PF/PNF who's in command ?

[dustyprops]

Slasher, you're drunk mate. Sleep it off and come back tomorrow.

[TACHO]

Our company sops are pretty much set in concrete. there are checks that only the captain does, and checks that only the F/O does. however in supplement to that there are certain actions that are variable depending on who is PF/PNF. Nothing to do with authority, experience or hours.
Capt always orders evactuation and request evac cx from the F/O. That way there is never going to be any confusion, the roles are set. With regards to thrust levers PF puts power on, then removes his hand so the captain can carry out an abort if neccesary, however either PF or PNF may call stop. think it would be a brave man to continue with the takeoff if stop was called. (hard hat on) mind you some of the old boys (dinosaurs) will proably disagree with that.

just make sure that you, as the Commander, keep them PNF for as long as it takes for them to get the message.

Works every time.

Hehe. You should run a CRM course... no really you should. it would be funny. By making sure the Pnf does 'whatever you tell him' when the 'chips are down' you are removing a useful tool that could possibly alleviate a great deal of your workload. might has well have a voice commanded autopilot.

regards all.

Tacho

[fullyspooled]

Dustyprops, I agree completely!

411A, your comments suggest that you come from an era where "ego" ran the show. If indeed you are still flying I would suggest you trim yours back a wee bit - those days have well and truly passed dude!

[jimmyg]

Thanks all, good stuff;

Upon initial review of our FCOM what I found strange was the use of the term CM1 and CM2. I have always been under the impression that their can only be one CM, I am sure it is just semantics.

I am far from being a control freak and all for even distribution of our work load. I have always been comfortable allowing my right half to take on as much responsiblitity as is practical and to promote active communication and teamwork.

With that said it is my firm belief that there can only be one Captain.


Without a proper order you can only have kaous.

[411A]

No trimming needed, fullyspooled...you would be surprised at the number of smaller companies whose managements share my views completely.
And as for my First Officers now, they are so experienced that I could go for a snooze, and everything is done to perfection.
After all, we have a professional Flight Engineer to do the heavy lifting...superb arrangement....never leave base without one.

[Dream Land]

As per Airbus SOP, the captain is always CM1 on the ground.

As with my company, if CM2 is the PF, he will take over on the runway. PF sets the power, Captain guards thrust levers for take off.

[latetonite]

Ok, who is doing what, and when, that is company SOP`s. The question "Who is in command" clearly indicates that it is not you for a while...

[Dani]

Originally posted by PantLoad:
As per Airbus SOP, the captain is always CM1 on the ground.

That is one true statement. AI defines CM1 as captain. So you are correct. But that doesn't mean that CM1 is always PF, irrespective of being on ground or in the air.

As far as I know, AI never defines who is PF on the ground. I just went through my electronic copy of the FCOM, and I couldn't find one hint about that. AI just doesn't define who should be PF, which is very wise, so every operator can define it itself. As far as I remember, in Toulouse the PF does everything. But then, we were two captains together...

Let me put the facts straight (please correct if I'm wrong): according Airbus training the PF remains the PF for the whole flight, and it can be the FO. It doesn't work the other way, because if a CM1=Capt would want to change that, he would have to rewrite the whole FCOM. AI SOPs don't work any other way.

Special cases: 180° on narrow runway (because of eye position, FCOM: "CM1" and "CM2", depends on direction of turn.
Rejected TO (FCOM: "Captain" and "FO"): Captain decides.
Evacuation: No role given, so any CM can do it. FCOM: "Cockpit crew".

Dani

[flyingins]

I'm 100% behind 411A in all aspects of this argument.

Some of you may claim that having SOPs geared around the Captain is "old school" and bizarrely, one of you (Dani - what are you thinking?) even claims that the FO really "runs the show". With all due respect to those particular opinions, not so.

The Pilot-in-Command MUST retain legal authority for ALL aspects of the continued operation of the flight AT ALL TIMES. The First Officer is second-in-command. His or her authority is delegated by the PIC.

I have spent more than enough time as an FO to understand completely that flying with anachronistic Captains can be a fairly painful experience, but at the end of the day, unless that particular commander is asking you to break a rule or operate against the SOPs, it is an inherent requirement of the duties of an FO to comply FULLY with the orders of his or her Captain. Any reluctance to follow this theory can easily be construed as insubordination.

That is not to say that the FO cannot raise his or her concerns in a constructive manner - indeed the majority of reputable airlines have procedures for such interjections enshrined in their SOPs. Equally, Captains are required by the same SOPs to listen attentively to any such concerns and afford them the appropriate attention. Having said that, in the absence of any valid reason for such concern, the Captain is fully empowered to continue upon his or her course of action without further explanation.

That is why there is a Captain. They are there for a reason! By the same token, that is why those of you who most vociferously maintain that they should be "running the show", are not in a position to do so!

P.S - The Airbus FCOM is deceptively simple. PF and PNF are independent of CM1 (Captain) and CM2 (First Officer), except only the Captain will command an RTO or Evacuation, and park at an aerobridge using NIGS. Regardless of PF/PNF duties for the sector, however, the Captain always retains command. Just like any other aeroplane!

P.P.S - Fullyspooled - the era where a Captain retains full command of the flight will NEVER pass. The simple fact that you refer to 411A as "Dude" should indicate to those with any experience in command that you certainly are not ready for yours. Show some more respect.

P.P.P.S - One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given as an FO (still applies as a Captain, but more relevant to the junior ranks); "You were given two ears and one mouth. Use them in that proportion."

[Dani]

flyingins, you miss the point. It was about who orders checklists, gives orders, starts actions. That's a PF thing. Because if he's not initiating, he's not flying. PF means "pilot flying", not "pilot might fly a little bit if the captain agrees".

btw I'm discussing here as a captain myself. And I'm living up to the standards given by my manufactor and my operator.

Noone here ever doubts the legal and moral responsability of the role of the captain. 411A et al. are putting in question if a new trained FO should do the whole thing, i.e. run the ops from push back to chocks under. After that he was given the answer: AI ops do not work otherwise, because you learn from ground school day one, PF does everything, PNF monitores, assists, operates the gadgets, checks, talks. Newest SOPs call the PNF now PM (pilot monitoring), giving the most important task a name.

Dani

[Cardinal]

What a load of rediculus-sounding cr@p! Id have to write
out a bloodey memo in the cockpit to remind meself who
the hell is who doin what!

.....

And heaven help any skipper if he takes the stick away
from the FO (sorry, le CM2) if his judgement deems it
necesary to stay in one piece - Le horreurs! Le captain
infant terrible! (or somethin like it). I thought I was gunna
be taken out to a tumbril and guillo'd after a sesh where
Le Ace was about to prang the sim.

......

PS what got up Airbooz's nose is my refusal to call myself
a "CM1 PF" - Im a CAPTAIN whose PILOTING, mon-sewer!

Best Tech-Log post Ever!

[porch monkey]

Slash my man, You have no idea how happy I am to see you are back to somewhere near your best. Bit sorry to see you've traded the boeing in tho.......

P.S. Still waiting for that A.K......

[Tee Emm]

For example is it not up to the captain when it is safe and proper to push and call for engine start and taxi. I am of the school that the command pilot sets the tone and pace of action in the pit, or is it my unfamilality with this procedure reading and to much into it

I agree with your sentiments absolutely. The current situation is that the flight deck is now run by a committee. The margins between captain and first officer actions, decisions and "duties" have become blurred to the point of being indistinctive.

Others will dsagree of course and I have no problem with that. The command authority of the captain is set in legal stone but Boeing and Airbus operational checklist and decision making policy forces the captain to become merely a target for the legal eagles in event of an unfortunate event and someone gets hurt.

The long held view that challenge and response checklists involves two people has been tossed overboard - because now the first officer challenges himself and answers his own challenge while the captain plays the part of an interested spectator - but wears the blame ultimately.

No further correspondence will be entered into on this subject by this contributor!!

[Ignition Override]

411A, Dani, Dustyprops:

I might not agree with 411A's "style" or views sometimes, but I agree, for the most part, with his first remarks on the previous page, and many of your comments, based upon various backgrounds and company styles. The context can be different than what we appear to read, or too subtle.
The discussion of what it means to give the FO "command of the aircraft on the ground" is puzzling to me.

On most aircraft, the Captain asks for the Preflight, Before Start checklists etc. But he/she should sometimes ask whether the FO/FE is (are) ready. We asks for slats extend/flaps 15 (or 5), allow the FO request taxi clearance, checks for free rudder movements, sets V1, Vr, V2, Vf and Vzf speed bugs, compare the stab trim to the setting etc.

But the FO sets (Does) most things while the captain taxis out and in. Sure, I tell an FO that he/she sets the pace on the ground, so that they are not rushed to read any checklist etc. Avoiding a cold, aloof style seems to encourage them to speak up if a Captain misunderstands something etc.
Depending upon your Flt Ops cultures, and policies etc, it is likely that you all made correct comments as to how FOs must work on the ground (or in the air, based upon your own operations and comfort levels, present or past).
Sometimes those Captains with the lower comfort levels are less forgiving of the FO's flying skills.

To "have command" (as they like to call it over there... from the Royal Navy sailship days, or to state what is already totally obvious?) does not mean that we must treat people like young kids in the right seat. Here the FOs are now usually about 38-50 years old on these narrow-bodies. Even when they were new here, it was never necessary to give constant commands for pilots who understand how to do the flows etc, understand and comply with what ATC wants and can also safely fly the plane. If a pack is left off or the APU stays on during climbout-so what...We simply switch it on or off.

The puzzle for me on this thread is to understand whether something is lost in translation (from another language and foreign culture?), or whether an airline simply allows an experienced pilot (less than 1500 hours?) to pretend and practice being Captain on the ground. But that is their Business.
To an extent, that might be ok-but only to a limit. The Captain might Not want to do any checklist crossing a runway, unless the runway is closed for weeks due to resurfacing etc.
Sometimes I find it necessary to ask FOs to glance out the window to verify that the runway is clear. I don't trust the radios and ATC due to many blocked radio calls-even in perfect weather.

Years ago we were cleared onto a runway in perfect weather at IAH and the Captain went a few feet then suddenly stopped. A CAL 727 was on final at about 1,000'. Tower caught their mistake and blurted out "#^@ 292 hold your position!"
For potential close calls or much worse, read the topic about Providence, R.I.(PVD) years ago in low visibility.
It is the Captain's job to clear up confusion and keep it a safe operation. Stop, cancel a takeoff clearance, divert etc. Somethings can be openly discussed between pilots as we enter holding or can not reset a system but sometimes there is simply no time...

[SIDSTAR]

The Airbus recommended SOPs (and that's all they are - recommendations on how the aircraft might be operated according to the manufacturer) suggest that the roles can be almost fully exchanged for any given flight. That's one reason why there's a nosewheel steering tiller on the FO's side. These suggested SOPs recommend that the PF carries out almost all the actions when he is PF, on the ground and in the air. The notable exception is the issue of Thrust Lever handling during the takeoff run where the FO sets the thrust and then the Captain takes over handling the levers. The reason for this is that, as the Captain is the one who will decide to reject the takeoff it is faster to execute if he has his hands on the levers. However, some companies allow the FO to call the stop/reject, notably BA for example. To my knowledge they do not differentiate between a 200 hr FO and a 5000 hr one in this regard. Their system obviously works well for them as I haven't heard that they have any more problems in this regard than any other operator.

The manufacturer's recommended SOPs can be changed/modified as required by the operator (in many cases the local Aviation Authority may insist on approving the SOPs for each company and in any case they are tacitly approved by the local authority in their overall approval of the operator's policies and procedures.

SOPs in any company generally reflect the experience and preferences of the Flight Ops management. If you find a particularly unusual procedure in a company, it often goes back to some important episode in either the company's or chief pilot's previous experience!

However, some issues never change. The Captain is always the legal Commander of the aircraft and the FO is second-in-command. How much of the Capt's authority a company will allow to be delegated to the FO is a function of the company culture/beliefs and will vary quite a lot. In my last three outfits the FO was allowed to everything on the ground that was possible for him to do (our Boeings did not have n/w steering on the RHS so Capt taxied the a/c).

Decision-making at a critical time such as approaching V1 is always an emotive point but as long as both pilots, properly trained, know and clearly understand the company procedures, it should work whether the Capt or FO is handling the levers and whether or not both can call "STOP" or "REJECT" or whatever word your company uses.

We are spending vast amounts of money on very good CRM courses over the past 20 yrs of so. This has come about because it has been fairly universally acknowledged that the human element is now probably more likely to fail than the machine. It doesn't seem logical to me that we should train our FOs to be future Captains by only allowing them to 'speak when spoken to' as is implied by some of the posts here. Of course there are young pilots, full of the joys and confidence of youth who will sometimes think that they are the Captain. If they cross the line between being PF and being Captain then any Captain worth his salt will have a few strategies to sort that out. If he hasn't he shouldn't be in the LHS.

My personal view is that we should give FOs as much authority as possible to make decisions subject to the over-riding authority of the Captain. I believe it is better for the Capt to handle the thrust levers on takeoff for the reject case, if he is the only one who can make the reject decision. However, there are companies where that authority is also delegated (BA) and the FO handles the levers and can reject on his own decision. Either system works, as long as crews are well trained for the particular procedure.

CRM has evolved from cockpit resource management to CREW resource management which is a good thing as it broadens the whole concept. If I have a serious problem in flight, does it not make more sense for me to delegate the handling of the aircraft to the FO (using the automatics to the maximum extent possible) so that I can concentrate on MANAGING the operation as well as possible rather than trying to do both? This in no way removes my authority for the safe conduct of the flight but actually enhances the chances of a successful outcome, in my opinion by using the available resources to the maximum extent.

At the end of the day, we have no option but to follow company SOPs. These have been thought out in the cold light of day usually by a number of senior pilots who should know what they want for their particular culture. Any half-civilised outfit will listen carefully to a well-reasoned argument from any pilot who thinks changes should be made but ultimately may decide not to change the SOP. Some of the views expressed here re non-delegation of duties appear to belong to a bygone age but I have no doubt are sincerely held. However, such views are very much in the minority nowadays which I believe to be a good thing. The mountains of the world are littered with the wrecks of aircraft flown by "one-man-bands". There must be a better way to carry out our business.

[airbus757]

There is a difference between running the show and command. The captain and f/o take turns as PF and PNF and their duties are clearly defined in the sop (or they should be). It all works quite well. Do not confuse that with Command. The Captain is the Captain and he is always in command. The F/O may operate the controls of the plane with the permission of the Captain and always under his supervision. Now I know that seems a bit harsh, but in the end that is what it all comes down to.

As for 411A, it appears as though he is one of the older guys. That means he is either very lucky or he may actually know what he is doing. Most of the time he is right, it is just that he doesn't suger-coat things for the more sensitive.

7

[asuweb]

Just reading these posts with amusement. There appears to be a astronomical divide between practices either side of the pond. My conclusion is, CRM hasn't reached the western side of it.

In the airline I work for, the PF (irrespective of which seat he/she occupies) calls all of the shots relating to the sector. The PF sets the power on the runway (and releases the thrust leavers to the captain if PF is the FO). Both of us can call stop.

If PF wants a checklist he/she asks PM for it. If PF wants flaps, again PM selects them.

Nobody is removing the fact that the Captain has overall authority, however flap operators are a thing of the past.

[airbus757]

asuweb

Just reading these posts with amusement. There appears to be a astronomical divide between practices either side of the pond. My conclusion is, CRM hasn't reached the western side of it.

That is quite a statement. Do me a favor, look up where the concept was invented and which airline it was. You do know one of the principles of CRM is to stay problem oriented and gather information before coming to conclusions.

7

[asuweb]

757, fair point. Perhaps a rash conclusion.

[Wrongstuff]

jimmyg, It's been done before but this should help

There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. The titles P1, P2 and
Co-Pilot will now cease to have any meaning, within the BA operations
manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot, Non-handling Pilot,
Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot, Handling Non-Landing
Pilot, and Non Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off
and landing except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling Pilot for taxi
until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Landing Pilot at eighty knots.

The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) Pilot
reads the checklist to the Handling Pilot until after Before Descent
Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to
the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude"
call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go-around", in which
case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, continues Handling and the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of
"land" or "go-around", as appropriate.

In view of the recent confusion over these rules, it was deemed necessary
to restate them clearly.