Poor Airmanship? Pilots reading non-relevent material in the cockpit during flight.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hotel
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread just shows many pilots have different pet subjects. Some guys never use intersection take off, some guys always use max reverse, some guys never reads on the flight deck etc.
They are all wrong. Good CRM, airmanship and situational awareness is the ability to adjust to the situation at hand.
Whenever I hear someone say "I never do this" or "I always do that" I know he's a pilot who lacks confidence and is afraid of making decisions.
They are all wrong. Good CRM, airmanship and situational awareness is the ability to adjust to the situation at hand.
Whenever I hear someone say "I never do this" or "I always do that" I know he's a pilot who lacks confidence and is afraid of making decisions.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I occasionally read something in the cruise but prefer not to and try to keep it to a minimum.
I basically agree with the OP and I too am happy to be considered a bit of a dinosaur. I get annoyed with some FO's when operating the aircraft appears to be a bit of a distraction from being forced to sit there and read newspapers for a living.
I had a head - on in the cruise airmiss years ago and If I had been reading a paper that day it might well have been catastrophic.
I basically agree with the OP and I too am happy to be considered a bit of a dinosaur. I get annoyed with some FO's when operating the aircraft appears to be a bit of a distraction from being forced to sit there and read newspapers for a living.
I had a head - on in the cruise airmiss years ago and If I had been reading a paper that day it might well have been catastrophic.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a "Standard" for some operators
Comment from R...C...:
Mergers have introduced that "standard" to some pilots who previously had no such prohibition. The USA's Safety Board heard from one merger-group, where pilots did NOT "buy-in" to some of the new (merged) company's "standards". [So, what's the story, does the new Delta "Policy Manual" prohibit "reading" for pleasure while serving as PF or while PM???]
The pilots' Professional Standards committees have mostly NOT been active in either setting or keeping-up such Cockpit Housekeeping "standards" -- their role has drifted into other areas (disagreements between pilots).
"... won't be long before casual reading material will be banned ... too many people ... too casual about it. ... manager/regulator?"
Various "operators" currently do have a standard explicitly prohibiting their pilots from such "reading". Mergers have introduced that "standard" to some pilots who previously had no such prohibition. The USA's Safety Board heard from one merger-group, where pilots did NOT "buy-in" to some of the new (merged) company's "standards". [So, what's the story, does the new Delta "Policy Manual" prohibit "reading" for pleasure while serving as PF or while PM???]
The pilots' Professional Standards committees have mostly NOT been active in either setting or keeping-up such Cockpit Housekeeping "standards" -- their role has drifted into other areas (disagreements between pilots).
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: london
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(until I ask them to either stop doing so, or otherwise hand over their duties as PF or PNF to me and take an official Crew Fatigue Management break, doing with it as they see fit)
Last edited by Oyindo; 30th Aug 2010 at 06:42.
Airmanship is a non-concept; we use the ops manual and SOP's. CRM is about maximising the use of all resources, nothing to do with how well you get on together.
here's an Airmanship example..yes I know it's so old
YouTube - United 1448 Runway Incursion at Francis Green, RI
listening to other radio transmissions, watching all runway intersections even with 'clearance' ...airmanship is when you adapt the Old smokey Axiom 'Trust Nothing; trust No One' and when you can perhaps make an informed decision to slow way way down
YouTube - United 1448 Runway Incursion at Francis Green, RI
listening to other radio transmissions, watching all runway intersections even with 'clearance' ...airmanship is when you adapt the Old smokey Axiom 'Trust Nothing; trust No One' and when you can perhaps make an informed decision to slow way way down
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point. We should know our weaknesses though and being sat next to somebody who winds you up can be a terrible distraction - regardless of how good your CRM is!
That being said, I agree with your inference on the dangers of 'friendly' complacency!
That being said, I agree with your inference on the dangers of 'friendly' complacency!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This puts me in mind of a (now long-retired) senior trainer who spent most of the flight head-down preparing a sim scenario but exploded with red-faced fury when I opened a newspaper.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Age: 58
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM and unprofessional FOs?
Chesty sez:
That is, if you lived to talk about it afterward. Think Western Airlines/Mexico City, ca. 10/31/1979.
Let's reverse roles here (and use the example of the incident above) and see where your "infallible" captain leads you.
The FO reminds you numerous times that RWY 23L is closed due to construction, but you line up on it and insist on landing on it. On final the FO is now screaming that 23L is CLOSED, but (you) the captain ignore all of this.
Result? A lot of dead bodies (72) and a wrecked DC-10-10.
Your analogy works both ways, chief. Your attitude, to be polite, is both errant and arrogant.
It's not only poor CRM it's unprofessional and dangerous. Bottom line is if my F/O knowingly allowed me to make a mistake he would be off my aeroplane in very short order.
Let's reverse roles here (and use the example of the incident above) and see where your "infallible" captain leads you.
The FO reminds you numerous times that RWY 23L is closed due to construction, but you line up on it and insist on landing on it. On final the FO is now screaming that 23L is CLOSED, but (you) the captain ignore all of this.
Result? A lot of dead bodies (72) and a wrecked DC-10-10.
Your analogy works both ways, chief. Your attitude, to be polite, is both errant and arrogant.
Last edited by IFly86N; 2nd Sep 2010 at 04:06. Reason: Bolding
Gender Faculty Specialist
And your attitude is both ignorant and presumptuous. Chief.
You mention infallible. Why?
Inclusion of the word 'knowingly' effectively precludes the presumption of infallibility on the part of the first officer. Maybe I should have used 'deliberately' instead.
It should be fairly obvious that I do not consider myself infallible as your kindly highlighted text shows.
You also presume that I would ignore the protestations of my first officer.
So you think we should allow a deliberately obstructive first officer to remain on the flight deck. A first officer who will deliberately not correct you when you make a mistake.
I hope you can see the difference between a captain who ignores his first officer and a first officer who will deliberately not correct a captain who makes a genuine mistake.
You mention infallible. Why?
Inclusion of the word 'knowingly' effectively precludes the presumption of infallibility on the part of the first officer. Maybe I should have used 'deliberately' instead.
It should be fairly obvious that I do not consider myself infallible as your kindly highlighted text shows.
You also presume that I would ignore the protestations of my first officer.
but (you) the captain ignore all of this.
I hope you can see the difference between a captain who ignores his first officer and a first officer who will deliberately not correct a captain who makes a genuine mistake.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a new law in my state where you can't hold a cell phone up to your ear and drive at the same time...it's a distraction and accidents have been caused this way.
All of us know, that if we went to sim training, on a LOFT, springloaded for the guy behind us to pull some scenario on us, the last thing we would be doing is pulling out a newspaper......
All that said....can a pilot do an 8 hour flight, checking and double checking everything, going through flight planning and weather, scanning instruments for minute changes and trends, digging through the manuals for little pieces of info that haunt us... going through maintenance logs, constantly looking for alternates and checking the status of them, looking for smooth area and checking temps up ahead...
Imagine flying the president of the United States, 30 babies, 10 intensive car patients, a cargo hold of a deadly vaccine, 10 nuclear weapons...
You bet we would be jacked up the whole flight, spring loaded to save the world with our flight skills..
I know that we can read a newspaper and fly a plane, but the right way to do it, is to find stuff to do, that constantly mitigates the risk away from a flight...
The question is...how far do we go to be that perfect pilot....
All of us should be in a sim once a month, reading manuals and books at night, running marathons everyday, and springloaded for a problem on everyflight, running scenarios in our heads every ten seconds....
But like I said before, when 200 hour pilots are being stuffed into the right seat and a million other transgressions, it's tough to be the one guy that standing up for the the right way to do things, when the standards are constantly being dropped for expedience and cost.
I get lazy like the next guy, but I can say that in my flight depts...I try to bring the A game....TRY being the operative word.
All of us know, that if we went to sim training, on a LOFT, springloaded for the guy behind us to pull some scenario on us, the last thing we would be doing is pulling out a newspaper......
All that said....can a pilot do an 8 hour flight, checking and double checking everything, going through flight planning and weather, scanning instruments for minute changes and trends, digging through the manuals for little pieces of info that haunt us... going through maintenance logs, constantly looking for alternates and checking the status of them, looking for smooth area and checking temps up ahead...
Imagine flying the president of the United States, 30 babies, 10 intensive car patients, a cargo hold of a deadly vaccine, 10 nuclear weapons...
You bet we would be jacked up the whole flight, spring loaded to save the world with our flight skills..
I know that we can read a newspaper and fly a plane, but the right way to do it, is to find stuff to do, that constantly mitigates the risk away from a flight...
The question is...how far do we go to be that perfect pilot....
All of us should be in a sim once a month, reading manuals and books at night, running marathons everyday, and springloaded for a problem on everyflight, running scenarios in our heads every ten seconds....
But like I said before, when 200 hour pilots are being stuffed into the right seat and a million other transgressions, it's tough to be the one guy that standing up for the the right way to do things, when the standards are constantly being dropped for expedience and cost.
I get lazy like the next guy, but I can say that in my flight depts...I try to bring the A game....TRY being the operative word.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe its because they were treated that way by their superiors in the military, and now they have there turn to treat others that way too
Personally, I have little respect for ex-mil fast jet types, as they can be a pain.
Really.
Ex-transport mil guys, on the other hand...generally good operators.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Age: 58
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Chesty Morgan:
Chesty,
To start, two points to clear the air:
1. I'm not out to pick a fight. You seem to be a rational, clear thinker. I have agreed many times with most of your posts/statements.
2. I used the term "infallible" in a general sense. It was not directed at you personally. So no ad hominem was intended.
So let's move on with other things.
Agreed. Deliberately would have been a better word. Knowingly permits a "gray area" when the FO:
(1) knowingly allowed the CA to make a mistake, but maybe was held back by some sense of inferiority (that "Assertiveness With Authority" thing, or whatever they call it);
(2) or he just unknowingly allowed the CA to make the mistake. (Age, experience, et al.)
Early in my aviation career, I was certainly guilty of the first. But I know better these days.
Never said that about you. My original quote was a hypothetical. I'm quite sure that you would listen and respect your FO's concerns.
But I'll address this a little closer further down.
You'll get no argument from me on either point. An FO who deliberately does not correct me before the commission of mistake is a dangerous pilot. And probably will wind up being a dead pilot (i.e., a fatal crash, not by murder.)
So this leads me to my story about the Western Airlines/Mexico City crash in 1979:
According to the full NTSB report, the FO was holding a serious grudge/hatred against that CA. On approach into MEX, the crew was given the ILS 23R, but the captain lined up with 23L (no one knows why). The FO knew full well that RWY was closed for construction (very recently). So he was deliberately trying to embarrass the CA if he did, indeed, land on 23L.
What the FO did NOT anticipate was heavy construction equipment on RWY 23L.
Oops. 79 dead. All because of a lousy grudge.
Lesson: Cockpits are the last places to be holding grudge and/or ego matches.
-------------------------------------------------
On topic, I fly lots of LH stuff across the Big Waters. There's a time and place for reading. And a time and place for paying attention to the airplane. I think two/three sharp guys/gals in the cockpit can distinguish the two.
Be safe out there!
And your attitude is both ignorant and presumptuous. Chief.
1. I'm not out to pick a fight. You seem to be a rational, clear thinker. I have agreed many times with most of your posts/statements.
You mention infallible. Why?
So let's move on with other things.
Inclusion of the word 'knowingly' effectively precludes the presumption of infallibility on the part of the first officer. Maybe I should have used 'deliberately' instead.
(1) knowingly allowed the CA to make a mistake, but maybe was held back by some sense of inferiority (that "Assertiveness With Authority" thing, or whatever they call it);
(2) or he just unknowingly allowed the CA to make the mistake. (Age, experience, et al.)
Early in my aviation career, I was certainly guilty of the first. But I know better these days.
You also presume that I would ignore the protestations of my first officer.
But I'll address this a little closer further down.
So you think we should allow a deliberately obstructive first officer to remain on the flight deck. A first officer who will deliberately not correct you when you make a mistake.
I hope you can see the difference between a captain who ignores his first officer and a first officer who will deliberately not correct a captain who makes a genuine mistake.
I hope you can see the difference between a captain who ignores his first officer and a first officer who will deliberately not correct a captain who makes a genuine mistake.
So this leads me to my story about the Western Airlines/Mexico City crash in 1979:
According to the full NTSB report, the FO was holding a serious grudge/hatred against that CA. On approach into MEX, the crew was given the ILS 23R, but the captain lined up with 23L (no one knows why). The FO knew full well that RWY was closed for construction (very recently). So he was deliberately trying to embarrass the CA if he did, indeed, land on 23L.
What the FO did NOT anticipate was heavy construction equipment on RWY 23L.
Oops. 79 dead. All because of a lousy grudge.
Lesson: Cockpits are the last places to be holding grudge and/or ego matches.
-------------------------------------------------
On topic, I fly lots of LH stuff across the Big Waters. There's a time and place for reading. And a time and place for paying attention to the airplane. I think two/three sharp guys/gals in the cockpit can distinguish the two.
Be safe out there!
Gender Faculty Specialist
-86N,
Okay, my apologies. First for not being clear enough. Secondly for misinterpreting your post.
Thanks for clearing up the Western Airlines accident, the small matter of large equipment on the runway. Which I missed. There's a lesson there!
Keep the blue bit up
Okay, my apologies. First for not being clear enough. Secondly for misinterpreting your post.
Thanks for clearing up the Western Airlines accident, the small matter of large equipment on the runway. Which I missed. There's a lesson there!
Keep the blue bit up
Moderator
Or, as a wise man once observed with tongue in cheek, "I just fly the cockpit and keep it fine - everyone else is bolted to my tail and along for the ride"
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?? Myth-hap?? Western 2605 / 31Oct Mexico City
From Ifly86N, on the 2nd:
Where did you get this information about Western 2605 / 31Oct79 DC-10-10, N903WA, Landing accident at Mexico City Rwy 23L ???
I don't think there was any NTSB report on that mishap in MEXICO. I only found that Mexican AAR: Crew failed to make the standard altitude call-outs during the approach. \\ P.C. = Non compliance with meteorological/approach minima, failure to comply with ops procedures during instrument approach, landing on a closed runway.
"... my story about the Western Airlines/Mexico City crash in 1979 ... the full NTSB report, the FO was holding a serious grudge/hatred against that CA... So he was deliberately trying to embarrass the CA ... land on 23L.... FO did NOT anticipate was heavy construction equipment on RWY 23L.... All because of a lousy grudge...."
Hmmm, an NTSB report?????? A grudge listed in the P.C.?????Where did you get this information about Western 2605 / 31Oct79 DC-10-10, N903WA, Landing accident at Mexico City Rwy 23L ???
I don't think there was any NTSB report on that mishap in MEXICO. I only found that Mexican AAR: Crew failed to make the standard altitude call-outs during the approach. \\ P.C. = Non compliance with meteorological/approach minima, failure to comply with ops procedures during instrument approach, landing on a closed runway.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Age: 58
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Western Airlines 2605/Mexico City, 31/10/1979
IGh,
I can't recite my original source material right now because I'm away from home. You are correct in assuming that current Internet searches won't lead you to the correct analysis of this accident.
I did a long study of WA 2605 as part of an in-depth CRM course in college twelve years ago.
Buzz me next week (as a reminder) and I'll dig up (from my archives) all that I have on this accident. Can't do it now as I'm sitting in a hotel in BAH drinking the amber nectar from the green bottle(s) all during Ramadan.
Bottom line remains: The FO had it out for the CA, and the result was not happy.
Not trying to evade you; but followup later.
Thanks.
From Ifly86N, on the 2nd:
Where did you get this information about Western 2605 / 31Oct79 DC-10-10, N903WA, Landing accident at Mexico City Rwy 23L ???
I don't think there was any NTSB report on that mishap in MEXICO. I only found that Mexican AAR: Crew failed to make the standard altitude call-outs during the approach. \\ P.C. = Non compliance with meteorological/approach minima, failure to comply with ops procedures during instrument approach, landing on a closed runway.
"... my story about the Western Airlines/Mexico City crash in 1979 ... the full NTSB report, the FO was holding a serious grudge/hatred against that CA... So he was deliberately trying to embarrass the CA ... land on 23L.... FO did NOT anticipate was heavy construction equipment on RWY 23L.... All because of a lousy grudge...."
Hmmm, an NTSB report?????? A grudge listed in the P.C.?????Where did you get this information about Western 2605 / 31Oct79 DC-10-10, N903WA, Landing accident at Mexico City Rwy 23L ???
I don't think there was any NTSB report on that mishap in MEXICO. I only found that Mexican AAR: Crew failed to make the standard altitude call-outs during the approach. \\ P.C. = Non compliance with meteorological/approach minima, failure to comply with ops procedures during instrument approach, landing on a closed runway.
I did a long study of WA 2605 as part of an in-depth CRM course in college twelve years ago.
Buzz me next week (as a reminder) and I'll dig up (from my archives) all that I have on this accident. Can't do it now as I'm sitting in a hotel in BAH drinking the amber nectar from the green bottle(s) all during Ramadan.
Bottom line remains: The FO had it out for the CA, and the result was not happy.
Not trying to evade you; but followup later.
Thanks.
