CRM summed up
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM has undoubtedly gone too far and the balance needs to be redressed.It promised a lot in the late seventies but has failed to become the panacea that the industry hoped for.In fact,it has created more problems than it has solved.Not least of which is the erosion of the Commanders authority(a rudderless ship always ends up on the rocks),frequent grassing amongst crews,and the lack of respect shown in intra-crew communication on todays politically-correct flightdeck.
One's right to the privileges that CRM affords is directly proportional to one's level of airmanship and cognitive judgement,and these two assets are borne out of experience,and experience only.A student pilot,fresh out of flight school has no business making reports on a high-timer.In fact,he/she has no business in the right seat of a commercial jetliner.Possession of a pilots licence and the ability to reproduce the company SOP manual verbatim would appear to be all that is required in certain airlines and cultures to expect all the privileges that CRM accords.It is not.
A co-pilot in Fedex,or any US major,probably has about 5000 hours and has more likely than not flown as a commander in the regionals.He/she knows and understands the complexities involved in being a commander.He/she knows where the very thin line is drawn.That line between a perfectly acceptable SOP deviation and an unsafe flight maneuver for example.Or the line between abandoning a checklist and landing asap or continuing to hold and complete the checklist whilst everyone burns.He/she knows when to shut up and look out of the window and when not to.In short,give status where status is due.
The people that make up the crew(both f/deck and cabin)of a commercial airliner are NOT of equal status.A good Captain will set a tone where this unequivocal truth is not rammed down their throats but is merely quietly understood by all.He can do this by setting an informal and friendly atmosphere and encouraging input from all.A good First Officer is someone who never forces the Commander to remind him of this unequivocal truth.
This is true CRM.
As for name-calling protocol.The best is informal and friendly.Second is polite and formal.Worst of all is this politically-correct "everybodys equal,you fly the plane and leave the cabin to me" familiarity.
One's right to the privileges that CRM affords is directly proportional to one's level of airmanship and cognitive judgement,and these two assets are borne out of experience,and experience only.A student pilot,fresh out of flight school has no business making reports on a high-timer.In fact,he/she has no business in the right seat of a commercial jetliner.Possession of a pilots licence and the ability to reproduce the company SOP manual verbatim would appear to be all that is required in certain airlines and cultures to expect all the privileges that CRM accords.It is not.
A co-pilot in Fedex,or any US major,probably has about 5000 hours and has more likely than not flown as a commander in the regionals.He/she knows and understands the complexities involved in being a commander.He/she knows where the very thin line is drawn.That line between a perfectly acceptable SOP deviation and an unsafe flight maneuver for example.Or the line between abandoning a checklist and landing asap or continuing to hold and complete the checklist whilst everyone burns.He/she knows when to shut up and look out of the window and when not to.In short,give status where status is due.
The people that make up the crew(both f/deck and cabin)of a commercial airliner are NOT of equal status.A good Captain will set a tone where this unequivocal truth is not rammed down their throats but is merely quietly understood by all.He can do this by setting an informal and friendly atmosphere and encouraging input from all.A good First Officer is someone who never forces the Commander to remind him of this unequivocal truth.
This is true CRM.
As for name-calling protocol.The best is informal and friendly.Second is polite and formal.Worst of all is this politically-correct "everybodys equal,you fly the plane and leave the cabin to me" familiarity.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My name is Chuks but you can call me 'sir'.
Gee, and I thought I was the only one sometimes having trouble with stroppy F/Os!
Of course the first thing to bear in mind, at least in my case, is that you get back what you hand out. 'What goes around, comes around.'
'Young people' today are not prepared to take a back seat and be talked down to the way our generation was. They tend to fire back with company procedures meant to protect their rights and feelings. I have to accept that the world has changed and deal with that.
We sometimes get a flight that develops into a table-tennis match, when the F/O cites page 112 of the SOPs and I cite an over-riding clause on page 221 or claim 'pilot's discretion' or whatever.
What I cannot do, what had been done to me, is to suggest he just sit there and look out the window. Those days are long gone, and it may be just as well. I used to fly with a 'Great Stone God' in a DC-3 who thought I was a wimp for even wanting to wear a headset. I should just sit there and work the gear and flaps to hand signals, was his take on reality. We each thought the other was mad!
I have tried to just back as far off as I can, while still maintaining standards, and let the F/O have as much responsibility as he can handle. That seems to work. And for the ones who want to make trouble, I make sure that I know the back of the book as well as they do, so that I am not left baffled by b*ll****.
As to the rest of it, people I get along with call me by my first name. Anyone who wants to give me any sh*t, they can call me 'sir' or else come along and talk to management about whatever problem we are having. That seems to work, so long as I am careful to check what message I am sending in the first place.
Of course the first thing to bear in mind, at least in my case, is that you get back what you hand out. 'What goes around, comes around.'
'Young people' today are not prepared to take a back seat and be talked down to the way our generation was. They tend to fire back with company procedures meant to protect their rights and feelings. I have to accept that the world has changed and deal with that.
We sometimes get a flight that develops into a table-tennis match, when the F/O cites page 112 of the SOPs and I cite an over-riding clause on page 221 or claim 'pilot's discretion' or whatever.
What I cannot do, what had been done to me, is to suggest he just sit there and look out the window. Those days are long gone, and it may be just as well. I used to fly with a 'Great Stone God' in a DC-3 who thought I was a wimp for even wanting to wear a headset. I should just sit there and work the gear and flaps to hand signals, was his take on reality. We each thought the other was mad!
I have tried to just back as far off as I can, while still maintaining standards, and let the F/O have as much responsibility as he can handle. That seems to work. And for the ones who want to make trouble, I make sure that I know the back of the book as well as they do, so that I am not left baffled by b*ll****.
As to the rest of it, people I get along with call me by my first name. Anyone who wants to give me any sh*t, they can call me 'sir' or else come along and talk to management about whatever problem we are having. That seems to work, so long as I am careful to check what message I am sending in the first place.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maximum, Maximum
First time here, read your post re- explaining to S B and doing your best to vindicate yourself with every hole he picks in your story at every turn. You finally put together a scenario that makes you look the hero '... it was 0400 after a long night...' .
Without going too deep, the hairy situation you put together is one that required good CRM on this tiring night.
You might been absolutely sure of which way to turn on this night ( to your tired mind) and the F/O had doubts, it is possible that you assessed this situation from a superior position.
no amount of training or indeed experience could have avoided this. This was a simple left or a right turn at some point after T/O. It is a shame about his hollering as you say but a quick and mandatory cross check about what you thought was right against his was necessary by every means possible and S B did his best with some good suggestions . The first being that your charts should have been handy and the lighting in the cockpit should enable you to quickly see what the chart says , or else how did you intend to continue the SID and avoid the mountains if you suddenly lost your FMC input for what ever reason.
As you did not elaborate whether you did any retake or quick assurance to this confused F/O, I am left to deduce that you went along with your assessment of the situation which was correct on this ocassion..... Just imagine if for whatever reason you were wrong? you could have red hot paint all over the mountain.
Recommend very good CRM next time.
Happy flying
First time here, read your post re- explaining to S B and doing your best to vindicate yourself with every hole he picks in your story at every turn. You finally put together a scenario that makes you look the hero '... it was 0400 after a long night...' .
Without going too deep, the hairy situation you put together is one that required good CRM on this tiring night.
You might been absolutely sure of which way to turn on this night ( to your tired mind) and the F/O had doubts, it is possible that you assessed this situation from a superior position.
no amount of training or indeed experience could have avoided this. This was a simple left or a right turn at some point after T/O. It is a shame about his hollering as you say but a quick and mandatory cross check about what you thought was right against his was necessary by every means possible and S B did his best with some good suggestions . The first being that your charts should have been handy and the lighting in the cockpit should enable you to quickly see what the chart says , or else how did you intend to continue the SID and avoid the mountains if you suddenly lost your FMC input for what ever reason.
As you did not elaborate whether you did any retake or quick assurance to this confused F/O, I am left to deduce that you went along with your assessment of the situation which was correct on this ocassion..... Just imagine if for whatever reason you were wrong? you could have red hot paint all over the mountain.
Recommend very good CRM next time.
Happy flying
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UNEASY UNEASY 
I've just re-read my post too, and can't quite understand why you've taken such objection to it. You obviously don't think my CRM was very good that night - that's your opinion, to which your entitled, so there we go.
All I would ask you to do is read my post again (if you can bear it)
or at least these quotes:
and
I fail to see what all the fuss is about, but that could well be down to flaws in my own personality I suppose.
One final point, at least I've posted a concrete example of something factual that I'm responsible for to the good or bad and let you all dissect it!!
I've just re-read my post too, and can't quite understand why you've taken such objection to it. You obviously don't think my CRM was very good that night - that's your opinion, to which your entitled, so there we go.
All I would ask you to do is read my post again (if you can bear it)
or at least these quotes:
Meanwhile the slot looms ominously. If we miss it, we're advised delay could be more than two hours and we'll be out of hours. But, despite this, I ignore the pressure of the slot, sod that, and applying good MCC principles I tell ATC we aren't ready, and bring the aircraft to a stop. We then review the performance, and the SID, check all the bugs, re-set the nav aids, check the FMC, I do a brief, he says he's happy, and finally we line up, just in time. Trouble was, he still got confused once we we're airborne. Flying's like that sometimes isn't it?
So all I'm saying, in a nutshell, and all I have ever been saying, is that when they need to speak up (and I'm all for that) f/o's must do it with an awareness of how it effects the operation overall, and how it can influence the Captain's workload.
One final point, at least I've posted a concrete example of something factual that I'm responsible for to the good or bad and let you all dissect it!!
I thought Mowgli put it very well: CRM isn't about being "fluffy" it's about getting the best out of people. The phrase "appropriate behaviour" is sometimes used to illustrate the fact that there are times when, as in maximum's scenario, there's no time for much of a debate. When there's absolutely no time, then even "autocratic" behaviour is appropriate.
The problem for some FOs is to recognise that the Captain decides, and once the decision is made the time for debate has passed. CRM training does not always make this clear enough, concentrating too much on the best way of conducting that debate.
This seems a good opportunity to record my gratitude to the copilots who so often, and so tactfully, kept me out of the poo!
The problem for some FOs is to recognise that the Captain decides, and once the decision is made the time for debate has passed. CRM training does not always make this clear enough, concentrating too much on the best way of conducting that debate.
This seems a good opportunity to record my gratitude to the copilots who so often, and so tactfully, kept me out of the poo!
Rananim – CRM has gone too far? It all depends on how you define CRM. I quote from my earlier post and recommend that you view the paper “The Evolution of Crew Resource Management Training”. If you then agree that CRM can be represented as Threat and Error management then this will involve the use of all resources, which includes people.
Furthermore, using the definition of airmanship that encompasses skill, then you should consider the many levels of skill within our industry. A new first officer will, by regulation, be sufficiently skilled to enable safe operation of an aircraft; this includes alerting more senior pilots to threats or errors. Certainly some first officers will alert benign issues, but this should be seen as a failure in understanding either by lack of briefing / crew cooperation or a shortfall in knowledge that you can make good.
Although you may be more skillful than a new first officer, that level of skill gives little protection against you making an error. In order to progress to the higher skill levels required for good captaincy, the skills embedded within CRM training have to be understood and learnt.
CRM is a relatively modern or a relabeled older tool for maintaining professionalism and safety in the industry. Its mentor Robert Helmreich readily accepts that that CRM is in it’s sixth phase; mix this with the three major cultures in flying (national, organisation, and profession), and then flavor with biased or uneducated viewpoints, then it is no wonder that few people understand what CRM is. CRM is promoted as a tool, a method, a process of maintaining safety through threat and error management. However, like most tools, methods, or processes, if their purpose is not understood, if misidentified, employed with inadequate instruction, or misused, then mistakes are inevitable.
Although you may be more skillful than a new first officer, that level of skill gives little protection against you making an error. In order to progress to the higher skill levels required for good captaincy, the skills embedded within CRM training have to be understood and learnt.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim is correct in every perspective, in my opinion.
A First Officer will not receive respect until he shows same to his Commander....and that is precisely what the Commander is, the boss,...period.
If said First Officer (who we must remember, is second in command) has a complaint about the way the ship is run, he can respectfully ask the Captain about his actions, but if there is a personality conflict, would suggest said First Officer button his lip...or go and see the fleet manager later, after he has had a long thought about the situation.
In every company I have worked for, the Captain is given the benefit of the doubt, and the First Officer, if his case is not solidly made, will find himself behind the eight ball for any future upgrade...to heavier equipment or Command.
Just the way it is...sadly, a few junior guys have not figured this out.
Now, having said all this, the Commander has a duty and responsibility to take the First Officers legitimate concerns into consideration, and operate the aircraft according to the company laid down standard procedures..., period.
If he does not, on a regular basis, without adequate explanation, he needs to be shown the door...pronto.
Cowboy antics are not to be tolerated....ever.
A First Officer will not receive respect until he shows same to his Commander....and that is precisely what the Commander is, the boss,...period.
If said First Officer (who we must remember, is second in command) has a complaint about the way the ship is run, he can respectfully ask the Captain about his actions, but if there is a personality conflict, would suggest said First Officer button his lip...or go and see the fleet manager later, after he has had a long thought about the situation.
In every company I have worked for, the Captain is given the benefit of the doubt, and the First Officer, if his case is not solidly made, will find himself behind the eight ball for any future upgrade...to heavier equipment or Command.
Just the way it is...sadly, a few junior guys have not figured this out.
Now, having said all this, the Commander has a duty and responsibility to take the First Officers legitimate concerns into consideration, and operate the aircraft according to the company laid down standard procedures..., period.
If he does not, on a regular basis, without adequate explanation, he needs to be shown the door...pronto.
Cowboy antics are not to be tolerated....ever.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I almost agree with part of your post 411, I must be going soft in my head....
The company sets the rules but also gives (as it must) the Comander the flexibility to break them if necesary. It also asks of both crewmembers to monitor the flight and speak out if any deviation form standard procedures or settings is observed. The company also uses each crew to police each other by stablishing a system of official reports, confidential reports, etc. This is just the way the game is set up. You can resent it just as you can resent the flight data monitoring system.
I however feel that this post does not deal with serious safety critical situations. It deals instead with the everyday frictions of overzelous FO´s and Captains that think that SOP´s don´t apply to them. With the frustation of people that would like to be given by law the moral respect that they can not gain from their own actions and example. With the inexperience of FO´s that only have the rules to fall back upon since they have little personal experience.
If you think that some FO´s can be a handful you should try Skippering a chartered sailing boat around the Caribean. At least your FO is being paid , has been told that it his job to help you and has some knowledge of the dangers ahead. Instead of paying you, looking for a good time above all else and has no clue of what might lie ahead. To gain the moral respect of people and gain their support and confidence, guide them without them feeling they are been guided is a difficult art. Much harder but also so much more satisfying that saying ´I am the boss' , to wich I would reply (OK I would just think it) ´are you? why don´t you act like it´. It is no good saying I am responsible for everything and then failing to take responsability for your crews actions, performance , development, etc.
A good rule of thumb I used to have was that if I felt myself getting anoyed or raising my voice I kew that I had screwed up.
The company sets the rules but also gives (as it must) the Comander the flexibility to break them if necesary. It also asks of both crewmembers to monitor the flight and speak out if any deviation form standard procedures or settings is observed. The company also uses each crew to police each other by stablishing a system of official reports, confidential reports, etc. This is just the way the game is set up. You can resent it just as you can resent the flight data monitoring system.
I however feel that this post does not deal with serious safety critical situations. It deals instead with the everyday frictions of overzelous FO´s and Captains that think that SOP´s don´t apply to them. With the frustation of people that would like to be given by law the moral respect that they can not gain from their own actions and example. With the inexperience of FO´s that only have the rules to fall back upon since they have little personal experience.
If you think that some FO´s can be a handful you should try Skippering a chartered sailing boat around the Caribean. At least your FO is being paid , has been told that it his job to help you and has some knowledge of the dangers ahead. Instead of paying you, looking for a good time above all else and has no clue of what might lie ahead. To gain the moral respect of people and gain their support and confidence, guide them without them feeling they are been guided is a difficult art. Much harder but also so much more satisfying that saying ´I am the boss' , to wich I would reply (OK I would just think it) ´are you? why don´t you act like it´. It is no good saying I am responsible for everything and then failing to take responsability for your crews actions, performance , development, etc.
A good rule of thumb I used to have was that if I felt myself getting anoyed or raising my voice I kew that I had screwed up.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safetypee,
Cowboy antics do seem to be alive and well in Europe...the HapagLloyd A310 accident at VIE for example...running out of fuel is not exactly proper ops...and this after these guys bypassed quite suitable airports.
Am quite sure that HapagLloyd has CRM procedures courses for flight crew...but just like in the 'old' days, it doesn't seem to connect with a few.
Cowboy antics do seem to be alive and well in Europe...the HapagLloyd A310 accident at VIE for example...running out of fuel is not exactly proper ops...and this after these guys bypassed quite suitable airports.
Am quite sure that HapagLloyd has CRM procedures courses for flight crew...but just like in the 'old' days, it doesn't seem to connect with a few.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boss! Or, a manager....
I think we can see some sort of generational split developing here.
Used to be, back in the late Stone Age, one started as an underling and then climbed the greasy pole to become The Boss! At that point one could then inflict the same sort of pain on the underlings that one had endured on the way up.
But somewhere along the line this began to change, thanks to more detailed knowledge of human interaction, analysis of accidents, recognition of what goes to make or break an error chain and all that sort of touchy-feely, hard to define stuff.
I think we can take 411A as an example, for better or worse, of the old-fashioned cockpit Boss. 'My way or the highway,' as it were. While Studi, having just been trained at great trouble and expense by DLH, has probably absorbed all the new ideas about the Captain as Manager, using CRM.
Speaking for myself, I spent a long time as some sort of humble labourer in the Oil Patch, creeping along over the mangrove swamps in simple aircraft just a little bit higher and faster than that lowest form of aviation life, the helicopter. Then I was forced to choose to become the commander of a multi-crew aircraft. It was that or the breadline. So I came to this late in my career with a fairly open mind.
I have always found people to be an interesting and rewarding field of study, with CRM just an offshoot of industrial psychology, say.
I used to fly with 411A's evil twin brother in a DC-3, when I wasn't very impressed. The Boss! Well, Boss, go boss somebody else around; I didn't need that. So becoming a Boss myself was out.
Then I saw this touchy-feely CRM approach lead a few people astray as well. So there might well be some aspects of this Boss approach that are called for. Hmm.
Anything involving interaction with other human beings is damned complicated, certainly compared to just operating an aircraft. On the other hand it can be interesting and rewarding. Personally I would rather be back flying single-pilot but given that I have to work multi-crew it's been good to read through the material on this CRM forum. Some of you guys are far past me in your depth of knowledge and others seem to be mired in the past but all of it has been useful. I have to just keep trying to pick out the bits I can use myself and leave the rest for later.
Used to be, back in the late Stone Age, one started as an underling and then climbed the greasy pole to become The Boss! At that point one could then inflict the same sort of pain on the underlings that one had endured on the way up.
But somewhere along the line this began to change, thanks to more detailed knowledge of human interaction, analysis of accidents, recognition of what goes to make or break an error chain and all that sort of touchy-feely, hard to define stuff.
I think we can take 411A as an example, for better or worse, of the old-fashioned cockpit Boss. 'My way or the highway,' as it were. While Studi, having just been trained at great trouble and expense by DLH, has probably absorbed all the new ideas about the Captain as Manager, using CRM.
Speaking for myself, I spent a long time as some sort of humble labourer in the Oil Patch, creeping along over the mangrove swamps in simple aircraft just a little bit higher and faster than that lowest form of aviation life, the helicopter. Then I was forced to choose to become the commander of a multi-crew aircraft. It was that or the breadline. So I came to this late in my career with a fairly open mind.
I have always found people to be an interesting and rewarding field of study, with CRM just an offshoot of industrial psychology, say.
I used to fly with 411A's evil twin brother in a DC-3, when I wasn't very impressed. The Boss! Well, Boss, go boss somebody else around; I didn't need that. So becoming a Boss myself was out.
Then I saw this touchy-feely CRM approach lead a few people astray as well. So there might well be some aspects of this Boss approach that are called for. Hmm.
Anything involving interaction with other human beings is damned complicated, certainly compared to just operating an aircraft. On the other hand it can be interesting and rewarding. Personally I would rather be back flying single-pilot but given that I have to work multi-crew it's been good to read through the material on this CRM forum. Some of you guys are far past me in your depth of knowledge and others seem to be mired in the past but all of it has been useful. I have to just keep trying to pick out the bits I can use myself and leave the rest for later.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Speaking for myself, I spent a long time as some sort of humble labourer in the Oil Patch, creeping along over the mangrove swamps in simple aircraft just a little bit higher and faster than that lowest form of aviation life, the helicopter."
So you got the 'chop' from rotary then Chuks?
Never mind, you seem to have made it now!
So you got the 'chop' from rotary then Chuks?
Never mind, you seem to have made it now!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oddly enough chuks, the 'stone age' as you call it, is required by aviation regulatory authorties.
CAA/FAA/DGCA have specific requirements for the Commander, one of which is, he is responsible for the operation of the aircraft.
Not the co-pilot, not the flight engineer, not the chief steward...it is the Captain who is in charge, and strangely enough, the respective airline companies don't call them 'managers' either.
And, as for your comment 'my way or the highway...', it quite actually should read..'the company way or the highway'.
A very few younger guys seem to think that they can improvise as they go along, not pay attention to details, and when they are told by the Captain to 'shape up or ship out', they feel belittled and frustrated. Then, when they run crying to the fleet manager, and are given the cold shoulder, they are resentful of the 'system'.
All I can say is...get used to it. It ain't likely to change anytime soon.
But, there is a bright spot on the horizon.
Once you have the experience and senority, a command will be available, provided you have not burned too many bridges in the past.
Too many black marks in your record makes for poor advancement later on.
I've seen it happen all to often.
CAA/FAA/DGCA have specific requirements for the Commander, one of which is, he is responsible for the operation of the aircraft.
Not the co-pilot, not the flight engineer, not the chief steward...it is the Captain who is in charge, and strangely enough, the respective airline companies don't call them 'managers' either.
And, as for your comment 'my way or the highway...', it quite actually should read..'the company way or the highway'.
A very few younger guys seem to think that they can improvise as they go along, not pay attention to details, and when they are told by the Captain to 'shape up or ship out', they feel belittled and frustrated. Then, when they run crying to the fleet manager, and are given the cold shoulder, they are resentful of the 'system'.
All I can say is...get used to it. It ain't likely to change anytime soon.
But, there is a bright spot on the horizon.
Once you have the experience and senority, a command will be available, provided you have not burned too many bridges in the past.
Too many black marks in your record makes for poor advancement later on.
I've seen it happen all to often.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several aspects of CRM to beware of.
Woe betide the FO who thinks he knows it all and fails to respect the experience of the guy in the other seat.
Woe betide the company who fail to deal honestly with all their crew and fail to give them honest appraisals of their promotion and career prospects, preferring instead to tell them "You should get your command with us inside five years" and then wonder why people leave after seven or eight.
Woe betide the skipper who fails to listen to his FO. Despite his lesser experience level, he has still passed the same base check and it is significantly less time since he passed the ATPL and type technical exams - he might have a valid point and you need to listen to him.
Woe betide the skipper who fails to use all the resources open to him when the fan blades start to exit via the jet pipe and the flight deck lights up like a Christmas tree, and prefers instead to turn it into a one-man operation.
And finally, woe betide the FO who thinks that, because the skipper offers to listen to him, it shows that as an FO he has the final word. CRM principles dictate that the skipper should listen to him and take his views into account. Thereafter, the skipper should make his decision, announce it to anyone who needs to know. All should then back the said skipper up in bringing the voyage to a successful and safe conclusion, because by then the time for consultation is over. The captain's decision is final. He needs, however, to make sure he's got all the facts and possible viewpoints (time permitting) before committing himself to something that may, with hindsight, be a little rash.
Woe betide the FO who thinks he knows it all and fails to respect the experience of the guy in the other seat.
Woe betide the company who fail to deal honestly with all their crew and fail to give them honest appraisals of their promotion and career prospects, preferring instead to tell them "You should get your command with us inside five years" and then wonder why people leave after seven or eight.
Woe betide the skipper who fails to listen to his FO. Despite his lesser experience level, he has still passed the same base check and it is significantly less time since he passed the ATPL and type technical exams - he might have a valid point and you need to listen to him.
Woe betide the skipper who fails to use all the resources open to him when the fan blades start to exit via the jet pipe and the flight deck lights up like a Christmas tree, and prefers instead to turn it into a one-man operation.
And finally, woe betide the FO who thinks that, because the skipper offers to listen to him, it shows that as an FO he has the final word. CRM principles dictate that the skipper should listen to him and take his views into account. Thereafter, the skipper should make his decision, announce it to anyone who needs to know. All should then back the said skipper up in bringing the voyage to a successful and safe conclusion, because by then the time for consultation is over. The captain's decision is final. He needs, however, to make sure he's got all the facts and possible viewpoints (time permitting) before committing himself to something that may, with hindsight, be a little rash.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear 411A,
Not to worry, I learned about responsibility a long time back, not least from being sat up there at the end of the airplane that gets to the scene of the accident first! While you airline gods were up at FL330 asking after the baseball scores I was down in the clag trying to find Great Inagua in a no-autopilot little bug smasher, contemplating my responsibilities.
No, the part that I have had to work at getting a handle on is the sharing of the workload with the other flight crew member. For instance, there have been sim sessions where I did everything correctly except that I did everything correctly. In other words, I forgot to use the man sat next to me, thus increasing my workload, making a hazardous situation more hazardous, etc, etc. It would kind of rankle to have to forget all those hours of being sat up front alone with the sole responsibility for sorting out a problem, but I got there in the end. In a two crew aircraft there is shared responsibility, with the ultimate responsibility being with the captain, right enough.
Not to be unfair to you but from many of your comments you do come across as the kind of guy who might have a little problem with CRM in the modern sense of the term, preferring to issue orders rather than first listen to some input from other crew members. 'Authoritarian' we call that, yes?
Part of the problem with the 'young' guys of today is that society's values have changed, so that their attitude to authority isn't what it was, and we have to work around that to some extent. Aviation doesn't exist in a vacuum.
I'm still learning myself, at 56 years and about 14,500 hours, if you want to write me off as just another 'young guy'.
I used to hear that all the time from the Great Stone God in the DC-3: 'You young guys!' At the time I was about 33, had put in two years in Viet Nam and had about 3,000 hours, so that I didn't quite feel wet behind the ears. Now I would find that rather flattering, actually!
Not to worry, I learned about responsibility a long time back, not least from being sat up there at the end of the airplane that gets to the scene of the accident first! While you airline gods were up at FL330 asking after the baseball scores I was down in the clag trying to find Great Inagua in a no-autopilot little bug smasher, contemplating my responsibilities.
No, the part that I have had to work at getting a handle on is the sharing of the workload with the other flight crew member. For instance, there have been sim sessions where I did everything correctly except that I did everything correctly. In other words, I forgot to use the man sat next to me, thus increasing my workload, making a hazardous situation more hazardous, etc, etc. It would kind of rankle to have to forget all those hours of being sat up front alone with the sole responsibility for sorting out a problem, but I got there in the end. In a two crew aircraft there is shared responsibility, with the ultimate responsibility being with the captain, right enough.
Not to be unfair to you but from many of your comments you do come across as the kind of guy who might have a little problem with CRM in the modern sense of the term, preferring to issue orders rather than first listen to some input from other crew members. 'Authoritarian' we call that, yes?
Part of the problem with the 'young' guys of today is that society's values have changed, so that their attitude to authority isn't what it was, and we have to work around that to some extent. Aviation doesn't exist in a vacuum.
I'm still learning myself, at 56 years and about 14,500 hours, if you want to write me off as just another 'young guy'.
I used to hear that all the time from the Great Stone God in the DC-3: 'You young guys!' At the time I was about 33, had put in two years in Viet Nam and had about 3,000 hours, so that I didn't quite feel wet behind the ears. Now I would find that rather flattering, actually!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has to be one of the most interesting threads on PPRUNE for a while, particularly for someone like myself who well hopefully have gained his fATPL in a few months time.
CRM/MCC have there place but I can see where peoples opinion that the Commander's authority is being eroded comes from. I have a thought that to some degree CRM may have outlived its time. Back in the 60's and 70's there where a lot of accidents that resulted from overbearing Captains flying with Junior FO's where the FO did not challenge the Commander and disaster followed. Some of this could be traced back to the fact that many of the airline Captain's of the day were ex-military types from the war and things were done in a military fashion - ie "I am the Captain, I am in Command, and you the FO do as I say".
But the modern airline captain is generally not of that mould, even the ones who have come from the military. Someone suggested the CRM training has made confident Junior FO's overbearing and that maybe a good point. One thing I also think maybe a contibuting factor, and I saw some of this in my military training is the number of people with University education. Degree's teach people to think, question and challenge. I often noticed, as a non-graduate, that during training at Dartmouth and in the Fleet, when the non-graduate trainee Officers were told to do something their first instinct was to obey the order. A bit to often the graduate types first reaction was to question and challenge the order. Not that I think university education is bad, just that it may lead people entering the profession of aviation these days to be a bit too questioning of those more experienced and senior. But the modern world of aviation is some way from the that of the military. Thoughts?
I have also worked as a Dispatcher and I have to say that Captain's going around demanding to be called Sir and Captain are pretty few and far between and I certainly did not go around addressing Captains as Sir but neither did I call then "mate" or "boss". I would usually go onto the FD and say "good morning/afternoon" and if they were from a foreign airline add "welcome to London". I would then give them the information they required from me "slot time is, passenger load is, we have such and such cargo in such and such hold, etc etc" and then ask "what do you need from me, and can I have your loadsheet information please". But I felt I had the maturity to understand that ultimately he or she was ultimately the Captain and was in Command and I should concentrate on "doing" rather then "question and do".
Having spent 6 years as an Officer in the Navy one thing I did learn is that sometims as the Junior one in the operation you do have to shut up, bow the Commander's superior knowledge and experience and get on with what he says. At night, in IMC, with the panel lit up like a christmas tree with failing systems, trying to get into a performance limiting airfield close to a mountain range, is not necessarily the best time to aviate by commitee with the FO questioning everything the Captain says. I think they call it "silent monitoring" orr something dont they?
What I am trying to say I guess is I hope when I do ultimately get that first RHS seat I can take the best aspects of both worlds and combine them in contributing to the safe operation of the aircraft.
CRM/MCC have there place but I can see where peoples opinion that the Commander's authority is being eroded comes from. I have a thought that to some degree CRM may have outlived its time. Back in the 60's and 70's there where a lot of accidents that resulted from overbearing Captains flying with Junior FO's where the FO did not challenge the Commander and disaster followed. Some of this could be traced back to the fact that many of the airline Captain's of the day were ex-military types from the war and things were done in a military fashion - ie "I am the Captain, I am in Command, and you the FO do as I say".
But the modern airline captain is generally not of that mould, even the ones who have come from the military. Someone suggested the CRM training has made confident Junior FO's overbearing and that maybe a good point. One thing I also think maybe a contibuting factor, and I saw some of this in my military training is the number of people with University education. Degree's teach people to think, question and challenge. I often noticed, as a non-graduate, that during training at Dartmouth and in the Fleet, when the non-graduate trainee Officers were told to do something their first instinct was to obey the order. A bit to often the graduate types first reaction was to question and challenge the order. Not that I think university education is bad, just that it may lead people entering the profession of aviation these days to be a bit too questioning of those more experienced and senior. But the modern world of aviation is some way from the that of the military. Thoughts?
I have also worked as a Dispatcher and I have to say that Captain's going around demanding to be called Sir and Captain are pretty few and far between and I certainly did not go around addressing Captains as Sir but neither did I call then "mate" or "boss". I would usually go onto the FD and say "good morning/afternoon" and if they were from a foreign airline add "welcome to London". I would then give them the information they required from me "slot time is, passenger load is, we have such and such cargo in such and such hold, etc etc" and then ask "what do you need from me, and can I have your loadsheet information please". But I felt I had the maturity to understand that ultimately he or she was ultimately the Captain and was in Command and I should concentrate on "doing" rather then "question and do".
Having spent 6 years as an Officer in the Navy one thing I did learn is that sometims as the Junior one in the operation you do have to shut up, bow the Commander's superior knowledge and experience and get on with what he says. At night, in IMC, with the panel lit up like a christmas tree with failing systems, trying to get into a performance limiting airfield close to a mountain range, is not necessarily the best time to aviate by commitee with the FO questioning everything the Captain says. I think they call it "silent monitoring" orr something dont they?
What I am trying to say I guess is I hope when I do ultimately get that first RHS seat I can take the best aspects of both worlds and combine them in contributing to the safe operation of the aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
timzsta, I think your post shows an eminently sensible and "real world" approach to the subject, and in most cases this is exactly how things run on the flight deck.
Both pilots looking out for each other, using their knowledge, experience and CRM skills appropriately as the situation demands, coupled with an understanding of the Commander's responsibities. Spot on in my opinion.
Both pilots looking out for each other, using their knowledge, experience and CRM skills appropriately as the situation demands, coupled with an understanding of the Commander's responsibities. Spot on in my opinion.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One further thought came to me, that there is a distinction between authority and responsibility.
The captain cannot share his authority and remain in command, right? But when he asks for something, then the person asked has a responsibility to provide what is asked for.
That Crossair SAAB 340 crash was put down in part to the actions of the FO. He was held to share responsibility, in other words.
I was just thinking these two terms might be held to be interchangeable in some way, when they are not.
The captain cannot share his authority and remain in command, right? But when he asks for something, then the person asked has a responsibility to provide what is asked for.
That Crossair SAAB 340 crash was put down in part to the actions of the FO. He was held to share responsibility, in other words.
I was just thinking these two terms might be held to be interchangeable in some way, when they are not.