Challenging First Officers!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The definition of a professional is one who serves for the greater good.
The definition of a professional is someone who is highly skilled and doing a certain kind of work to make a living. Belonging to a profession which is in turn defined as an occupation, especially one that involves knowledge or training in a branch of advanced learning.
I suggest Servant Leadership
The dictionary definition of a Captain is a person given authority over a group or team. My companies definition (runs to 58 paragraphs, but the relevant one) is That the Captain will be responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and the safety of its occupants and cargo from the time he/she boards, until he/she hands over to another Captain or an authorized official or agent of the company. The Captain will have authority to give all commands he/she deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of all persons and property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aircraft shall obey such commands.
The First Officer (primarily, and followed by 29 paragraphs,) is responsible to the commander for assisting in the safe and efficient conduct of the flight. In the event of incapacitation of the Captain, the First Officer will assume command.
Nobody is advocating authoritarianism or suggesting anything other than good management. Hopefully and indeed usually that is what happens every day of the week. Once in a while you might come up against a problem of the type that caused the author of this thread to go in to print. How it is dealt with will depend on the situation and the management style of the Captain on the day. But nobody should be under any illusion that the Captain is anything other than the commander. He/she is in charge, and if the autopilot, the engine, the flying controls or even the First Officer are not operating to an acceptable standard, or not responding adequately, then it is perfectly proper and incumbent upon them to rectify that situation. If that requires changing the handling and non handling roles, then so be it.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting thread indeed!
As an inexperienced F/O, I can recall a few situations where the captain has offered me advice and on one occasion taken control for the last 200ft. I found the chat on the way back to the crew room very helpful and I went home feeling I had learnt something useful and with hindsight, if I'd pig wrestled it onto the floor I would have been disappointed with a far from perfect performance. Who cares if you don't get a landing? You'll get one tomorrow.
Throughout my fledgling career it has been drummed into me that it is ALWAYS the captain's ship, it's just he/she is letting you have a go. What is more tricky to appreciate is that Captains are subject to the same CRM issues and thought-processes that F/Os are when they are asked to pipe up if they feel they are in an uncomfortable situation. It's not something that immediately strikes you so it's been an eye-opener reading this topic and highlights how we are all learning every day. I expect behind the facade of even the most confident F/O, there's someone there willing to take the advice. They might not appreciate it at the time, but I bet they sit down and think about it when they get home. Anyone would. As RS3AV said, this is a human dynamic situation above all else - applied in a complex environment. Does that make sense?
Particularly interested in the experienced Capt./inexperienced FO scenario and the balance of the cockpit authority gradient in this situation. I guess it'll happen to all of us one day. Long way off for me, but I'll bear it in mind!
As an inexperienced F/O, I can recall a few situations where the captain has offered me advice and on one occasion taken control for the last 200ft. I found the chat on the way back to the crew room very helpful and I went home feeling I had learnt something useful and with hindsight, if I'd pig wrestled it onto the floor I would have been disappointed with a far from perfect performance. Who cares if you don't get a landing? You'll get one tomorrow.
Throughout my fledgling career it has been drummed into me that it is ALWAYS the captain's ship, it's just he/she is letting you have a go. What is more tricky to appreciate is that Captains are subject to the same CRM issues and thought-processes that F/Os are when they are asked to pipe up if they feel they are in an uncomfortable situation. It's not something that immediately strikes you so it's been an eye-opener reading this topic and highlights how we are all learning every day. I expect behind the facade of even the most confident F/O, there's someone there willing to take the advice. They might not appreciate it at the time, but I bet they sit down and think about it when they get home. Anyone would. As RS3AV said, this is a human dynamic situation above all else - applied in a complex environment. Does that make sense?
Particularly interested in the experienced Capt./inexperienced FO scenario and the balance of the cockpit authority gradient in this situation. I guess it'll happen to all of us one day. Long way off for me, but I'll bear it in mind!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
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.
No that is closer to the definition of a sacrifice.
The definition of a professional is someone who is highly skilled and doing a certain kind of work to make a living. Belonging to a profession which is in turn defined as an occupation, especially one that involves knowledge or training in a branch of advanced learning.
The definition of a professional is someone who is highly skilled and doing a certain kind of work to make a living. Belonging to a profession which is in turn defined as an occupation, especially one that involves knowledge or training in a branch of advanced learning.
A prime example of a professional is a medical doctor. While s/he is compensated, concern for the public (or pateint) takes precedence. A doctor has an ethical standard, which translates to trust and respect.
A CEO or president isn't necessarily a professional.
Does a CEO have an ethical standard? Does the CEO serve the greater good? While some organizations do... many do not.
Consider this concerning professions:
a calling or vocation requiring specialized knowledge, methods and skills, as well as preparation, in an institution of higher learning, in the scholarly, scientific and historical principles underlying such methods and skills. A profession continuously enlarges its body of knowledge, functions autonomously in formulation of policy, and maintains by force of organization or concerted opinion high standards of achievement and conduct. Specifically in this regard it maintains and polices a code of ethics and conducts a professional organization of which a large majority of the profession are members. Members of a profession are committed to continuing study, placing service above personal gain, and are committed to providing practical services vital to human and social welfare.
For whom ? God forbid it is the Captain, and the role of a First Officer is not to be a servant by any definition of the word. Servant leadership is contradictory ? The First officer has duties and responsibilities to the company, but primarily to the Captain. No part of his job is to be servile.
The Servant Leader serves his followership, ensuring that members of the team have the resources and support they need to do their jobs effectively.
For example, one can easily see how the environment and/or company can push a crew, putting the needs of the revenue before the needs of crew. The SL embraces the paradox: ensuring the needs of both the company and crew are met.
Look at it this way: if a FO and the cabin crew know that the Captain will do for them everything s/he can, won't that instill a high level of trust, respect, teamwork? In addition, it will in turn motivate the FO and FA's to do everything they can to support the CA and his goals which are: safe operation of the jet, earn a living and making the company money. Once a crew is highly motivated to do these things all of the little ego battles, turf battles, and "drama" go out the window.
From the orginal post: When the FO stated "I am flying the aircraft!" This was an emotional and defensive reply. In defense of what? The FO felt threatened in some way? Servant Leadership is an excellent methodology in removing egos, threats, combativeness, power struggles and the like.
Of course the Captain provides this atmosphere and can do so via Servant Leadership.
The dictionary definition of a Captain is a person given authority over a group or team. My companies definition (runs to 58 paragraphs, but the relevant one) is That the Captain will be responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and the safety of its occupants and cargo from the time he/she boards, until he/she hands over to another Captain or an authorized official or agent of the company. The Captain will have authority to give all commands he/she deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of all persons and property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aircraft shall obey such commands.
Nobody is advocating authoritarianism or suggesting anything other than good management.
To lead is to the show the way.
Human beings do not like to be controlled. They'd rather be guided and influenced. Followers would rather be given options and the latittude to make decisions then be told what to do.
Regardless of the situation, individuals gets to choose how they feel about thier leaders. Sure a Captain may have the right but that doesn't mean the followers like how the CA excercises that right. Nor does it ensure effective teamwork. Recall a dramatic example from the movie Braveheart, where the English lord(?) had the right to shag with the Scottish peasants women, to spread the English population into Scotland. It was the English Lords right, but it certainly pissed off the Scots. (and in the movie, it cost the Englishman his life).
The point?
Sure it is a Captains right to use authority and control but what is the point if the FO harbors ill will toward him? The only way to get your FO to be 100% committed is to be 100% committed to the FO. One way to do that is Servant Leadership.
Hopefully and indeed usually that is what happens every day of the week. Once in a while you might come up against a problem of the type that caused the author of this thread to go in to print. How it is dealt with will depend on the situation and the management style of the Captain on the day. But nobody should be under any illusion that the Captain is anything other than the commander. He/she is in charge, and if the autopilot, the engine, the flying controls or even the First Officer are not operating to an acceptable standard, or not responding adequately, then it is perfectly proper and incumbent upon them to rectify that situation. If that requires changing the handling and non handling roles, then so be it.
Effective leaders allow the followership to exceed their own job description on their own accord.
Where Captaincy really comes into play is irregular operations including emergencies. When a emergancy occurs all eyes look to the Captain to formulate a plan of action. This is where the CA uncovers his fourth stripe and excerises all aspects of his command.Admittantly, I am a Yank giving a North American perspective. Whereas I understand that Command in other parts of the world is still much more traditional. However, consider this leader from a century ago operating under traditional British culture:
An excellent leader to study is Earnest Shackleton. In a time (early 1900s) where 'Master and Commander' meant command and control, Shackleton was a Servant Leader and his performance and results are quite incredible.
Contrast with Robert F. Scott, a rival leader. He was a military man who was content with the ideal that men are expendable. A loss of life, in fact, was acceptable in obtaining the goal. Shackleton was quite the opposite in that the goal was important, but the follwership was more important.
Which leader would you rather follow?
Submitted respectfully....
Last edited by RS3AV; 30th Apr 2008 at 18:34.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A prime example of a professional is a medical doctor. While s/he is compensated, concern for the public (or pateint) takes precedence. A doctor has an ethical standard, which translates to trust and respect.
A patient isn't paid to be part of the doctor's team. The doctor doesn't earn the trust of the patient, the patient spends his or her money elsewhere. Further, a doctor who lacks trust cannot be relied upon to handle the health and welfare of the patient. The patient is the employer, the doctor the employee.
This has nothing at all to do with the captain/copilot relationship. Put it in context.
The doctor leads a surgical team in a heart operation. Now it's a crew environment. You think the doctor is going to cow down to a nurse when the nurse says "it's my patient, I'll decide what goes on in this operation?" Not hardly. Not even if it's a nurse-practitioner, an experienced OR nurse, or a Physician's Assistant. Not even an intern. The surgeon will remain in charge, period. It's his patient, his operation, and while others may assist, cut, medicate, anesthetize, treat, monitor, or help...it's the doctor's show. the first one to insist that no, it's their patient can certainly expect to be not only removed from the operation, but likely fired or not brought into the OR again.
Now it's in context. Service? Leadership? No. A job to do.
Look at it this way: if a FO and the cabin crew know that the Captain will do for them everything s/he can, won't that instill a high level of trust, respect, teamwork? In addition, it will in turn motivate the FO and FA's to do everything they can to support the CA and his goals which are: safe operation of the jet, earn a living and making the company money. Once a crew is highly motivated to do these things all of the little ego battles, turf battles, and "drama" go out the window.
The actions and duties of the first officer are not predicated on how nice a guy the captain is. It's not a case of the first officer doing the minimum for a captain he doesn't like, or the maximum for one he does. He's being paid as a professional, he has a job description, and he needs to do it, period. He's not paid to like it, but paid to do it. He's not paid for his method, but his result. He's paid to assist the pilot in command in operating the flight.
The captain does not have need of bowing down to his subordinates; it's the subordinates who adapt to meet the needs of the captain.
I fully agree that leadership is best defined by serving those whom one leads. However, the cockpit isn't a popularity contest, nor a democracy. Whether or not the captain leads or is a fine leader, whether or not he posesses the qualities of a fine surgeon or a CEO, the duties and responsibilities, and limitations of the FO remain unchanged...and are not predicated on the leadership of the captain. The FO has a job to do. It does not include assuming authority beyond his own, and it certainly does not include failure to remain open to the instruction of the captain.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what we have here is an interesting but largely untried theory, (RS3AV) versus tried and tested practice, (SNS3Guppy and others).
The theory may work for a few but the practice is a one size fits all and is known to work.
The theory may work for a few but the practice is a one size fits all and is known to work.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The definitions I gave were from the Oxford English Dictionary, so I don't mind that you don't agree with them.
The high levels of trust, teamwork and respect are what we encounter nearly everyday that we go to work. They work across all the crew relationships and beyond. However the problem that is the subject of this thread is how to handle a situation when that relationship isn't working. The Captain must then decide what corrective action to either allow or to take. In a time critical situation that decision needs to be prompt and effective.
If he feels the best course of action is to resume a handling role, then that is what he does. The First officers feelings and ego can be addressed on the ground, because they are not the imperative.
Robert Scott and Earnest Shackleton may have been remarkable leaders, but unless I am mistaken neither of them ever had an uncooperative or unresponsive F/O to deal with while they were barrelling out of the sky towards Earth at one mile every 12 seconds. Although it is a mildly interesting side note, that I recently had Earnest's great grandsons as one of my crewmembers for a recent series of flights.
All of this talk of gradients and servants and leadership and egos and authority is great in a classroom or in a thread such as this, but the reality is, that just like understanding the sublime working intricacies of an engine, if it catches fire you better know what to do quickly. It is not a time to be debating the abstract qualities of human relationships.
The high levels of trust, teamwork and respect are what we encounter nearly everyday that we go to work. They work across all the crew relationships and beyond. However the problem that is the subject of this thread is how to handle a situation when that relationship isn't working. The Captain must then decide what corrective action to either allow or to take. In a time critical situation that decision needs to be prompt and effective.
If he feels the best course of action is to resume a handling role, then that is what he does. The First officers feelings and ego can be addressed on the ground, because they are not the imperative.
Robert Scott and Earnest Shackleton may have been remarkable leaders, but unless I am mistaken neither of them ever had an uncooperative or unresponsive F/O to deal with while they were barrelling out of the sky towards Earth at one mile every 12 seconds. Although it is a mildly interesting side note, that I recently had Earnest's great grandsons as one of my crewmembers for a recent series of flights.
All of this talk of gradients and servants and leadership and egos and authority is great in a classroom or in a thread such as this, but the reality is, that just like understanding the sublime working intricacies of an engine, if it catches fire you better know what to do quickly. It is not a time to be debating the abstract qualities of human relationships.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of this talk of gradients and servants and leadership and egos and authority is great in a classroom or in a thread such as this, but the reality is, that just like understanding the sublime working intricacies of an engine, if it catches fire you better know what to do quickly. It is not a time to be debating the abstract qualities of human relationships.
In 40 years of professional flying, only once did I, personally, have a problem with a First Officer.
I took control, and landed the aeroplane..an L1011.
The F/O was so annoyed that he packed his flight kit and walked off the FD.
He complained to the fleet manager.
The fleet manager was no easy mark, and as there had been several complaints from senior Captains, said First Officer was sent packing...to a lower fleet.
He was not welcome there either, apparently, and spent three months at home with no pay, on suspension.
Sooner or later these folks are found out, and as for a future command...in their dreams.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had to smile when a young 20 year old joined the company having just obtained his license. At a pilots meeting in the first week of his employ he spent some time telling the crusty 20,000 captains that they had the wrong take on how things should be done, and later insisted that when he was flying, he was in command. Hear that he has gone on to become a captain and carries respect in the industry.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Preferably on terra firma.
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It came about that last night we ended up discussing this very subject (it was the F/O that brought it up). In the relatively short time he had been with the company he had heard of situations, like the one described and others where the F/Os attitude was effectively undermining the Captain's authority. This F/O was truly shocked and concerned to learn that such events occur and it was rather refreshing to hear that his view was that it is the Captain's aeroplane and he must accept the Captain's overall greater experience. This is not to say that this F/O was subservient - perhaps the opposite but he has one thing that others don't possess... RESPECT.
He went on to suggest that the cockpit environment was like a marriage. You are going to work with this person for ten, eleven or more hours each day and the idea is that you work together, respect each other's point of view, share tasks and if necessary compromise to avoid confrontation. Is this not what CRM is all about?
(PS. It was interesting too that he described the MCC course as being much more interested in honing the challenge and response aspects rather than seeking out ways of interacting within a two crew environment that requires an authority gradient. He suggested that this course failed to overcome the single pilot mentality that is installed from one's earliest days of flying.)
He went on to suggest that the cockpit environment was like a marriage. You are going to work with this person for ten, eleven or more hours each day and the idea is that you work together, respect each other's point of view, share tasks and if necessary compromise to avoid confrontation. Is this not what CRM is all about?
(PS. It was interesting too that he described the MCC course as being much more interested in honing the challenge and response aspects rather than seeking out ways of interacting within a two crew environment that requires an authority gradient. He suggested that this course failed to overcome the single pilot mentality that is installed from one's earliest days of flying.)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
A pro is someone you pay, and because they are paid you expect a level of service and results. The more you pay, the more you EXPECT to get in return.
Service, standards, ethics, morality...all vary...especially in aviation. If there was really any kind of a standard, a higher bar or litmus that was actualy trying to be achieved in this industry then we wouldn't be employing 350 hour FOs in our airliners, or typing 1000 hour captains in GIVs. Enough said.
A volunteer is a 'get what you pay for type of thing'
Service, standards, ethics, morality...all vary...especially in aviation. If there was really any kind of a standard, a higher bar or litmus that was actualy trying to be achieved in this industry then we wouldn't be employing 350 hour FOs in our airliners, or typing 1000 hour captains in GIVs. Enough said.
A volunteer is a 'get what you pay for type of thing'
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A volunteer is a 'get what you pay for type of thing'
Pay is far from the only determining factor in "what you get," and has little to do with professional performance.
There is one captain on an aircraft. If things go wrong he wears it bigtime. Some captains are weak preferring to try to be a good friend all the time rather than being in charge. This is quickly sensed by a first officer who consciously or unconsciously will feel the captain is underconfident in his position of authority and consequently unreliable in an emergency situation. The first officer then feels empowered and will try to run the ship.
For instance the captain should be constantly watching the unfolding weather scene ahead on radar and from his experience decide which is the safest course of action. The operative words are "based upon his experience." While it may happen the F/O is PF for that leg, the decision which way to avoid threatening weather should not be a consensus. The captain should direct the F/O to take the avoiding action by giving him instructions on what heading and airspeed is needed. It should never be the case where the F/O is given a choice as this amounts to the captain abbrograting his responsibility. The F/O certainly may disagree and if the captain has commonsense he will reconsider his decision in light of his F/O's reasoned advice.
Too many times however the captain is inwardly afraid of "upsetting" the F/O and in the interest of maintaining perceived flight deck harmony, and under the guise of CRM decides to let the F/O dictate the course of action. That might be all very well if the F/O is in the LH seat undergoing command training. Once the captain resorts to weedling such as "Don't you think it might be a good idea to reduce speed?" or "Looks like some weather ahead - which way do you want to turn?" then he is asking for trouble. He becomes a friend and confidant instead of the captain running the show. There is no place for democracy on a flight deck.
For instance the captain should be constantly watching the unfolding weather scene ahead on radar and from his experience decide which is the safest course of action. The operative words are "based upon his experience." While it may happen the F/O is PF for that leg, the decision which way to avoid threatening weather should not be a consensus. The captain should direct the F/O to take the avoiding action by giving him instructions on what heading and airspeed is needed. It should never be the case where the F/O is given a choice as this amounts to the captain abbrograting his responsibility. The F/O certainly may disagree and if the captain has commonsense he will reconsider his decision in light of his F/O's reasoned advice.
Too many times however the captain is inwardly afraid of "upsetting" the F/O and in the interest of maintaining perceived flight deck harmony, and under the guise of CRM decides to let the F/O dictate the course of action. That might be all very well if the F/O is in the LH seat undergoing command training. Once the captain resorts to weedling such as "Don't you think it might be a good idea to reduce speed?" or "Looks like some weather ahead - which way do you want to turn?" then he is asking for trouble. He becomes a friend and confidant instead of the captain running the show. There is no place for democracy on a flight deck.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there's no place for democracy on the flight deck, I agree.
But the way I run things in the cockpit, I very much so let the FO make up his own mind on how to circumnavigate the weather, and if he voices his decision and I find it to be safe, he/she may very well proceed with the plan. Making your own choices gives you experience, and there is no better teacher.
I don't feel like I am giving up authority and only on rare occasions have I had to use some stronger words like a simple "No, I don't want that.". This always put the power back into my hands, even with the oldest FO within the company.
nic
But the way I run things in the cockpit, I very much so let the FO make up his own mind on how to circumnavigate the weather, and if he voices his decision and I find it to be safe, he/she may very well proceed with the plan. Making your own choices gives you experience, and there is no better teacher.
I don't feel like I am giving up authority and only on rare occasions have I had to use some stronger words like a simple "No, I don't want that.". This always put the power back into my hands, even with the oldest FO within the company.
nic
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus said "Some captains are weak preferring to try to be a good friend all the time rather than being in charge. This is quickly sensed by a first officer who consciously or unconsciously will feel the captain is underconfident in his position of authority and consequently unreliable in an emergency situation. The first officer then feels empowered and will try to run the ship."
I think there is some truth to this, however I don't think it is always because the captain is "weak". I think that it is more just a difference in styles and some f/o's need the autocratic leadership to feel like the Captain is in command. I have been an f/o where I had little confidence in the Captain and actually felt that if it turned to custard I would effectively end up running the show, this may or may not have been how it panned out but that was the feeling i got from the Captain. I have been a Captain where one f/o obviously felt he had a bit more command input than I thought was ideal, and on looking back I think this was because I was too friendly and relaxed for this particular individuals personality to feel like I was in command. I have learned and now I am more autocratic when initially flying with someone new and become more relaxed as time passes and the relationship is better established. I think that it is a fine balance getting great teamwork going in the cockpit. I reckon most crews have very good teamwork due to SOP's and basic maturity, but for great teamwork the relationship has to develop more than that and in a positive way, while maintaining the authority gradient where it should be. Respect for the captains authority by the f/o is essential.
I think there is some truth to this, however I don't think it is always because the captain is "weak". I think that it is more just a difference in styles and some f/o's need the autocratic leadership to feel like the Captain is in command. I have been an f/o where I had little confidence in the Captain and actually felt that if it turned to custard I would effectively end up running the show, this may or may not have been how it panned out but that was the feeling i got from the Captain. I have been a Captain where one f/o obviously felt he had a bit more command input than I thought was ideal, and on looking back I think this was because I was too friendly and relaxed for this particular individuals personality to feel like I was in command. I have learned and now I am more autocratic when initially flying with someone new and become more relaxed as time passes and the relationship is better established. I think that it is a fine balance getting great teamwork going in the cockpit. I reckon most crews have very good teamwork due to SOP's and basic maturity, but for great teamwork the relationship has to develop more than that and in a positive way, while maintaining the authority gradient where it should be. Respect for the captains authority by the f/o is essential.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OR practice!
sns3guppy
I hope I'm not splitting hairs but I am interested in CRM or "Team" rescource management in a healthcare setting, and specifically in OR. I do find topics such as this very interesting and informative as in the mian responsible professionals do behave in similar ways in high-risk situations.
You posted - "The doctor leads a surgical team in a heart operation. Now it's a crew environment. You think the doctor is going to cow down to a nurse when the nurse says "it's my patient, I'll decide what goes on in this operation?" Not hardly. Not even if it's a nurse-practitioner, an experienced OR nurse, or a Physician's Assistant. Not even an intern. The surgeon will remain in charge, period. It's his patient, his operation, and while others may assist, cut, medicate, anesthetize, treat, monitor, or help...it's the doctor's show. the first one to insist that no, it's their patient can certainly expect to be not only removed from the operation, but likely fired or not brought into the OR again. "
The example of the OR is far more complex than that of an aircraft in flight. The surgeon is not entirely responsible in the same way as a captain of an aircraft. The anesthesiologist is responsible for the patient - it should be this way as anaesthesiology is not straightforward and needs a professional to take command of the patients well-being. Although the patient is common to both the surgical and anasthesiological teams, they often work within thier own team structures and conflict arises when the two team objectives diverge.
The surgeon is responsible for the surgery alone... and as for the OR nurse overrruling the surgeon, it happens and should happen. Consider this - a surgeon has left a swab inside a patient and is going to close the wound... the OR nurse knows this and can in fact order a "go around" (if you will permit me to use that term) and insist that the surgeon finds the errant swab and if the surgeon doesnt comply then he may be the one being fired. The power gradient between a junior nurse and a senior surgeon may be huge, but if that a surgeon wants to close the wound and a junior nurse says "swab count incorrect" then the surgoen has no alternative. He MUST comply.
I doi hope that you dont find my post too irritating but please remember that CRM and airline safety in general is being held in high esteem by healthcare professionals and hence my interest in this forum.
I hope I'm not splitting hairs but I am interested in CRM or "Team" rescource management in a healthcare setting, and specifically in OR. I do find topics such as this very interesting and informative as in the mian responsible professionals do behave in similar ways in high-risk situations.
You posted - "The doctor leads a surgical team in a heart operation. Now it's a crew environment. You think the doctor is going to cow down to a nurse when the nurse says "it's my patient, I'll decide what goes on in this operation?" Not hardly. Not even if it's a nurse-practitioner, an experienced OR nurse, or a Physician's Assistant. Not even an intern. The surgeon will remain in charge, period. It's his patient, his operation, and while others may assist, cut, medicate, anesthetize, treat, monitor, or help...it's the doctor's show. the first one to insist that no, it's their patient can certainly expect to be not only removed from the operation, but likely fired or not brought into the OR again. "
The example of the OR is far more complex than that of an aircraft in flight. The surgeon is not entirely responsible in the same way as a captain of an aircraft. The anesthesiologist is responsible for the patient - it should be this way as anaesthesiology is not straightforward and needs a professional to take command of the patients well-being. Although the patient is common to both the surgical and anasthesiological teams, they often work within thier own team structures and conflict arises when the two team objectives diverge.
The surgeon is responsible for the surgery alone... and as for the OR nurse overrruling the surgeon, it happens and should happen. Consider this - a surgeon has left a swab inside a patient and is going to close the wound... the OR nurse knows this and can in fact order a "go around" (if you will permit me to use that term) and insist that the surgeon finds the errant swab and if the surgeon doesnt comply then he may be the one being fired. The power gradient between a junior nurse and a senior surgeon may be huge, but if that a surgeon wants to close the wound and a junior nurse says "swab count incorrect" then the surgoen has no alternative. He MUST comply.
I doi hope that you dont find my post too irritating but please remember that CRM and airline safety in general is being held in high esteem by healthcare professionals and hence my interest in this forum.
oh yes I forgot to mention that the Oxford english dictionary IS ON THE GROUND---and everything on the ground is crap to pilots
PS I hate the ground and anything associated with it
PS I hate the ground and anything associated with it
Join Date: May 2003
Location: scotland
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this a very interesting subject also. Ive also had certain issues relating to crm also. Example: first officer is flying, everything looking good, first officer starts bringing speed back to get nice stable approach and the captain advises the first officer to keep the speed high, first officer still feels comfortable and listens to captain, few miles later first officer advises of intention to bring speed back, captain says keep speed up. (no instruction from atc to keep speed fast. First officer getting a little bit uncomfortable, can see getting high and fast. captain then requests visual approach, knowing aircraft high and fast. First officer brings back speed , asks for certain configuration, captain then starts questioning at a critical stage why aircraft is high and fast and Captain non helpful, increases pressure on first officer at a critical stage of the flight, critises and then gives lecture to first officer on the roll out. My question is at what stage if any captains out there would like to answer, would you decide to to let a situation get like this. Is the sake of saving 2 or 3 minutes worth the hassle of a go around or was the captain inconsiderate and arrogant to his co pilot by ignoring his intentions without further guidance. All answers welcome