Those damned pedantic idiot captains
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Haywards Heath
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the above "ideas" are not encouraged in UK airspace; here are some of the UK's rules regarding R/T:
Do not use "to" when mentioning Flight Levels.
Use "to" when mentioning altitudes but remember to prefix the altitude with the word "altitude".
The word "re-cleared" should not be used.
CAP413 Chapter 3 1.2.3 a) and b) refers.
Do not use "to" when mentioning Flight Levels.
Use "to" when mentioning altitudes but remember to prefix the altitude with the word "altitude".
The word "re-cleared" should not be used.
CAP413 Chapter 3 1.2.3 a) and b) refers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On the nose
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite correct, Ojuka. Rananim, you need to note that CAP413 gives standard R/T phraseology for all occasions. "Recleared" appears nowhere in it. It is unnecessary. To invent your own phraseology can confuse people and therefore lead to accidents. You just open up one hole in the Swiss Cheese.
To fail even to attempt to maintain standard phraseology is unprofessional and, ultimately dangerous. Having flown all over the world, I find that US pilots are the worst at this. It probably comes of flying most of their lives in totally English-speaking areas where the chance of being misunderstood is far less. They possibly then assume that this will be acceptable when they fly into Europe. Not so. No, I am sure there are very few accidents at O'Hare due to misunderstood R/T. So what? Irrelevant to how they speak over this side of the pond. Assuming that you can get away in one part of the world with being unprofessional and can therefore get away with it everywhere is complacent, and complacency leads to accidents.
To fail even to attempt to maintain standard phraseology is unprofessional and, ultimately dangerous. Having flown all over the world, I find that US pilots are the worst at this. It probably comes of flying most of their lives in totally English-speaking areas where the chance of being misunderstood is far less. They possibly then assume that this will be acceptable when they fly into Europe. Not so. No, I am sure there are very few accidents at O'Hare due to misunderstood R/T. So what? Irrelevant to how they speak over this side of the pond. Assuming that you can get away in one part of the world with being unprofessional and can therefore get away with it everywhere is complacent, and complacency leads to accidents.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my humble opinion, this thread was taking a disturbing trend for a while, but has, in more recent times, taken on a very positive direction. One of the major problems seems to be that many people had a different interpretation of the meaning of the word "pedantic". I've checked a number of dictionarys, and found a different meaning for the word in each of them. The one that I liked best, and most certainly supported my own viewpoint was -
"Excessive attention to detail"
Good, then I am indeed a confirmed pedant. In this exacting profession where small mistakes cost lives, or, at the very least opens up one more hole in the Swiss cheese, I have no problem with "going the extra mile" to make sure that everything is absolutely correct.
As an Instructor, and in the CERTAIN knowledge that upon completion of training and check-out, EVERY student will forget AT LEAST 20% of that which he/she has learned, it is vital to provide excessive attention to detail, such that the amount remembered will be 'about right'.
As a pilot in an airline employing 57 nationalities, and therefore possessing 57 possible interpretations of the English language, it is vital to pay excessive attention to the strict implementation of Standard calls and phraseologies, both within the cockpit and for ATC communications.
These are but 2 examples, nowhere did I find any reference to tunnel vision or inflexibility being associated with pedantism, these seem to have been oft expressed fears.
Near enough is not good enough, and good enough is not good enough, because innumerable occasions occur in this profession where we have to go "the extra mile" - Excess attention to detail is always required. I have found a cockpit where all Flight Crew members were paying excess attention to detail to be a VERY relaxed one, one doesn't have to worry about a fellow crew member being 'just good enough', or worse still, 'behind the 8 ball'.
As a Performance Engineer, I pay OBSESSIVE attention to detail, double, triple checking obstacles, performance data inputs, computer algorithms etc., maybe there's another definition for that. I hope so, if so, I'll admit to that too.
Fly safe,
Old Smokey
"Excessive attention to detail"
Good, then I am indeed a confirmed pedant. In this exacting profession where small mistakes cost lives, or, at the very least opens up one more hole in the Swiss cheese, I have no problem with "going the extra mile" to make sure that everything is absolutely correct.
As an Instructor, and in the CERTAIN knowledge that upon completion of training and check-out, EVERY student will forget AT LEAST 20% of that which he/she has learned, it is vital to provide excessive attention to detail, such that the amount remembered will be 'about right'.
As a pilot in an airline employing 57 nationalities, and therefore possessing 57 possible interpretations of the English language, it is vital to pay excessive attention to the strict implementation of Standard calls and phraseologies, both within the cockpit and for ATC communications.
These are but 2 examples, nowhere did I find any reference to tunnel vision or inflexibility being associated with pedantism, these seem to have been oft expressed fears.
Near enough is not good enough, and good enough is not good enough, because innumerable occasions occur in this profession where we have to go "the extra mile" - Excess attention to detail is always required. I have found a cockpit where all Flight Crew members were paying excess attention to detail to be a VERY relaxed one, one doesn't have to worry about a fellow crew member being 'just good enough', or worse still, 'behind the 8 ball'.
As a Performance Engineer, I pay OBSESSIVE attention to detail, double, triple checking obstacles, performance data inputs, computer algorithms etc., maybe there's another definition for that. I hope so, if so, I'll admit to that too.
Fly safe,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only a PPL at the moment and I'm wondering what makes someone a 'bad' pedantic?
I had two instructors, one who would brief me superbly, talk me through all aspects of the flight. The other would tell me to jump into the plane, let me get on with it and then bollock me when I made a mistake - then explain it!
I certainly preferred the 'pedantic' approach, where everything was spelled out prior to the flight.
I had two instructors, one who would brief me superbly, talk me through all aspects of the flight. The other would tell me to jump into the plane, let me get on with it and then bollock me when I made a mistake - then explain it!
I certainly preferred the 'pedantic' approach, where everything was spelled out prior to the flight.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APRIANA,
The first instructor that you mentioned went the extra mile with EXCESSIVE detail, in the certain knowledge that everything would be covered, with an extra buffer for that which you would inevitabely forget. He/she handed you a slab of Cheddar, not a piece of Swiss cheese.
The second good 'ol guy/girl handed you a bleedin' donut.
Now, which one did you learn the most from, and which one made you feel the most confident, and therefore relaxed?
Keep Safe,
Old Smokey
The first instructor that you mentioned went the extra mile with EXCESSIVE detail, in the certain knowledge that everything would be covered, with an extra buffer for that which you would inevitabely forget. He/she handed you a slab of Cheddar, not a piece of Swiss cheese.
The second good 'ol guy/girl handed you a bleedin' donut.
Now, which one did you learn the most from, and which one made you feel the most confident, and therefore relaxed?
Keep Safe,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Far away from civilisation
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Old Smokey,
A normal pedantic doesn't enter the tunnel, because he/she knows what his/her capabilities are and how far he can go with his attention for, lets say, extra detail. I think that is very good. Although I would prefer to stop using the word pedantic and change it to 'a pilot with eye for detail'. Of course every pilot must have this, some just go a little bit further.
The initiator of this thread described 'idiotic pedantics'. That is a pilot, in this case a captain, who uses pedantry as a weapon. This can have several reasons. The most anoying one is to cover up their own weak capabilities. As soon something is different from normal, problems arise.
A normal pedantic doesn't enter the tunnel, because he/she knows what his/her capabilities are and how far he can go with his attention for, lets say, extra detail. I think that is very good. Although I would prefer to stop using the word pedantic and change it to 'a pilot with eye for detail'. Of course every pilot must have this, some just go a little bit further.
The initiator of this thread described 'idiotic pedantics'. That is a pilot, in this case a captain, who uses pedantry as a weapon. This can have several reasons. The most anoying one is to cover up their own weak capabilities. As soon something is different from normal, problems arise.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subjective argument.If pedantic is taken as meaning giving excessive attention to detail,I stand by my original statements.The example of the thumbwheel several posts earlier is a good example of pedantry and facetiousness.It doesnt belong in the cockpit.Furthermore,and this is the crux of the whole thing,the idea that pedantry will somehow result in a higher degree of safety is a misnomer.It wont necessarily do so.
Apriana,
You had two instructors;one good,one not so good.Neither were pedantic.
Apriana,
You had two instructors;one good,one not so good.Neither were pedantic.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Labuan
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are being pedantic with this thread by not accepting other definitions of pedanticism....
The definition that I find most often for pednatic is: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.
Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.
So, where does this lead the argument? Well.....
A good, well rounded pilot should have a degree of pedantry to his/her flying. He/she will know the finer details (boned into him/her by an GOOD instructor - see next) and be able to be precise about it, in a well educated way.
A GOOD instructor MUST be pedantic for the very reasons Old Smokey points out above, and backed up herein via the definition of pedantic. An Instructor of any value MUST be pedantic - to fully explain the situation, to explain the background, the workings, the mathematics and physics of the who, what, when, where, and why, and because. What good is an instructor that does none of these, and so very well illustrated by Apriana?
When I was learning to fly, I regularly had two instructors. Bob, a dutchman, was extremely thorough with his pre-flight breifing, and every aspect of the flight, and a thorough debreifing.
The other one was Keith. An airforce drop out. His preflight breifings were 5 minutes maximum, and of no substance. He then expected you to know what was required of you, and you were then berated LOUDLY when you made a mistake, with NO attention to how to correct it. The debreifing was usually LONG, full of abuse, vitriol, and no attempt to explain the purpose, or theory to the flight.
In short time, I made sure I never flew with Keith again, making the point well known to the CFI of the school. I learnt more from Bob in ONE session than I did with Keith in several.
Bob was very pedantic, and did not have to resort to yelling to make a point. Yelling just raises the tension in a cockpit, and makes CRM a nightmare!
Old Smokey's analogy is like being handed a block of cheese, or being handed a slice of swiss cheese, full of holes. I like that analogy, but would go further.
It's the difference between having a pilot beside you TEACHING YOU, or a grumpy bastard beside you flinging excrement at you the whole time.
Now, of course there are variations within variations, but we are digressing from the topic, and straying from pedantry.
The opening topic to this thread concerned a Captain that berated an FO for removing his hand from the speedbrake lever. Was the Captain a pedant? Quite probably, as he was following proper CRM in regards to PNF/PF. HOW the FO was/is berated is dependant upon the individual, and how he saw fit to do it.
Would I yell at that FO for moving the hand? Not likely, all that I would mention is "HAND" and be done with it. Proper CRM and interpersonal skills would dictate that harshness would not be required in this situation. No need to intensify an already busy enough phase of a flight by escalating the "atmosphere" in the cockpit.
My point to all this ramble is that a good level of pedantry - attention to detail and KNOWLEDGEof the academic and minutae - is REQUIRED by a pilot. More pedaticism is required for a Captain, and a LOT more required for an Instructor/training captain/check captain/IP/SIP.
The way in which an infringemnt of SOP/CRM is handled is NOT pedanticism, it is a psychological conditioning of the captain. And it all likely comes back to how pednatic in instruction HIS IP was in the first place, and how he was treated!
Forewarned is fore-armed, and pedantic instruction arms you with the pre-requisites. How you handle it is up to you.
The definition that I find most often for pednatic is: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.
Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.
So, where does this lead the argument? Well.....
A good, well rounded pilot should have a degree of pedantry to his/her flying. He/she will know the finer details (boned into him/her by an GOOD instructor - see next) and be able to be precise about it, in a well educated way.
A GOOD instructor MUST be pedantic for the very reasons Old Smokey points out above, and backed up herein via the definition of pedantic. An Instructor of any value MUST be pedantic - to fully explain the situation, to explain the background, the workings, the mathematics and physics of the who, what, when, where, and why, and because. What good is an instructor that does none of these, and so very well illustrated by Apriana?
When I was learning to fly, I regularly had two instructors. Bob, a dutchman, was extremely thorough with his pre-flight breifing, and every aspect of the flight, and a thorough debreifing.
The other one was Keith. An airforce drop out. His preflight breifings were 5 minutes maximum, and of no substance. He then expected you to know what was required of you, and you were then berated LOUDLY when you made a mistake, with NO attention to how to correct it. The debreifing was usually LONG, full of abuse, vitriol, and no attempt to explain the purpose, or theory to the flight.
In short time, I made sure I never flew with Keith again, making the point well known to the CFI of the school. I learnt more from Bob in ONE session than I did with Keith in several.
Bob was very pedantic, and did not have to resort to yelling to make a point. Yelling just raises the tension in a cockpit, and makes CRM a nightmare!
Old Smokey's analogy is like being handed a block of cheese, or being handed a slice of swiss cheese, full of holes. I like that analogy, but would go further.
It's the difference between having a pilot beside you TEACHING YOU, or a grumpy bastard beside you flinging excrement at you the whole time.
Now, of course there are variations within variations, but we are digressing from the topic, and straying from pedantry.
The opening topic to this thread concerned a Captain that berated an FO for removing his hand from the speedbrake lever. Was the Captain a pedant? Quite probably, as he was following proper CRM in regards to PNF/PF. HOW the FO was/is berated is dependant upon the individual, and how he saw fit to do it.
Would I yell at that FO for moving the hand? Not likely, all that I would mention is "HAND" and be done with it. Proper CRM and interpersonal skills would dictate that harshness would not be required in this situation. No need to intensify an already busy enough phase of a flight by escalating the "atmosphere" in the cockpit.
My point to all this ramble is that a good level of pedantry - attention to detail and KNOWLEDGEof the academic and minutae - is REQUIRED by a pilot. More pedaticism is required for a Captain, and a LOT more required for an Instructor/training captain/check captain/IP/SIP.
The way in which an infringemnt of SOP/CRM is handled is NOT pedanticism, it is a psychological conditioning of the captain. And it all likely comes back to how pednatic in instruction HIS IP was in the first place, and how he was treated!
Forewarned is fore-armed, and pedantic instruction arms you with the pre-requisites. How you handle it is up to you.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Haywards Heath
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APRIANA:
Your modesty would stand you well in an ongoing commercial training environment. However; you are not ONLY a PPL. You are a trained pilot who has worked hard for the qualification you have achieved. Don't put yourself down! Well done so far!
Your modesty would stand you well in an ongoing commercial training environment. However; you are not ONLY a PPL. You are a trained pilot who has worked hard for the qualification you have achieved. Don't put yourself down! Well done so far!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lot of vital points made here...
but, without wanting to be pedantic.... :-) :-) :-) , I´d like to quote MarkVIII:
My point to all this ramble is that a good level of pedantry - attention to detail and KNOWLEDGEof the academic and minutae - is REQUIRED by a pilot. More pedaticism is required for a Captain, and a LOT more required for an Instructor/training captain/check captain/IP/SIP.
While I´m with you for the most time, there is time and space to " let the guys go" and more important, let them make their own mistakes to learn. If you´re always "pedantic" it will be hard to learn and keep his motivation up. I´m instructing PPL(very seldom) and ClassRatings (more often) - now I understand that the line is not the place for making mistakes, the initial incident of this thread was such a minor one (IMO), that I honestly do think, not mentioning it at all would have been a good idea.
but, without wanting to be pedantic.... :-) :-) :-) , I´d like to quote MarkVIII:
My point to all this ramble is that a good level of pedantry - attention to detail and KNOWLEDGEof the academic and minutae - is REQUIRED by a pilot. More pedaticism is required for a Captain, and a LOT more required for an Instructor/training captain/check captain/IP/SIP.
While I´m with you for the most time, there is time and space to " let the guys go" and more important, let them make their own mistakes to learn. If you´re always "pedantic" it will be hard to learn and keep his motivation up. I´m instructing PPL(very seldom) and ClassRatings (more often) - now I understand that the line is not the place for making mistakes, the initial incident of this thread was such a minor one (IMO), that I honestly do think, not mentioning it at all would have been a good idea.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Labuan
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, to an extent.
In GA and GA training, the scenario you describe is more or less acceptable.
BUT...
Within an airline / RPT environment, I don't think there exists any room for an unchecked error! There is too much at stake should that small, "insignificant" error escalate (which they do!). Snowball effect.
In GA and GA training, the scenario you describe is more or less acceptable.
BUT...
Within an airline / RPT environment, I don't think there exists any room for an unchecked error! There is too much at stake should that small, "insignificant" error escalate (which they do!). Snowball effect.
I think this whole discussion revolves on our interpretation of "pedantic".
"Excessive attention to detail" strikes me as something which can lead to loss of situational awareness i.e. concentrating on perfecting individual items to the detriment of the overall picture. I believe the majority of posters on this thread are conscientious highly professional individuals who are in the practice of double checking everything they do. I do not call that pedantry.
I personally think a pedant is the kind of person who refuses to select "Flap" 5, because the old flap lever is actually marked "flaps". Or the Captain who picks up an F/O because he has used calm wind to calculate performance, when the ATIS is giving a 10 kt headwind, when in reality the Capt is not using airmanship to cover the lulls, but after all is following the book.
"Excessive attention to detail" strikes me as something which can lead to loss of situational awareness i.e. concentrating on perfecting individual items to the detriment of the overall picture. I believe the majority of posters on this thread are conscientious highly professional individuals who are in the practice of double checking everything they do. I do not call that pedantry.
I personally think a pedant is the kind of person who refuses to select "Flap" 5, because the old flap lever is actually marked "flaps". Or the Captain who picks up an F/O because he has used calm wind to calculate performance, when the ATIS is giving a 10 kt headwind, when in reality the Capt is not using airmanship to cover the lulls, but after all is following the book.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm finding a lot to agree with all over this thread.
I'd rather not limit it to a definition of the word "pedantic" if people don't mind, particularly since people's personal definitions will vary - some will find some behaviour unnecessarily, nitpickingly "pedantic" while others will accept it as the norm. Further, there will be significant grey areas for everyone.
One suggestion I have to make is that an inexperienced F/O will not necessarily appreciate the importance in the mind of some more experienced pilots of particular items, such as XXTSGR's points about R/T discipline.
In my experience, often it is the case that Captains who have a "thing" about one particular aspect of flying have had an incident related to that area in the past, and are particularly sensitive about it. I am not talking about referring to the "Flaps" lever instead of the "Flap" lever, nor about using a finger on the "thumb"wheel, but rather to such areas as use of correct R/T, or particularly briefing on, say, take-off diversion if the departure runway should close in VFR, CAVOK conditions, etc.
This is an excellent topic, and please keep the contributions coming. I would just plead for people not to try to narrow it down too far.
I'd rather not limit it to a definition of the word "pedantic" if people don't mind, particularly since people's personal definitions will vary - some will find some behaviour unnecessarily, nitpickingly "pedantic" while others will accept it as the norm. Further, there will be significant grey areas for everyone.
One suggestion I have to make is that an inexperienced F/O will not necessarily appreciate the importance in the mind of some more experienced pilots of particular items, such as XXTSGR's points about R/T discipline.
In my experience, often it is the case that Captains who have a "thing" about one particular aspect of flying have had an incident related to that area in the past, and are particularly sensitive about it. I am not talking about referring to the "Flaps" lever instead of the "Flap" lever, nor about using a finger on the "thumb"wheel, but rather to such areas as use of correct R/T, or particularly briefing on, say, take-off diversion if the departure runway should close in VFR, CAVOK conditions, etc.
This is an excellent topic, and please keep the contributions coming. I would just plead for people not to try to narrow it down too far.
I have been watching this thread with some interest.
From the training point of view (and, when all is said and done, line captains ought to be acting in a "coaching" role at least) you may have to decide whether to comment on one major aspect of a pilot's operation rather than drop on every bit of minutae. I think if you start badgering about every single item that is not quite "standard" this can become counter-productive and can lead to an unpleasant atmosphere on the flight deck. This does NOT mean that you should accept an unacceptable standard but this is all about HOW we encourage our fellow colleagues to be better at what they do.
Sometimes delaying making a point can be much more productive than dropping on it at the time. I recall flying with a good FO one day and we had to hold for a while prior to landing at Iraklion. The weather was perfect (day) and he let the automatics fly it round the hold at 250 kts. The max speed for holding was 210 kt but I decided to stay silent to see whether he might pick up his own error. He didn't but it was not until the next day over a cup of coffee prior to our next duty that I commented on it! He was most grateful and took the point on board. Remember that the foundation for the task is laid when you are NOT doing the task. Take a read of John Adair's book "The Skills of Leadership" where he talks about "action-centred" leadership. Generalising, in the "western" world we tend to be very "task" oriented whereas if we spend more time on the "group" and "individual" needs we are much more likely to get the task done efficiently.
Spend some time building a good working relationship with your fellow pilot and this will pay dividends. This does not mean we have to go all "touchy/feely" just use common sense and establish some rapport before addressing the task issues! This takes extra "work" but in the end is much more satisfying and productive.
From the training point of view (and, when all is said and done, line captains ought to be acting in a "coaching" role at least) you may have to decide whether to comment on one major aspect of a pilot's operation rather than drop on every bit of minutae. I think if you start badgering about every single item that is not quite "standard" this can become counter-productive and can lead to an unpleasant atmosphere on the flight deck. This does NOT mean that you should accept an unacceptable standard but this is all about HOW we encourage our fellow colleagues to be better at what they do.
Sometimes delaying making a point can be much more productive than dropping on it at the time. I recall flying with a good FO one day and we had to hold for a while prior to landing at Iraklion. The weather was perfect (day) and he let the automatics fly it round the hold at 250 kts. The max speed for holding was 210 kt but I decided to stay silent to see whether he might pick up his own error. He didn't but it was not until the next day over a cup of coffee prior to our next duty that I commented on it! He was most grateful and took the point on board. Remember that the foundation for the task is laid when you are NOT doing the task. Take a read of John Adair's book "The Skills of Leadership" where he talks about "action-centred" leadership. Generalising, in the "western" world we tend to be very "task" oriented whereas if we spend more time on the "group" and "individual" needs we are much more likely to get the task done efficiently.
Spend some time building a good working relationship with your fellow pilot and this will pay dividends. This does not mean we have to go all "touchy/feely" just use common sense and establish some rapport before addressing the task issues! This takes extra "work" but in the end is much more satisfying and productive.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had coffee with F/O mate of mine who flies 737's. He was quite upset. Seems he was landing on long runway and speed brake did not deploy on touch-down. The captain either failed to see it or deliberately ignored its non-operation.
The F/O who was winding up the reverse thrust spotted from his position in the RH seat that the speed brake did not come up. He immediately called "Speed brake not up". Captain did nothing. F/O again called speed brake not up. Captain did nothing. F/O now in full reverse then let go of reverse levers and reached over and actuated the speed brake - and returned to the reverse thrust levers. The captain roared to life and shouted (that was the correct word) "Don't you ever do that again - it is my job to actuate the speed brake - not yours".
Is it any wonder the some first officers become disillusioned when they have to crew with pedantics like that (if that is the appropriate word, of course)
The F/O who was winding up the reverse thrust spotted from his position in the RH seat that the speed brake did not come up. He immediately called "Speed brake not up". Captain did nothing. F/O again called speed brake not up. Captain did nothing. F/O now in full reverse then let go of reverse levers and reached over and actuated the speed brake - and returned to the reverse thrust levers. The captain roared to life and shouted (that was the correct word) "Don't you ever do that again - it is my job to actuate the speed brake - not yours".
Is it any wonder the some first officers become disillusioned when they have to crew with pedantics like that (if that is the appropriate word, of course)
Menen - an interesting incident. Did the FO discuss what went on with the Captain after they had got off the aircraft?
My answer would have been perhaps "Well, sir, I was doing my job since having called non operation of the speedbrake twice and you failed to operate same I assumed that you had become incapacitated and therefore operated the speedbrake myself to ensure safe flight/landing etc."
If this did not get the required result (ie at least an apology!) then I might be inclined to inform said Captain that I would be discussing the incident with the company's training staff for their opinion!
But remember to get his cards on the table first - maybe there was a good reason why he didn't operate the speedbrake (doubtful I know - but you need to find out WHY he didn't before stating your case!)
My answer would have been perhaps "Well, sir, I was doing my job since having called non operation of the speedbrake twice and you failed to operate same I assumed that you had become incapacitated and therefore operated the speedbrake myself to ensure safe flight/landing etc."
If this did not get the required result (ie at least an apology!) then I might be inclined to inform said Captain that I would be discussing the incident with the company's training staff for their opinion!
But remember to get his cards on the table first - maybe there was a good reason why he didn't operate the speedbrake (doubtful I know - but you need to find out WHY he didn't before stating your case!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I posted a reply but it may have got lost in space, so apologies if it appears again as a double up.
Regarding the case of the speed brake failure to extend and lack of action by the caotain. The captain concerned is unapproachable and in any case it is a courageous (remember Yes Minister prose?) first officer that would go running to higher authority to report a boorish captain. Best relax, have a nice cup of tea, and put it down to experience.
The event reminds me of the type of captain that is affable and easy going to his crew members while enjoying a few drinks at the pub, but as soon as he sits in the left seat a transformation takes place and he turns into a pedantic unyeilding I AM THE CAPTAIN type. One is caught completely by surprise by this transformation of persona.
The unsettling part of it all is as soon as the trip is over and you are in the bus back to the hotel, he transforms back into being a really nice bloke while is seemingly oblivious to the damage he has wreaked on the poor first officer. CRM of course means nothing to this rather dangerous cockpit companion.
Regarding the case of the speed brake failure to extend and lack of action by the caotain. The captain concerned is unapproachable and in any case it is a courageous (remember Yes Minister prose?) first officer that would go running to higher authority to report a boorish captain. Best relax, have a nice cup of tea, and put it down to experience.
The event reminds me of the type of captain that is affable and easy going to his crew members while enjoying a few drinks at the pub, but as soon as he sits in the left seat a transformation takes place and he turns into a pedantic unyeilding I AM THE CAPTAIN type. One is caught completely by surprise by this transformation of persona.
The unsettling part of it all is as soon as the trip is over and you are in the bus back to the hotel, he transforms back into being a really nice bloke while is seemingly oblivious to the damage he has wreaked on the poor first officer. CRM of course means nothing to this rather dangerous cockpit companion.
Menen, I am with you - I have come across a few characters who are like you describe!
Some points to consider: Firstly, remember that he is the Captain whether you like it or not and in a lifetime of flying you are bound to come across the odd guy who you don't altogether hit it off with or who appears to be a trfle "unusual" shall we say!
My personal view is that a flight safety issue such as this should not be swept under the carpet. From a pure procedural point of view there is the issue of why he did not deploy speedbrake after the FO had twice called it. From the CRM point of view there is the issue of how he reacted to the FOs operation of the speedbrake and the ramifications this has for flight safety. If you are sitting there as an FO preoccupied with an event like this then you might miss something later which is even more important.
In the first case you have to discuss this man-to-man with the individual concerned. Not in a confrontational way but in a matter of fact, well look we need to work together as a team, I want to be a professional crew member and this event concerns me etc etc. If the individual is not prepared to talk then, assuming you are sure of your facts, it's time to perhaps talk to the training section without even mentioning any names - they probably will have a good idea of who you are talking about anyway!! Just getting it off your chest and some back up that you did do the right thing can often be enough to resolve the issue in your own mind.
In conclusion I don't thinkanything is acheived by not dealing with these issues. If its trivial then take the FIDO approach (Forget It and Drive On!) but from the information you have given I don't think the event you describe is trvial.
Good Luck!
Some points to consider: Firstly, remember that he is the Captain whether you like it or not and in a lifetime of flying you are bound to come across the odd guy who you don't altogether hit it off with or who appears to be a trfle "unusual" shall we say!
My personal view is that a flight safety issue such as this should not be swept under the carpet. From a pure procedural point of view there is the issue of why he did not deploy speedbrake after the FO had twice called it. From the CRM point of view there is the issue of how he reacted to the FOs operation of the speedbrake and the ramifications this has for flight safety. If you are sitting there as an FO preoccupied with an event like this then you might miss something later which is even more important.
In the first case you have to discuss this man-to-man with the individual concerned. Not in a confrontational way but in a matter of fact, well look we need to work together as a team, I want to be a professional crew member and this event concerns me etc etc. If the individual is not prepared to talk then, assuming you are sure of your facts, it's time to perhaps talk to the training section without even mentioning any names - they probably will have a good idea of who you are talking about anyway!! Just getting it off your chest and some back up that you did do the right thing can often be enough to resolve the issue in your own mind.
In conclusion I don't thinkanything is acheived by not dealing with these issues. If its trivial then take the FIDO approach (Forget It and Drive On!) but from the information you have given I don't think the event you describe is trvial.
Good Luck!