Human facors - sarcasm on the flight deck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human facors - sarcasm on the flight deck
A recent accident report from Asia pin-pointed the boorish behaviour by the captain towards his first officer, as a contributory factor leading to the eventual crash of an A320 into terrain during a circling approach. The report stated the captain had put down the F/O and been continually sarcastic while questioning the F/O on technical questions in the early part of the flight. The accident report is covered elsewhere on Pprune forums.
I am guessing that few airline operators bite the bullet of cockpit etiquette during the induction phase of new pilots to the airline. Of course there are lectures on the regulatory requirements of Human factors and CRM and other favourite power point subjects -but precious little else on human relations.
Captains and copilots come in all shapes and sizes in the cockpit and often with widely different personalities and in most parts learn to live with the person in the other seat for the duration of the flight.
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. After hearing the story I tried to visualise the situation from both the captain and first officer's viewpoint and wondered how I would have dealt with it. I am interested in reader's opinions - and please this must not turn into a captain or copilot bashing fest
Captain offers the first officer the first leg of four hours. F/O acknowledges and the flight proceeeds normally up to the time the captain sees thunderstorms on radar 100 miles ahead across the planned track and realises a diversion around them is on the cards. The captain assesses it would be better to make a early diversion necessitating a minor heading change rather than a late diversion with greater heading changes.
F/O is PF and so far has made no indication of studying the position of the storms on radar. Captain calls ATC and requests diversion left of track to avoid weather. ATC gives approval. The captain directs the F/O to turn left on to a specified heading.
"The F/O looks over at the captain and says "So you are taking over control, are you?"
The captain nonplussed at this perceived sarcastic remark, asked the F/O what he was getting at?
The F/O replied that as it was his leg he should be the one to make any decision to divert and in his opinion there was no need to divert so early until a closer to the storm front.
Now I won't discuss the captain's reply but putting yourself in the captain's position how would you have reacted? Did the F/O have a valid point in that he was PF at the time? Or did he exceed the bounds of commonsense and good manners under the situation? Or should he have accepted without comment the captain's direction to turn. Clearly the diversion was no big deal in itself; but it only takes one questionable reaction to the captain's authority to arouse a flash of resentment which can linger for much longer than the perpetrator may realise. Or maybe the captain was too thin-skinned and should have laughed off the F/O's sarcasm?
And should flight deck etiquette be a subject for discussion at crew induction classes? Comments invited.
I am guessing that few airline operators bite the bullet of cockpit etiquette during the induction phase of new pilots to the airline. Of course there are lectures on the regulatory requirements of Human factors and CRM and other favourite power point subjects -but precious little else on human relations.
Captains and copilots come in all shapes and sizes in the cockpit and often with widely different personalities and in most parts learn to live with the person in the other seat for the duration of the flight.
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. After hearing the story I tried to visualise the situation from both the captain and first officer's viewpoint and wondered how I would have dealt with it. I am interested in reader's opinions - and please this must not turn into a captain or copilot bashing fest
Captain offers the first officer the first leg of four hours. F/O acknowledges and the flight proceeeds normally up to the time the captain sees thunderstorms on radar 100 miles ahead across the planned track and realises a diversion around them is on the cards. The captain assesses it would be better to make a early diversion necessitating a minor heading change rather than a late diversion with greater heading changes.
F/O is PF and so far has made no indication of studying the position of the storms on radar. Captain calls ATC and requests diversion left of track to avoid weather. ATC gives approval. The captain directs the F/O to turn left on to a specified heading.
"The F/O looks over at the captain and says "So you are taking over control, are you?"
The captain nonplussed at this perceived sarcastic remark, asked the F/O what he was getting at?
The F/O replied that as it was his leg he should be the one to make any decision to divert and in his opinion there was no need to divert so early until a closer to the storm front.
Now I won't discuss the captain's reply but putting yourself in the captain's position how would you have reacted? Did the F/O have a valid point in that he was PF at the time? Or did he exceed the bounds of commonsense and good manners under the situation? Or should he have accepted without comment the captain's direction to turn. Clearly the diversion was no big deal in itself; but it only takes one questionable reaction to the captain's authority to arouse a flash of resentment which can linger for much longer than the perpetrator may realise. Or maybe the captain was too thin-skinned and should have laughed off the F/O's sarcasm?
And should flight deck etiquette be a subject for discussion at crew induction classes? Comments invited.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response would depend on whether the RH seater was a
200hr wonderkid of magenta line aviation ancestry or an
experienced senior First Officer (with a tangential line in
between the two extremes catering to those in between).
So it was HIS leg huh? HIS! Didn't know it'd become his private
property. He sounds to me like a cocky little bugger of the latest
breed. A senior FO would not've reacted so.
200hr wonderkid of magenta line aviation ancestry or an
experienced senior First Officer (with a tangential line in
between the two extremes catering to those in between).
The F/O replied that as it was his leg he should be the one
to make any decision to divert and in his opinion there was
no need to divert so early until a closer to the storm front.
to make any decision to divert and in his opinion there was
no need to divert so early until a closer to the storm front.
property. He sounds to me like a cocky little bugger of the latest
breed. A senior FO would not've reacted so.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Behind Woolworths
Age: 62
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/O definitely inappropriate remark.
However.
Perhaps the captain should have brought up the situation of storms along planned route with the FO as maybe the FO hadn't noticed it then seen what the FO was thinking if it was nothing unsafe and was within SOP's why not let the FO divert when he likes, or perhaps the captain could offer up an alternative and say something like "did you notice such and such aswell, the winds up here are from x direction and if we divert now and to the left it will be a smaller heading change and we are also diverting upwind of the weather and therefore we'll have a smoother ride etc"
From our CRM where I'm currently employed basically says if the FO is PF then they are responsible for the flight path management etc, and if they want to do xyz and it is within SOP's legal and safe then why not. Also states that the captain always has the FINAL say regarding the decision, and that the captain if he/she disagrees with the FO course of action should offer up alternatives first before pulling captains rank.
However.
Perhaps the captain should have brought up the situation of storms along planned route with the FO as maybe the FO hadn't noticed it then seen what the FO was thinking if it was nothing unsafe and was within SOP's why not let the FO divert when he likes, or perhaps the captain could offer up an alternative and say something like "did you notice such and such aswell, the winds up here are from x direction and if we divert now and to the left it will be a smaller heading change and we are also diverting upwind of the weather and therefore we'll have a smoother ride etc"
From our CRM where I'm currently employed basically says if the FO is PF then they are responsible for the flight path management etc, and if they want to do xyz and it is within SOP's legal and safe then why not. Also states that the captain always has the FINAL say regarding the decision, and that the captain if he/she disagrees with the FO course of action should offer up alternatives first before pulling captains rank.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say a slightly unhelpful comment by the FO.
But entirely prompted by bad CRM on the point of the skipper.
Capt should have asked the FO what his plan was for dealing with the weather. If the response was unsuitable (vague, unsafe or un commercial) the Captain would then be in a position to make sure the FO and he had the same mental picture of the various factors involved. You never know - sometimes the FO knows something the Captain hasn't realised - but on balance it is the Captains responsibility to overrule the FOs choice of flight path even though it is the FO's leg.
Instead, what the Captain did was blur the lines between the flight deck roles. Cartainly if I was the FO in that situation I would be identifying the possibility for confusion. I'd be thinking along the following lines:
"Was that a one off intervention? Am I responsible for the heading or has the Captain taken it over until further notice?"
Its just like basic training - "I have control / you have control" exists for a reason. Now the FO does not know who is responsible for the lateral flight path! Its bad CRM and bad captaincy.
Personally, I would probably (if I was FO) have said something like: "Will you be organising the weather avoidance or would you like me to deal with it from here?". Hopefully that would be a little less sulky / sarcastic and elicit a clear statement from the Captain about what he wants the FO to do.
But entirely prompted by bad CRM on the point of the skipper.
Capt should have asked the FO what his plan was for dealing with the weather. If the response was unsuitable (vague, unsafe or un commercial) the Captain would then be in a position to make sure the FO and he had the same mental picture of the various factors involved. You never know - sometimes the FO knows something the Captain hasn't realised - but on balance it is the Captains responsibility to overrule the FOs choice of flight path even though it is the FO's leg.
Instead, what the Captain did was blur the lines between the flight deck roles. Cartainly if I was the FO in that situation I would be identifying the possibility for confusion. I'd be thinking along the following lines:
"Was that a one off intervention? Am I responsible for the heading or has the Captain taken it over until further notice?"
Its just like basic training - "I have control / you have control" exists for a reason. Now the FO does not know who is responsible for the lateral flight path! Its bad CRM and bad captaincy.
Personally, I would probably (if I was FO) have said something like: "Will you be organising the weather avoidance or would you like me to deal with it from here?". Hopefully that would be a little less sulky / sarcastic and elicit a clear statement from the Captain about what he wants the FO to do.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As stated above by others, it would have helped if the Captain had drawn the FOs attention to the situation and discussed their options, having spent a large part of my flying dodging weather I'm fairly certain I would have/already have done.
There are a million answers to that remark, including; "No, I gave you the leg to fly but never relinquished command".
"So you are taking over control, are you?"
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would have been better CRM if the Captain had said "what are your plans for dealing with the storms ahead?". Many Captains believe that their role is to direct the flight and the FO's actions from start to finish when the FO is PF. The best Captains give the FOs the chance to think for themselves, therefore encouraging/allowing them to learn and develop professionally, intervening only when necessary. If the Captain is directing the action and taking the decisions, the question "who has control" is valid.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F/O replied that as it was his leg
Notwithstanding that but better CRM from the captain initially could have prevented this situation. However, better CRM from the FO following the captains intervention would also have prevented the same situation.
A similar situation occurred when I was an FO. It was a simple case of accept the captains decision but get my suggestion in earlier the next time something happened!
But entirely prompted by bad CRM on the point of the skipper.
I think the captain was perfectly entitled to navigate the aircraft as he saw fit. The co-pilot regardless of his experience is there as a back-up and support pilot – not a quasi-captain. When the first officer has gained the experience and seniority to be considered for a command, his company will train him for the job. Until then he might be legally second in command and that means he supports the captain in his job - not challenge every decision to satisfy his own ego just to prove that he can. The captain should not be compelled to explain every action he takes just to keep in the good books of his subordinate.
Of course if the captain was doing something outrageously dangerous to the conduct of the flight one would expect the co-pilot as second in command to step in and do something to rectify the situation. But the captain in the example given, was merely displaying sound command judgement – yet is being pilloried by those who see the cockpit crew as a team with the captain acting as “team leader” and he should use the members of his “team” to come to a course of action that they all agree on. In other words, command by consensus. That is not what command authority is all about.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cantaurus,
Not being autocratic does not mean having no authority. When you delegate a task to a subordinate you retain responsibility for it, but that does not require snatching the task back at the earliest opportunity. To do so is a sure fire sign of lacking self confidence. Giving a subordinate an chance to operate within (and gradually stretch) his/her skill set is an essential leadership task.
So do I. However, having delegated the control of the flight path to his FO it is poor management to fail to communicate with his FO regarding his modification of it.
Opinions differ on this. Many companies differentiate between commanding and flying. You might not agree with that, but it is the way ther Ops manuals are written. Certainly in my last mob when an FO is the Flying Pilot they are expected to manage ALL aspects of the flight.
Again, a surefire sign of lack of self confidence. The vast majority of FO 'challenges' are usually because they want to improve their knowledge. It's just authoritarian types that interpret this as a challenge. That's not to say you don't sometimes get folks with an attitude problem of course.
I agree. not *compelled*, but it is good sense to do so when time permits.
BTW I didn't suggest they needed to come to a consensus. That's your inference. I said:
Command authority also carries with it responsibilities. Leadership is a balance between team needs, individual needs and task needs. By jumping in as described the Captain sacrificed the individual needs of developing his FO, weakened his team, in order to be sure the flightpath was safe. So, OK in the short term.... the flight path *was safe* after all.
But my position is that all 3 needs could have been met with a little early communication. A little nudge to get the FO thinking (or communicating if he already *was* thinking), maybe some knowledge transfer, *if necessary* a command override. The last resort, not the first.
Really? Strong opinion indeed. Seems to me that unconsciously the replies so far reveal the respondents favour the warm and fuzzy method of captaincy. To make the co-pilot feel he is wanted, the captain should massage his ego. These replies show how much the Human Factors trick-cyclists have taken away the authority of the captain to run his own ship.
I think the captain was perfectly entitled to navigate the aircraft as he saw fit.
The co-pilot regardless of his experience is there as a back-up and support pilot – not a quasi-captain.
Until then he might be legally second in command and that means he supports the captain in his job - not challenge every decision to satisfy his own ego just to prove that he can.
The captain should not be compelled to explain every action he takes just to keep in the good books of his subordinate.
yet is being pilloried by those who see the cockpit crew as a team with the captain acting as “team leader” and he should use the members of his “team” to come to a course of action that they all agree on. In other words, command by consensus. That is not what command authority is all about.
but on balance it is the Captains responsibility to overrule the FOs choice of flight path
But my position is that all 3 needs could have been met with a little early communication. A little nudge to get the FO thinking (or communicating if he already *was* thinking), maybe some knowledge transfer, *if necessary* a command override. The last resort, not the first.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Herts.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Centaurus. If you consider that the terms 'pilot', 'First Officer' and 'Captain' all come from nautical usage, can it not be assumed that similar nautical practices would also apply?
The pilot steers the ship as per the Captain's command, and that should be without question. However, I don't really believe that anyone would take offense if asked why a decision was made if discussed after the flight in the bar, and that is really the co-pilot's opportunity to learn and develop.
The pilot steers the ship as per the Captain's command, and that should be without question. However, I don't really believe that anyone would take offense if asked why a decision was made if discussed after the flight in the bar, and that is really the co-pilot's opportunity to learn and develop.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown with Centaurus, (many moons ago), I know he is not at all an autocratic captain and flying was always enjoyable and informative, but in my latter years of flying I did come across what I call the 'New Age' FOs who invariably have never been in the military and would challenge for challengings sake, rather than for anything productive. A previous poster said;
I disagree entirely, there is a realm of difference between command and control, but, in the case quoted in the OP, I do believe the captain should have prompted the FO into action by drawing his attention to the weather ahead and giving him the opportunity to participate in the decision making process.
the question "who has control" is valid.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres a good reason why aviation has moved forward from those ancient nautical rites.
If a crew behaved like you suggested, The Heff, it would be immediate dismissal for the captain and serious retraining for the FO in my outfit.
If a crew behaved like you suggested, The Heff, it would be immediate dismissal for the captain and serious retraining for the FO in my outfit.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Behind Woolworths
Age: 62
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FO has only ever been told by the captain, we are diverting this way and doing this and offers up no explanation as to why then how is the FO going to learn.
Certainly there will be circumstances when tiime doesn't permit an explanation but why not explain after the flight. "This is what I was thinking and why"
The FO is there to learn as much as they can from the captain so that when their time comes for an upgrade they will be far better prepared for it.
Certainly there will be circumstances when tiime doesn't permit an explanation but why not explain after the flight. "This is what I was thinking and why"
The FO is there to learn as much as they can from the captain so that when their time comes for an upgrade they will be far better prepared for it.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was one FO (ink still wet) who told his captain "when I'm flying (PF) I'm in command".
the captain can bloody well take it away again! I HAVE CONTROL..."
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And should flight deck etiquette be a subject for discussion at crew induction classes?
I am a shorthaul 737 Captain. I fly with mostly low time/Cadet Co-Pilots with 250-800Hrs at the moment. We had some major problems in the company with the quality and lack of assertiveness in the flow of communications from right to left when things were unravelling and the Captain was getting overloaded in the above major cock ups. F/Os advocacy skills were promoted and quite rightly so.
Speaking up and advocating ones position quickly turned into a fresh off the press F/Os constantly second guessing very experienced Captains and generally being a smart arse because their heads were being pumped with white noise and they have totally misunderstood what advocating their position is really for and the time to use it.
In summary advocacy in the communication process: Very, very important. No Captain worth his salt would dismiss it even with the steepest of cockpit gradients. Etiquette: Also very important and should be part of the training for those that need it.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problems with nowaday`s FOs , actually start at home.
These new plastic pilots who grew up shouting and raising their hands to their momes and papas ,and one day decided to communicate their papas they wanted to be pilots are the ones we can not say a word or do anything without squeaming them.
As their momas and papas never told them the word NO , they come to the real life without knowing how to deal with frustration.
And answers like "So you are taking over control, are you?" is the kind of behaviour which makes my blood pressure increase in a second.
In this case , and it happened to me before my answer was: All legs are mine. But I allow you to fly half of them. But it is because I want. It`s not a birthright.
And by the way , I`m not taking over , but if you don`t want keep flying I will. Make up your mind.
I`d like to make clear that I`m not an autocratic at all , I know most people like to fly with me , but these baby behaviours make me crazy.
Furthermore , if I was the FO , I would take it naturally. There are storms ahead , we have to deviate and the Capt. decided to go left. I agree with decision, ok. Heading left.
Such a spoiled kid thinking or behaviour would never cross my mind.And I was FO of old school Captains.
I think that to much time has been spent discussing how Capt. should deal with FOs and no time has been spent teaching FOs how to deal with Captains. Maybe it is making them believe they are the Mr.Rights , suporting what their mamas and papas made them believe with their ultra modern , liberal , permissive education.
These new plastic pilots who grew up shouting and raising their hands to their momes and papas ,and one day decided to communicate their papas they wanted to be pilots are the ones we can not say a word or do anything without squeaming them.
As their momas and papas never told them the word NO , they come to the real life without knowing how to deal with frustration.
And answers like "So you are taking over control, are you?" is the kind of behaviour which makes my blood pressure increase in a second.
In this case , and it happened to me before my answer was: All legs are mine. But I allow you to fly half of them. But it is because I want. It`s not a birthright.
And by the way , I`m not taking over , but if you don`t want keep flying I will. Make up your mind.
I`d like to make clear that I`m not an autocratic at all , I know most people like to fly with me , but these baby behaviours make me crazy.
Furthermore , if I was the FO , I would take it naturally. There are storms ahead , we have to deviate and the Capt. decided to go left. I agree with decision, ok. Heading left.
Such a spoiled kid thinking or behaviour would never cross my mind.And I was FO of old school Captains.
I think that to much time has been spent discussing how Capt. should deal with FOs and no time has been spent teaching FOs how to deal with Captains. Maybe it is making them believe they are the Mr.Rights , suporting what their mamas and papas made them believe with their ultra modern , liberal , permissive education.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said A-3T.
We're getting a lot of magenta children these days coming to
this region, and the spoilt brats amongst 'em nearly all come
from Europe. A few comments I've gotten from these twerps
before I eventually spat the dummy and read the Riot Act -
"YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE CONTROL FROM ME! NO RIGHT
WHATSOEVER!" (the kid caused a terrain warning and just
sat there with his finger up his arse).
"I AM FULLY ENTITLED TO FLY AT LEAST ONE SECTOR!" (both
sectors were snowbound TOs and LDGs in strong crosswinds.
You'd have to be nuts to give it to a 250hr kid and then lose
your job when he skews the thing into a ditch).
There were other verbalities that pissed me off even more but
the above are typical examples.
Never had a problem with Statesiders or Canaks. The Poms are
mainly ok too.
Like you A-3T I was also a FO under very capable old school
captains and before CRM was invented. If you could not fly a
B727 completely raw data with the FD108s off from TOPD to
the ground off a NDB app in reasonable weather you weren't
even considered a pilot's bootlace. The slightest backchat by
a mere 2,500hr brat would bring on the wrath of most of the
seasoned skippers.
We're getting a lot of magenta children these days coming to
this region, and the spoilt brats amongst 'em nearly all come
from Europe. A few comments I've gotten from these twerps
before I eventually spat the dummy and read the Riot Act -
"YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE CONTROL FROM ME! NO RIGHT
WHATSOEVER!" (the kid caused a terrain warning and just
sat there with his finger up his arse).
"I AM FULLY ENTITLED TO FLY AT LEAST ONE SECTOR!" (both
sectors were snowbound TOs and LDGs in strong crosswinds.
You'd have to be nuts to give it to a 250hr kid and then lose
your job when he skews the thing into a ditch).
There were other verbalities that pissed me off even more but
the above are typical examples.
Never had a problem with Statesiders or Canaks. The Poms are
mainly ok too.
Like you A-3T I was also a FO under very capable old school
captains and before CRM was invented. If you could not fly a
B727 completely raw data with the FD108s off from TOPD to
the ground off a NDB app in reasonable weather you weren't
even considered a pilot's bootlace. The slightest backchat by
a mere 2,500hr brat would bring on the wrath of most of the
seasoned skippers.