pilots to fly a single pilot aircraft.
The brief to the RHS pax in any dual control aircraft be it qualified or unqualified, commercial or private ops should include a "don't fecking touch anything without me asking you to" part.
Myself I wouldn't dream of touching anything unless the **** was hitting the fan and I could do something about it.(which is very unlikely because I would have highlighted way before there was a need) and then it would be "I have control".
pretty horrible situation to be in PACE I think afterwards I would be in such a state of shock I wouldn't have know what to say to them.
What I think you are looking for is a general set of SOP's for two pilots to fly a single pilot aircraft.
The brief to the RHS pax in any dual control aircraft be it qualified or unqualified, commercial or private ops should include a "don't fecking touch anything without me asking you to" part.
Myself I wouldn't dream of touching anything unless the **** was hitting the fan and I could do something about it.(which is very unlikely because I would have highlighted way before there was a need) and then it would be "I have control".
pretty horrible situation to be in PACE I think afterwards I would be in such a state of shock I wouldn't have know what to say to them.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I think you are looking for is a general set of SOP's for two pilots to fly a single pilot aircraft.
Pace
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of pilots chuck away a lot of what would be their normal planning decision rules when they fly with somebody who they think knows what he's doing. Might even happen with two plain PPLs because each may think that the other one would "say something" but neither says anything to the other.
Btw, I do the same as SNS3, i.e. say everything I do aloud, my first instructor taught me that. He claimed it helps as a sort of 'self-challenge-and-response', and I'd agree.