Challenging First Officers!
Hello Gentlemen,
No--I'm not even military myself--so-I definitely don't hold THAT particular belief---my post was slightly light-hearted. I do know about 18 yr FO's on DC-3's etc... but I do believe many people have gone on autopilot in the modern learning process--and it gives them an unearned sense of entitlement---what for going from a Katana an A320--what a big achievement-you are now so special---that's the attitude that inspired the post---I don't believe in Sky-God from either side--- but I do feel you should have knowledge and skill before challenging- a consevative order---Too much blow and no wind you know
and don't let my name or some of my posts fool anyone ---personally--I'm a big softy
No--I'm not even military myself--so-I definitely don't hold THAT particular belief---my post was slightly light-hearted. I do know about 18 yr FO's on DC-3's etc... but I do believe many people have gone on autopilot in the modern learning process--and it gives them an unearned sense of entitlement---what for going from a Katana an A320--what a big achievement-you are now so special---that's the attitude that inspired the post---I don't believe in Sky-God from either side--- but I do feel you should have knowledge and skill before challenging- a consevative order---Too much blow and no wind you know
and don't let my name or some of my posts fool anyone ---personally--I'm a big softy
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many interesting views on this subject. In my outfit, I'm a relatively experienced F/O and I've happened across similar situations but seen from the other side (flat cockpit power gradients). The worst situation was with a new DEC who had virtually no experience on type and furthermore had no experience of our type of operation (Scheduled pax service). It was allways his call, but in those situations it's difficult (if not impossible) for the F/O to just stand by and watch as mistake after mistake happens. I would never dream of telling him that it was my plane on my PF legs, but it's also very difficult to take critique from someone who has so much less insight into the operation. He probably percieved me much the same way as the original poster percieved his F/O, although I'm quite sure that in my case, experience levels were more extreme and affected the situation to a greater extent and in a different way from the original post.
Many posters seem to note that the cockpit environment has seen a change over the last couple of years. Coupled with comments regarding recruitment processes and filtering out the bad seeds, I can't help thinking about the "pay for your job scheme". Today, anybody with money can buy his/her own type rating and get a job. This has also been very clear in my outfit as we have had virtually no recruitment process whatsoever. As long as the applicant has had the correct type on his license, he/she has been welcomed aboard and this has resulted in more than one situation where crewmembers judgement has been in question. As long as this trend continues, these issues in which poor CRM is the main factor, this trend in our cockpits will continue.
/LnS
Many posters seem to note that the cockpit environment has seen a change over the last couple of years. Coupled with comments regarding recruitment processes and filtering out the bad seeds, I can't help thinking about the "pay for your job scheme". Today, anybody with money can buy his/her own type rating and get a job. This has also been very clear in my outfit as we have had virtually no recruitment process whatsoever. As long as the applicant has had the correct type on his license, he/she has been welcomed aboard and this has resulted in more than one situation where crewmembers judgement has been in question. As long as this trend continues, these issues in which poor CRM is the main factor, this trend in our cockpits will continue.
/LnS
Feeling a little calmer on the issue---I just want to say my biggest thing is to see that folks really care about what they are doing the type of behavior exhibited by the FO in that example--to me is unthinkable by a knowledgeable professional---
I feel that you can't create pilots through exams but through hard airwork--so that they actually have the skill and knowledge to handle their responsibilities in a mature and respectful way and that applies across the deck---the 18 and 20 year old pilots of the past era were actual aviators-who went- through many trials--personal trials---in order to do that job---they paid for it with NOT just money--they paid with sweat and tears---not all the legends were military E.K.G...Bob Buck...but they pushed themselves--they didn't require anyone else to assure they had the right attitude---and you can't just pay 60 G's for that--- you have to earn it--I can't picture any type of trained pilot acting in such an irresponsible and potentially dangerous manner---just because you paid for your license every body pays[somehow to learn flying]--military or civil--as they say there's plenty of money in aviation--All mine's there
---
I feel that you can't create pilots through exams but through hard airwork--so that they actually have the skill and knowledge to handle their responsibilities in a mature and respectful way and that applies across the deck---the 18 and 20 year old pilots of the past era were actual aviators-who went- through many trials--personal trials---in order to do that job---they paid for it with NOT just money--they paid with sweat and tears---not all the legends were military E.K.G...Bob Buck...but they pushed themselves--they didn't require anyone else to assure they had the right attitude---and you can't just pay 60 G's for that--- you have to earn it--I can't picture any type of trained pilot acting in such an irresponsible and potentially dangerous manner---just because you paid for your license every body pays[somehow to learn flying]--military or civil--as they say there's plenty of money in aviation--All mine's there
---
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did you ask him early enough?
sorry if someone else asked this in the growing list of replies--
but when i see that coming--and that is part of being captain--paying enough attention to catch something early enough, i simply ask, "when do you plan to ....?"
either it should have already been mentioned, and he/she is focused on something else--or he/she's a prat.
but then again, we can usually perceive someone with that attitude within a few minutes of meeting in the crew room--
but when i see that coming--and that is part of being captain--paying enough attention to catch something early enough, i simply ask, "when do you plan to ....?"
either it should have already been mentioned, and he/she is focused on something else--or he/she's a prat.
but then again, we can usually perceive someone with that attitude within a few minutes of meeting in the crew room--
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella said
"If the Captain has to seek advice as to how to approach a F/O who is not open to suggestions on how to better control the aircraft maybe the Captain should still be a F/O himself."
Maybe. maybe not. I think that there is merit in taking a couple hours on the ground to decide on a way to approach the situation, also in discussing it with an old hand. Obviously that assumes that the captain did what was required while airborne to maintain a safe flight.
Thats the approach I took and the outcome was good for both me and the F/O.3.
Artisan,
"Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles. "...that approach is just going to result in animosity in the cockpit, it won't improve the crm in any way shape or form and there is also the risk that he'll realise you're a dick
"If the Captain has to seek advice as to how to approach a F/O who is not open to suggestions on how to better control the aircraft maybe the Captain should still be a F/O himself."
Maybe. maybe not. I think that there is merit in taking a couple hours on the ground to decide on a way to approach the situation, also in discussing it with an old hand. Obviously that assumes that the captain did what was required while airborne to maintain a safe flight.
Thats the approach I took and the outcome was good for both me and the F/O.3.
Artisan,
"Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles. "...that approach is just going to result in animosity in the cockpit, it won't improve the crm in any way shape or form and there is also the risk that he'll realise you're a dick
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a human dynamic not specific to aviation
Gents,
Many human dynamics or factors books talk about this in different ways... In CRM it can be 'task vs relationship orientation.' We all know the job to be done.. however, if a Captain is a task master eventually the followership will reject him/her for not being "human" enough...
In this post the task was to get the jet configured in time and follow SOP. Leaders are dependent on thier followers.
The key here is how the CA responds to the FO's statement: "I am flying the aircraft!"
Some CA's might take this as an attack/threat on their command. Effective leaders will use this as an opportunity to reapproach the social dymanics between the two pilots.
Effective Captains tailor their communication for the different types of personalities within their followership cadre. It doesn't matter how the job gets done, just as long as it is positive, ethical, moral, within SOP and allows the followership to contribute and grow: an ethos for any captain leader...
If the CA had stated, "My controls" in effect he would have said to the FO "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft" Any further flying in the short or long term between the two would be very difficult under the guise of teamwork.
It isn't flying the jet that is difficult... anyone can do that... It is dealing with the human dynamics of needs, morale, teamwork and effectiveness that takes true leadership skills.
Many human dynamics or factors books talk about this in different ways... In CRM it can be 'task vs relationship orientation.' We all know the job to be done.. however, if a Captain is a task master eventually the followership will reject him/her for not being "human" enough...
In this post the task was to get the jet configured in time and follow SOP. Leaders are dependent on thier followers.
The key here is how the CA responds to the FO's statement: "I am flying the aircraft!"
Some CA's might take this as an attack/threat on their command. Effective leaders will use this as an opportunity to reapproach the social dymanics between the two pilots.
Effective Captains tailor their communication for the different types of personalities within their followership cadre. It doesn't matter how the job gets done, just as long as it is positive, ethical, moral, within SOP and allows the followership to contribute and grow: an ethos for any captain leader...
If the CA had stated, "My controls" in effect he would have said to the FO "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft" Any further flying in the short or long term between the two would be very difficult under the guise of teamwork.
It isn't flying the jet that is difficult... anyone can do that... It is dealing with the human dynamics of needs, morale, teamwork and effectiveness that takes true leadership skills.
Well here goes with this one!
How do you deal with First Officers who are reluctant to accept advice when they are operating a sector?
For example, we get to circa 15 miles out when it is clear we need to start slowing up to achieve a stable approach. I think I am a pretty reasonable guy to fly with (although not in training with my current company I have extensive experience in the role) but when I suggest that it's time to slow up and/or select another mode (Level Change vice V/S) and/or take speedbrake etc the reply I get is "I am flying the aircraft!" - I then insist that changes are made and we just manage to be comfortably stable although a flap setting is called for above the limit speed.
I believe this event is quite a serious CRM issue. It is obvious to me that this FO is weak in certain areas despite being quite an experienced aviator.
Any helpful comments/observations appreciated!
How do you deal with First Officers who are reluctant to accept advice when they are operating a sector?
For example, we get to circa 15 miles out when it is clear we need to start slowing up to achieve a stable approach. I think I am a pretty reasonable guy to fly with (although not in training with my current company I have extensive experience in the role) but when I suggest that it's time to slow up and/or select another mode (Level Change vice V/S) and/or take speedbrake etc the reply I get is "I am flying the aircraft!" - I then insist that changes are made and we just manage to be comfortably stable although a flap setting is called for above the limit speed.
I believe this event is quite a serious CRM issue. It is obvious to me that this FO is weak in certain areas despite being quite an experienced aviator.
Any helpful comments/observations appreciated!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RS3AV,
Whilst I am reasonably sure that everything you have said is correct, and is undoubtably good discussion in a classroom environment. The reality is that when the ground is rushing up to meet you at 290 feet per second horizontally and 17 feet per second vertically, you to need to be able to make a relatively quick decision on the course of action to be employed to ensure a safe outcome.
If anyone can do that, it is sometimes the case that not "anyone" does. In those situations (as described in the topic of this thread) it is flying the jet that is paramount. If the person doing that "I'm flying the plane", isn't doing it in a safe and timely effective manner, then the situation needs to be resolved by either starting again, or if that is judged unnecessary or inappropriate, by the Commander excercising his supervisory authority and changing the roles. Once you are on the ground and time is not critical, then the discussion could resume where you left off.
Whilst I am reasonably sure that everything you have said is correct, and is undoubtably good discussion in a classroom environment. The reality is that when the ground is rushing up to meet you at 290 feet per second horizontally and 17 feet per second vertically, you to need to be able to make a relatively quick decision on the course of action to be employed to ensure a safe outcome.
It isn't flying the jet that is difficult... anyone can do that... It is dealing with the human dynamics of needs, morale, teamwork and effectiveness that takes true leadership skills.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RS3AV,
Whilst I am reasonably sure that everything you have said is correct, and is undoubtably good discussion in a classroom environment. The reality is that when the ground is rushing up to meet you at 290 feet per second horizontally and 17 feet per second vertically, you to need to be able to make a relatively quick decision on the course of action to be employed to ensure a safe outcome.
Whilst I am reasonably sure that everything you have said is correct, and is undoubtably good discussion in a classroom environment. The reality is that when the ground is rushing up to meet you at 290 feet per second horizontally and 17 feet per second vertically, you to need to be able to make a relatively quick decision on the course of action to be employed to ensure a safe outcome.
Your thoughts?
If anyone can do that, it is sometimes the case that not "anyone" does. In those situations (as described in the topic of this thread) it is flying the jet that is paramount. If the person doing that "I'm flying the plane", isn't doing it in a safe and timely effective manner, then the situation needs to be resolved by either starting again, or if that is judged unnecessary or inappropriate, by the Commander excercising his supervisory authority and changing the roles. Once you are on the ground and time is not critical, then the discussion could resume where you left off.
The issue, as I read it... is teamwork and the FO following the CA's leadership style... or how can the CA be more effective as a leader.
The CA had concerns that the FO wasn't supporting the CA's ideal of how to operate the jet. The CA, after law and policy is followed, gets to decide the atmosphere, culture, tone and how the jet is to be flown. A Captain leader is constantly reminding his followership of his culture, usually though positive actions and behaviors.
It is the followerships (the FO) job to keep in step with the CA.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CA had stated, "My controls" in effect he would have said to the FO "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft" Any further flying in the short or long term between the two would be very difficult under the guise of teamwork.
If the captain states "my controls," he has not in effect said to the first officer "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft." Not in the least. That might be the case if the scenario involved an unsafe practice (in which case the captain is obligated to correct or take control).
If the captain states "my controls," he has not only in effect, but in actuality said to the first officer "my controls." This is an affirmative statement of both authority and correction. The first officer has incorrectly assumed authority beyond his own, and in so doing damaged cockpit management and relations. The captain is restoring the proper line of authority and making a statement regarding each crewmember's relative position and purpose.
It is not, in actuality or in effect, the first officer's airplane. It may be the first officer's leg. It may be the first officer's privilege. It may even be the first officer's duty. It is not, however, the first officer's airplane, and moreover it is not the first officer's place to refuse input or correction. The first officer has an obligation to consider all input, particularly that provided by the one who's airplane it really is, provided in a non-threatening supportive manner.
Nobody likes to be the bad guy. The cockpit is not a democracy. It is an environment of teamwork and does involve a dynamic relationship. However, the proper working relationship must be re-established in this case, and is best done so in an assertive, non-judgemental manner. The message is clear; "my airplane."
Most excellent thread---I love when this discussion occasionally comes up, a true classic 'pilots discussion'--- right up there up there with stalls and crosswind technique 
PA
PA
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A perspective that we are missing is that of the FO's. Since we only have the CA's version of the events, and the CA asked for feedback and input and ultimately, until the FO enters into the discussion, the CA can only be influenced here. Also, the only pure control the CA has is over himself.
I disagree, from the account we have. Was the FO violating SOP? Commen sense? My understanding is the CA was uncomfortable with the methodology or "how" the FO was flying the jet. And that is fine. The FO shall comply with the CA's tone and culture.
The question posed by the CA was HOW to handle this better. Or how to influence the FO better. The CA knows he can use power and authority. I believe the CA is looking for a social methodology not an operational one.
The question begs was the FO operating the jet in a mistrusted or disrespectful way? And what is the measuring scale? SOP, ICAO, FAA/JAR or CA preference?
If it is only CA preference, then the CA still has a right to impose that preference.. the trick is HOW s/he does it. If the CA uses negative methods will will degrade teamwork and effectiveness.
Recall the old social saying... "It is not what you said but HOW you said it that really made me mad"
This is only valid, in my opinion... if SOP, policy, law or safety was violated. My understanding of the original poster is.. that it is not.
A slippery slope. It is commonly taught in CRM groups that a strong or even multiple subtle social "shutdowns" of followers will in fact... shut them down. This has led to the implementation of CRM over the years and into the 80's and 90's.
Not specific to this example: It is the FO's place to refuse input or correction (exclusive of SOP, policy, law etc..)... (read: offer other ideas and input. Not be a "yes" man) to the point where the CA puts his foot down and says "this is the course we are taking" At that point it is the FO's legal responsibility to support the CA.
Specific to this example, I believe, the CA raised a concern and the FO replied with firm resistence. My point: Just because the CA has authority, control and power doesn't mean he should use it. Influence and guidance is better than command and control.
A good respectful debriefing would be in order...
I still like the way the CA handled it. He didn't take control, rather asserted it was time to configure. This irked the FO. The CA is concerned enough or has empathy for his FO...and that is an excellent indication of a good leader. Many CA's would simply not care if the FO was irked. This CA doesn't want the FO to be irked. Non-irked FO's make good team members.
Kudos to the CA for doing a good job and seeking out improvment.
Submitted repsectfully...
Your thoughts?
That's a rather broad-brush assumption that overlooks the most basic aspect of the problem; the first officer has already elected not to engage in teamwork in the cockpit by insisting that it's his airplane and he's going to fly it his way.
The question posed by the CA was HOW to handle this better. Or how to influence the FO better. The CA knows he can use power and authority. I believe the CA is looking for a social methodology not an operational one.
If the captain states "my controls," he has not in effect said to the first officer "I don't trust or respect you to fly this aircraft." Not in the least. That might be the case if the scenario involved an unsafe practice (in which case the captain is obligated to correct or take control).
If it is only CA preference, then the CA still has a right to impose that preference.. the trick is HOW s/he does it. If the CA uses negative methods will will degrade teamwork and effectiveness.
Recall the old social saying... "It is not what you said but HOW you said it that really made me mad"
If the captain states "my controls," he has not only in effect, but in actuality said to the first officer "my controls." This is an affirmative statement of both authority and correction. The first officer has incorrectly assumed authority beyond his own, and in so doing damaged cockpit management and relations. The captain is restoring the proper line of authority and making a statement regarding each crewmember's relative position and purpose.
It is not, in actuality or in effect, the first officer's airplane. It may be the first officer's leg. It may be the first officer's privilege. It may even be the first officer's duty. It is not, however, the first officer's airplane, and moreover it is not the first officer's place to refuse input or correction. The first officer has an obligation to consider all input, particularly that provided by the one who's airplane it really is, provided in a non-threatening supportive manner.
Not specific to this example: It is the FO's place to refuse input or correction (exclusive of SOP, policy, law etc..)... (read: offer other ideas and input. Not be a "yes" man) to the point where the CA puts his foot down and says "this is the course we are taking" At that point it is the FO's legal responsibility to support the CA.
Specific to this example, I believe, the CA raised a concern and the FO replied with firm resistence. My point: Just because the CA has authority, control and power doesn't mean he should use it. Influence and guidance is better than command and control.
A good respectful debriefing would be in order...
Nobody likes to be the bad guy. The cockpit is not a democracy. It is an environment of teamwork and does involve a dynamic relationship. However, the proper working relationship must be re-established in this case, and is best done so in an assertive, non-judgemental manner. The message is clear; "my airplane."
Kudos to the CA for doing a good job and seeking out improvment.
Submitted repsectfully...
Your thoughts?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the FO violating SOP? Commen sense? My understanding is the CA was uncomfortable with the methodology or "how" the FO was flying the jet. And that is fine. The FO shall comply with the CA's tone and culture.
The captain should always be open to input from the FO. The FO must always be open to input from the captain, however. When the captain gives subtle direction, or even dictates what needs to be done, the FO who disregards the captain and instead states "it's my airplane, I'll do it my way" has destroyed crew coordination and cooperation. Time to reset the balance.
Recall the old social saying... "It is not what you said but HOW you said it that really made me mad"
"It's not what you said but how you said it that really made me mad" disregards the fact that perhaps saying it in that method was warranted, and that being "mad" is unwarranted. The FO can be mad all he likes. It's still not his airplane, mad or not. If he's upset because he doesn't get to play with the ball, it's time to grow up, mature up, and deal with it. He can deal with it on the ground. It's not his airplane. Period.
A perspective that we are missing is that of the FO's.
I think most of us can relate to and understand the position of the first officer, as most of us have either been a first officer or are first officers...we get it. Those of us who are captains or have been captains or even those who have or are acting as flight instructors understand the dynamic from both sides of the fence. The first officer who presumes beyond his authority, even so far as "it's my airplane and I'll fly it the way I want" has overstepped his bounds by a considerable margin. He's the offender; he's the one "making others mad," he's the one in need of humility and the offer of an apology. The captain who takes the airplane back isn't in need of apologizing. Certainly dialogue can follow on the ground...but it's the captain's call. Not that of the FO.
The idea that one should forgo taking control in order to appease the FO is ludicruous. If the FO is unhappy or elects to curtail his cooperation because he's upset that the captain exercised his right to assert his authority, then it's the FO that has a problem. His cooperation, indeed his efforts in the cockpit are NOT predicated on the gifts he receives from the captain. He does not have the right to decide whether to give 100% or 50% based on how he's rewarded by being allowed to do as he pleases. He has a job to do, for which he's being paid. Period.
The captain who opened the thread is certainly interested in finding the best solution. I don't think that would include kissing up to the FO. The FO screwed up by virtue of his attitude. It's unacceptable. He needs to know. "It's my airplane and I'll fly it the way I please" can be dealt with in a polite, professional, concise manner in flight with a simple "Not any more. I have the controls." Further discussion to follow on the ground over dinner and a drink. Not in the air.
Command is not a popularity contest.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Preferably on terra firma.
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, a great discussion boys. What PPRuNe is all about.
I can see both sides of this arguement and how this particular problem should be resolved. I certainly agree with those that insist on a "debrief" afterwards, preferably on the ground. But how one handles such a situation at the precise moment in time is surely a careful balancing act. I was taught to try and always keep the F/O "onside". This involves tact and diplomacy, perhaps even when he hasn't necessarily shown it towards you! To do otherwise would potentially agrivate an already tense situation, potentially alienating your colleague for the rest of the day and completely destroying the critical teamwork environment within the flight deck.
I think that the original poster is asking for opinions on how we deal with such interesting characters on a day-to-day basis. Diffusing the situation in the short term may be the preferable option however I would be keen to hear from those that have used the other solution and how effective it was.
I can see both sides of this arguement and how this particular problem should be resolved. I certainly agree with those that insist on a "debrief" afterwards, preferably on the ground. But how one handles such a situation at the precise moment in time is surely a careful balancing act. I was taught to try and always keep the F/O "onside". This involves tact and diplomacy, perhaps even when he hasn't necessarily shown it towards you! To do otherwise would potentially agrivate an already tense situation, potentially alienating your colleague for the rest of the day and completely destroying the critical teamwork environment within the flight deck.
I think that the original poster is asking for opinions on how we deal with such interesting characters on a day-to-day basis. Diffusing the situation in the short term may be the preferable option however I would be keen to hear from those that have used the other solution and how effective it was.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Guppy, absolutely on the money, no doubt about it.
RS3AV, your turning the whole thing into a big pink fuzzy ball!
If the aircraft is outside the parameters for a stabilised approach through the actions of the PF then it is already in breach of SOP and if a flap setting is required outside the limitations of the aircraft the SOPs are once again being breached. There are a dozen ways to talk a FO into bringing everything back to a stabilised condition but when, on having an unacceptable situation pointed out to them, they reply with,"I'm flying the aeroplane" then the options of the Captain are considerably reduced as you now have a challenge to his authority combined with a bad attitude from the FO, time constraints don't allow for a discussion, the FO either corrects immediately or loses the leg, if a GA is required then so be it, it will reinforce the point! Discussion at the debrief.
RS3AV, your turning the whole thing into a big pink fuzzy ball!
If the aircraft is outside the parameters for a stabilised approach through the actions of the PF then it is already in breach of SOP and if a flap setting is required outside the limitations of the aircraft the SOPs are once again being breached. There are a dozen ways to talk a FO into bringing everything back to a stabilised condition but when, on having an unacceptable situation pointed out to them, they reply with,"I'm flying the aeroplane" then the options of the Captain are considerably reduced as you now have a challenge to his authority combined with a bad attitude from the FO, time constraints don't allow for a discussion, the FO either corrects immediately or loses the leg, if a GA is required then so be it, it will reinforce the point! Discussion at the debrief.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N/a
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy,
You are on the money, I agree entirely with your opinions.
CJAM,
"Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles. "...that approach is just going to result in animosity in the cockpit, it won't improve the crm in any way shape or form and there is also the risk that he'll realise you're a dick"
You suggest, that the best way to deal with a colleague who has just offended the rules of professionalism, safety and good conduct; is to treat them with kid gloves and to avoid animosity at all costs.
I suggest that you study the Situational Leadership Theory model;
(a) At one end of the scale, you have a follower who won't take direction, or needs a lot of direction (possibly new to type etc). Your correct approach as Captain, would be high task/ low relationship behaviour. You need to spell everything out for them. You should brief them thoroughly on your expectations of how you wish them to conduct a flight, so that they are left in no doubt. If this results in them thinking you are a "dick" (one has to question their maturity if this is the case), then so be it. You must do what you think is best for the F/O and for safety.
(b) As the follower begins to exhibit higher levels of performance, your correct approach as Captain is to develop them and to reward them by being less directive and giving them more responsibility in making operational decisions.
(c) At the other end of the scale, the F/O is fully competent and displays all of the qualities of a good follower. At this level of performance, you can basically just sit back and monitor the F/O, let the F/O make all of the decisons when it is his/her leg. This is the ideal situation, two professional colleagues and a relatively flat gradient.
Cjam; if you try to apply the strategy in (c) to the F/O in (a), you are essentially rewarding bad behaviour. You might have preserved your 'mister nice guy' image, but you are not doing yourself any favours and you are definately not doing the F/O any favours.
You are on the money, I agree entirely with your opinions.
CJAM,
"Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles. "...that approach is just going to result in animosity in the cockpit, it won't improve the crm in any way shape or form and there is also the risk that he'll realise you're a dick
"You suggest, that the best way to deal with a colleague who has just offended the rules of professionalism, safety and good conduct; is to treat them with kid gloves and to avoid animosity at all costs.
I suggest that you study the Situational Leadership Theory model;
(a) At one end of the scale, you have a follower who won't take direction, or needs a lot of direction (possibly new to type etc). Your correct approach as Captain, would be high task/ low relationship behaviour. You need to spell everything out for them. You should brief them thoroughly on your expectations of how you wish them to conduct a flight, so that they are left in no doubt. If this results in them thinking you are a "dick" (one has to question their maturity if this is the case), then so be it. You must do what you think is best for the F/O and for safety.
(b) As the follower begins to exhibit higher levels of performance, your correct approach as Captain is to develop them and to reward them by being less directive and giving them more responsibility in making operational decisions.
(c) At the other end of the scale, the F/O is fully competent and displays all of the qualities of a good follower. At this level of performance, you can basically just sit back and monitor the F/O, let the F/O make all of the decisons when it is his/her leg. This is the ideal situation, two professional colleagues and a relatively flat gradient.
Cjam; if you try to apply the strategy in (c) to the F/O in (a), you are essentially rewarding bad behaviour. You might have preserved your 'mister nice guy' image, but you are not doing yourself any favours and you are definately not doing the F/O any favours.
Nice solution!
Having safely finished the flight, there's no point starting a fight. I would say a good plan is to suggest the FO should see how his pprune peers think a captain should deal with a headstrong FO.
It's then outside the cockpit, not personal, and given the traditional thoroughness of pprune discussion, nothing more need be said.
Nice one, Captain.
It's then outside the cockpit, not personal, and given the traditional thoroughness of pprune discussion, nothing more need be said.
Nice one, Captain.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this results in them thinking you are a "dick" (one has to question their maturity if this is the case), then so be it. You must do what you think is best for the F/O and for safety.
The definition of a professional is one who serves for the greater good.
I suggest Servant Leadership.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The definition of a professional is one who serves for the greater good."
No, not at all, you have just described a community volunteer.
No, not at all, you have just described a community volunteer.