Human facors - sarcasm on the flight deck

[47q]

If we go back to the topic, I would say that the captains reaction triggered the Fo's reaction. This was a case of normative decision making so there was some time to discuss. The Captain could have said ; " what do you suggest about the weather ahead?' Even if he had his own plans in his head. Maybe the FO didn't see it, maybe he had other plans but now he can talk. The Captain could have suggested to divert early around the tunderstorms instead of jumping on the radios. It would still have given the FO the feeling that he was part of the team and part of the decision making process.

The FO's reaction was hostile against the Captain and not acceptable but sometimes better communication skills can do a lot to improve situation awareness and decision making.

The aircraft manufacturers have stated that their jets have to be flown by two pilots, that means the input of these pilots are important. The Captain has the ultimate decision but is it so difficult just to consult the person sitting next to him/her when time permits?

Why would you fly around on your own when you have just p****off the person next to you and in this case they did it both.

I'm not talking about trainees or 200 hour pilots, just fully qualified crews working hard to keep their flight safe.

[Sciolistes]

Some pretty absurd comments about plastic FOs and 200 hour magenta wunderkinds

The Captain could have said ; " what do you suggest about the weather ahead?' Even if he had his own plans in his head. Maybe the FO didn't see it, maybe he had other plans but now he can talk. The Captain could have suggested to divert early around the tunderstorms instead of jumping on the radios. It would still have given the FO the feeling that he was part of the team and part of the decision making process.

47q, Absolutely agree! I would go further and say that if the Captain followed your advice, it would have given the FO the opportunity to bring up something the Captain may not have himself considered (traffic, airspace boundary, wind direction, current vs maximum level, etc, etc).

The way I see it is that CRM is primarily about accurately shared situational awareness. Both the Captain and the FO seemed to display ineffective CRM. The Captain ideally at such an early stage should have utilised facilitation to encourage the FO to acknowledge the threat and develop a plan for dealing with it. Having the Captain just decree a course of action without any real discussion when time is not an issue is poor CRM and an explicit lack of respect. In such a case it is the professional duty of the FO to keep the CRM process on track and rather than get defensive and moody, ask the Captain what he is thinking. I always try to assume I have not considered something if the Captain comes up with a different or unexpected decision. Sometimes that is the case, sometime not, in either case I remain open.

If it is sound plan, great go with it. If the FO suspects the Captain hasn't considered something significant point it out. Thusly, both are jointly aware of the weather, their position and the plan. That is effective CRM.

One experience springs to mind. I once had a Captain lambasting me for using the speedbrake. After he finished his tirade (literally) I made it clear why I was using it. I could have avoided the castigation if I had mentioned how strong the tailwind wind was on the final approach track. He would have understood and not have said anything. Terrible CRM on his part, barely acceptable on mine resulting in an unnecessary discussion just prior to a critical phase of flight.

[sheppey]

47q, Absolutely agree! I would go further and say that if the Captain followed your advice, it would have given the FO the opportunity to bring up something the Captain may not have himself considered (traffic, airspace boundary, wind direction, current vs maximum level, etc, etc)

In my book, the sarcastic comment by the first officer was clearly and deliberately designed to stir up the captain and the first officer is to be condemned. It doesn't matter one iota whose "leg" it is, the captain was perfectly in his right to direct the first officer to turn the aircraft towards a clear path to avoid potentially severe weather. Despite what the aficionados of CRM may like to think, it was never intended that every operational decisions by the pilot in command should be subject to committee agreement. The flight deck is not a democracy. If it was clear that flight safety was compromised by the captain's command decision to avoid weather ahead, then of course commonsense dictates the first officer should speak up.

The first officers cutting remark to the captain displayed not only contempt of the captain's legal authority for the entire responsibility for the safety of the flight, but it was also petulant and childish. Pandering to the ego and childishness of his first officer has nothing to do with the much hackneyed phrase, CRM - or whatever is the latest weasel word to replace that admirable old fashioned expression "good airmanship".

[popstar]

Wasn't this very incident discussed at lenth some time ago? Those with better searching skills than mine should find the thread. why is it being re-run?

[Tee Emm]

What prompts the title subject of this post is a minor human factors event in the cockpit of a airliner that occurred some months ago.

As above, I started this thread and it could not have been in previous Pprune contributions. The general subject of flight deck behavior has been discussed in Pprune postings over the years - but the specific incident mentioned was only recent event.

[Sciolistes]

Despite what the aficionados of CRM may like to think, it was never intended that every operational decisions by the pilot in command should be subject to committee agreement.

No, but it is intended that both have shared and accurate view of the current situation. That is less likely if one pilot makes decisions without involving the other. I would say it is the responsibility of the Captain to ensure that shared and accurate view where possible. Ideally, authority should only come into play when required to maintain adequate safety margins.

[parabellum]

Instead of the unnecessary and sarcastic remark from the FO he could just as easily have given his reasoning to the Capt. as to why he had not already reacted to the approaching weather, CRM being a two way street.

[safetypee]

parabellum,

Which ‘monitoring /intervention’ category (http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...ervention.html) would you allocate to the FO?
Was this inadequate behaviour due to poor situation awareness, (little confidence in his understanding of the situation or how it could develop), or with understanding just ill-chosen communication.

[Tee Emm]

Was this inadequate behaviour due to poor situation awareness

No. It was just piss poor attitude and is a generational thing based upon general contempt for authority. The military pull those types into line quick smart but airline managements avoid the issue and pretend it does not exist on their flight decks. The first officer could just as easily have said no problem and turned to the new heading as politely requested by the aircraft captain. There was no loss of face or dignity. It was just a heading change, for Christ's sake. Instead he chose to be a smart-arse.

[safetypee]

TM, OK. Then by taking your view, but in the wording of the option I gave – “ill-chosen communication”, what are the reasons for this behaviour (attitude).
Is your military solution of ‘pulling them into shape’ a form of behaviour training, or do the military pre select candidates less likely to behave this way, or who are more malleable to training, etc, etc.
Where in commercial aviation does the problem reside, if at all.
The baseline for both types of aviation is the human; there are many variations, good and not so. Is commercial aviation so strapped for resource or finance that pilot selection is less of an option, or is this too a human issue with variation amongst operators. If the latter, then operators (management) will reap what they sow – reduced safety, but then many have short term policies in these areas.
Thus although the example is of individual behaviour, its origin may be wide ranging.

[Sciolistes]

Instead of the unnecessary and sarcastic remark from the FO he could just as easily have given his reasoning to the Capt. as to why he had not already reacted to the approaching weather, CRM being a two way street.

Indeed. But in that case it is the duty of the FO to reinstate a cooperative environment by using CRM techniques to mitigate the Captain's unexplained and clearly unexpected actions; to understand why the Captain is making a certain decision especially if unexpected or seemingly unjustified. He doesn't have to be obsequious, cowering nor aggressive, defensive, but assertive, problem focused and professional...and respond appropriately (i.e. correct an error, accept the decision or suggest an alternative).

[parabellum]

Where in commercial aviation does the problem reside, if at all.

I believe a basic lack of respect for any authority is a large part of the problem, something that just didn't happen in the military, anyone who started their military career with a bad attitude would either change or be asked to leave.

Sciolistes - I may not have phrased it very well but I think we more or less agree!

[A-3TWENTY]

Quote:
Instead of the unnecessary and sarcastic remark from the FO he could just as easily have given his reasoning to the Capt. as to why he had not already reacted to the approaching weather, CRM being a two way street.

Indeed. But in that case it is the duty of the FO to reinstate a cooperative environment by using CRM techniques to mitigate the Captain's unexplained and clearly unexpected actions; to understand why the Captain is making a certain decision especially if unexpected or seemingly unjustified. He doesn't have to be obsequious, cowering nor aggressive, defensive, but assertive, problem focused and professional...and respond appropriately (i.e. correct an error, accept the decision or suggest an alternative).

The problem is , nowadays in aviation and our society ,the walls are peeing the dogs.

FOs are the sweet, delicate , cute , sensible person wha has to be treated like a pure virgin victim lady.

I`ve been always civilian , but I more and more agree that those times aviation were full of ex military guys , was at least was more masculine.

It`s gone the time a Captain had a thrusty position in the company. Nowadays we are just the idiots to point out the finger when shi* happens.


A couple of years ago , one FO was doing the leg and had to comply with a constraint in a STAR. APP requested to reduce speed and in order to comply the airplane started to become high. I advise him - Look watch out the constrain twice. The third time i said :-You have one chance now. Use the speedbrake.
The pampered guy , very upset, strogly hit the spd brk lever and used it.

I , still very calm, after e passed the constraint told him-Look, if we don`t comply the constraint we will have a violation.

His answer: - No problem , send me the bill ! ( and still upset)

So to those who like a polemic over what should not be a polemic at all answer to me:
Shouldn`t this guy deserve a punch in the mouth ?
or

I , as a Captain had a poor CRM because did not allow the kid to have the violation he was planning????

Come on !! Don`t bullshi* me..


a320

[TruthShouldMatter]

So what's the choice?

You hire 200 hour marshmellows that occasionally feel emboldened by CRM to say something or do you want to hire 10,000 hour pilots who you know will be howling at the ridiculous sops, theory, practices, etc. because they know better.

You made your beds.

[Slasher]

Shouldn`t this guy deserve a punch in the mouth ?

In the good old pre-CRM days Twenty you'll recall we settled
disputes after the flight in the car park like men, and not the
poofterised methods used nowadays to cater for these Y-gen
crybabies.

[John Citizen]

or do you want to hire 10,000 hour pilots who you know will be howling at the ridiculous sops, theory, practices, etc. because they know better.

It is not because FO's knows better, it might be because occasionally an FO might know something (that is actually written in the manuals/latest memo's) that a Captain might not know.

I admit that I am not perfect and I also do not know the books verbatim. However occasionally an FO might know something the Captain might not know and vice versa.

Very often I fly with captains who don't follow SOP's and are not aware of recent amendments, and some of these amendments are well over 12 months old. They perhaps don't believe they need to study anymore because of their experience or otherwise are just too lazy to study. Quite often they will even enforce their own unique procedures and requirements upon you, which might not be written anywhere or might even contradict to what is written.

Now who thinks they know better ?

I don't bother trying to tell them as I would rather not come across as a cocky little know it all FO (as has been suggested here).

It would be against their pride to have an FO teach them something and they just would not take it well.

"Go with the flow and try your best to have an enjoyable day" is my philosphy.

One captain actually admitted to me that an FO might sometimes know more ("know better") than a captain. He said because an FO flies with different captains all the times, he might actually learn something from another captain that other captains do not know Whilst captains only fly with (dumb) FO's all the time and got nothing to learn from them (as some captains seem to think).

No doubt some FO's do have an attitude problem (as seen here on the first post) and perhaps don't know very much but this generalisation should not apply to all FO's. Some Captains aren't perfect either.

[Slasher]

I don't bother trying to tell them as I would rather not come across as a cocky little know it all FO (as has been suggested here).

No problems with professional pilots who DO know their stuff
such as yourself. Its the extremely inexperienced cocky little
****s who DON'T know their stuff and honestly think that they
do that are the real problem.

CRM appeared naturally between very capable professionals
well before this classroom course stuff was first brunged up
(around 1990 I believe). Also the FO would've had command
time in something meaningful prior to joining any major at
1500-2000 odd hours, which meant his input did count for
something....esp operational.

And that still holds true. They've learnt what will kill them and
what won't. The rest is just fine tuning

[john_tullamarine]

around 1990 I believe

In Oz, late 70s or so. AN was at the forefront of early CRM in Oz and embraced the philosophy with some vigour. In concert with Swinburne if I recall correctly. (We're getting older, Slash, gets harder to recall the specifics ..)

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Originally Posted by John Citizen

I don't bother trying to tell them as I would rather not come across as a cocky little know it all FO (as has been suggested here).

Are you really admitting to being complicit in the non standard operation of an airliner in an attempt to appear modest?

The meek shall inherit the earth.....if they're still alive.

[rigpiggy]

I flew with one guy for the last month, call it familiarity, when I asked for some vectors without asking, as the last trips were pretty much all the same. I realized I probably should have asked, and apologized. However when I make suggestions, I don't want to be blown off. It maybe your leg, but it is my License/Airplane. I probably would have had a beer call that evening for a debrief "over the 1st Pint" after that it comes across as an old P!sstank. Depending how it went, I would either pay for the 1st round and retire, or buy another round. I encourage a very level gradient, and expect the F/O to speak up. I would document the talk in an email to myself, if we had a similar issue after that I would probably have crew sched replace him.