CRM summed up

[discretion]

Crm--has It Gone Too Far

Good CRM is essential for the safe operation of any commercial aircraft,some need it a lot more than others.!

However ,as a "mature pilot",I feel that crm is being abused by stroppy/arragont/chip on their shoulders F.O.s(yes f.o.s not cpt!),who have graduated from the flying acadamey "mould" on to line flying.

The budget airlines are encouraging the concept of "all equal " status,and effectively eroding the authority of the captain.There is even a form in existence whereby the f.o. can report the cpt for anything he feels unhappy about!!.It seems to me the tail is wagging the dog.Add to this,groundstaff addressing the Cpt as "matey"or "boss"(teenagers without a gcse between them),the status of the Cpt is seen by others to be no more than a regular bus driver.

I have seen many flidras reports where the Cpt has been reluctant to intervene in the F.os leg,resulting in a flidras event.The Captain has the ultimate authority for the safety of the pax/crew/aeroplane and IMHO this should be made clear to all new 150hr graduates from the "mould factory"

[fireflybob]

discretion, you are correct - the captain's authority has been and is continuing to be eroded and I fear that things will get worse before they get better. The commander is still the one who has the ultimate responsibility for safe flight yet his/her authority is diminished.

I started commercial flying in the 1970 with BOAC. We had lots of captains who were "characters" and we sometimes lived in fear of them. Whilst not wanting to see a return to the days when captain was God, flying with these fellows taught one a lot. They were commanders in the true sense of the word and certainly knew how to put people in their place if their authority was questioned.

Nobody is talking about "normal" CRM here but I know how you feel when EVERY decision you make is being questioned by the guy in the RH seat.

I am horrified to hear that certain companies have an official form for FOs to fill in in order to shop a captain who, in their opinion, is not the flavour of the month. Sounds like a classic case of "divide and rule" to me.

Being a good FO takes a lot of skill and experience and a quick CRM course is no substitute for either of these! I speak as one who spent many hours as an FO before getting a command.

[Snigs]

I have to say that I think that this is synonymous with the lack of respect that the majority of the youth of today have for society, authority and for the most part other people’s experience as well. It’s a damn shame, and sadly, probably irreversible.

[Airist]

Could this be where us older, sometimes wiser, wannabe-FOs should come into our own? Alas, if only the airlines would twig it!

[Khaosai]

Hi discretion, curious to how you would like to be addressed. Agree the reporting system is wrong, but be careful targetting the low houred pilots because they are generally a very sharp bunch who will build on this with experience. Rgds.

[Maximum]

Discretion, have to agree with you.

MCC teaches the new guys to speak up, fair enough and all very sensible. But unfortunately most have not been taught how to voice their opinions in a diplomatic way.

And with low-timers especially, they do not have the experience to properly evaluate the Captain's decision making. So they usually end up treating everything they don't fully understand as a mistake on the Captain's part. Anyone else feel like they've been treated like an old dodderer (and I'm not actually that old), when the new f/o actually doesn't understand what's going on, but simply assumes you're wrong?

Doesn't make it easy does it........

...and Khaosai, you ask

Hi discretion, curious to how you would like to be addressed

, well, with reference to the groundstaff that Discretion was talking about, I'm even more curious as to why you need to ask. How about plain old "Captain"!!

[beamer]

As one BA 757/767 ex-Hamble Captain said to his new First Officer ( RAF, CFS, TRE/IRE etc) when questioned about some aspects of aircraft performance - 'Shut Up and Look out of the window' - somethings never change.......................

[Maximum]

beamer, let me apologise in advance if I'm taking your post the wrong way.

But the implication seems to be that we as Captains do not have a right to reply, which surely cannot be good for CRM. Wouldn't you agree?

[CaptainFillosan]

Every so often this subject raises it's ugly head. Yep, ugly. Because that is what it is. Or put more simply it is two people NOT being interactive on the FD. Sadly, it is a fact of life that the the LHS or the RHS can cause the ugliness - fact isn't it. Again simply put it is probably professional jealousy in some measure. However, it is also the breathtaking arrogance of some of the newer FO's who believe that "I can teach this Captain a thing or two!" who are just out of training with 250hrs who plainly do not know how to milk every last ounce of experience from some bloody fine Captains. But first, did they ever learn that CRM is important? CRM was always going to be a process that was easy to introduce but had the potential to disappear up it own orifice. And in many ways it has already. MCC could go that way too.

But let us get one thing straight. The ANO states legislation which is firmly rooted in parliament, from whence each word in it's 'unambiguous' pages came - well almost all - as we know some of the rules are stupidly absurd. But...... it fixes beyond doubt that the Captain is the commander of the aircraft. He alone is responsible for it's safe performance and operation. No if's, no but's, no doubts. If the FO cocks-up it is from the Captain that the company will seek explanations. The Captain is designated the master of the aircraft he flys and his will shall be obeyed. In theory yes, but somebody at the CAA (I remember it well) many years ago bought in mandatory CRM. Cost the company's a lot of dosh too. But people liked it then. Now it's something that some Captains and FO's think they could well do without. See. It was bound to happen.

So now who is responsible for this apparent breakdown of CRM? Is it the crew? Maybe, but then it might be that teaching CRM has given too much away and let the FO feel that he has as much right to be the commander and the commander does. I know it happens, I have witnessed it. So just take another look at discretion's post at the top. Is what he is saying what is happening on the FD? I have to say I think he might be for the reasons I make above.

He says and I quote:

Good CRM is essential for the safe operation of any commercial aircraft,some need it a lot more than others.!

Do you agree with that? I can, but only if it is GOOD, I repeat, GOOD. But if you experiences instances I describe then it is not good and causes bad feeling during operations. That is most certainly not GOOD.

beamer voices another NOT GOOD instance:

As one BA 757/767 ex-Hamble Captain said to his new First Officer ( RAF, CFS, TRE/IRE etc) when questioned about some aspects of aircraft performance - 'Shut Up and Look out of the window' - somethings never change.......................

That Captain deserves a swift kick. The FO actually deserved some respect with such strong experience, but what the Captain said (if indeed he said it - hearsay and that sort of thing!) lost him any respect due to him. The FO IMHO was simply trying to gain information. The Captain should have responded positively but was perhaps, trying to mark the FO's card although he didn't deserve it.

The FD is a place where every part of the operation must be conducted with professionalism, interactively, with skill and with absolute co-operation from both the LHS and the RHS. The FO will, if he has an ounce of nous, will look, learn, listen and operate the aeroplane the same way that the Captain does. If the Captain does it a different way politely, and diplomatically, ask why he does it that way. But....if the Captain by chance managed a cock-up, and we all have, DO NOT set out to make him look foolish. Vice-versa also applies. That's good CRM!

But...........I still think that CRM will be it's own worst enemy unless the trainers make every effort to get it absolutely right in the first place!

[Spearing Britney]

There is lots of agreement here on something that I think merits discussion and yes, I am a young(ish!) FO who short-circuited the traditional system, at least in part! Anyway, I feel that someone should play Devil's Advocate so here goes!

BTW So far, it hasn't got personal and I will try keep it that way, it is so much more productive but it will benefit to pick on previous posts so please take me at my well meant intention even if my script is not to your liking after all A-Levels had dropped their standards by the time I sat them!

As discretion said of CRM, 'some need it a lot more than others.', but it's worth remembering that there are some around (often older? often captains? often male?) who truly believe the poor adage "CRM is not my problem". Maybe these people are the ones more likely to poo-poo something they don't believe in or aren't comfortable with. Isn't it also probably true to say that anyone who believes that they have class-leading CRM is most likely, at best, average? We all make gaffs and boobs sometimes in our interpersonal relations and should recognise them and even analyse them to reduce our chances of making them again. Maybe we should even apologise sometimes?

Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?

The reference to MCC teaching newbies to speak up is very relevant. At every single aviation interview I have ever attended for the RHS I have been presented with a scenario where the Captain is doing something 'wrong' and the interviewer has always pushed and pushed to get me from 'I would ask if...' to 'I would stand on the brakes/retard the levers/advance the levers....'. Never once was the question 'The Captain wants do something trivial and unimportant that you have been told isn't a good thing to do - you'd ignore it wouldn't you?' or something more erudite and appropriate! We are all products of our training, perhaps this the crux of discretion's point but surely it isn't that CRM has gone too far, CRM only seeks to optimise crew performance, but that CRM is being misinterpreted and poorly implemented? It seems to me CRM courses are often aimed at the timid mouse (the Asian experience, combating the culturally subservient nature?) and may therefore cause the strong character to become overbearing. Perhaps CRM planning should include the alpha male (left or right seat) and occasions where they need to be tempered as well as the (easy to portray and teach against) pilot who allows another to ignore a hard GPWS warning at night in IMC holding next to a mountain?

Another post mentions Captains' feeling that every decision made is being questioned from the RHS. Devil's Advocate says, well that is what he/she is there for! What other reason is there for having two P1 qualified pilots on the flight deck? If the point was that all decisions were being verbally disputed then that is a different matter entirely! But what good is a mentally absentee FO?

Diplomacy is defiantly something that should always be applied - from BOTH seats, and the absence of it is not exclusive to youth, it can sometimes come with age (think Victor Meldrew!) or ennui.

For what it's worth, where there are passengers/unfamiliar staff present it is always Captain or at least Skipper! If all around are familiar with each other and comfortable then whatever term is appropriate can be applied - with limits!

[PPRuNe Pop]

A good post, good points and well put SB.

Perhaps CRM planning should include the alpha male (left or right seat) and occasions where they need to be tempered as well as the (easy to portray and teach against) pilot who allows another to ignore a hard GPWS warning at night in IMC holding next to a mountain?

How true. Especially as there may be one such incident. I say may, because the true cause was never really established. But.....it happened nonetheless. What if CRM had been around then?

[Maximum]

Spearing Britney, you say,

Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?

Well, maybe in an ideal world. But in some cases MCC is being used as a substitute for experience and training. Example: we've looked at the intersection performance and it's not a problem, in case we need it for ATC requirements. We get to the runway, ATC ask us can we take it from the intersection to avoid big delays. Yes I say. As I line up, f/o looks at the runway and makes his own mental judgement that there isn't enough. (He's basing this on a flawed perception of the performance of the aircraft as he's only used to long runway lengths and very reduced thrust take-offs. It's also evident to me now he doesn't understand how the performance calculations work.) I now have the task of explaining all this to him in the nicest possible way, and somehow convincing him that I'm not a cowboy trying to kill us, while ATC start a panic about the guy on short finals.

This happened. Now we can argue about the reasons for the gap in his knowledge, but I was the one left to deal with it.

SB, you also say:

Another post mentions Captains' feeling that every decision made is being questioned from the RHS. Devil's Advocate says, well that is what he/she is there for! What other reason is there for having two P1 qualified pilots on the flight deck? If the point was that all decisions were being verbally disputed then that is a different matter entirely! But what good is a mentally absentee FO?

but the above story illustrates my point. If the basic knowledge and experience base to sit in the RHS of a jet aren't there, then no amount of MCC can make up for it. Unfortunately, this seems to be a developing trend. Not so much the fault of the f/o's, but in the companies' recruitment and training policies.

This kind of thing makes for a very stressful operation.

[greybeard]

Gidday,

CRM-- This is my cockpit, you are a resource, prepare to be managed.

I have been a facilitator in this area for nearly 20 yrs, have to my horror seen the above system but also seen "programed" assertivness go so quickly to agression on both sides of the Cockpit that I dispair for my fellow man.

The authority, enshrined in Law, so aptly put above is not only being eroded but systematically destroyed from many external influences and as now appears in the Bloddy cockpit as well. Some Supervisory types can mark you as having poor CRM just because you did something quite correctly, but not the way he/she would have done. So the skills of the supervision can be a problem.

I have in my facilitation tried to make the point that assertivness is NECESSARY and should be expected from F/Os, good briefings beforehand may remove some of the missunderstandings, but that inexperience or lack of exposure to a set of circumstances can cause a depth of concern that may not be apparent to the Capt.

That's where the CRM skills come to play to get the job done safely, not destroy the needed crew co-operation and be a learning process for BOTH sides of the cockpit.

We need the wisdom of Moses, the patience of Jobe, the perseverance of Noah and a certain amount of the Luck of the Irish to get around some of our trials and tribulations, and it boils down to some basic facts.

There is the Captain-and he/she CARRIES THE CAN for it all
There are a multitude of others who contribute to the task of flight both in and out of the cockpit.
WE HAVE TO DO IT SAFELY.
We need to have an active risk management assessment going on all the time.
We need to accept and give CONSTRUCTIVE input (critisism??!!).
We must allow for the various levels of experience and enthusiasm of the other participants in the task.

an if all else fails as it will do

KICK ASS and TAKE NAMES so it might not happen again.

Be safe and remember

GRAVITY SUCKS

C YA

[White Bear]

I am going to get flamed for this, but I can't sit still for it any longer. I'm not a commercial pilot, but I am a human being.

Comments such as 'ground staff addressing the Cpt as "matey"or "boss" (teenagers without a gcse between them) and, 'stroppy/arragont/chip on their shoulders F.O.s (yes f.o.s not cpt!), lead me to think we do have a problem here, and it is not one of a lack of respect, but one of arrogance. Is this really about CRM gone mad, or is it more about ego? Is it more "How dare these people talk to me without using my title!" Than it is about how competent and conscientious they are at doing their jobs?

Juan Trip of Pan Am gave the pilots of his Clippers, the 'honorary ' title of Captain, primarily because they flew flying boats. He dressed them in dark blue, and gave them gold stripes to impress his passengers. It did not change anything, they were still pilots in command of an aircraft, just as thousands of other mere pilots were at the same time. Soon all the other airlines jumped on the bandwagon and followed suit. Today anyone who commands a commercial aircraft is called Captain, never the less it remains an honorific title, and to insist upon it seems a little crass.

Commercial pilots do a wonderful job, but in truth, pilots are not irreplaceable, nor are their skills rare or unique. Almost anyone with reasonable intelligence, the desire, and good hand/,eye coordination could do what they do. Especially given the long and expensive training they are given. If you have young F.O,s with 250 hours of flight time capable of safely flying a commercial jet airliner, and they must be, or they would not be there, then what is so skillful about what you do, that requires everyone in that aircraft to call you Captain? You have been selected by your employer to command an aircraft, you do not hold the Queens commission. To insist upon being addressed as Captain speaks more to your state of mind than to anyone else's.

One has to ask the question, when are you a Captain, and when are you not? Does it have to be a commercial aircraft? Does it have to require more than one pilot? For example, when John Travolta fly's his 707, is he entitled to be called Captain, even though it is a privately owned and operated aircraft? If the very same aircraft were carrying the very same number of passengers on a commercial flight, there would be no question in your mind, but is there a difference? Is a pilot in command of a Lear jet that only requires one pilot a Captain if he is paid to do it, and a mere pilot if he is not? Can you only be a Captain if you work for an airline? In your aircraft both pilots are there to do a job, you have been given the responsibility of command, not the 'right' to be addressed as someone holding the Queens commission.

Frankly, I believe we could do with much less of this kind of elitist B/S, and a bit more growing up.

Now I'm for it!
W.B.

[Bealzebub]

An airline captain has some unique responsibilities, and many that are not vastly dissimilar to any other senior manager in other industries. The Captain and First officer are both Pilots of course, and indeed the junior rank may well have greater experience of the aircraft than the senior one. However the title Captain represents the fact that you are at a certain level within a companies operating and managerial structure.

CRM for a Captain is central to how that individual manages their charge. The aircraft may have a total crew of 2 or a crew of 20. a good manager ought to be able to encourage the best qualities and productivity from each member of the team that he or she manages. Very often this is an easy task because it involves little more than simply recognising an individuals ability and allowing them to operate within their own parameters. A manager should always be approachable and receptive to advice or suggestions. It doesn't always follow that given advice is correct or necessarily desirable but part of the command function is the ability to sort out and seperate the advice as necessary. Knowing how to effectively utilize the wealth of resource that is normally available.

Most flights run perfectly well, however it sometimes happens that a problem crops up and the pressure starts to rise. It never ceases to amaze me how a crew so readilly rises to the challenge. This is a function of their training of course, but also a function of that same individuals management skills within their own sphere of operations. A problem well managed can be a source of enormous satisfaction, whilst a minor problem that is mis-handled can so easily become a major situation that is much harder to satisfy.

The F/O is nearly always an unpromoted Captain. They are often required to undertake many of the Captains management functions. Each F/O will treat every flight as a learning experience. For that reason and many others it is important to lead by good example. CRM is in some ways an abstract art. There are fundamental aspects that can be taught but the perception of it, is often an individual and naturally modified model for each person.

Despite some reservations in the early days of flying with "low hour F/O's", my own experience has been that a very high number of these folk have a high degree of CRM awareness that in some measure balances the lack of experience. In an ideal world I think there should be a progression of experience level that eventually leads to the right hand seat of a jet airliner. If it were up to me nobody with a few hundred hours would qualify. However that is not the reality. It does concern me that these people will probably make some of the mistakes we all made, and will do so in a complex aircraft with many hundreds of passengers down the back. Because of this we have to accept the world has changed, and it is important for us as captains to encourage questions and challenge and indeed to teach from our experience where that is desired, requested or warranted.

As a Captain you are in charge and again in my own experience I have seen little erosion of that responibility. I also have not experienced any dilution of the authority except where it has been removed or altered by statutory change. The company pay me as a Captain to manage their flights and they give me the latitude to be able to do that. I like to think they consider they get a fair deal in return.

If anything I do as a captain were to give any member of the crew cause for concern they could raise the issue with me. However it is within their right to address it to their relevant manager. Sometimes it is necessary to recognise that personalities and misunderstandings as well as emotions and the human condition simply requires the intervention of a third party. This ought to a rare occurance.

As for the title Captain, I believe this denotes my level of attainment within the structure. I receive letters from the company with this on it, and it appears on my payslip. Often ground staff will use the address and sometimes passengers will. When I meet anyone else for the first time I introduce myself and from thereon in adress them and expect to be called by my Christian name. I don't have any problem with "boss" or mate if it is used because somebody has forgotten the name or feels more comfortable. I just expect a good standard of operation and as a consequence a good flight in all respects.

Finally I don't believe that CRM can be taught accurately simply because it is an evolving and inexact entity. The principals of it are taught and it is often a matter for the recepient to decide how best to apply those things and modify them for their own personality and condition.

[CaptainFillosan]

White Bear

Because PPRuNe is a place for people to freely express themselves, providing they can control themselves, do not slag anyone off etc., etc., they are welcome to comment.

However, there are times when it is better to read than to write. This is one of of those times.

I suggest you read some more and maybe, but I doubt it, you may grasp a very small measure of the subject of this thread. Unless you fly and understand the environment you will never be able to understand it. CRM is not a matter for someone to comment on who simply does not understand it's use.

Read the last post, that might help but I wouldn't try to explain it and don't apply ridicule either - you will disappear in a trice.

[Maximum]

White Bear

I'm afraid it's your arrogance that's breathtaking. And it's no use pre-empting or excusing what you've said with your last comment "now I'm for it", as if you can say anything and that'll make it alright.

Your arrogance is breathtaking because you are expressing strong opinions about something of which you have absolutely no knowledge or experience. There are many unique problems associated with human interaction and human/machine interaction in the context of flying that make this subject a specialised rather than a generalised one.

Yes, just like you, I'm a human being too - I also happen to be a training captain and yes, believe it or not, an MCC and CRM facilitator. But that doesn't stop me expressing the kind of concerns that have been voiced in this thread.

With regard to this whole "call me captain" thing which you seem so upset about. You'd actually be extremely surprised at how generally informal most airline operations are. Most crews, cabin crew and flight deck, will all call each other by their first names. As will ground staff who know the crew. This is not a problem. In fact, it's very pleasant and makes for a less formal workplace than your average office. A knowledgeable and good SCA (senior cabin attendant) will often accord the captain his title when reporting something of an operational manner - eg, "cabin secure captain" - this is simply a recognition of where ultimate responsibilty rests, a way of creating a professional atmosphere and fostering teamwork - "we're all in this together" if you will. It also sets a good example to the whole crew. But for the rest of the flight, it'll be back to first names again.

The problem arises when ground staff have a problem with flight crew (and there are a small minority who do, just as you would expect in any work situation). They then hide their ill-disguised irritation at the flight crew behind the "mate", "boss" or whatever euphemism they care to use. This then sets up an atmosphere which is less than professional, and could ultimately affect flight safety. And that's what this is all about: SAFETY. For us, and for YOU, the passenger.

[Spearing Britney]

Maximum, you said I said this:-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which I did and you started your response with

“Well, maybe in an ideal world.” But we are seeking that ideal world and the more we close out ATC/mechanical defects etc as accident causes the closer we need to come to it. Also, I would just like to confirm you don’t disagree with the end bit i.e. ‘that all controversial decisions, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat, should at least be de-briefed’: Because if this doesn’t happen then better CRM is badly needed!

Diverging from you point now, I know that story telling is of limited value but to let you know where I am coming from on this I once sat as supernumary FO on a type conversion flight where the Skipper took control in the flare and subsequently left the flight deck without comment at the gate. To the clearly bemused trainee I said ‘don’t worry it was probably X,Y,Z but he will talk to you about it later’ – he didn’t, and didn’t ask for questions either. Remember CRM is a two way street, a multi way junction even, and when you feel poor CRM coming from someone it’s tempting to withdraw and let your own CRM slip, and that ain’t gonna help anyone!

Maximum, in your example of intersection performance you say you (plural) had looked at it before and established suitability. I believe you that this occurred but I also say that an F/O who subsequently challenges runway performance charts on the basis of visual perception is a fool and should never have got through his training! If this occurred during his training then he is a bigger fool again! Not referring to you personally here, but I hope (and believe) any training Captain would debrief this thoroughly and initiate any remedial instruction required. I would also hope that FO’s of this calibre are not common in your, or any other, operation. Any post-training FO is P1 qualified by definition, this means they should understand performance calculations and the situation you found yourself in was unacceptable but rare (surely!).

As for your opinion that the absence of the knowledge and experience base for a jet’s right hand seat cannot be made up for by MCC. Well, that’s true, but then MCC/CRM was never meant to make up for knowledge – the type rating and line training is there to do that. Experience isn’t what CRM tries to teach either; although maybe it tries to adapt your life experience to the F/D or make up for lacunas in your interpersonal skills. I feel that you may be blaming CRM for what you perceive to be poor training in general, is that fair?

I don’t mean to single Maximum out, it’s just that I think he makes interesting points for progressing this; he also said “We all want to avoid a stressful operation”, to which I say ‘here here!’ and I agree wholeheartedly on the ‘call me captain’ bit, you don’t call a Managing Director or a Headmaster mate in public do you, the front galley and sometimes the F/D are often public too. It may have started off as an honorific title but it is now enshrined in law (as commander) and manuals and should be treated as such.

Referring back to the first post discretion says “There is even a form in existence whereby the f.o. can report the cpt for anything he feels unhappy about!!.It seems to me the tail is wagging the dog.” This makes me a little uncomfortable. Look at it this way, power corrupts and there are always those who will misuse any power that comes their way. As such a system that can expose this is sensible and necessary. Any Captain acting correctly (the overwhelming majority IMHO) has nothing to fear, particularly as any managers who get involved in a dispute will most likely be Captains and hence likely to appreciate the experience/training/investment that the Skipper concerned represents. The FO’s report will most likely be critically analysed and cross checked if possible; any worries about reporting of this kind leading to any unjustified action must be largely unfounded in any moderately well run outfit surely! As a postscript I agree that any such system should be a last resort and infrequently used, good crew resource management should make it obsolete but good company resource management must put it into existence.

For what it’s worth, I found that the ultimate authority of the Captain is rammed home in the ‘mould factory’ as discretion calls it but then so is your personal responsibility to have your voice heard when things depart your sphere of comfort. There seem to me to be two issues here. One, that some (Maximum?) feel that the low hours FO’s sphere of comfort is too constricting. Isn’t this is to be solved not by CRM but by the type rating and licensing requirements. And two, that some (discretion?) feel that that voice is heard a little too often, perhaps that the boundaries of what is worth speaking up about need to be more clearly defined. This one CRM should help with. Any comments?

[Coastrider26]

I think this whole taking CRM going to far has to do with individuals on both seats. A while back we had an ATPL student onboard. This guy started to explain to us how we should fly and why we sould climb higher to safe fuel (FL 250 LHR->AMS in a E120) Imho this is CRM going to far.

Since a couple of months I am flying in the middle east and people never attended a CRM/MCC course. Being in the right seat and coming from a CRM environment certain captains know I speak up and wouldn't do "stupid" things they would do otherwise. CRM as it should be

As far as writing a report on a captain I think this should be a possibility AFTER discussing it with the person in question on the ground. If he persists to be wrong I think the company might invite the inviduals for a meeting with their MFO or Chief pilot.

[Maximum]

Spearing Britney, I said: "well, maybe in an ideal world", you then said in reply:

But we are seeking that ideal world

. The thing is, I took this thread to be about the real world. All the CRM/MCC principles you've written about above are on the whole very commendable and I support and practice them. How they manifest themselves in the real world can sometimes be very different to the theory though. Don't you find that in your airline?

Coming back to my original example, you say:

an F/O who subsequently challenges runway performance charts on the basis of visual perception is a fool and should never have got through his training! If this occurred during his training then he is a bigger fool again!

, you then go on to say that as an f/o it is

your personal responsibility to have your voice heard when things depart your sphere of comfort

The point is, things had departed this guy's sphere of comfort. And interestingly, you're the one calling him a fool, not me!

Here's another one for you. Night departure from terrain surrounded airfield. Get airborne. SID requires a left turn away from mountain. As left turn begins, f/o screams out that it should be a right turn, and that aircraft is in immediate danger from high ground. F/O is confused but sure he is right, and scared. Obvious he is thinking about taking control.......

I'm being a little naughty, as we can all come up with stories to support our arguments either way, but my point still is that it's easy for MCC training to swing too far towards very forceful f/o's who don't have the proper experience to evaluate certain situations.

In the end, it must all come down to top notch training.