Border between being assertive or arrogant/rude
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Over Oceans, Continents, Mountains and Clouds.
Age: 56
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM should never be understood as any type of replacement for good manners, or reasonable social skills. CRM could / should be viewed as a living toolbox, filled with skill tools, and knowledge tools, to be used when appropriate.
CRM is simply a sub-element of the Human Factors subject, and as such, is something that we are expected to learn, consider, and apply on all flights.
A simple observation of the various conflicts (wars) that are going on around the world should be ample evidence that we don't generally get along ---as a rule---.
I fly for a national carrier with a fairly homogenous pilot group-culture, and even here we need to be very careful with some of our colleagues. That said... Not all of us find the same guys difficult.
CRM is a professional skill, and as such, it is most certainly not meant to water down the captain's authority, or command responsibility.
The captain stays the captain. It's just that now we have found a way to get through to those who are more ego-centric, as well as those who are simply normal...!
CRM does not replace manners or seniority (as in "experience").
Cheers
Pitch&Fan
CRM is simply a sub-element of the Human Factors subject, and as such, is something that we are expected to learn, consider, and apply on all flights.
A simple observation of the various conflicts (wars) that are going on around the world should be ample evidence that we don't generally get along ---as a rule---.
I fly for a national carrier with a fairly homogenous pilot group-culture, and even here we need to be very careful with some of our colleagues. That said... Not all of us find the same guys difficult.
CRM is a professional skill, and as such, it is most certainly not meant to water down the captain's authority, or command responsibility.
The captain stays the captain. It's just that now we have found a way to get through to those who are more ego-centric, as well as those who are simply normal...!
CRM does not replace manners or seniority (as in "experience").
Cheers
Pitch&Fan
I walk away from this guy with a mega chip on both shoulders.I think CRM really has gone too far and encourages this sort of behaviour in Flt deck.At the end of the day the CAPTAIN is in command of the aircraft with all the responsibility that goes with it.We are seeing too many arrogant,overconfident ,insolent trainees in the right hand seat,all well balanced individuals with chips on both shoulders!....I could go on.Im sure many Capts have experienced the same scenario.....
..and which airline would that be ?
laughs
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manchester
Age: 79
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please explainj ...
Can any of you guys please explain why you cannot have (a) assertiveness and (b) good manners and (c) CRM at the same time? Is the answer that there are still too many prima donnas and cockpit Gods?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok captains - how would you handle this one? Capt PF notes CB on radar and asks F/O to ask ATC for diversion 30 miles east of track due weather. F/O squints at radar picture and says how about 15 miles east, that is all you will need. Capt again tells F/O to request 30 miles. F/O calls ATC and requests 20 miles east due weather. Captain fumes but too late to counteract as ATC says clear 20 miles and report when able to regain track. As aircraft reaches 15 miles on the way to avoid CB in front, the F/O calls ATC and says we are clear of weather and now taking up heading to regain track. Captain furious and points to more CB on next scale and demands in future F/O do what he is bloody well told. F/O shrugs shoulders and goes on reading his newspaper in the RH seat.
Should the captain do the warm and fuzzy human factors thing like confrontation avoidance and merely remind the F/O of who is in charge? Or should the captain rip his guts out after landing? Should the captain send in a formal report? And as this particular F/O is well known for his casual attitude should he be dismissed from the airline as a safety hazard.
Should the captain do the warm and fuzzy human factors thing like confrontation avoidance and merely remind the F/O of who is in charge? Or should the captain rip his guts out after landing? Should the captain send in a formal report? And as this particular F/O is well known for his casual attitude should he be dismissed from the airline as a safety hazard.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On Earth
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tee Emm
I know the feeling. Airlines today are teaching F/O's to be assertive. Rightly so may I add. The problem is that we have gone too far and F/O's are now questioining the Captain's decision or judgement.
This is way I posted the question. When is one being assertive or arrogant?
I know the feeling. Airlines today are teaching F/O's to be assertive. Rightly so may I add. The problem is that we have gone too far and F/O's are now questioining the Captain's decision or judgement.
This is way I posted the question. When is one being assertive or arrogant?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How should the captain handle that one? When the captain asked for 30 nm and the copilot advised 15, the captain should have keyed the mic and made his request directly to ATC. Nothing prevents him from doing that.
When the F/O continued to be insubordinate, the captain had full grounds to take that approach to the chief pilot following the flight. Further, if it was one leg of several, at the next stop the F/O should have been put off the flight and the flight terminated until a suitable replacement could be found.
I would have no problem at all taking that kind of attitude to task...and yes, if that attitude is persistent in the cockpit, then the F/O should certainly be dismissed.
It's one thing to speak out about a safety issue. However, when the captain makes a conservative call and the F/O reduces the margin of safety, that's the exact opposite of being positively assertive. That's dangerous. The F/O doesn't have the right, nor is it his or her place, to advise the captain that he's being too conservative.
I wouldn't put up with it for a minute.
When the F/O continued to be insubordinate, the captain had full grounds to take that approach to the chief pilot following the flight. Further, if it was one leg of several, at the next stop the F/O should have been put off the flight and the flight terminated until a suitable replacement could be found.
I would have no problem at all taking that kind of attitude to task...and yes, if that attitude is persistent in the cockpit, then the F/O should certainly be dismissed.
It's one thing to speak out about a safety issue. However, when the captain makes a conservative call and the F/O reduces the margin of safety, that's the exact opposite of being positively assertive. That's dangerous. The F/O doesn't have the right, nor is it his or her place, to advise the captain that he's being too conservative.
I wouldn't put up with it for a minute.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F/O clearly doesn't have a clue about what his duties are.
He needs a rude awakening into real life and I would as a commander wait until being on ground and then let him know in a very exact manner what I'm not happy with. There are a couple of things one has to considder though:
1) do I have to do further flights with the same copilot on that same day?
2) how much experience does the F/O have?
3) does he show other signs of not being in the game as regards to begin a good colleague?
If I have to do further flights with him, I'd go easy. You don't want to create a bigger problem than it really is. Telling someone you're not happy will envoke hard feelings so it has to be done in such a way that that persons performance isn't decreased. If I bring my colleague down, I bring my self down...
That's where experience comes in. An FO with 2-3000 hours will have a broader base to stand on when someone tries to change his/her behaviour. It may be a good thing but it can also be bad. Good because there will be some substance in subsequent discussions. Bad because his behaviour will be more rigid than an F/O with 200 hours.
And if he's a friendly dude otherwise and just happened to fail on this item, then there's a good chance that only a small hint will be enough to set him off in the right direction.
I flew with a captain that called field in sight when I was still happily cruising along at level with 70 miles to go and no field in sight what so ever. It resulted in a missed appch because he, in effect, took control over the flight without keeping me in the loop. I was actually furious, but because he's a decent guy otherwise, I decided to ask him what his views on calling visual approaches were. As he explained, I began to understand his way of thinking and I then began to explain my view and tried to make him understand that if I'm flying the the plane, I want to be in control of when my IFR approach becomes a visual approach. He didn't understand my point, but what I made him understand was that it is very important to me that things are handled that way. I never raised my voice and never showed signs of irritation, only very exact comments. In the end he agreed to never call for a visual approach unless I'd said that I had the field in sight, eventhough in his world it was just nonsense.
Perhaps this could be a way for you to handle that F/O. Ask him what his thoughts are, make him ventilate what he was thinking and then explain to him what your thoughts were in that situation. Explain that it is important to you that he shows that he's able to execute your commands. If that's during cruise, what about if something catches fire and you're forced to take "uncomfortable action" in some way. He might not understand, but if you explain that it's important to YOU, he has to follow it. As long as you argue with facts about WX avidance and company regulations he will allways be able to mouth back. But for personal preferences, he can't say anything.
/LnS
He needs a rude awakening into real life and I would as a commander wait until being on ground and then let him know in a very exact manner what I'm not happy with. There are a couple of things one has to considder though:
1) do I have to do further flights with the same copilot on that same day?
2) how much experience does the F/O have?
3) does he show other signs of not being in the game as regards to begin a good colleague?
If I have to do further flights with him, I'd go easy. You don't want to create a bigger problem than it really is. Telling someone you're not happy will envoke hard feelings so it has to be done in such a way that that persons performance isn't decreased. If I bring my colleague down, I bring my self down...
That's where experience comes in. An FO with 2-3000 hours will have a broader base to stand on when someone tries to change his/her behaviour. It may be a good thing but it can also be bad. Good because there will be some substance in subsequent discussions. Bad because his behaviour will be more rigid than an F/O with 200 hours.
And if he's a friendly dude otherwise and just happened to fail on this item, then there's a good chance that only a small hint will be enough to set him off in the right direction.
I flew with a captain that called field in sight when I was still happily cruising along at level with 70 miles to go and no field in sight what so ever. It resulted in a missed appch because he, in effect, took control over the flight without keeping me in the loop. I was actually furious, but because he's a decent guy otherwise, I decided to ask him what his views on calling visual approaches were. As he explained, I began to understand his way of thinking and I then began to explain my view and tried to make him understand that if I'm flying the the plane, I want to be in control of when my IFR approach becomes a visual approach. He didn't understand my point, but what I made him understand was that it is very important to me that things are handled that way. I never raised my voice and never showed signs of irritation, only very exact comments. In the end he agreed to never call for a visual approach unless I'd said that I had the field in sight, eventhough in his world it was just nonsense.
Perhaps this could be a way for you to handle that F/O. Ask him what his thoughts are, make him ventilate what he was thinking and then explain to him what your thoughts were in that situation. Explain that it is important to you that he shows that he's able to execute your commands. If that's during cruise, what about if something catches fire and you're forced to take "uncomfortable action" in some way. He might not understand, but if you explain that it's important to YOU, he has to follow it. As long as you argue with facts about WX avidance and company regulations he will allways be able to mouth back. But for personal preferences, he can't say anything.
/LnS
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Tee Em,
There's only one answer to this one. A hard right to the solar plexus! (after the flight, of course). If this pillock shows such complete disrespect to other people, as well as complete inability to work as part of a crew, he deserves to be not only out of the cockpit, but in the gutter too!
There's only one answer to this one. A hard right to the solar plexus! (after the flight, of course). If this pillock shows such complete disrespect to other people, as well as complete inability to work as part of a crew, he deserves to be not only out of the cockpit, but in the gutter too!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland mainly, rather than at home.
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood CRM was an attempt to rule out the situation where, as for example in the case of the Tenerife collision, the PNF does not feel unable to speak up when they feel something is dangerous.
In the above example of weather avoidance and the subsequent insolence from the FO, my opinion is that he had no business interfering: there is no danger in a 30 mile avoidance, and certainly no grounds for disobeying a direct order from the Captain. As I recall from lectures, there remains a gradient of authority in the flightdeck, and, whilst it is not supposed to be so steep as to lead to danger in the rare circumstance such as Tenerife where the Captain made the wrong decision, it remains nevertheless a gradient. Authority still of course is in place, that's why there is a commander and a FO.
If the FO in question was puzzled, then explaining (after first following the order) something along the lines of it probably being due to his own inexperience, but would 15 miles have been enough, would most likely result in a good explanation and even the FO may have learned something.
Most, if not all of the time a polite discussion will nomally put something straight in the head of a less experienced pilot. Nobody minds sensible questions, how else will we learn? However taking unilateral decisions usurping the authority of the commander, unless he is about to kill you - and you better be sure of that, is not acceptable and is not the aim of CRM.
As has already been stated, this is not an area of CRM. The M stands for management, there was no management in this example: only conflict.
In the above example of weather avoidance and the subsequent insolence from the FO, my opinion is that he had no business interfering: there is no danger in a 30 mile avoidance, and certainly no grounds for disobeying a direct order from the Captain. As I recall from lectures, there remains a gradient of authority in the flightdeck, and, whilst it is not supposed to be so steep as to lead to danger in the rare circumstance such as Tenerife where the Captain made the wrong decision, it remains nevertheless a gradient. Authority still of course is in place, that's why there is a commander and a FO.
If the FO in question was puzzled, then explaining (after first following the order) something along the lines of it probably being due to his own inexperience, but would 15 miles have been enough, would most likely result in a good explanation and even the FO may have learned something.
Most, if not all of the time a polite discussion will nomally put something straight in the head of a less experienced pilot. Nobody minds sensible questions, how else will we learn? However taking unilateral decisions usurping the authority of the commander, unless he is about to kill you - and you better be sure of that, is not acceptable and is not the aim of CRM.
As has already been stated, this is not an area of CRM. The M stands for management, there was no management in this example: only conflict.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm what you'd call a low-hours pilot, new to commercial flying on a medium twinjet.
As cliched as it sounds, I learn something new every day (having a relatively sparse knowledge-base at the minute!), often from the captain I'm flying with. It's great because there's always a different take on doing the same thing. I lump everything together, pick out the things I think make more sense or those that I've seen work well and slowly come up with my own way of doing things which I think will work.
When I'm PF I like to make the decisions based on this slowly increasing knowledge-base...right up to the point that the captain suggests a different way of doing things. 99.999% of the time the suggestion doesn't have any safety connotations at all - it's simply a suggestion on how to fly the approach, or a recommended wx avoidance path, or s/he bringing a trend I might not have noticed to my attention. Unless something makes an FO uncomfortable (safety-wise) for some reason, I fail to see what benefit there is in trying to assert authority/argue over issues/requests that have NO SAFETY IMPLICATION AT ALL. When it's been appropriate (low workload) I've often asked, if I wasn't sure of the reasoning behind a suggestion/request, for the captain's thought process, interested in his/her take on things and also offered why I was following a certain course of action so the captain (especially if they are a trainer) understands my take. If I spout something out that, on hearing it myself, I realise is bo****ks, I'll happily refer to myself as a muppet and get over it! If it's busy, we can speak in the crew room.
The best captains I've flown with allow for the fact that I'm relatively inexperienced, let me make minor mistakes and don't over-the-top prompt if it's purely a matter of technique rather a question of safety etc. The most vivid memories I have are minor mistakes such as where I've been allowed to burn a few extra kilos of fuel by levelling off, dirty, a little earlier than I really needed to or bringing the speed back a little too early/cautiously, resulting in dragging it in a bit. The best learning tool is doing - I'll be very aware of making a similar mistake again, having seen the result first-hand, and so will hopefully avoid it in the future!
As has been said before on other threads it's sometimes quite tricky as an eff-oh, having to be a bit of a chameleon depending on the captain you're with that day.
To sum up my view of things - I want to be good at my job and enjoy it, I see myself as an apprentice-captain i.e. a future captain in training. It's the captain's aircraft (his/her names on the paperwork and a leader is needed) and it's a two-person operation to fly the aircraft properly and safely. In the vast majority of cases, routine decisions made have no safety implication at all - most of the time I don't think it's worth jeopardising the channels of communication by being unnessarily argumentative/tenacious. This isn't being submissive - it's being rational and appreciating the big picture. No one always gets the balance right.
The story a few posts back about wx avoidance was an eye-opener. I can't see any benefit in approaching the scenario as the FO did. By the sounds, the operation wasn't any safer and all that resulted was a p***ed off skipper, a breakdown of the relaxed relationship (with an obvious and required authority gradient) which seems to work well in the cockpit and a spoilt day out
Early days so I've not come up against any real CRM issues yet but in my (very) short-lived experience of things so far - things seem to run perfectly smoothly and a healthy open channel of communication maintained by a relaxed, friendly cockpit atmosphere and a we're-in-this-together/the-mission-comes first mentality. I think you should always give the other guy time to notice something/correct before mentioning something yourself if it's not time-critical. "Just the before takeoffs then we're set." when the other guy was busy and is about to line up having forgotten them, "We're looking for 180 on the speed." when the other guy has forgotten to bring the speed back on ATC's request, are usually the kind of things I'll spout out. When I get prompts like this I always acknowledge with a "Thanks.". Everyone's happy and there's no aerial bust-up!
Will keep reading this thread with interest,
B&S
P.S. Sweet Jesus - this has turned into an essay - wasn't the intention!
As cliched as it sounds, I learn something new every day (having a relatively sparse knowledge-base at the minute!), often from the captain I'm flying with. It's great because there's always a different take on doing the same thing. I lump everything together, pick out the things I think make more sense or those that I've seen work well and slowly come up with my own way of doing things which I think will work.
When I'm PF I like to make the decisions based on this slowly increasing knowledge-base...right up to the point that the captain suggests a different way of doing things. 99.999% of the time the suggestion doesn't have any safety connotations at all - it's simply a suggestion on how to fly the approach, or a recommended wx avoidance path, or s/he bringing a trend I might not have noticed to my attention. Unless something makes an FO uncomfortable (safety-wise) for some reason, I fail to see what benefit there is in trying to assert authority/argue over issues/requests that have NO SAFETY IMPLICATION AT ALL. When it's been appropriate (low workload) I've often asked, if I wasn't sure of the reasoning behind a suggestion/request, for the captain's thought process, interested in his/her take on things and also offered why I was following a certain course of action so the captain (especially if they are a trainer) understands my take. If I spout something out that, on hearing it myself, I realise is bo****ks, I'll happily refer to myself as a muppet and get over it! If it's busy, we can speak in the crew room.
The best captains I've flown with allow for the fact that I'm relatively inexperienced, let me make minor mistakes and don't over-the-top prompt if it's purely a matter of technique rather a question of safety etc. The most vivid memories I have are minor mistakes such as where I've been allowed to burn a few extra kilos of fuel by levelling off, dirty, a little earlier than I really needed to or bringing the speed back a little too early/cautiously, resulting in dragging it in a bit. The best learning tool is doing - I'll be very aware of making a similar mistake again, having seen the result first-hand, and so will hopefully avoid it in the future!
As has been said before on other threads it's sometimes quite tricky as an eff-oh, having to be a bit of a chameleon depending on the captain you're with that day.
To sum up my view of things - I want to be good at my job and enjoy it, I see myself as an apprentice-captain i.e. a future captain in training. It's the captain's aircraft (his/her names on the paperwork and a leader is needed) and it's a two-person operation to fly the aircraft properly and safely. In the vast majority of cases, routine decisions made have no safety implication at all - most of the time I don't think it's worth jeopardising the channels of communication by being unnessarily argumentative/tenacious. This isn't being submissive - it's being rational and appreciating the big picture. No one always gets the balance right.
The story a few posts back about wx avoidance was an eye-opener. I can't see any benefit in approaching the scenario as the FO did. By the sounds, the operation wasn't any safer and all that resulted was a p***ed off skipper, a breakdown of the relaxed relationship (with an obvious and required authority gradient) which seems to work well in the cockpit and a spoilt day out
Early days so I've not come up against any real CRM issues yet but in my (very) short-lived experience of things so far - things seem to run perfectly smoothly and a healthy open channel of communication maintained by a relaxed, friendly cockpit atmosphere and a we're-in-this-together/the-mission-comes first mentality. I think you should always give the other guy time to notice something/correct before mentioning something yourself if it's not time-critical. "Just the before takeoffs then we're set." when the other guy was busy and is about to line up having forgotten them, "We're looking for 180 on the speed." when the other guy has forgotten to bring the speed back on ATC's request, are usually the kind of things I'll spout out. When I get prompts like this I always acknowledge with a "Thanks.". Everyone's happy and there's no aerial bust-up!
Will keep reading this thread with interest,
B&S
P.S. Sweet Jesus - this has turned into an essay - wasn't the intention!
Formerly HWD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 57
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain furious and points to more CB on next scale and demands in future F/O do what he is bloody well told.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony, that's allways the goal as I see it. My situational awareness should be that of the captains and the captains situational awareness should coincide with mine. This is however never the case. We will allways have a different take on things. It can range from small insigninficant things to things that can bring the flight down.
The most dangerous being things that are often very obvious and standard. Items where I'm taking for granted that the commander has not overlooked anything.
I remember one time, we were flying a normal departure, no SID or anything, just direct to the first point. I notice all of a sudden that the captain isn't flying the flight director. I see that the autopilot isn't engaged and I haven't heard a call to engage it either so I'm taking for granted that he's flying manually and just doing a very poor job of it.
All of a sudden, he notices the discrepancy and makes a comment of that the autopilot is doing a very poor job of flying the flight director. I comment that it is not engaged.
Apparantly, he'd tried to engage it, but he made no callout so I missed it. It never engaged properly and he didn't check it a second time. If he'd never made the comment of that the autopilot was doing a poor job I would never have been let in on his little secret. In this case it was also poor SOP as we actually don't have a call for this. But it shows the significance of talking to each other of what we are doing or planning to do. Forgetting this and taking things for granted keeps the two SA loops far apart and the goal is to have 2 coinciding loops or at least a communication between so as to find diffrences.
LnS
The most dangerous being things that are often very obvious and standard. Items where I'm taking for granted that the commander has not overlooked anything.
I remember one time, we were flying a normal departure, no SID or anything, just direct to the first point. I notice all of a sudden that the captain isn't flying the flight director. I see that the autopilot isn't engaged and I haven't heard a call to engage it either so I'm taking for granted that he's flying manually and just doing a very poor job of it.
All of a sudden, he notices the discrepancy and makes a comment of that the autopilot is doing a very poor job of flying the flight director. I comment that it is not engaged.
Apparantly, he'd tried to engage it, but he made no callout so I missed it. It never engaged properly and he didn't check it a second time. If he'd never made the comment of that the autopilot was doing a poor job I would never have been let in on his little secret. In this case it was also poor SOP as we actually don't have a call for this. But it shows the significance of talking to each other of what we are doing or planning to do. Forgetting this and taking things for granted keeps the two SA loops far apart and the goal is to have 2 coinciding loops or at least a communication between so as to find diffrences.
LnS
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
quote "It seems to me that the Captain could have done a better job of keeping the F/O in the loop." Unquote.
If the captain asks for a 30 mile offset, you either ask for a 30 mile offset or question him about the distance, time permitting. If, like in this example, he changes the request on his own accord, it is plain insubordinance.
As a captain I would have steered the airplane to a 30 mile offset and ask him to coordinate such with ATC.
While on the said course, and safe from cb's, we would have a little discussion about the matter. And I mean discussion, not a lecture.
quote "It seems to me that the Captain could have done a better job of keeping the F/O in the loop." Unquote.
If the captain asks for a 30 mile offset, you either ask for a 30 mile offset or question him about the distance, time permitting. If, like in this example, he changes the request on his own accord, it is plain insubordinance.
As a captain I would have steered the airplane to a 30 mile offset and ask him to coordinate such with ATC.
While on the said course, and safe from cb's, we would have a little discussion about the matter. And I mean discussion, not a lecture.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that the Captain could have done a better job of keeping the F/O in the loop.
Now, if the F/O thought that was excessive he could have called for it from ATC and then had a quick question of the captain to assertain his thought process. If after having a discussion he still thought it excessive he could log it away for future reference. Being extra safe costs HIM nothing, the company a little extra fuel burn and the flight a few extra seconds. When (if) he moves to the left seat he will get a whole new perspective on his comfort/ safety margins, believe me.
Perhaps the F/O was not keeping the captain in HIS loop?
PP
Formerly HWD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 57
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sleeper, Pete,
I don't think there is not enough information in the above scenario to have a specific debate. I don't think the above scenario is about Capt and F/O nor about authority or subordination, my view is that it is really about PF and PM.
Therefore, my previous comment is non specific and limited to the PF asking for something that doesn't correspond with the PM's view of the world. With rgeard to the above scenario, there is no mention of the PF pointing out the extended radar scale to the PM until the PM effectively queried the request. So it seems to me the whole exchange could have been avoided with more specific communication on what the 30nm offset was meant to be avoiding.
That is my interpretation of the scenario, if others' is different then no problem. Regardless, that is my reasoning.
LnS,
It is good to read war stories. Even from my very limited experience I can see how rapidly the two views can diverge too!
I don't think there is not enough information in the above scenario to have a specific debate. I don't think the above scenario is about Capt and F/O nor about authority or subordination, my view is that it is really about PF and PM.
Therefore, my previous comment is non specific and limited to the PF asking for something that doesn't correspond with the PM's view of the world. With rgeard to the above scenario, there is no mention of the PF pointing out the extended radar scale to the PM until the PM effectively queried the request. So it seems to me the whole exchange could have been avoided with more specific communication on what the 30nm offset was meant to be avoiding.
That is my interpretation of the scenario, if others' is different then no problem. Regardless, that is my reasoning.
LnS,
It is good to read war stories. Even from my very limited experience I can see how rapidly the two views can diverge too!
Last edited by Tony Hirst; 23rd Oct 2008 at 21:07. Reason: Just added extra waffle.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOPs
To Bucket and Spade
You've certainly got the right idea but my instinct says that you can do better for yourself.
Do not be a chameleon. Be B & S. Do not try to please the other pilot - please yourself. That way YOU are performing and if you get something wrong you will learn from it. If you do "it" to please the other pilot and get it wrong......well there's no answer to that.
But my main observation from your post is that "things" are done differently by different pilots and you are picking their best ideas. Well SOPs should eliminate the different ways tasks are carried out. Compliance with the SOP is the measure of the safe operation as tried and tested by the manufacturer and the management (and with a lot of help from the authorities.) I did think that we had moved away from individual preferences - which is a real problem for training departments - but obviously not.
Nevertheless, as I have said, your post shows that you are certainly the person for the flight deck. Reading through this thread it is sadly obvious that there are some out there who shouldn't be!
You've certainly got the right idea but my instinct says that you can do better for yourself.
Do not be a chameleon. Be B & S. Do not try to please the other pilot - please yourself. That way YOU are performing and if you get something wrong you will learn from it. If you do "it" to please the other pilot and get it wrong......well there's no answer to that.
But my main observation from your post is that "things" are done differently by different pilots and you are picking their best ideas. Well SOPs should eliminate the different ways tasks are carried out. Compliance with the SOP is the measure of the safe operation as tried and tested by the manufacturer and the management (and with a lot of help from the authorities.) I did think that we had moved away from individual preferences - which is a real problem for training departments - but obviously not.
Nevertheless, as I have said, your post shows that you are certainly the person for the flight deck. Reading through this thread it is sadly obvious that there are some out there who shouldn't be!
