Command authority
The problem is there is an increasing number of F/Os who have a "challenge everything" mentality and don't buy into the Captain's authority full stop
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sevenstrokeroll - Apologies ... FLL = Field length limiting.
The point of raising examples such as the predictive windshear / judgement calls is that there are many instantaneous decisions which are situational and cannot all be listed in a company SOP manual. Aviation is not that black and white.
JC - You have tried to paraphrase and I suspect diminished your argument. Aviation wide there is not an increasing number of Captains who feel they can do whatever they want... if there is in your company (as someone suggested) you need to get out. These guys are a real menace and do not reflect current command trends / thinking / training.
There is however an increasing amount of F/Os who do challenge everything some will try to reverse the authourity gradient.... this trend IS increasing and has to be dealt with.
If a Captain opts for the easy life and lets one these F/Os run the show... but then expects same F/O to relinquish his new found "authority" when it hits the fan .... then he is in for a surprise.
He is also in an indefensible position in the subsequent enquiry.
The point of raising examples such as the predictive windshear / judgement calls is that there are many instantaneous decisions which are situational and cannot all be listed in a company SOP manual. Aviation is not that black and white.
JC - You have tried to paraphrase and I suspect diminished your argument. Aviation wide there is not an increasing number of Captains who feel they can do whatever they want... if there is in your company (as someone suggested) you need to get out. These guys are a real menace and do not reflect current command trends / thinking / training.
There is however an increasing amount of F/Os who do challenge everything some will try to reverse the authourity gradient.... this trend IS increasing and has to be dealt with.
If a Captain opts for the easy life and lets one these F/Os run the show... but then expects same F/O to relinquish his new found "authority" when it hits the fan .... then he is in for a surprise.
He is also in an indefensible position in the subsequent enquiry.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RMC
thanks!
our nations our divided by a common language.
for example:
TR, what does it mean?
type rating?
thrust reverser?
transformer rectifier?
I hope all people on this forum will learn that taking the time to clarify things will make it easier on us YANKS. We call a circuit a traffic pattern, choosing to use the word CIRCUIT for electrical things.
reheat, afterburner
etc
thanks!
our nations our divided by a common language.
for example:
TR, what does it mean?
type rating?
thrust reverser?
transformer rectifier?
I hope all people on this forum will learn that taking the time to clarify things will make it easier on us YANKS. We call a circuit a traffic pattern, choosing to use the word CIRCUIT for electrical things.
reheat, afterburner
etc
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the Captains ac.The company hires.trains and ultimately trusts him/her.
I've seen some awful SOPs in my time.Counter-intuitive .unnecessarily fussy and even dangerous.Keep it simple and use common sense airmanship and good judgement.Less is more as a general rule.Be highly suspicious of lengthy SOPs which dictate everything down to the way you take a piss.eg,You as Captain check everything.not just this politically correct area of responsbility.First officer too,he should check everything.Too fussy?eg.pilot 1 and only pilot 1 must enter takeoff cg in fmc.Why?One pilot enters.one crosschecks.Thats the guiding principle.nothing else matters.Or only pilot X can operate switch Y at the appropiate time.Rote flying!!
The Company owns the ac but they will be in the office when something happens.Do you really believe USAir thanked Sully for his SOP skills?No,they thanked him for his flying and his judgement!
I've seen some awful SOPs in my time.Counter-intuitive .unnecessarily fussy and even dangerous.Keep it simple and use common sense airmanship and good judgement.Less is more as a general rule.Be highly suspicious of lengthy SOPs which dictate everything down to the way you take a piss.eg,You as Captain check everything.not just this politically correct area of responsbility.First officer too,he should check everything.Too fussy?eg.pilot 1 and only pilot 1 must enter takeoff cg in fmc.Why?One pilot enters.one crosschecks.Thats the guiding principle.nothing else matters.Or only pilot X can operate switch Y at the appropiate time.Rote flying!!
The Company owns the ac but they will be in the office when something happens.Do you really believe USAir thanked Sully for his SOP skills?No,they thanked him for his flying and his judgement!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont recognize any pilots in this thread except Centaurus and Sevenstrokeroll.If other contributors are in fact pilots.it would disappoint me but not surprise me given the nauseating level of pc intodays world.
Good Lord.ATC compliance may mean deviating from SOPs on an almost daily basis.Maintain speed on final or expedite vacation when backtracking for example.Now, complying isnt "making it up" or "doing ones own thing" as our very young Paul implied.Aviation is most certainly not black and white.
Using cameras or the CVR to ensure.,lets see what was that wonderful turn of phrase that Shell M used.."active compliance monitoring".WOW!Now theres one for the union boys to look into.
Until they change 91.1, the Captain is in charge end of story.Of course if they take out the cockpit windows and get themselves a dog.then yes the SOP manual is in command.But I will.thank Christ.be long dead and buried before that day ever comes.
Good Lord.ATC compliance may mean deviating from SOPs on an almost daily basis.Maintain speed on final or expedite vacation when backtracking for example.Now, complying isnt "making it up" or "doing ones own thing" as our very young Paul implied.Aviation is most certainly not black and white.
Using cameras or the CVR to ensure.,lets see what was that wonderful turn of phrase that Shell M used.."active compliance monitoring".WOW!Now theres one for the union boys to look into.
Until they change 91.1, the Captain is in charge end of story.Of course if they take out the cockpit windows and get themselves a dog.then yes the SOP manual is in command.But I will.thank Christ.be long dead and buried before that day ever comes.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In normal conditions : The Capt.must strictly follow the SOPs
In Emergency:I mean unforesseenable ones.The Capt. can deviate from the SOPs BUT will have to justify afterwords.
Conclusion 1 : If everything goes well a stupid desk pilot or manager will prove that he would have done better.
Conclusion 2 : If things go wrong but the unhappy pilot survives , he will be prosecuted , etc.
FINAL CONCLUSION : The PIC is the stupid idiot the company pays in order to blame and this way hide company`s or authoritie`s incompetence when something goes wrong.
In Emergency:I mean unforesseenable ones.The Capt. can deviate from the SOPs BUT will have to justify afterwords.
Conclusion 1 : If everything goes well a stupid desk pilot or manager will prove that he would have done better.
Conclusion 2 : If things go wrong but the unhappy pilot survives , he will be prosecuted , etc.
FINAL CONCLUSION : The PIC is the stupid idiot the company pays in order to blame and this way hide company`s or authoritie`s incompetence when something goes wrong.
Last edited by A-3TWENTY; 10th Jun 2012 at 11:53.
There are not very many "new incidents". The very mature and complete SOP's and emergency procedures in todays transport catagory aircraft aircraft will cover pretty much everything likely to occur.
The fallacy in the argument that Captains should be expected to do what they think is best is the real world examples show most of the time when Captains disregarded the SOP the outcome was poor. Rejects after V1 that almost always end badly is a good example.
I teach the starting point for every emergency is the SOP. If actioning that doesn't work then you do what you have to do.
For normal Ops the operator specifies how to operate the aircraft. It is your duty as a professional airman to follow the SOP's . If you don't like how something is done you don't just ignore it and do what ever you want; you talk about it with the training department and then write a letter to the Chief Pilot. I have changed several SOP's at my current operation this way.
Unfortunately there is a small but significant number of Captains who have drunk the "hero pilot" cool aid and figure their superior skills allow them to ignore any SOPs that they don't feel like following. Most get away with it but a few leave a totally avoidable smoking hole
Sully had the 00.01 % emergency and he followed the USAIR SOP all the way to the time he stepped off the floating aircraft.
The same applies to the Qantas A 380 engine explosion. 5 guys in the cockpit worked together methodically followed the emergency SOPs to work through the ECAM faults. When the SOPs were not sufficient for the problem then and only then was a deviation from them made. There was no hero Captain throwing the book out the window, just a group of professionals working together and starting from a well understood and rigorously applied set of SOP's.......
The fallacy in the argument that Captains should be expected to do what they think is best is the real world examples show most of the time when Captains disregarded the SOP the outcome was poor. Rejects after V1 that almost always end badly is a good example.
I teach the starting point for every emergency is the SOP. If actioning that doesn't work then you do what you have to do.
For normal Ops the operator specifies how to operate the aircraft. It is your duty as a professional airman to follow the SOP's . If you don't like how something is done you don't just ignore it and do what ever you want; you talk about it with the training department and then write a letter to the Chief Pilot. I have changed several SOP's at my current operation this way.
Unfortunately there is a small but significant number of Captains who have drunk the "hero pilot" cool aid and figure their superior skills allow them to ignore any SOPs that they don't feel like following. Most get away with it but a few leave a totally avoidable smoking hole
Sully had the 00.01 % emergency and he followed the USAIR SOP all the way to the time he stepped off the floating aircraft.
The same applies to the Qantas A 380 engine explosion. 5 guys in the cockpit worked together methodically followed the emergency SOPs to work through the ECAM faults. When the SOPs were not sufficient for the problem then and only then was a deviation from them made. There was no hero Captain throwing the book out the window, just a group of professionals working together and starting from a well understood and rigorously applied set of SOP's.......
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 21st Jun 2012 at 01:26.
