Stroppy First Officers - CRM issue

[Chesty Morgan]

Humpme, I think we've got crossed wires.

Your last paragraph was what I was trying to get at.

But to address your point about management training for captains. I think it's a good idea in principle. I didn't receive any specific management training but I'd have certainly benefited from it in the "early years"!.

Now I just tell it like it is and this sometimes those guys with the attitude get on their high horse about it.

On a parallel with your idea I think that proper CRM training for first officers is a must. The amount of times I've heard that "I can do what I want because of CRM" (I'm not joking) is ridiculous.

At the end of the day we are all there to achieve the same goal. Only ONE person is in charge but everyone is expected to do their own job to the best of their abilities. If they don't, can't or refuse to then they (should) end up with tea, no biscuits and we end up having these conversations!

P.s. I didn't mean to come across as patronising...I can speak better than I can type.

[Exaviator]

From my experience the comments made by "Jolly Girl" hit the nail on the head and would only add that being in-command is not just about flying the aircraft. And CRM does not absolve you of any responsibilities as Captain.

If you own leadership skills lack the ability to deal with this co-pilots attitude then take it to your fleet manager or who ever is in overall charge of your operation.

Personality clashes left unresolved only lead to an unsafe flight deck.

[Willie Everlearn]

Humpmedumpme

If I may?
Airlines AREN'T Air Forces. Right?
They aren't military organizations, there is no chain-of-command, in that (military) sense.
Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid.
I'd say it's a positon of authority more about direction and management. If he/she as Captain runs into personality issues or attitude problems on the flight deck with an F/O, they should be passed on to the Fleet Manager, Chief Pilot or the one responsible for that sort of issue.
Being Captain is about signatures and identifying where and with whom the final blame lands when it all goes pair shaped.
Charm school supposedly taught us all how to get along and play nice. SOPs gave us a technique by which to safely operate the aeroplane. That's all.
Reading through these threads, perhaps F/O Ugly needs to be humiliated a couple of times to give himself a more refined sense of who he really is as opposed to who he thinks he is.
Another way to deal with him would be to NOT let him have a single leg as PF.
Personalities are what they are. No one says you have to talk to him. Stick to operational requirements. Briefings, checklists, operational discussion.
After that?
Silence!
Life's too short and there's no shortage of flying aeroplanes. Are there?

[parabellum]

Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid

You are using strong words there, Ordering, Bossing etc. Surely the bottom line is, as the Captain, in your brief, you state what will happen, hopefully fully in accordance with SOPs and the FO should have no problem with that? If the F/O wants to buck the system, then, as the captain, you point out the error of his ways and in extremis that may result in both 'telling' and if necessary, 'ordering'. All the time there is the very rare 'stroppy' F/O I don't think those days are gone,the problem has to be solved as and when it happens, passing it on to Fleet Managers and Chief Pilots is not an option thirty minutes before scheduled departure or on reaching the cruise when the non aviation related laptop comes out.

The ultimate responsibility rests with the captain and he has to protect his position, 99.9 times out of 100 he can do this without feeling he is in conflict with his crew.
The introduction of formalised CRM has not removed the captain's authority or changed the authority gradient on the flight deck. Captains may still require to 'tell' or 'order' or 'command' as required to achieve a safe operation but it is the way he does it that matters and that is what CRM is about, not about turning the flight deck into a democratic committee.

[Willie Everlearn]

parabellum

Thanks.
I think you're saying (through a better choice of words) what I was trying to say. Only you've stated it much better. There is a chain of command. Of course. But no one is going to hand out demerits or assign extra duties over the weekend because the F/O is behaving badly as well as being annoying. (we've considered it but all it did was send the corporate lawyers into a tizzy)
If an F/O is being 'stroppy' perhaps we shouldn't jump to conclusions about his/her 'stroppiness' for it could be that the Captains manner, speech, (sideways) comments, or outright rudeness, (and I'm not pointing at anyone in particular) which may be causing this person in the RHS to behave this way. To the point where an insolent/insubordinate attitude (in some individuals) is the result. Then I should think we have a problem beyond CRM.

I once shared a coffee with a crew I hadn't met just prior to a sim session. The Captain seemed likeable, easy going and displayed a great sense of humour... around the coffee pot.
Under sim training however, he was a complete ogre. He treated the F/O poorly. Very condescending and disrespectful. In the end, I stopped the session and told the Capt. his attitude and treatment of the F/O was totally unacceptable. That he needed to lighten up and re-think the two man crew concept before we could continue.
He was shocked because he told me later, he never saw himself "like that". To HIS credit, he has a very different approach to Command these days and has earned the respect of a good number of his F/Os.

You (general term) might then have to take a closer look at the behavior of both parties and not automatically conclude since the Captain feels his/her F/O is being 'stroppy' that the F/O isn't entitled to make it known that he/she feels that the Capt. is being a prat which is possibly causing a personality conflict and behavior problem.
Two sides and two views to each story I'm afraid.

If we've decided this F/O needs to mend his ways then perhaps he too needs to be told in no uncertain terms that his attitude and behavior on the flight deck is unacceptable and that he needs to step back and take a critical look at his behavior. It might also be that the Captain needs to examine his or herself as well.

In the end, not everyone, with or without CRM training, can play nice and get along. I don't care how good or how strict SOPs may be. For some, it just isn't going to work.

[sid Otoole]

Stgroppy Fo's

My advice would be to say something before this chap gets on duty with a less accomodating captain. It's too late after a major event when everyone says ---- well he was always stroppy. Remember it's always a team effort on the flight deck.

[c130jbloke]

Great ideas all...

Cannot fault any of the above posts.

However you could just bitch slap the guy within the first 30 seconds of the next time you meet to fly with him

Think about it : He does not know it's coming ( so you control the fight and surprise him ) and tell him in a very blunt way that the last trip was the last regarding his manner / attitude / CRM etc.

If he has a problem with it, then turn around and go home - if not then its game over to you.

Might also be worth telling him that other pilots think he is a to§§er too and that the word is out on him - at least you will see by his responce how big his balls are.

Failing all, just lamp him

[Deano777]

Originally Posted by c130jbloke

Failing all, just lamp him

Hmm, I think this is how chavs in shellsuits would deal with it, I would like to think I'm not flying with anyone who could react in such a way

[c130jbloke]

I would like to think I'm not flying with anyone who could react in such a way

Agreed, hence the.

As for having to stoop low, come the moment there is only chief on the FD. My point is that for both to work in harmony, there has to be a little "adjustment". Based on the description given of the FO in question, doing it bluntly may be the best way forward. If that offends, then by all means let him have his say - but the thread starter has (at least) one ring more than the other guy and it's there for a reason.

[aseanaero]

You've seen this guys basic character , even with warnings , re training etc it will still be there waiting to come out and be difficult and possibly at the worst time , do yourself a favor and get rid of him .

Life's too short to put up with stupid mind games.

[COF&COE]

I normally have a good day out with all at my company but sometimes a few could really do with being told.

It's always been that way.......but no one seems to tell the few.

Plus ca change.

[Bealzebub]

Flew with a guy the other day who took my kneeboard off the stowage place and then tried to give it to me to put back! me had his arm shrunk in the intervening 30 seconds! Then he spends the rest of the day putting stuff on my seat everytime I got out of it. Then... well I could go on but I won't.

I am not sure what "stowage place" you mean, but let me ask you to consider this. I am often astonished by the number of people who think the centre pedestal is some sort of coffee table. On to which should be placed any combination of their sunglasses, paperback book, mobile phone, biscuits, calculator, personal digital assistant, newspaper, chocolate bar, and various other assorted sundries. Worst still are those optamistic souls who tempt fate by placing cartons of milk, cups of coffee and other items that have the potential to make my (and their) lives very interesting and difficult in the blink of an eye. Whilst the positioning of the architecture might well lend itself to such utility, it is actually there to house most of the radio equipment, and flight control trim units. All of these things I like to be able to have unobstructed visual access to, as well as protecting from unnecessary risk of spillage.

Likewise with the chart and book stowages, I rather like the idea that they house the charts and books I am expecting to find there, without being adorned with somebody elses belongings. Don't get me wrong, I really don't have any problem with somebody putting something down for a minute of two. However why some feel the need to unpack the contents of their flight bag in areas otherwise dedicated to the regularity and operation of the flight, I really cannot fathom.

Maybe by putting this stuff on your seat, the Captain is hoping you will get the subtle hint that he really doesn't want it where you are putting it, perhaps for the reasons I have described, or because of some compelling event in his own experience.

First officers of the world, this is a flightdeck, not your bedside table! If you want tasks to share, we have them in abundance. Tidying up after you is not going be one however.

As you say a few really should be told. Actually those that don't take the hint often are. So you see, there is often another side to the story, and no doubt your willingness to learn and change perspective will make for a better understanding.

[Deep and fast]

Bealzebub

For your information I keep all my stuff in my flight bag and my tea in the cup in the cup holder.

And the kneeboard lives on the coaming until the taxi checks are complete as a reminder and no one has complained so far.
Oh and since you inferred that it is me who needs telling, I am always receptive to constructive criticism. I know there are always ways to improve how you operate and I embrace that fact.

[Centaurus]

Assuming the original post was accurate, then it is clear the first officer concerned is typical of a breed known as Smart-Arse. The term does not need further amplification to those who have been unfortunate enough to be crewed with one - be it captain or first officer.

Putting his type to one side for a moment, the airline concerned needs to have a long hard look at it's recruiting policy. These people can be easily picked during a searching interview. Yet he may have been successful in all the aptitude tests thrown at him but it is the face to face interview that will generally alert an intelligent interview panel to his genetic flaws.

The next traffic light is at induction into the airline, where few airlines that I am aware of anyway, sit new pilots down and explain to them the facts of life on the flight deck. This is a vital lecture and the company lecturer must hammer home the importance of basic good manners. The flight deck is not a democracy. Neither is the bridge of an aircraft carrier or a passenger liner.

Example (and this really happened). On climb there is CB ahead and captain asks the F/O to ask ATC approval to divert 30 miles west of track for weather avoidance. The airline concerned encourages a flat cockpit gradient on the basis that we are all mates together. The F/O pointedly disagrees with the captain's assessment of required diversion miles and says "30 miles is too much - how about 15 miles?"

As the captain, how would the reader handle that sort of reply from the F/O? Would you haggle with the F/O and come to a agreement? - would you demand he do as requested? Would you think it over and decide to agree with the F/O in order to avoid a confrontation?

Would you feel a bit wimpish and say lamely - Oh alright - ask them for 15 miles? After all, the F/O is equal to you in the airline culture.

In fact, the captain demanded the F/O to ask for 30 miles off track. The F/O then called up ATC and asked for 20 miles diversion - with a sly wink to the captain and saying "go you halves?"

Several minutes later, ATC tell the crew to advise when they can regain track. Without referring to the captain the F/O replied "We are clear of weather now - we can go direct ABC from present position." The captain astonished, points out to the F/O there are more radar returns ahead on the next radar scale. "Oops" says the F/O = "I didn't see them."

It is small exchanges on the flight deck like that which are poisonous. The captain can either come down hard on the F/O - or he can grit his teeth and blame it on Gen Y or X or whatever, too much TV as a child and so on.

There are probably hundreds of these examples in any one airline - and it needs to be cut off at the roots during the induction phase of new pilots into an airline.

There is nothing worse when a subordinate deliberately brings up CRM encouraged assertiveness as an excuse for deplorable bad manners on the flight deck or at flight planning stage.

Worse still, if reports to management by either crew member are shelved as too hard on the basis of boys will be boys, and things can be settled over a friendly pint at the pub after work.

And don't be fooled - these instances happen in military cockpits as well as civilian cockpits. Too may readers here have seen movies where the hard military commander dominates the flight deck. They are make belief actors in these movies and play along with old myths from the John Wayne war time movies.

Forgive the ramble - but flat cockpit gradients are just as potentially dangerous as the steep ones. Airlines must prevent these from coming major flight safety issues by setting the record straight during induction.

[ahramin]

There is nothing worse when a subordinate deliberately brings up CRM encouraged assertiveness as an excuse for deplorable bad manners on the flight deck or at flight planning stage.

Actually, there are lots of things worse. I do not think you guys get it. CRM is not something designed to take away your godlike powers as Captain. It is some knowledge of human interaction and a set of tools to turn 2 pilots into a crew. Obviously in the above example the Captain failed to manage the crew properly. It is also implied that due to a real or perceived lack of management support, the Captain also failed to address the problem with the F/O later. This means that the problem isn't with one stroppy F/O (rediculous concept), it is systemic to the organization and will continue.

Stroppyness, or any other character flaw, is a problem no matter which seat you are in. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't belong in either one.

[parabellum]

Good CRM is about either crew member being able to make a strong point or correction to the other crew member without upsetting them by the manner in which it is done. That is it.

It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation and for the younger generation of FOs that have never experienced any real environment of discipline and for whom the cockpit gradient is, therefore, a bit of a struggle.

In foreign airlines that employ expats good CRM also helps to compensate for the fact that the Captain is a foreigner and the FO is a National and regards it as 'his' airline and the foreign captain is, he thinks, sitting in 'his' seat.

[Exaviator]

"It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation and for the younger generation of FOs that have never experienced any real environment of discipline and for whom the cockpit gradient is, therefore, a bit of a struggle."

I think you will find that the need was not confined to the military. Back in the dark old ages there were many a BOAC captain that suffered from the "God Complex" Ever read the book "Call me Captain" ?

[parabellum]

Same breed, many were, in fact, ex RAF from single crew bombers but some of the older ones had never flown as a First Officer, as in the mercantile marine, the Master was the Master, end of story.

[Zoyberg]

Willie you said..

"Therefore, my opinion, Captains aren't in a position of 'bossing' anyone around let alone 'commanding', 'ordering' or 'telling' an F/O what to do and what not to do. Those days are gone I'm afraid."

The first problem is there are F/Os who share your opinion...sometimes encouraged by trainers.

The second problem is this opinion is in direct conflict with every legal statement made in this area.

In the section of my ops manual "organisation and responsibilities"
Sub section "Authority. Duties and responsibilities of the Commander" (note it does not say Captain).

The commander shall:

"(a) Be RESPONSIBLE for the safe operation of the aeroplane and safety of its occupants during flight time.

(b) Have AUTHORITY to give all COMMANDS he deems necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the aeroplane and of persons or property carried therein, and all persons carried in the aeroplane shall obey such commands."

An aircraft Captain / Commander has FULL responsibility for the operation (read any investigated incident report). With this has to come full authority...you cannot have one without the other.

Polite requests are normally the way to go...and they normally work...but when you fly with people who try to reverse the authority gradient you have to deal with that.

If you condone that behaviour not only are you encouraging it but (if the dreaded day comes where you have a major incident developing) be in no doubt you will have these guys making decisions for you.

This is not the time to be wrestling your authority back from the right seat.

[Centaurus]

"It is a pseudo-science introduced to aviation to compensate for 'military only' trained captains who have never been an FO in civilian aviation

That is one point of view. From personal experience of having flown 3000 plus hours on Lancaster Mk 4 four engine heavy bombers (known as the Lincoln), and crewed as second pilot to ranks from Group Captain and Squadron Leader right down to Pilot Officer and Sergeant Pilot, I can honestly say I never saw one instance of the mythical I AM GOD THE COMMANDER pilot, so beloved of CRM aficionados.

I cannot say the same from my long experience in the airline industry. There was certainly no shortage in that game of arrogant puffed up four bar "captains" who were never worthy of the title. These idiots were the career busters some of which went on in retirement to be tin-pot little Hitlers in the simulator who glorified in their perceived power to make life hell.

The myth of the military pilot being the basis of the huge money making cottage industry called CRM and its half brother TEM invented by the University of Texas aviation trick cyclists, is one of the greatest cons in aviation history.

Of course there was the occasional twit in the military but it is quite illogical and certainly inaccurate to typecast all former or current military pilots as idiots whose pompous attitude to their subordinates on the flight deck was the catalyst for the invention of CRM or whatever important sounding title becomes the next cash cow for a newly graduated aviation psychologist.