Takeoff safety Brief- who is kidding who?

[Centaurus]

The captain and first officer are seated ready to start engines. The captain then gives a standard briefing regarding his plan of action in event of a malfunction below and beyond V1 and his requirements regarding return for landing or diversion if the departure weather is crappy. In other words, the captain of the ship is running the show and his second in command is aware of his own duties of support and monitoring.

On another trip, the captain turns to his second in command and asks him if he would like to carry out the departure as PF.

Thanks for that, says the 2ic (some really do say thanks, you know!) and then proceeds to brief the captain of his (the captain's) responsibilities in event of an abort or go, and all the other things that as the now subordinate, the captain is expected to carry out. In other words the roles have changed.

For the moment forget the PF and PNF business. Someone has to wear the blame if something goes wrong at a critical time. Someone is empowered by law to be in command of the ship for the duration of the journey (flight). Someone is paid a higher salary based upon seniority and experience. We all know who that someone is. Live with it.

What is the point therefore of requiring that the first officer brief the captain on his duties as captain, when he already knows what his responsibilities are? What is the point of the F/O saying to the captain "In event of a problem below V1 You will take this action or that action and after airborne you will do this and that Isn't this a case of the tail wagging the dog? Isn't this all superfluous chat?

I know that this post is sure to bring down a storm of abuse and calls for me to be keel-hauled - but so be it. I see no specific safety reason for the captain not to be entirely responsible for each take off safety briefing rather than the current warm and fuzzy pseudo briefing by the first officer - no matter how democratic it may be.

It is different situation for the descent and approach briefing where it is right that the PF briefs his set ups and general requirement. It is the before take off safety brief that I have my concerns about. This is where the danger area surrounding an abort/go decision is ever present.

Ok - let the verbal jousting begin...

[SortieIII]

I am not sure, but I doubt that this is industry 'best practice'?

Where I work, PIC briefs what he is going to do, P2 briefs what he is going to do. The briefing changes according to who will be flying the aircraft. So, if P2 is flying, P1 briefs the RTO because he is still required to do it, P2 briefs what he is going to do.

Sounds like this should be directed to your company.

[Pagoda]

I guess this post belongs on the CRM forum, here are my two Italian lira though.

You said:

" Someone is paid a higher salary based upon seniority and experience. We all know who that someone is. Live with it. "

It seems that you may be talking about somebody in particular or perhaps you have unresolved issues within yourself. Although what you say is a truism there is an aggression about the way you say it. This sort of thing is unlikely to generate a good working environment around you.


The safety brief deals with the actions to be taken by PF and PNF. Although the captain (as you love to point out - perhaps continuously) does have the final authority at this stage it is assumed that SOP's will be followed. The brief reminds both pilots what each one is expected to do and in which order. It should also bring into focus the specific differences of the day based on WX, terrain, performance, notams, Mel items, etc. You seem to resent that anyone will assume that you will follow the SOP's. If you won't this is perhaps a good time to say so or you might find yourself flying single pilot. (maybe that is the way you like it)

It is a good opportunity for you to find out what the PF (fo) intends to do if the S### hits the fan.

It is a good opportunity to find out the fo's grasp of SOP's

The fo will be a cpt someday so he can start now to develop the thought processes associated with it.

Democracy has nothing to do with this whatever, the point is communication, expectations, allocation of duties, training, etc.

In any case a good briefing is interactive and open and not just drone on about 'what I will do' but ask 'what will you do?'

You obviously feel quite insecure in your command and feel that command is about doing. I will let you into a secret, command is about managing.

Will you not rather find out an fo's misunderstanding of SOP's or misreading of a situation through his briefing than through his actions? Perhaps you rather hear the comforting sound of your own voice...

[beamer]

In my Company, as in most I believe, we fly leg and leg about. The selection of sector is as a matter of courtesy usually offered to the FO subject to any particular judgement of the skipper on the day related to currency, weather etc.

PF briefs the departure - if this is the FO, I would expect him to retain control of the aircraft in any emergency and follow his briefed intentions with whatever support and co-operation I can provide. Once the immediate 'crisis' is over and in all probability the autopilot is engaged, I MAY elect to fly the aircraft as is my perogative as Commander. If it is a straightforward problem I would invariably be happy to let the FO continue as PF - if we are double asymmetric or things are really bleak then I may take control - it all depends on the day.

All self-respecting occupants of the rhs want to achieve commands - they should be given every opportunity to develop their skills of all kinds to be ready for the sudden phone call from the Chief Pilot that says 'your command course starts tomorrrow' - yes, I know that in this day and age, such calls are few and far between !!!

Sometimes F/O's may feel they are going through the motions, sometimes they feel less than ready to develop their role - I flew with a chap not long ago who was horrified when I asked him to
give a 'welcome PA' to the passengers - he almost started shaking - what he would have done if an engine failed at V1 - well I do wonder !

[Interconti]

Good practice in progressive airlines:

Captain always briefs up to V1. Pilot flying (PF) briefs after V1.

Beamer about PA; F/O s are "deputy captains" and should be able to fulfil all duties, including PA's in all situations including emergencies. However this would be in a perfect world.

A very bad example is (was) Swissair; copilots are only "allowed" to do routine announcements at captains discretion. The problem is that when they go through command upgrade they are completely useless in this regard.

Was flying as a PAX from BRU- ZRH with a Swissair lady getting her command line training after being a F/O for 14 years. We were about to take off into a thunderstorm area. With an unsecure and shaky and obsequious voice she delivered a very very bad passenger address..... I wanted to leave the aircraft but I could not.....

[Dimensional]

Centaurus:

I'm a student pilot with a rather large flying organisation in the UK. Every take-off, just before calling for Departure, we do the take off brief. If it's my T/O, I -- as the student pilot with a whole 35 hours -- brief the a/c commander (8,000hrs+) about what to do in the event of anything going wrong. Why?

• Because one day it'll be me sitting there with some green co-pilot/nav/stude beside or behind me (hopefully)
• Because it helps to know exactly where the boundaries lie before takeoff (e.g. height to put the aircraft back on the runway)
• Because I have control of the aircraft up and until the FI takes over (or I sht a brick and give him control)
• Because it's good CRM to know exactly what we're going to do in the event of it going t*ts up

It's not the jumped-up stude telling the FI how and when he's going to fly the aircraft in the event of an emergency, or some fluffy people-management thing designed to make me feel better as a stude -- it's just common sense.

-D

[Interconti]

Dimensional

You are talking about a single pilot operation in which you are trained as "pilot in command".

In an airline you will be second in command, at least for the first few years. On a two men flight deck the pilot in command bears the full responsibilty for the safe execution of the flight. Even when the copilot - up, the captain will be the can carrier and thus be made fully responsible for anything what happens on that flight . However this does not mean that the copilot will not be held responsible if something goes wrong because of his own shortcomings!

The take- off run up to V1 (take-off decision speed) is very critical therefore only the captain will brief and eventually initiate a take- off abortion if required. There is not sufficient time for a "team assessment" close to V1.

Don't worry your time will come where you shout STOP!! And slam these levers back.....

[M.Mouse]

In some airlines (mine) a first officer can call stop for certain malfunctions (4 in all) and 2 extra ones when he is PF.

It assumes that he/she is capable of recognising a fire warning, an engine failure or a windshear warning.

There are airlines and many captains that do not believe that a co-pilot not should be allowed to call stop, (just watch the responses to this post!).

[Cap 56]

The fo will be a cpt someday so he can start now to develop the thought processes associated with it.

This is a fair statement and covers the whole issue as long as the Capt has his hands on the throttle to perform the abort.

Certain issues can be left over to the F/O during normal line flying in order to get them as well prepared as possible.

Certain issues can only be left to the F/O in the sim and they will get plenty of practise during their upgrade training.

Now, the F/O is there to monitor the Capt And the other way around and both pilots just have to accept that, if not something is wrong.

[flying_elvis]

Mountain out of a mole hill.

I've heard lots of briefs. They all suck...The really arrogant guys appreciate the opportunity to thump the chests.

Abort...Stop on the runway...Stay on the runway....Close the runway.

Airborne...Keep flying the plane no matter what happens. VFR? Stay VFR and turn downwind. IFR? Safe altitude. Know which runway you're coming back to and have the chart out, not your book open. PF flys and talks...PNF runs the checklist.

Above all else....remember the gear and flaps 20.....EVERYTHING ELSE IS EXTRA CREDIT.

Airmanship, like sports, is all about executing the BASICS! If you're the kind of guy that needs to dot every (i) and cross every (t), then you will never have superior airmanship. You may develop superior public speaking skills. But I submit there's a great deal of difference between those who talk and those who do. This is not to say the brief isn't important , it is.

But a windbag brief always makes me suspicious of a pilot's true skill and airmanship.

[Bealzebub]

The Captain would know what his responsibilities are, and of course he has the right to take overriding control at any time if he deems it necessary. However I think that rather misses the point of the briefings. They are intended to review the application of routine and emergency procedures for a specific runway and airport within a varying set of meteorological conditions and aircraft servicibilities. although much of the briefing will probably be very routine, it is particularly important to use the opportunity to ensure that you both ( or all ) are singing off the same hymn sheet and fully understand how an individual intends to deal with that take off (or landing) if all goes to plan and more importantly if it doesn't.
Obviously it is largely impractical to deal with all possible contingencies, however a broad understanding of when and for what a stop call will be made is important.

I am sometimes dissapointed with the briefings that are given from the other seat, particularly when they are simply recited poorly rehearsed statements that often make little valuable contribution to any real understanding of that pilots thinking.
For example as speed increases during the take off roll the decision to abandon should only be made on a progressively increasing level of seriousness. Guidance on this matter is given in company operations manuals and in various authority publications. This is an issue that warrants clarification in the briefing. However the number of briefs I hear along the lines of ;
"We will abandon for any abnormality below V1, and continue above that ". Well, no not really. There are many abnormalities ( very many indeed) that I would most certainly not want to abandon for below V1 and certainly not when approaching that speed.

Any brief should always conclude with "any questions" or "anything you would like to add", so that the other pilot has the opportunity to clarify or question anything that may be ambiguous. That opportunity should always be used if appropriate. It is never going to be an exact science, but it is an important part of the communication and understanding process.

I don't think many Captains would be offended at being reminded of the after take off actions in the event of an engine failure, especially as they probably have the same amount of practice that you do. Indeed reminding them what actions you expect to see also reinforces your own knowledge and further clarifies your own understanding.

I do not think for one minute that f/o's always agree with my decision process in each and every take off, however I always take the opportunity afforded by the briefing to explain my rational and am happy to discuss it. This may give rise to some varying opinion but it provides a better understanding of what is wanted and how calls and actions are likely to be carried out in the event of a rapid and non-standard event occuring during a critical point in the flight.

[411A]

Standard procedures...

Captain mentions his actions prior to V1, and if he is the flying pilot, the intended instrument departure.

First Officer, if he is the flying pilot, briefly mentions his actions should a malfunction occur, and then the intended instrument departure.

At the end, I always end with...'Standard company procedures and callouts'.

And with PA announcements, the First Officer makes his when he is the flying pilot, and when I was flying, I handed the PA microphone to the Flight Engineer...which always seemed like a good idea to me.
That way I could concentrate on the Wall Street Journal/International Herald Tribune.

[Iakklat]

Airbus philosophy and straight from the FCOM

Task Sharing
The pilot flying remains pilot flying throughout the procedure.PF,the pilot flying, is responsible for:
-thrust levers
-control of flight path and airspeed
-aircraft configuration(request configuration change)
-navigation
-communications
PNF,the pilot not flying,is responsible for:
-reading aloud the Ecam and checklists
-executing required action or actions requested by the PF,if applicable
-operating the engine master switch and ENG FIRE pushbutton(monitored by the Pf)
So if the F/O was Pf then yes it is very relevant that the brief be conducted by the PF(F/O)and no that is not CRM but common sense and in line with Airbus (the manufacturers) philosophy.

[Cap 56]

Flying Elvis

But a windbag brief always makes me suspicious of a pilot's true skill and airmanship.

You are 100 % on the ball. Just stick to the basics and then when it happens don't rush.

But the numbers of times I have seen routine taking over.....after 25 departures on 27 L at LHR the one day you get a 09 departure, they keep on briefing a left turn out of habit .... that's why its good to have the F/O as PF doing the briefing and visa versa.

Now if the crew departs on a flight where the biorhythms are upside down, I think it to be a good idea to emphasize certain things at the discretion of the Captain.

[Menen]

Iakklat. Certainly Air Bus have laid out their recommendations clearly and concisely. The PF however is going to be an extremely busy person doing all that he has to do as per AirBus SOP and as well talk on the radio arranging clearances, explaining to ATC his intentions. Of course the Air Bus SOP is designed for trained and presumably highly experienced first officers (as PF) I am sure the policy works well, too.

I have no desire to get embroiled in a discussion that will be around for years to come BUT - my experience has been that very low experience PF's become quickly over-loaded at being the one armed paper hangar in the RH seat. I have actually had the unpleasant experience of seeing a new F/O pull off his head-set and throw it to the floor, announcing "I can't handle this, I'm sorry" This was during a descent into Manila at night when the radio was particularly busy with difficult accents and last minute runway changes. From then on the rest of the descent was literally single pilot IFR in a jet transport. Would you then trust this person with a critical decision near V1 if he suddenly called STOP on a wet runway balanced field?

Not all RH seat pilots are aces and the task assigned by the Air Bus SOP strikes me as designed for aces.

[DFC]

IMHO, many of the comments above show a lack of understanding of exactly what the differences are between

a) Being in command and/or being responsible; and

b) Operating the aircraft.

Does this desire to distrust the abilities of the person on the right and do it oneself come from the basic training given at initial stages - "you are the pilot - if you don't do it then it won't be done". The whole basic traning and initial IR place emphasis on the "pilot" dealing with any emergency or unusual situation and having achieved "primacy" with this SOP, a brief MCC course tries to get people away from that method of operation.

To me, provided that the RHS 200 hour person flying the aircraft is dealing with it as required, I will not step in. Yes I am incharge and absolutely responsible but it's not like I am sitting down the back row....I am closely monitoring and a 2ft or less movement of my limbs combined with two short words puts me flying the aircraft.

Perhaps the new ICAO proposals for a co-pilot licence has it's merits.

Regards,

DFC

[haughtney1]

here here Elvis........a voice of common sense!.......funny though, common sense aint that common in aviation, you must be a rebel!

[Iakklat]

Menen,no not really the Airbus sops as laid down work extremely well.Talking on the radio and arranging clearances etc etc is the PF responsibility but it comes down to the prioirtys of flight when dealing with a problem.Airbus dont advocate the PF(if the F/O)to reject the takeoff as you so colourfully illustrated and that still is the Commanders decision.
With the episode of your descent and language barrier problems, and the tantrum of your F/O, i argue that has nothing at all to do with laid down policy simply you were flying with a "dud" and that could have also been the sceanario if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak, and the Commander threw his headset down in a fit of rage.Then i ask you Menen would you want this individual to reject the takeoff on a balanced field length in slippery conditions.
The Airbus policy works very well in the Airline that i fly for and by no means does one have to be an ace to adopt the policy and make it work.
Again looking through your history of posts you are very much in favour of adopting manufacturers recommendations, yet now this one with regard to the Airbus SOPS just doesnt gel ,mmmmm,what to do now???

[dicksynormous]

Im with elvis,say what you are going to do and say it in day to day english, not some formal affected pilot babble laced with, select elect, etc etc.

Then do it.

[FullWings]

Gosh

I haven't come across (in my airline) thinking like that displayed in the parent post for many, many years.

I remember (as a very junior FO) flying with an ex-military skipper who did just as described. We were on a four day shorthaul tour on the 737: I never got a sector and the only words he ever said to me were the ones printed on the checklist. (Well, at least he used one )

On the penultimate day we were going into XXX in fairly poor weather (rest of the days were CAVOK). I flew what I regarded as a pretty good non-precision approach down to limits (not much help from the LHS, either) and he took over to land. I think I sort of switched off a bit as he had done all the (very limited) briefings and insisted on taking all the flying (except for the approach in bad weather ). Big mistake.

At the last moment I woke up and realised he wasn't flaring the aircraft. I made a grab for the control column but was too late and we impacted terra firma hard enough for me to bang my head on the coaming and for the holds to come open. We limped back in silence to the stand in pouring rain. I tried to convince him to put something in the tech. log but I was obviously invisible/inaudible at the time.

He was eventually called in by the management for not reporting a heavy landing (just under 3g from the QAR), was suspended, then finally retired early.

You reap what you sow.