PF/PNF or PF/PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
From: Europe-the sunshine side
Boeing changed this recently,I guess at a FAA request,in order to describe the pilots by what they're doing
ilot flying ,and of course ,pilot monitoring.
Pilot not flying was,apparently,a vague definition.He is also not driving,not drinking,not sleeping,not having sex (at the moment )...etc
So ,more correct,he is monitoring the pilot flying.
ilot flying ,and of course ,pilot monitoring.Pilot not flying was,apparently,a vague definition.He is also not driving,not drinking,not sleeping,not having sex (at the moment
)...etcSo ,more correct,he is monitoring the pilot flying.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 2
From: Sale, Australia
The trend in some organisations these days is to refer to PF (pilot flying) and PM (pilot monitoring) to more accurately reflect the respective roles. It has been suggested (CRM courses I’ve done) that to say that one is “not flying” infers you are superfluous to the aircrafts operation. An extreme I guess would be to say when coupled up both crew would be PNF. All semantics I guess and some would see it as a touchy feely sort of issue. Our operation uses the PF/PNF.
Brian
Brian
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 352
From: UK
Boeing changed their terminology to come into line with some US CRM thinking (blowing in the wind?); alternatively, Airbus has not, although they did discuss the subject.
Labeling people or their jobs can polarize thinking and constrain some activities. Monitoring is a valuable safety tool, but it is also a complex subject. In reality both pilots should be monitoring, first the aircraft and the environment, second themselves, and then other people.
Alex you perpetuate a common misunderstanding that it is possible for one person to monitor another. Whilst this may be true for some physical actions, it may not be so for the many thinking processes – situation awareness, decisions, plans, thoughts, the failures of which often lead to accidents.
Thus, the act of monitoring should be on the output of thinking to include both the thought and action. The best way to achieve this is to see what the effects are on the aircraft, what is happening, where it is going, then try to understand why. If the monitoring pilot does not understand what is happening (e.g. PF not following SOPs) or the result does not fit the situation then s/he must intervene – call out or question the pilot flying. Therefore, the task of the monitor is somewhat similar to a continuous threat and error management process where the ‘labeled’ duties (PF) will take action and the (PM) will intervene.
The best option may be to retain the use PF and PNF, these define the primary functions – where at least one person should be flying at all times; whereas there are many situations where monitoring cannot occur because of crew tasks and workload.
Labeling people or their jobs can polarize thinking and constrain some activities. Monitoring is a valuable safety tool, but it is also a complex subject. In reality both pilots should be monitoring, first the aircraft and the environment, second themselves, and then other people.
Alex you perpetuate a common misunderstanding that it is possible for one person to monitor another. Whilst this may be true for some physical actions, it may not be so for the many thinking processes – situation awareness, decisions, plans, thoughts, the failures of which often lead to accidents.
Thus, the act of monitoring should be on the output of thinking to include both the thought and action. The best way to achieve this is to see what the effects are on the aircraft, what is happening, where it is going, then try to understand why. If the monitoring pilot does not understand what is happening (e.g. PF not following SOPs) or the result does not fit the situation then s/he must intervene – call out or question the pilot flying. Therefore, the task of the monitor is somewhat similar to a continuous threat and error management process where the ‘labeled’ duties (PF) will take action and the (PM) will intervene.
The best option may be to retain the use PF and PNF, these define the primary functions – where at least one person should be flying at all times; whereas there are many situations where monitoring cannot occur because of crew tasks and workload.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: Thailand
Is this the PC brigade gone mad again? For all these years we have all happily used PF and PNF so why do we now have to change it? What possible good does such a change give us all? Do we better understand our roles in Aviation? Pathetic and wasteful, the whole issue.
And another thing, why did they get rid of the colour codes for Airways?
And another thing, why did they get rid of the colour codes for Airways?
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 761
Likes: 22
From: England
The PM suggestion has come from a study done in the US by several bodies working together and has come up with some interesting results. From memory something like 62% of errors went undetected by the crew and this reduced dramatically when the other guy was nominated to monitor rather than assist.
The article is printed in the July issue of the Business and Comercial Aviation magazine. Unfortunately it is not downloadable so I can not post a link, but it is a good article.
MM
The article is printed in the July issue of the Business and Comercial Aviation magazine. Unfortunately it is not downloadable so I can not post a link, but it is a good article.
MM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 801
Likes: 1
From: Southeast USA
Well, I thought the following had at least some merit ....
Role Description: Handling Pilot and Non-Handling Pilot
The Landing Pilot is the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off and landing except in role reversal when he is the Handling Pilot for taxi and takeoff until he hands the handling to the current Non-Handling Pilot, who then becomes the Handling Pilot and the Landing Pilot (which makes him the Handling Landing Pilot). This transfer begins at eighty knots and the role reversal is complete when the previously Handling Non-Landing Pilot assumes the role of the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
The Non-Landing (and Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is Handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the Before Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot, who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, leaving the previously Handling Landing Pilot to assume the correct role of Non-Handling Landing Pilot, and the instrument approach may begin.
We must stress that the Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude" call, when, if the landing is to be made, the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Landing Pilot, where the roles are reversed, and the previously Handling Non-Landing Pilot becomes the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot, and the previously Non-Handling Landing Pilot becomes the Handling Landing Pilot -- unless the original Non-Handling Landing Pilot calls "go-around," in which case the original Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues Handling and the Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues Non-Handling until the next approach and the call of "land" or "go-around," as appropriate, is made. This sequence is then repeated until a successful landing is made.
Role Description: Handling Pilot and Non-Handling Pilot
The Landing Pilot is the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off and landing except in role reversal when he is the Handling Pilot for taxi and takeoff until he hands the handling to the current Non-Handling Pilot, who then becomes the Handling Pilot and the Landing Pilot (which makes him the Handling Landing Pilot). This transfer begins at eighty knots and the role reversal is complete when the previously Handling Non-Landing Pilot assumes the role of the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
The Non-Landing (and Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is Handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the Before Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot, who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, leaving the previously Handling Landing Pilot to assume the correct role of Non-Handling Landing Pilot, and the instrument approach may begin.
We must stress that the Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude" call, when, if the landing is to be made, the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Landing Pilot, where the roles are reversed, and the previously Handling Non-Landing Pilot becomes the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot, and the previously Non-Handling Landing Pilot becomes the Handling Landing Pilot -- unless the original Non-Handling Landing Pilot calls "go-around," in which case the original Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues Handling and the Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues Non-Handling until the next approach and the call of "land" or "go-around," as appropriate, is made. This sequence is then repeated until a successful landing is made.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54
From: An Island Province
“62% of errors went undetected by the crew and this reduced dramatically when the other guy was nominated to monitor rather than assist.”
This should not be surprising, particularly as situation awareness involves each crewmember knowing all of the crew’s duties and the need for an individual to seek information about the aircraft and the other crew members. Therefore improved monitoring is another way of saying situation awareness improved because individuals more clearly understood their role, - the ‘what’ and ‘why’ crew should look for something, ‘where’ to find the information, and its ‘relative importance’. This should be part of a wider scanning process that might detect errors by having a better understanding the situation.
Thus, I believe that the US study mainly detected failures in SA, which are often cited in accident reports.
Monitoring is one means of improving self and crew SA; monitoring is improved by scanning. Situational Awareness Training.
This should not be surprising, particularly as situation awareness involves each crewmember knowing all of the crew’s duties and the need for an individual to seek information about the aircraft and the other crew members. Therefore improved monitoring is another way of saying situation awareness improved because individuals more clearly understood their role, - the ‘what’ and ‘why’ crew should look for something, ‘where’ to find the information, and its ‘relative importance’. This should be part of a wider scanning process that might detect errors by having a better understanding the situation.
Thus, I believe that the US study mainly detected failures in SA, which are often cited in accident reports.
Monitoring is one means of improving self and crew SA; monitoring is improved by scanning. Situational Awareness Training.
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 1,301
From: Australia
I'm really not quite certain of this PM thing. In the simulator, it has never failed to amaze me the blank looks and scratching of heads that goes on when you ask the captain to carry out the first officer's after start checks (just to see if he knows what is going on on the other side of the centre pedestal), and if you ask the first officer to carry out the captain's after start checks.
It is as if a line is drawn down the centre of the cockpit and whatever goes on on the other side of that line is secret men's business.
It is as if a line is drawn down the centre of the cockpit and whatever goes on on the other side of that line is secret men's business.
Está servira para distraerle.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6
Likes: 1
From: In a perambulator.
Hah Hah.
All of which might go some way towards substantiating the argument that it is not always a good idea to have two captains in the cockpit.
You're are of reposnsibility, I think?
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Pilot Monitoring suggests a completely passive role. Why not have CCM (Cabin crew monitoring) or CM (Chimp monitoring). There are 2 PILOTS on a flight deck and both should be actively engaged in ensuring a safe and efficient flight.
