The eager beaver pilot
BW, I did mean to imply that the cultural change had originated in the cockpit, more that the people now trained to be in the cockpit were subject to wider social and organizational changes which might affect their behavior at work.
Thus, there should be little reason for the role of the Captain to have changed, but some people perceive that it has, – from either viewpoint, as Captain or observer of behavior; probably due to the external cultural changes.
I would agree with your view that initial training should be reviewed, particularly CRM.
What is being taught as the role of CRM in the modern cockpit; are the social / cognitive aspects appropriately balanced, or has the cultural (social) change overwhelmed other aspects?
Thus, there should be little reason for the role of the Captain to have changed, but some people perceive that it has, – from either viewpoint, as Captain or observer of behavior; probably due to the external cultural changes.
I would agree with your view that initial training should be reviewed, particularly CRM.
What is being taught as the role of CRM in the modern cockpit; are the social / cognitive aspects appropriately balanced, or has the cultural (social) change overwhelmed other aspects?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Alf,
We're debating the need for a deeper understanding of the wider behavioural influences that are causing these issues when we know the answer is simpler than that. Whilst we delve deeper into semantics, it's really just staring us in the face and has been mentioned a number of times already; more maturity!
We need to address the experience imbalance by increasing the hours requirement for FOs. Older FOs with more background and flying hours behind them will inevitably have the interpersonal skills and understanding that's needed. I don't feel comfortable any more, trying to work a way around a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed immediately.
We're debating the need for a deeper understanding of the wider behavioural influences that are causing these issues when we know the answer is simpler than that. Whilst we delve deeper into semantics, it's really just staring us in the face and has been mentioned a number of times already; more maturity!
We need to address the experience imbalance by increasing the hours requirement for FOs. Older FOs with more background and flying hours behind them will inevitably have the interpersonal skills and understanding that's needed. I don't feel comfortable any more, trying to work a way around a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed immediately.
Beware semantics, yes; … maturity, experience, mm ..., but how.
BW,
More training and flying might be just ‘more of the same’, so increasing the hours requirement guarantees neither maturity nor experience.
“Maturity a term used to indicate how a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate and adaptive manner. This response is generally learned rather than instinctive, and is not determined by one's age. Maturity also encompasses being aware of the correct time and place to behave and knowing when to act appropriately, according to the situation and the culture of the society one lives in”.
The definition is similar to experience which you allude to, but the difficulty is how to gain (learn) experience, awareness, judgement, particularly if the number of learning situations are decreasing (I assume that technical and operational safety have improved).
This still leaves situation awareness and culture. Awareness is linked with knowledge and knowhow (training issues), and cultural aspects involve behavioural change (CRM); initial training might even contribute inappropriate or missing CRM skills.
A cultural change may have removed the need for ‘memory’ and ‘rules of thumb’ – the age of Wiki-Google-geeks; thus there are knowledge shortfalls. People expect ‘instant gratification’ – instant answers (SOP culture), fly by the book.
Some of the new hire-pilots might find that interpersonal communication is easier in ‘text speak’, or via Facebook.
Cultural adaptation requires extensive training, which may be beyond the industry’s expectations of cost and time. A general assumption could be that modern aviation does not require as much knowledge, and until communication issues are proven to be a safety hazard they are only an in-house CRM problem.
If training is to be a solution then the content / format should be reviewed; not just more of it. In the meantime, the ‘older’ mature captains have to accommodate any crew deficiencies and act as mentors; these tasks add to current operational burden which could be approaching a limit.
The problem posed is that new crew ex-training appear to be short of certain skills. Training may only contribute a small improvement, but the sharp-end can take active leadership, with patience, example, and guidance.
Expecting someone else to do something might be an artefact of a different culture.
More training and flying might be just ‘more of the same’, so increasing the hours requirement guarantees neither maturity nor experience.
“Maturity a term used to indicate how a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate and adaptive manner. This response is generally learned rather than instinctive, and is not determined by one's age. Maturity also encompasses being aware of the correct time and place to behave and knowing when to act appropriately, according to the situation and the culture of the society one lives in”.
The definition is similar to experience which you allude to, but the difficulty is how to gain (learn) experience, awareness, judgement, particularly if the number of learning situations are decreasing (I assume that technical and operational safety have improved).
This still leaves situation awareness and culture. Awareness is linked with knowledge and knowhow (training issues), and cultural aspects involve behavioural change (CRM); initial training might even contribute inappropriate or missing CRM skills.
A cultural change may have removed the need for ‘memory’ and ‘rules of thumb’ – the age of Wiki-Google-geeks; thus there are knowledge shortfalls. People expect ‘instant gratification’ – instant answers (SOP culture), fly by the book.
Some of the new hire-pilots might find that interpersonal communication is easier in ‘text speak’, or via Facebook.
Cultural adaptation requires extensive training, which may be beyond the industry’s expectations of cost and time. A general assumption could be that modern aviation does not require as much knowledge, and until communication issues are proven to be a safety hazard they are only an in-house CRM problem.
If training is to be a solution then the content / format should be reviewed; not just more of it. In the meantime, the ‘older’ mature captains have to accommodate any crew deficiencies and act as mentors; these tasks add to current operational burden which could be approaching a limit.
The problem posed is that new crew ex-training appear to be short of certain skills. Training may only contribute a small improvement, but the sharp-end can take active leadership, with patience, example, and guidance.
Expecting someone else to do something might be an artefact of a different culture.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
`Working together` does not mean the captain must ask the first officer or second officer his opinion for every tactical decision. It should never be a committee situation. There is no room for a voting democracy in the cockpit much as some crew members would love that.
Since the first mention of CRM (which was originally aimed at curbing arrogance in some captains and a very tiny minority at that - although every captain eventually became tarred the same brush) CRM principles have been either deliberately abused by some subordinate crew members or been genuinely misunderstood.
Tact and good manners has been replaced in some Western cockpits by downright smart-arsing designed to promote one-upmanship where the unstated aim is to impress the captain with eager-beaver way ahead of the aircraft attitude.
Since the first mention of CRM (which was originally aimed at curbing arrogance in some captains and a very tiny minority at that - although every captain eventually became tarred the same brush) CRM principles have been either deliberately abused by some subordinate crew members or been genuinely misunderstood.
Tact and good manners has been replaced in some Western cockpits by downright smart-arsing designed to promote one-upmanship where the unstated aim is to impress the captain with eager-beaver way ahead of the aircraft attitude.
bitch to the CP that captain XXXX doesn't use CRM!
And of course our MS Flight Sim gamers don't pull the same
stunt with local captains, no sirree! They pull it on Western
expat blokes like me, thinking we're somehow both on an
"even keel"!
I find some (but of course not all) of these Y-gen European
wonderkids to be by far the worst. Fortunately in the Asian
mob with which I fly, the CP plants his boot firmly up their
Euro-tails, with the proviso that their employment will be
under review if he complains again.
They don't last very long.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately in the Asian mob with which I fly, the CP plants his boot firmly up theirEuro-tails, with the proviso that their employment will be under review if he complains again.
No culture, no manners, no empathy.
No wonder they wouldn't have you at a western airline...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Behind Woolworths
Age: 62
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets put the boot on the other foot.
Same scenario as posted earlier about the Cb's. FO is PF and the skipper is PNF. FO (PF) looks at radar and the upper level winds and decides he would like to go 20nm right of track to get around the Cb's, the captain looks at the radar and says nah you don't need that much i'll ask for 10nm, we got a schedule to keep.
and scenario 2.
FO is PF again and skipper PNF, the FO gives his/her descent and approach brief, says he's going to fly the RNAV approach, captain turns around and says nah mate just do the DGA and circle back around onto the runway, doing the RNAV will make us 5 minutes late. And then on the DGA tells the FO what the descent point will be.
What does the FO do? sit there shutup and accept that he's the captain and he should know best and do as he/she is told? or say I'm PF I would like to fly the RNAV?
Same scenario as posted earlier about the Cb's. FO is PF and the skipper is PNF. FO (PF) looks at radar and the upper level winds and decides he would like to go 20nm right of track to get around the Cb's, the captain looks at the radar and says nah you don't need that much i'll ask for 10nm, we got a schedule to keep.
and scenario 2.
FO is PF again and skipper PNF, the FO gives his/her descent and approach brief, says he's going to fly the RNAV approach, captain turns around and says nah mate just do the DGA and circle back around onto the runway, doing the RNAV will make us 5 minutes late. And then on the DGA tells the FO what the descent point will be.
What does the FO do? sit there shutup and accept that he's the captain and he should know best and do as he/she is told? or say I'm PF I would like to fly the RNAV?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you're PF doesn't mean you're in command.
When I was an FO I remained flexible and if the captain rewrote my plan then I'd accept it and carry it out to the best of my abilities, unless it was unsafe.
Learn.
When I was an FO I remained flexible and if the captain rewrote my plan then I'd accept it and carry it out to the best of my abilities, unless it was unsafe.
What does the FO do?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Asia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are always two sides to every story.
When all captains have a problem with the same F/O's attitude, or visa versa, then who is the problem.
It is interesting to hear people talk about "poor old Tom, Dick or Harry". More often than not, when you have knowledge of Tom through having checked him on several occassions, you know he is becoming more conservative as he he gets older. Is this his experience at work (we know there are no old, bold pilots) or is it 'retirement protection' - not wanting to do anything that will cause his head to be seen above the horizon?
The respect any of us receive is not the four bars, it comes through our integrity, professional performance and competence.
In aviation there has to be an atmosphere of trust and confidence. We have all had days where we were more on alert because we were flying with Tom!
Remember this new bred of F/O's are our children, their behaviours are a result of our acceptance. Oh for the good old days!
When all captains have a problem with the same F/O's attitude, or visa versa, then who is the problem.
It is interesting to hear people talk about "poor old Tom, Dick or Harry". More often than not, when you have knowledge of Tom through having checked him on several occassions, you know he is becoming more conservative as he he gets older. Is this his experience at work (we know there are no old, bold pilots) or is it 'retirement protection' - not wanting to do anything that will cause his head to be seen above the horizon?
The respect any of us receive is not the four bars, it comes through our integrity, professional performance and competence.
In aviation there has to be an atmosphere of trust and confidence. We have all had days where we were more on alert because we were flying with Tom!
Remember this new bred of F/O's are our children, their behaviours are a result of our acceptance. Oh for the good old days!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point there Pukka. Successive newer generation have been brought up in an environment that encourages them to question and seek justification if required to do something that doesn't quite fit, ergo, the 'older' generation have to be more willing to justify their demands. It's understandable if that cultural change may get mistaken for arrogance and competitiveness by the elders on occasion. Especially in a conservative industry like ours.
I guess a rudimentary test for this would be to assess behaviours of Captains and FOs from similar generations when crewed together. Would their communications be more collaborative, conciliatory than crews from different generations? How you would objectively assess that I don't know - one for the psychologists.
I guess a rudimentary test for this would be to assess behaviours of Captains and FOs from similar generations when crewed together. Would their communications be more collaborative, conciliatory than crews from different generations? How you would objectively assess that I don't know - one for the psychologists.
