Very late go-around at Geneva
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many CA1/Purser/IFS Courses will include the awareness of the "GO-AROUND" PA. Why should the No.1 not do a PA in this situation? Many airlines have one, and having seen it used, I would agree that it should be standard SEP. The flightdeck should be able to rely on their No.1 to make this PA, until such a time as they are able to speak to the pax.
cheers,
starship <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
cheers,
starship <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I presume then that these same CA1's also have inital and recurrent sim training...as pilots...and therefore know ALL about go-arounds.. .No?. .Well then, they should keep their traps firmly....shut. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
Wrong! Cabin Crew do have a role to play in keeping the passengers informed. If an operator has a SOP which includes a brief announcment to the pax by the cabin crew then that is perfectly reasonable. The pax, on occasion need re-assurance, and while the F/D sort out what ever the problem then it is no bad thing to keep the pax informed.
[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: no sig ]</p>
Wrong! Cabin Crew do have a role to play in keeping the passengers informed. If an operator has a SOP which includes a brief announcment to the pax by the cabin crew then that is perfectly reasonable. The pax, on occasion need re-assurance, and while the F/D sort out what ever the problem then it is no bad thing to keep the pax informed.
[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: no sig ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was on a Monarch flight into Gibraltar last year when the said procedure was initiated on very short finals. The flight crew didn't say a thing, but one of the flight attendants did. She used a few simple words of a non-technical nature that put the minds of the pax to rest.
What else is required?
What else is required?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Subsealevel mudland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
[quote] The flight crew...there for a reason...FLY the aeroplane. PR is the LAST consideration, to be done "as time permits".. .Cabin crew, also there for a reason, basic safety and pax service (little of THAT in todays market) ....<hr></blockquote>
So far I agree. This happened before but not too often.
[quote] and they should NOT be making any announcments about go-arounds <hr></blockquote>
In my company the No1, called purser like our beloved FlapsForty, is actually expected to make a short standard announcement. This includes the fact that we made a Go-Around, and the expectation that the Flightcrew will make an announcement as soon as there is time for it. Funny but this fulfills two of your two reasons they exist. .1) basic safety: the pax's inclination to panic is subdued.. .2) pax service: they are informed of what happened (in case they did not notice)
I know that some Cabin crew don't notice some Go-Arounds. Particularly the extremely smooth ones at an early stage of the approach but I am convinced that a G/A at 30 feet will not go unnoticed. Not even by the blondest basket cases.
Sq
[ 31 January 2002: Message edited by: CaptainSquelch ]</p>
[quote] The flight crew...there for a reason...FLY the aeroplane. PR is the LAST consideration, to be done "as time permits".. .Cabin crew, also there for a reason, basic safety and pax service (little of THAT in todays market) ....<hr></blockquote>
So far I agree. This happened before but not too often.
[quote] and they should NOT be making any announcments about go-arounds <hr></blockquote>
In my company the No1, called purser like our beloved FlapsForty, is actually expected to make a short standard announcement. This includes the fact that we made a Go-Around, and the expectation that the Flightcrew will make an announcement as soon as there is time for it. Funny but this fulfills two of your two reasons they exist. .1) basic safety: the pax's inclination to panic is subdued.. .2) pax service: they are informed of what happened (in case they did not notice)
I know that some Cabin crew don't notice some Go-Arounds. Particularly the extremely smooth ones at an early stage of the approach but I am convinced that a G/A at 30 feet will not go unnoticed. Not even by the blondest basket cases.
Sq
[ 31 January 2002: Message edited by: CaptainSquelch ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, in a non attacking, but debating way, let me put these points to you.
Your profile states that you are a Captain. You, as a professional pilot I am sure would NOT under any circumstances operate a sector unless you had complete trust in your crew, their SEP ability and CRM. You are overall answerable to your employer for the safe operation of the aircraft that you command, its passengers and crew.
With this in mind, let me ask you the following questions. These are not aimed at you personally in any way, but should be considered by anyone with your views.
If you can not trust your CA1 to recognise a go-around and subsequently make a simple but reassuring PA, can you :
1. Trust him or her to recognise a CLEARLY CATASTROPHIC situation and initiate an evacuation before it is too late? (If you are unable to do so due incapacitation)
2. Rely on him/her to recognise that your FIRST OFFICER, on becoming incapacitated has had a heart attack, and take appropriate action to ATTEMPT to save a life while you are organising your diversion?
3. Trust him/her to make judgement that the crew will have the best chance of executing a PREMEDITATED drill for real by ensuring a good SEP knowledge at the briefing?
Power In, Gear UP, and a high R.O.C close to the ground is not a normal approach to land, and is indeed easier to recognise than a borderline catastrophic situation.
"Ladies and Gentlemen the Captain has considered it necessary to discontinue the approach into X, and will shortly provide more information on his intentions. There is no cause for alarm. For your own safety please remain seated with your seatbelt fastened at all times"
SIMPLE. The PA reassures the pax, stops disgruntlement when the CA's can not get to answer the many call bells pressed, and keeps them in their seats at a critical time.
Just some food for thought.
cheers,
starship <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Your profile states that you are a Captain. You, as a professional pilot I am sure would NOT under any circumstances operate a sector unless you had complete trust in your crew, their SEP ability and CRM. You are overall answerable to your employer for the safe operation of the aircraft that you command, its passengers and crew.
With this in mind, let me ask you the following questions. These are not aimed at you personally in any way, but should be considered by anyone with your views.
If you can not trust your CA1 to recognise a go-around and subsequently make a simple but reassuring PA, can you :
1. Trust him or her to recognise a CLEARLY CATASTROPHIC situation and initiate an evacuation before it is too late? (If you are unable to do so due incapacitation)
2. Rely on him/her to recognise that your FIRST OFFICER, on becoming incapacitated has had a heart attack, and take appropriate action to ATTEMPT to save a life while you are organising your diversion?
3. Trust him/her to make judgement that the crew will have the best chance of executing a PREMEDITATED drill for real by ensuring a good SEP knowledge at the briefing?
Power In, Gear UP, and a high R.O.C close to the ground is not a normal approach to land, and is indeed easier to recognise than a borderline catastrophic situation.
"Ladies and Gentlemen the Captain has considered it necessary to discontinue the approach into X, and will shortly provide more information on his intentions. There is no cause for alarm. For your own safety please remain seated with your seatbelt fastened at all times"
SIMPLE. The PA reassures the pax, stops disgruntlement when the CA's can not get to answer the many call bells pressed, and keeps them in their seats at a critical time.
Just some food for thought.
cheers,
starship <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wish it was warmer
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interessting discussion.. .Guess it really boils down to: WHEN TO PANICK!!!. .If I was in the back as pax in this situation and 10 sec after the go around started, I hear Capt Cool on the PA... THEN I Panick.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starship--. .Just noticed your reply, and must admit that, under the circumstances you describe, the PA anouncement would be appropriate.. .Having said that, consider the following--. .Aircraft after landing, taxiing on the parallel to the parking bay, speed 15 knots, has a #1 engine rundown/tailpipe fire. F/E noticed same, initated the appropriate drill, and made an announcement to the CC to remain seated and await further instructions.. .CC (L3) sees the torching, opens the L3 door and tries to start an evac...right into the flames.. .This is the type of CC that I have had to deal with over many years in the ME/Asia.. .Under this scenario....you must see why I generally do not want CC interfering unless instructed.. .The third-world is a bit different than Europe.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote] heck, they could not even secure the cabin, it would appear.. .As I mentioned on another thread, thick at times.. . <hr></blockquote>
411A Your obvious contempt for the cabin crew you flew with can't have made for a very good CRM environment.
FA-ing is no rocket science, and a situation like you describe in the post above is covered by training. Any properly trained FA knows not to open a door to deliver pax into a burning meat grinder. Did you ever take up with the training department the percieved incompetence, "thickness" and lack of service-mindedness of your FA's?. .Or where you quite happpy to Captain an aircraft where the pax were in the hands of a bunch of nincompoops?
Anything unusal scares the pax 411A. The CC are there for the pax (and to feed & water you, and check that you're still breathing) So if an announcement to these same pax can calm their fears and keep them quiet, this is part of the FA's job and in no way shape or form can be qualified as interfering!
If I tell you what flap setting to pick or that you are high on approach I am interfering. If I tell the pax that you have decided to abort the landing I am doing my job.
General point. In our mob we do not make a "cabin secured" report to the cockpit. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the pilots presume the cabin ready for landing.. .(Squelch could tell us how often he gets told that it ain't <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ). .It seems to work fine and avoids an extra call & distraction to the cockpit at a time of high work load for the pilots.. .Comments?
Question. I've seen that on some airlines it's the CC who give the command "doors to automatic/arm slidebars" and vice versa, as well as the command "doors may be opened". With us this is done by the pilots.. .Anyone care to tell me what you percieve as the pro's and cons of either of these 2 ways of doing things?
411A Your obvious contempt for the cabin crew you flew with can't have made for a very good CRM environment.
FA-ing is no rocket science, and a situation like you describe in the post above is covered by training. Any properly trained FA knows not to open a door to deliver pax into a burning meat grinder. Did you ever take up with the training department the percieved incompetence, "thickness" and lack of service-mindedness of your FA's?. .Or where you quite happpy to Captain an aircraft where the pax were in the hands of a bunch of nincompoops?
Anything unusal scares the pax 411A. The CC are there for the pax (and to feed & water you, and check that you're still breathing) So if an announcement to these same pax can calm their fears and keep them quiet, this is part of the FA's job and in no way shape or form can be qualified as interfering!
If I tell you what flap setting to pick or that you are high on approach I am interfering. If I tell the pax that you have decided to abort the landing I am doing my job.
General point. In our mob we do not make a "cabin secured" report to the cockpit. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the pilots presume the cabin ready for landing.. .(Squelch could tell us how often he gets told that it ain't <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ). .It seems to work fine and avoids an extra call & distraction to the cockpit at a time of high work load for the pilots.. .Comments?
Question. I've seen that on some airlines it's the CC who give the command "doors to automatic/arm slidebars" and vice versa, as well as the command "doors may be opened". With us this is done by the pilots.. .Anyone care to tell me what you percieve as the pro's and cons of either of these 2 ways of doing things?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to Pilot Petes reply, for the benefit of non flight crew I should point out that not all airliners are equipped with Nav systems that are capable of providing the autopilot with flight guidance during a missed approach procedure. Even if capable, they may not be certified to do so.
Hence it is entirely possible that a Go Around will involve a high workload from a Navigational point of view. There are several fields whose Missed Approach Procedures involve the use of multiple Navaids that must be selected, identified and tracked in rapid succession.
May not have been the case in this instance of course.
CPB
Hence it is entirely possible that a Go Around will involve a high workload from a Navigational point of view. There are several fields whose Missed Approach Procedures involve the use of multiple Navaids that must be selected, identified and tracked in rapid succession.
May not have been the case in this instance of course.
CPB
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, let's put it this way, flapsforty--. .In MY aircraft, I am not concerned with the feelings of the cabin crew. They are there because they are trained and assigned by the company to do a particular job. The cabin crew supervisor (let's call him/her the cabin captain) is also there for a purpose...to manage the cabin crew and to report to me any problems that develop. If there ARE any problems then I will assist as needed....otherwise I leave the cabin ALONE and in the care of the supervisor, period. In this way, the supervisor KNOWS that the rest of the cabin crew had better behave...or else.. .And, the company backs me up on this...so it works very well indeed.. .If it ain't broke....don't fix it.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or Else... The mind boggles. I would say that the goings on in the cabin are very much relevant to the captain.
Pax can very easily screw up a secure cabin by going to the john at the last second. It isn't necessarily the crew's fault for being slow (cabin) or poor info about short cuts (cockpit).
However, as has been suggested above, I tend to land on in this circumstance if the landing is assured, as it shakes up the cabin less than a GA. This is not according policy but is a judgement call I reckon.
For the pax/non-cockpit types out there, a Go Around begins with lots of standard actions, all of which have to be done right to get a safe flight path, followed by some navigation, with or without FMC track (which may drift off on some types in Manual tuning) and then a further plan - all punctuated by chat to and from the controllers and possible frequency changes. As for an announcement, as soon as practicable one should be made - again , when is a judgement call.
Pax can very easily screw up a secure cabin by going to the john at the last second. It isn't necessarily the crew's fault for being slow (cabin) or poor info about short cuts (cockpit).
However, as has been suggested above, I tend to land on in this circumstance if the landing is assured, as it shakes up the cabin less than a GA. This is not according policy but is a judgement call I reckon.
For the pax/non-cockpit types out there, a Go Around begins with lots of standard actions, all of which have to be done right to get a safe flight path, followed by some navigation, with or without FMC track (which may drift off on some types in Manual tuning) and then a further plan - all punctuated by chat to and from the controllers and possible frequency changes. As for an announcement, as soon as practicable one should be made - again , when is a judgement call.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, your post explains clearly how you run your ac. . .Different strokes for different folks.
I do not see in it an answer to my question Or were you quite happpy to Captain an aircraft where the pax were in the hands of a bunch of nincompoops?. . .Perhaps I'm slow on the uptake, perhaps you did not intend to answer the question? . .Anyway, I am still interested in an answer if you would care to provide one.. .If not, that's fine too.
I do not see in it an answer to my question Or were you quite happpy to Captain an aircraft where the pax were in the hands of a bunch of nincompoops?. . .Perhaps I'm slow on the uptake, perhaps you did not intend to answer the question? . .Anyway, I am still interested in an answer if you would care to provide one.. .If not, that's fine too.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London,,Great Britain
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Few Cloudy on this one.
If you sit in the back of a simulator and watch, what are the most 'ballsed-up' scenarios when carried out under short notice? RTO's probably first, but GA's come a close second.
The company I work for has started (through risk analysis) to assess various situations/failures/incidents in terms of danger to the operation, and a go-around comes out as quite a risky event.
The scenario described at the beginning (in my experience) is not an uncommon occurence (although I think most pilots would have made a decision one way or the other a little earlier...).
Whenever this has happened (the _possibility_ of landing without 'cabin secure') to me, the outcome of the flight deck discussion has always been to land anyway, as (for me) it has normally been at the end of a long duty day into an unfamiliar arfield with weather and terrain problems.
As has been put forward by others in this discussion, the changes in body angle and accelerations produced by a full-blooded go-around are probably greater than that of normal landing followed by an autobrake rollout, so nothing is being saved and the aeroplane and passengers are being exposed to a potentially risky manouvre.
If you sit in the back of a simulator and watch, what are the most 'ballsed-up' scenarios when carried out under short notice? RTO's probably first, but GA's come a close second.
The company I work for has started (through risk analysis) to assess various situations/failures/incidents in terms of danger to the operation, and a go-around comes out as quite a risky event.
The scenario described at the beginning (in my experience) is not an uncommon occurence (although I think most pilots would have made a decision one way or the other a little earlier...).
Whenever this has happened (the _possibility_ of landing without 'cabin secure') to me, the outcome of the flight deck discussion has always been to land anyway, as (for me) it has normally been at the end of a long duty day into an unfamiliar arfield with weather and terrain problems.
As has been put forward by others in this discussion, the changes in body angle and accelerations produced by a full-blooded go-around are probably greater than that of normal landing followed by an autobrake rollout, so nothing is being saved and the aeroplane and passengers are being exposed to a potentially risky manouvre.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just have to respond to good old 411A and his drivel. Listen up mate, 'cause a few things seems to have slipped your attention.
1) You do not fly aeroplanes, you fly payload. If there was a way to transmorph people and cargo around the world, avaition would come to a grinding holt in a split second.
2) The most important asset of any airline is not the captains or any other profession, it is the payload.
3) The guys and girls who look after the payload are much more important to the payload than whether or not you are a happy chappy up front. They are the front line fighters and deserve all the assistance and back-up that you, the driver, can afford to lend them.
4) Under normal SOP's the payload will not even notice that there are a couple of living breathing guys of front, except for the occasional "this is your captain speaking ....". However, on every single flight the payload will be in constant contact with the cabin crew and it is based on their performance that the "quality" of the flight is being judged. Not whether or not you executed a smart SID or shot a neat approach.
I resent totally the "MY" flight for several reasons. Primarily I will assume that flying with captains of that mentality, which are mostly found with carriers of a dodgy safety reputation, is a very unpleasant experience for the rest of the crew. And secodarily, you are there to secure the safe and comfortable transport of the payload. But I've already covered that.
1) You do not fly aeroplanes, you fly payload. If there was a way to transmorph people and cargo around the world, avaition would come to a grinding holt in a split second.
2) The most important asset of any airline is not the captains or any other profession, it is the payload.
3) The guys and girls who look after the payload are much more important to the payload than whether or not you are a happy chappy up front. They are the front line fighters and deserve all the assistance and back-up that you, the driver, can afford to lend them.
4) Under normal SOP's the payload will not even notice that there are a couple of living breathing guys of front, except for the occasional "this is your captain speaking ....". However, on every single flight the payload will be in constant contact with the cabin crew and it is based on their performance that the "quality" of the flight is being judged. Not whether or not you executed a smart SID or shot a neat approach.
I resent totally the "MY" flight for several reasons. Primarily I will assume that flying with captains of that mentality, which are mostly found with carriers of a dodgy safety reputation, is a very unpleasant experience for the rest of the crew. And secodarily, you are there to secure the safe and comfortable transport of the payload. But I've already covered that.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If no one minds, i would like to pass my opinion on this one.
Flip flop Flyer, your profile indicates you deal with passengers/cargo, in other words, nothing to do with "the aircraft". If you had the responsibility of the flight crew in all areas, perhaps you would come to understand the skill and stress involved.
Secondly, there is unfortunately NOT a way to transmorph people and cargo around the world and if there was, we would not be the only people out of business! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Thirdly, i agree "that the most important asset of any airline is not the captains or any other profession, it is the payload". However, no pilots means no movement of payload, so you will have quite a backlog of problems...terrible isn't it <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Fourthly, you siad "the guys and girls who look after the payload are much more important to the payload than whether or not we are happy chappies up front". I dont quite agree with this statement, as i have gone into work quite stressed out, i would like to note that it was because of you guys and gals but thats another story i dont wish to continue referring to. The captain is in charge and responsible for anyone and anything on his aircraft, when he is on it, so maybe dont go and suggest who are the most important people as when i am around, for exmaple, you will always be second in charge!
Finally, (thank god), i think you'll find that the payload WILL be concerned if a pilot did not fly an SID very neatly, because, as i mentioned, the pilots are under a lot of stress, and flying properly and 'neatly' as you put it, are components of the stres a pilot is under. How each one handles it is irrelevant, and will vary between people, we are all human...some more than others perhaps.
"Flying with captains of that mentality, which are mostly found with carriers of a dodgy safety reputation, is a very unpleasant experience for the rest of the crew". WHAT? A captain with a reputation like you suggested will either not be a captain following dismissal, or will be in a mental hospice...perhaps you should show some more respect to people like us. I am grateful for the work you guys and gals do, but i do not feel it my business to tell you how to do your job, and give you opinions of what the payload thinks when i have no evidence to prove it.
I hope this has been an interesting thread <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
On a final note, i am thikning of looking for a new job because ive heard rumours about transmorphing machinery entering service Careful chaps!
Flip flop Flyer, your profile indicates you deal with passengers/cargo, in other words, nothing to do with "the aircraft". If you had the responsibility of the flight crew in all areas, perhaps you would come to understand the skill and stress involved.
Secondly, there is unfortunately NOT a way to transmorph people and cargo around the world and if there was, we would not be the only people out of business! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Thirdly, i agree "that the most important asset of any airline is not the captains or any other profession, it is the payload". However, no pilots means no movement of payload, so you will have quite a backlog of problems...terrible isn't it <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Fourthly, you siad "the guys and girls who look after the payload are much more important to the payload than whether or not we are happy chappies up front". I dont quite agree with this statement, as i have gone into work quite stressed out, i would like to note that it was because of you guys and gals but thats another story i dont wish to continue referring to. The captain is in charge and responsible for anyone and anything on his aircraft, when he is on it, so maybe dont go and suggest who are the most important people as when i am around, for exmaple, you will always be second in charge!
Finally, (thank god), i think you'll find that the payload WILL be concerned if a pilot did not fly an SID very neatly, because, as i mentioned, the pilots are under a lot of stress, and flying properly and 'neatly' as you put it, are components of the stres a pilot is under. How each one handles it is irrelevant, and will vary between people, we are all human...some more than others perhaps.
"Flying with captains of that mentality, which are mostly found with carriers of a dodgy safety reputation, is a very unpleasant experience for the rest of the crew". WHAT? A captain with a reputation like you suggested will either not be a captain following dismissal, or will be in a mental hospice...perhaps you should show some more respect to people like us. I am grateful for the work you guys and gals do, but i do not feel it my business to tell you how to do your job, and give you opinions of what the payload thinks when i have no evidence to prove it.
I hope this has been an interesting thread <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
On a final note, i am thikning of looking for a new job because ive heard rumours about transmorphing machinery entering service
Careful chaps!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well flapsforty (and others).... .Sorry if you are offended by my opinions, but it is MY aircraft, and the company so agrees...so,. .a) the cabin crew supervisor has my COMPLETE confidence...what he/she says...GOES, period.. .b) If any member of the cabin crew has a different idea, he/she will button it up and take their ideas to the respective cabin crew management, OR will be off-loaded, forthwith. There will be NO second-guessing the cabin boss, in this case the cabin crew supervisor. . .c) This works very well indeed...an aircraft is NOT run by commitee. It is run by folks who know how. AND, the company agrees.... .d) For those that disagree, the unemployment line forms to the right.. .e) The cabin crew supervisors all like the above arrangement....works good, lasts a long time.
[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: 411A ]</p>
[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: 411A ]</p>
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, offened by your comments no, surprised however, that a professional pilot as I presume you are, would use language such as 'MY aircraft'. What seems to be missing is any recognition that YOU are part of a crew, in Command yes, however, you can't operate the aircraft without the rest of them, and if you ask, I think your Company would agree.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha charlie---. .As Harry Truman once said...."the buck stops here".. .If there are any problems, I am responsible. That is why I deligate to others as needed.. .When the First Officer flies the aircraft, I certainly do not interfere (within reason) because he has been trained properly. If he asks, I offer suggestions. In this way, confidence is enhanced.. .Likewise in the cabin, the cabin crew supervisor has been assigned by the company and is responsible for the other cabin staff. If there is assistance required, I will certainly offer any help possible, otherwise I let them get on with their job.. .Pilots should stick to the pointy end, and leave the cabin to the professionals, IMHO.