Crm--has It Gone Too Far
 

Good CRM is essential for the safe operation of any commercial aircraft,some need it a lot more than others.!

However ,as a "mature pilot",I feel that crm is being abused by stroppy/arragont/chip on their shoulders F.O.s(yes f.o.s not cpt!),who have graduated from the flying acadamey "mould" on to line flying.

The budget airlines are encouraging the concept of "all equal " status,and effectively eroding the authority of the captain.There is even a form in existence whereby the f.o. can report the cpt for anything he feels unhappy about!!.It seems to me the tail is wagging the dog.Add to this,groundstaff addressing the Cpt as "matey"or "boss"(teenagers without a gcse between them),the status of the Cpt is seen by others to be no more than a regular bus driver.

I have seen many flidras reports where the Cpt has been reluctant to intervene in the F.os leg,resulting in a flidras event.The Captain has the ultimate authority for the safety of the pax/crew/aeroplane and IMHO this should be made clear to all new 150hr graduates from the "mould factory"

discretion, you are correct - the captain's authority has been and is continuing to be eroded and I fear that things will get worse before they get better. The commander is still the one who has the ultimate responsibility for safe flight yet his/her authority is diminished.

I started commercial flying in the 1970 with BOAC. We had lots of captains who were "characters" and we sometimes lived in fear of them. Whilst not wanting to see a return to the days when captain was God, flying with these fellows taught one a lot. They were commanders in the true sense of the word and certainly knew how to put people in their place if their authority was questioned.

Nobody is talking about "normal" CRM here but I know how you feel when EVERY decision you make is being questioned by the guy in the RH seat.

I am horrified to hear that certain companies have an official form for FOs to fill in in order to shop a captain who, in their opinion, is not the flavour of the month. Sounds like a classic case of "divide and rule" to me.

Being a good FO takes a lot of skill and experience and a quick CRM course is no substitute for either of these! I speak as one who spent many hours as an FO before getting a command.

I have to say that I think that this is synonymous with the lack of respect that the majority of the youth of today have for society, authority and for the most part other people’s experience as well. It’s a damn shame, and sadly, probably irreversible. :( :sad:

Could this be where us older, sometimes wiser, wannabe-FOs should come into our own? Alas, if only the airlines would twig it!

Hi discretion, curious to how you would like to be addressed. Agree the reporting system is wrong, but be careful targetting the low houred pilots because they are generally a very sharp bunch who will build on this with experience. Rgds.

Discretion, have to agree with you.

MCC teaches the new guys to speak up, fair enough and all very sensible. But unfortunately most have not been taught how to voice their opinions in a diplomatic way.

And with low-timers especially, they do not have the experience to properly evaluate the Captain's decision making. So they usually end up treating everything they don't fully understand as a mistake on the Captain's part. Anyone else feel like they've been treated like an old dodderer (and I'm not actually that old), when the new f/o actually doesn't understand what's going on, but simply assumes you're wrong?

Doesn't make it easy does it........:ugh:

...and Khaosai, you ask , well, with reference to the groundstaff that Discretion was talking about, I'm even more curious as to why you need to ask. How about plain old "Captain"!!

As one BA 757/767 ex-Hamble Captain said to his new First Officer ( RAF, CFS, TRE/IRE etc) when questioned about some aspects of aircraft performance - 'Shut Up and Look out of the window' - somethings never change.......................

beamer, let me apologise in advance if I'm taking your post the wrong way.

But the implication seems to be that we as Captains do not have a right to reply, which surely cannot be good for CRM. Wouldn't you agree?

Every so often this subject raises it's ugly head. Yep, ugly. Because that is what it is. Or put more simply it is two people NOT being interactive on the FD. Sadly, it is a fact of life that the the LHS or the RHS can cause the ugliness - fact isn't it. Again simply put it is probably professional jealousy in some measure. However, it is also the breathtaking arrogance of some of the newer FO's who believe that "I can teach this Captain a thing or two!" who are just out of training with 250hrs who plainly do not know how to milk every last ounce of experience from some bloody fine Captains. But first, did they ever learn that CRM is important? CRM was always going to be a process that was easy to introduce but had the potential to disappear up it own orifice. And in many ways it has already. MCC could go that way too.

But let us get one thing straight. The ANO states legislation which is firmly rooted in parliament, from whence each word in it's 'unambiguous' pages came - well almost all - as we know some of the rules are stupidly absurd. But...... it fixes beyond doubt that the Captain is the commander of the aircraft. He alone is responsible for it's safe performance and operation. No if's, no but's, no doubts. If the FO cocks-up it is from the Captain that the company will seek explanations. The Captain is designated the master of the aircraft he flys and his will shall be obeyed. In theory yes, but somebody at the CAA (I remember it well) many years ago bought in mandatory CRM. Cost the company's a lot of dosh too. But people liked it then. Now it's something that some Captains and FO's think they could well do without. See. It was bound to happen.

So now who is responsible for this apparent breakdown of CRM? Is it the crew? Maybe, but then it might be that teaching CRM has given too much away and let the FO feel that he has as much right to be the commander and the commander does. I know it happens, I have witnessed it. So just take another look at discretion's post at the top. Is what he is saying what is happening on the FD? I have to say I think he might be for the reasons I make above.

He says and I quote:

Do you agree with that? I can, but only if it is GOOD, I repeat, GOOD. But if you experiences instances I describe then it is not good and causes bad feeling during operations. That is most certainly not GOOD.

beamer voices another NOT GOOD instance:

That Captain deserves a swift kick. The FO actually deserved some respect with such strong experience, but what the Captain said (if indeed he said it - hearsay and that sort of thing!) lost him any respect due to him. The FO IMHO was simply trying to gain information. The Captain should have responded positively but was perhaps, trying to mark the FO's card although he didn't deserve it.

The FD is a place where every part of the operation must be conducted with professionalism, interactively, with skill and with absolute co-operation from both the LHS and the RHS. The FO will, if he has an ounce of nous, will look, learn, listen and operate the aeroplane the same way that the Captain does. If the Captain does it a different way politely, and diplomatically, ask why he does it that way. But....if the Captain by chance managed a cock-up, and we all have, DO NOT set out to make him look foolish. Vice-versa also applies. That's good CRM!

But...........I still think that CRM will be it's own worst enemy unless the trainers make every effort to get it absolutely right in the first place!

There is lots of agreement here on something that I think merits discussion and yes, I am a young(ish!) FO who short-circuited the traditional system, at least in part! Anyway, I feel that someone should play Devil's Advocate so here goes!

BTW So far, it hasn't got personal and I will try keep it that way, it is so much more productive but it will benefit to pick on previous posts so please take me at my well meant intention even if my script is not to your liking ;) after all A-Levels had dropped their standards by the time I sat them! :O

As discretion said of CRM, 'some need it a lot more than others.', but it's worth remembering that there are some around (often older? often captains? often male?) who truly believe the poor adage "CRM is not my problem". Maybe these people are the ones more likely to poo-poo something they don't believe in or aren't comfortable with. Isn't it also probably true to say that anyone who believes that they have class-leading CRM is most likely, at best, average? We all make gaffs and boobs sometimes in our interpersonal relations and should recognise them and even analyse them to reduce our chances of making them again. Maybe we should even apologise sometimes?

Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?

The reference to MCC teaching newbies to speak up is very relevant. At every single aviation interview I have ever attended for the RHS I have been presented with a scenario where the Captain is doing something 'wrong' and the interviewer has always pushed and pushed to get me from 'I would ask if...' to 'I would stand on the brakes/retard the levers/advance the levers....'. Never once was the question 'The Captain wants do something trivial and unimportant that you have been told isn't a good thing to do - you'd ignore it wouldn't you?' or something more erudite and appropriate! We are all products of our training, perhaps this the crux of discretion's point but surely it isn't that CRM has gone too far, CRM only seeks to optimise crew performance, but that CRM is being misinterpreted and poorly implemented? It seems to me CRM courses are often aimed at the timid mouse (the Asian experience, combating the culturally subservient nature?) and may therefore cause the strong character to become overbearing. Perhaps CRM planning should include the alpha male (left or right seat) and occasions where they need to be tempered as well as the (easy to portray and teach against) pilot who allows another to ignore a hard GPWS warning at night in IMC holding next to a mountain?

Another post mentions Captains' feeling that every decision made is being questioned from the RHS. Devil's Advocate says, well that is what he/she is there for! What other reason is there for having two P1 qualified pilots on the flight deck? If the point was that all decisions were being verbally disputed then that is a different matter entirely! But what good is a mentally absentee FO?

Diplomacy is defiantly something that should always be applied - from BOTH seats, and the absence of it is not exclusive to youth, it can sometimes come with age (think Victor Meldrew!) or ennui.

For what it's worth, where there are passengers/unfamiliar staff present it is always Captain or at least Skipper! If all around are familiar with each other and comfortable then whatever term is appropriate can be applied - with limits!

A good post, good points and well put SB.

How true. Especially as there may be one such incident. I say may, because the true cause was never really established. But.....it happened nonetheless. What if CRM had been around then?

Spearing Britney, you say,Well, maybe in an ideal world. But in some cases MCC is being used as a substitute for experience and training. Example: we've looked at the intersection performance and it's not a problem, in case we need it for ATC requirements. We get to the runway, ATC ask us can we take it from the intersection to avoid big delays. Yes I say. As I line up, f/o looks at the runway and makes his own mental judgement that there isn't enough. (He's basing this on a flawed perception of the performance of the aircraft as he's only used to long runway lengths and very reduced thrust take-offs. It's also evident to me now he doesn't understand how the performance calculations work.) I now have the task of explaining all this to him in the nicest possible way, and somehow convincing him that I'm not a cowboy trying to kill us, while ATC start a panic about the guy on short finals.

This happened. Now we can argue about the reasons for the gap in his knowledge, but I was the one left to deal with it.

SB, you also say: but the above story illustrates my point. If the basic knowledge and experience base to sit in the RHS of a jet aren't there, then no amount of MCC can make up for it. Unfortunately, this seems to be a developing trend. Not so much the fault of the f/o's, but in the companies' recruitment and training policies.

This kind of thing makes for a very stressful operation.

Gidday,

CRM-- This is my cockpit, you are a resource, prepare to be managed.

I have been a facilitator in this area for nearly 20 yrs, have to my horror seen the above system but also seen "programed" assertivness go so quickly to agression on both sides of the Cockpit that I dispair for my fellow man.

The authority, enshrined in Law, so aptly put above is not only being eroded but systematically destroyed from many external influences and as now appears in the Bloddy cockpit as well. Some Supervisory types can mark you as having poor CRM just because you did something quite correctly, but not the way he/she would have done. So the skills of the supervision can be a problem.

I have in my facilitation tried to make the point that assertivness is NECESSARY and should be expected from F/Os, good briefings beforehand may remove some of the missunderstandings, but that inexperience or lack of exposure to a set of circumstances can cause a depth of concern that may not be apparent to the Capt.

That's where the CRM skills come to play to get the job done safely, not destroy the needed crew co-operation and be a learning process for BOTH sides of the cockpit.

We need the wisdom of Moses, the patience of Jobe, the perseverance of Noah and a certain amount of the Luck of the Irish to get around some of our trials and tribulations, and it boils down to some basic facts.

There is the Captain-and he/she CARRIES THE CAN for it all
There are a multitude of others who contribute to the task of flight both in and out of the cockpit.
WE HAVE TO DO IT SAFELY.
We need to have an active risk management assessment going on all the time.
We need to accept and give CONSTRUCTIVE input (critisism??!!).
We must allow for the various levels of experience and enthusiasm of the other participants in the task.

an if all else fails as it will do

KICK ASS and TAKE NAMES so it might not happen again.

Be safe and remember

GRAVITY SUCKS

C YA

I am going to get flamed for this, but I can't sit still for it any longer. I'm not a commercial pilot, but I am a human being.

Comments such as 'ground staff addressing the Cpt as "matey"or "boss" (teenagers without a gcse between them) and, 'stroppy/arragont/chip on their shoulders F.O.s (yes f.o.s not cpt!), lead me to think we do have a problem here, and it is not one of a lack of respect, but one of arrogance. Is this really about CRM gone mad, or is it more about ego? Is it more "How dare these people talk to me without using my title!" Than it is about how competent and conscientious they are at doing their jobs?

Juan Trip of Pan Am gave the pilots of his Clippers, the 'honorary ' title of Captain, primarily because they flew flying boats. He dressed them in dark blue, and gave them gold stripes to impress his passengers. It did not change anything, they were still pilots in command of an aircraft, just as thousands of other mere pilots were at the same time. Soon all the other airlines jumped on the bandwagon and followed suit. Today anyone who commands a commercial aircraft is called Captain, never the less it remains an honorific title, and to insist upon it seems a little crass.

Commercial pilots do a wonderful job, but in truth, pilots are not irreplaceable, nor are their skills rare or unique. Almost anyone with reasonable intelligence, the desire, and good hand/,eye coordination could do what they do. Especially given the long and expensive training they are given. If you have young F.O,s with 250 hours of flight time capable of safely flying a commercial jet airliner, and they must be, or they would not be there, then what is so skillful about what you do, that requires everyone in that aircraft to call you Captain? You have been selected by your employer to command an aircraft, you do not hold the Queens commission. To insist upon being addressed as Captain speaks more to your state of mind than to anyone else's.

One has to ask the question, when are you a Captain, and when are you not? Does it have to be a commercial aircraft? Does it have to require more than one pilot? For example, when John Travolta fly's his 707, is he entitled to be called Captain, even though it is a privately owned and operated aircraft? If the very same aircraft were carrying the very same number of passengers on a commercial flight, there would be no question in your mind, but is there a difference? Is a pilot in command of a Lear jet that only requires one pilot a Captain if he is paid to do it, and a mere pilot if he is not? Can you only be a Captain if you work for an airline? In your aircraft both pilots are there to do a job, you have been given the responsibility of command, not the 'right' to be addressed as someone holding the Queens commission.

Frankly, I believe we could do with much less of this kind of elitist B/S, and a bit more growing up.

Now I'm for it!
W.B.

An airline captain has some unique responsibilities, and many that are not vastly dissimilar to any other senior manager in other industries. The Captain and First officer are both Pilots of course, and indeed the junior rank may well have greater experience of the aircraft than the senior one. However the title Captain represents the fact that you are at a certain level within a companies operating and managerial structure.

CRM for a Captain is central to how that individual manages their charge. The aircraft may have a total crew of 2 or a crew of 20. a good manager ought to be able to encourage the best qualities and productivity from each member of the team that he or she manages. Very often this is an easy task because it involves little more than simply recognising an individuals ability and allowing them to operate within their own parameters. A manager should always be approachable and receptive to advice or suggestions. It doesn't always follow that given advice is correct or necessarily desirable but part of the command function is the ability to sort out and seperate the advice as necessary. Knowing how to effectively utilize the wealth of resource that is normally available.

Most flights run perfectly well, however it sometimes happens that a problem crops up and the pressure starts to rise. It never ceases to amaze me how a crew so readilly rises to the challenge. This is a function of their training of course, but also a function of that same individuals management skills within their own sphere of operations. A problem well managed can be a source of enormous satisfaction, whilst a minor problem that is mis-handled can so easily become a major situation that is much harder to satisfy.

The F/O is nearly always an unpromoted Captain. They are often required to undertake many of the Captains management functions. Each F/O will treat every flight as a learning experience. For that reason and many others it is important to lead by good example. CRM is in some ways an abstract art. There are fundamental aspects that can be taught but the perception of it, is often an individual and naturally modified model for each person.

Despite some reservations in the early days of flying with "low hour F/O's", my own experience has been that a very high number of these folk have a high degree of CRM awareness that in some measure balances the lack of experience. In an ideal world I think there should be a progression of experience level that eventually leads to the right hand seat of a jet airliner. If it were up to me nobody with a few hundred hours would qualify. However that is not the reality. It does concern me that these people will probably make some of the mistakes we all made, and will do so in a complex aircraft with many hundreds of passengers down the back. Because of this we have to accept the world has changed, and it is important for us as captains to encourage questions and challenge and indeed to teach from our experience where that is desired, requested or warranted.

As a Captain you are in charge and again in my own experience I have seen little erosion of that responibility. I also have not experienced any dilution of the authority except where it has been removed or altered by statutory change. The company pay me as a Captain to manage their flights and they give me the latitude to be able to do that. I like to think they consider they get a fair deal in return.

If anything I do as a captain were to give any member of the crew cause for concern they could raise the issue with me. However it is within their right to address it to their relevant manager. Sometimes it is necessary to recognise that personalities and misunderstandings as well as emotions and the human condition simply requires the intervention of a third party. This ought to a rare occurance.

As for the title Captain, I believe this denotes my level of attainment within the structure. I receive letters from the company with this on it, and it appears on my payslip. Often ground staff will use the address and sometimes passengers will. When I meet anyone else for the first time I introduce myself and from thereon in adress them and expect to be called by my Christian name. I don't have any problem with "boss" or mate if it is used because somebody has forgotten the name or feels more comfortable. I just expect a good standard of operation and as a consequence a good flight in all respects.

Finally I don't believe that CRM can be taught accurately simply because it is an evolving and inexact entity. The principals of it are taught and it is often a matter for the recepient to decide how best to apply those things and modify them for their own personality and condition.

White Bear

Because PPRuNe is a place for people to freely express themselves, providing they can control themselves, do not slag anyone off etc., etc., they are welcome to comment.

However, there are times when it is better to read than to write. This is one of of those times.

I suggest you read some more and maybe, but I doubt it, you may grasp a very small measure of the subject of this thread. Unless you fly and understand the environment you will never be able to understand it. CRM is not a matter for someone to comment on who simply does not understand it's use.

Read the last post, that might help but I wouldn't try to explain it and don't apply ridicule either - you will disappear in a trice.

White Bear

I'm afraid it's your arrogance that's breathtaking. And it's no use pre-empting or excusing what you've said with your last comment "now I'm for it", as if you can say anything and that'll make it alright.

Your arrogance is breathtaking because you are expressing strong opinions about something of which you have absolutely no knowledge or experience. There are many unique problems associated with human interaction and human/machine interaction in the context of flying that make this subject a specialised rather than a generalised one.

Yes, just like you, I'm a human being too - I also happen to be a training captain and yes, believe it or not, an MCC and CRM facilitator. But that doesn't stop me expressing the kind of concerns that have been voiced in this thread.

With regard to this whole "call me captain" thing which you seem so upset about. You'd actually be extremely surprised at how generally informal most airline operations are. Most crews, cabin crew and flight deck, will all call each other by their first names. As will ground staff who know the crew. This is not a problem. In fact, it's very pleasant and makes for a less formal workplace than your average office. A knowledgeable and good SCA (senior cabin attendant) will often accord the captain his title when reporting something of an operational manner - eg, "cabin secure captain" - this is simply a recognition of where ultimate responsibilty rests, a way of creating a professional atmosphere and fostering teamwork - "we're all in this together" if you will. It also sets a good example to the whole crew. But for the rest of the flight, it'll be back to first names again.

The problem arises when ground staff have a problem with flight crew (and there are a small minority who do, just as you would expect in any work situation). They then hide their ill-disguised irritation at the flight crew behind the "mate", "boss" or whatever euphemism they care to use. This then sets up an atmosphere which is less than professional, and could ultimately affect flight safety. And that's what this is all about: SAFETY. For us, and for YOU, the passenger.

Maximum, :ok: you said I said this:-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re Maximum's posts, perhaps the very comment that the FO doesn't understand what is transpiring is indicative of non-optimal CRM? Shouldn't both pilots be on the same page; and isn't it the bosses job too make sure this happens, particularly if he has more experience? The occasions where there is no opportunity to pre-brief or real time brief a decision are few and far between in commercial operations are they not? All controversial decision, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat should at least be de-briefed right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which I did ;) and you started your response with

“Well, maybe in an ideal world.” But we are seeking that ideal world and the more we close out ATC/mechanical defects etc as accident causes the closer we need to come to it. Also, I would just like to confirm you don’t disagree with the end bit i.e. ‘that all controversial decisions, particularly where an 'over-ride' occurs from the left seat, should at least be de-briefed’: Because if this doesn’t happen then better CRM is badly needed! :uhoh:

Diverging from you point now, I know that story telling is of limited value but to let you know where I am coming from on this I once sat as supernumary FO on a type conversion flight where the Skipper took control in the flare and subsequently left the flight deck without comment at the gate. To the clearly bemused trainee I said ‘don’t worry it was probably X,Y,Z but he will talk to you about it later’ – he didn’t, and didn’t ask for questions either. :{ Remember CRM is a two way street, a multi way junction even, and when you feel poor CRM coming from someone it’s tempting to withdraw and let your own CRM slip, and that ain’t gonna help anyone!

Maximum, in your example of intersection performance you say you (plural) had looked at it before and established suitability. I believe you that this occurred but I also say that an F/O who subsequently challenges runway performance charts on the basis of visual perception is a fool and should never have got through his training! If this occurred during his training then he is a bigger fool again! Not referring to you personally here, but I hope (and believe) any training Captain would debrief this thoroughly and initiate any remedial instruction required. I would also hope that FO’s of this calibre are not common in your, or any other, operation. Any post-training FO is P1 qualified by definition, this means they should understand performance calculations and the situation you found yourself in was unacceptable but rare (surely!).

As for your opinion that the absence of the knowledge and experience base for a jet’s right hand seat cannot be made up for by MCC. Well, that’s true, but then MCC/CRM was never meant to make up for knowledge – the type rating and line training is there to do that. Experience isn’t what CRM tries to teach either; although maybe it tries to adapt your life experience to the F/D or make up for lacunas in your interpersonal skills. I feel that you may be blaming CRM for what you perceive to be poor training in general, is that fair?

I don’t mean to single Maximum out, it’s just that I think he makes interesting points for progressing this; he also said “We all want to avoid a stressful operation”, to which I say ‘here here!’ and I agree wholeheartedly on the ‘call me captain’ bit, you don’t call a Managing Director or a Headmaster mate in public do you, the front galley and sometimes the F/D are often public too. It may have started off as an honorific title but it is now enshrined in law (as commander) and manuals and should be treated as such.

Referring back to the first post discretion says “There is even a form in existence whereby the f.o. can report the cpt for anything he feels unhappy about!!.It seems to me the tail is wagging the dog.” This makes me a little uncomfortable. Look at it this way, power corrupts and there are always those who will misuse any power that comes their way. As such a system that can expose this is sensible and necessary. Any Captain acting correctly (the overwhelming majority IMHO) has nothing to fear, particularly as any managers who get involved in a dispute will most likely be Captains and hence likely to appreciate the experience/training/investment that the Skipper concerned represents. The FO’s report will most likely be critically analysed and cross checked if possible; any worries about reporting of this kind leading to any unjustified action must be largely unfounded in any moderately well run outfit surely! As a postscript I agree that any such system should be a last resort and infrequently used, good crew resource management should make it obsolete but good company resource management must put it into existence.

For what it’s worth, I found that the ultimate authority of the Captain is rammed home in the ‘mould factory’ as discretion calls it but then so is your personal responsibility to have your voice heard when things depart your sphere of comfort. There seem to me to be two issues here. One, that some (Maximum?) feel that the low hours FO’s sphere of comfort is too constricting. Isn’t this is to be solved not by CRM but by the type rating and licensing requirements. And two, that some (discretion?) feel that that voice is heard a little too often, perhaps that the boundaries of what is worth speaking up about need to be more clearly defined. This one CRM should help with. Any comments?

I think this whole taking CRM going to far has to do with individuals on both seats. A while back we had an ATPL student onboard. This guy started to explain to us how we should fly and why we sould climb higher to safe fuel (FL 250 LHR->AMS in a E120) Imho this is CRM going to far.

Since a couple of months I am flying in the middle east and people never attended a CRM/MCC course. Being in the right seat and coming from a CRM environment certain captains know I speak up and wouldn't do "stupid" things they would do otherwise. CRM as it should be

As far as writing a report on a captain I think this should be a possibility AFTER discussing it with the person in question on the ground. If he persists to be wrong I think the company might invite the inviduals for a meeting with their MFO or Chief pilot.

Spearing Britney, I said: "well, maybe in an ideal world", you then said in reply: . The thing is, I took this thread to be about the real world. All the CRM/MCC principles you've written about above are on the whole very commendable and I support and practice them. How they manifest themselves in the real world can sometimes be very different to the theory though. Don't you find that in your airline?

Coming back to my original example, you say:, you then go on to say that as an f/o it is The point is, things had departed this guy's sphere of comfort. And interestingly, you're the one calling him a fool, not me!

Here's another one for you. Night departure from terrain surrounded airfield. Get airborne. SID requires a left turn away from mountain. As left turn begins, f/o screams out that it should be a right turn, and that aircraft is in immediate danger from high ground. F/O is confused but sure he is right, and scared. Obvious he is thinking about taking control.......

I'm being a little naughty, as we can all come up with stories to support our arguments either way, but my point still is that it's easy for MCC training to swing too far towards very forceful f/o's who don't have the proper experience to evaluate certain situations.

In the end, it must all come down to top notch training.

I hate to sound like an old fart, but in the early seventies when I first started pilot training in the RAF (no, please don't switch off, hear me out) we actually had classroom lectures on something called "Airmanship", during which we discussed all sorts of situations which might require crew management and/or decision-making by a Captain/Aircraft Commander. As the years go by and flying experience is amassed, one learns how best to manage a crew, no matter how large or small (in number, not size!) to the best effect, in order to achieve the task in hand safely and efficiently. In my humble opinion, 'CRM' is not something that can be learned on an "approved course", but is learned by experience, and is but only a part , albeit an important part, of a much bigger aspect of flying, called airmanship.

Hi maximum, I was thinking along the lines of turning around in the seat and introducing yourself using your first name. The co pilot does the same, simply because it would sound funny being addressed as first officer. Nice and relaxed, a good start to the day, with the dispatcher, let's call him John, on your side. Rgds.

Now come on Maximum you are twisting it! :rolleyes: Yes an FO (or Captain) must speak up if they are uncomfortable but they are all taught that correctly calculated chart performance is reliable and that visual perceptions are often not; so I stand by my statement that the FO you describe is foolish! He should not have been uncomfortable and if he was he should have known why and at most re-confirmed that you (the crew) were happy you had correctly calculated the performance. Does that explain my statement?

As for the real world issue, I must say I entirely fail to see your point. CRM is real world and applies to it perfectly well, in applying it we seek to create a real world that is also ideal. You brought the ideal world up in relation to both pilots being on the same page and the pre/during/de briefing of issues. I still maintain that if a crew fails to do this then the crew and its CRM is failing, there is no reason crews cannot do this. I ask again do you really disagree that any issue on which a confusion/disagreement emerges should ideally have been pre-briefed, if not forseen then real time briefed and in the exceptional situation of this not being possible should be de-briefed? I'd love to hear that you agree with this...




In reply to your second story. Well obviously the brief didn't go too well and your charts aren't handy to confirm the SID so the CRM has gone wrong already but to humour you:-

First option, simply say 'continuing turn' and if required add 'I have control' and immediately ask the FO to confirm the turn direction with ATC -readily available, independent and reliable second source of info and one which employs the wider scope of CRM. Meanwhile apply max power to make best rate available so if you are wrong (any you may be) you mitigate the error.

Second option, use EGPWS display to confirm correct turn direction.

Lastly, if other options not available then that’s why we have a Commander whose head rolls if he gets it wrong.




I fear that the point you are trying to make is that you feel that your FO’s are not worthy to question you, the Captain. All I am trying to say is that they must question the Captain when things happen that their body of training tells them may not be good, if they don’t its a single crew operation – at best Man and Dog. The manner in which they question should be constructive, non-combative, and beneficial to both parties. That is what CRM tries to teach.

An interesting discussion. I hope it doesn't deteriorate into a slanging match because there are some very valid and interesting points being introduced.

I think that so far, only Bealzebub has compared the crew situation to a managerial situation, and it struck me that although we do CRM and all those lovely technical exams, at no point are we given any real "people managing" training. I suppose one assumption could be that life's experience should have given us enough practice at working with, and managing people, but you don't have to look too far to realise that is not often the case.

I very much support a well presented CRM course - anything that makes us look at the mortality and fallability of ourselves, other pilots and passengers and makes us think a little bit about what we would have done or how we would have reacted in similar circumstances is invaluable. But perhaps, included in the command course, there should be a course introducing managerial skills, in greater depth than a CRM course does? Regardless of the number of crew the future captain will have to manage. Not everyone is a natural leader, but with a little help, many people can become very good leaders. With maturity and learning on the job, hopefully those skills will be honed, eventually, but in our line of work, "eventually" is not always the best approach for the captain.

Of course, this can go wrong, just as some of you are saying that the CRM is going wrong, but that shouldn't stop the thought from being developed. Isn't it often the complaint that the pilot who moves from flying the line to management has no formal management skills because flying is all they have ever done, and it shows through. This is not aimed at all management pilots, but it is a complaint I have heard often enough for it to stand out.

Just as a well done, well thought out CRM course can be of huge benefit, I believe a well done, well thought out management course could also be a benefit. I have never been on any kind of management course, and would be interested to try, having watched how others have benefited from them.

Khaosai

I'm not sure I understand your point. Sorry.

Spearing Britney

I'm sure we're starting to wear everybody down! But at the risk of repetition. My observation would be that you keep denying the real world - you say that the f/o in my example "should not have been uncomfortable" with the intersection take-off. But the simple fact of the matter is that he was - just one of those unexpected things you're faced with from time to time.

And my second example did happen. You say
Well....it was about 0400 after a long night. Delayed departure at other end. Very busy turnaround. Usual hassle with manual loadsheets, fuel late to turn up, one baggage handler, well meaning but slow handling agent etc......Finally pax on board, very tight slot. As we start to taxi out, wind backs 180 degrees. Runway change. Taxi out very difficult on extremely dark taxi ways, very poor lighting. Some closed due work in progress just to complicate matters. Poor old f/o has to start getting performance books out, find new SID page on chart, re-programme FMC, copy new ATC clearance from controller with poor English and two cans with a string for a radio. In addition he has to try and monitor Captain's new taxi route in the darkness. Meanwhile the slot looms ominously. If we miss it, we're advised delay could be more than two hours and we'll be out of hours. But, despite this, I ignore the pressure of the slot, sod that, and applying good MCC principles I tell ATC we aren't ready, and bring the aircraft to a stop. We then review the performance, and the SID, check all the bugs, re-set the nav aids, check the FMC, I do a brief, he says he's happy, and finally we line up, just in time. Trouble was, he still got confused once we we're airborne. Flying's like that sometimes isn't it? A lot had gone on in the proceeding five minutes, and he suddenly found he was still catching up. My experience helped me I reckon, but the fatigue at 0400 and the high workload had confused him. Who can blame him? He's only human after all. But I had to sort it out when part of his MCC training kicked in, and he started hollering about turning the wrong way. That's the real world, and it happened. Asking ATC would have been next to useless, as their English was poor, they had no radar, and they wouldn't have understood the question properly in all probability. Anyway, by the time they did answer, it might have been to late - that high ground was mighty close. Also, whose to say the answer would have been right?!

Max power wouldn't have helped - it was a big lump of rock and we were close. Our aeroplane didn't have EGPWS. My head wouldn't have rolled if I'd got it wrong - it would have been flat as a pancake with a couple of hundred men, woman and children swiftly following.

So there you have it. We did the briefings, etc etc. But real life s**t still happens. As I said before, I'm mostly in agreement with you, but there is a touch of the evangelical in your postings which seems to deny the valid viewpoint of experienced Captains on this subject.

As I asked you before, haven't you found situations on line in your own airline like this?

Sorry to appear evangelical, that wasn't my aim and I freely admit that I get it wrong sometimes when doing lots of things, including flying. I'll even admit that sometimes I don't even like to admit it!

In answer to your question, i.e. have I found situations like those you describe - well no, not to that extreme (I think you might just be tearing it to make a point) but yes I do know what you mean.

I certainly don't seek to deny the valid viewpoint of experienced Captains on this or any other topic but as I said I feel this thread needs (needed!) some Devil's Advocate. However, I do seek to point out that CRM is valuable, that FO's can be right and Capatain's can be wrong, even both crew can be wrong and its always worth asking anyone else who might be able to help.

I'll leave others to be judge and jury on the examples we have discussed but you say that I am ignoring the real world, may I extend this to suggest that maybe you have stopped reaching that extra bit in the hope of touching the ideal one?

Smudger has very good advice for those rather younger inexperienced First Officers who, having sat thru a few CRM courses, really do feel that they have the upper hand.
Suspect these folks would not know 'airmanship' if it bit 'em in the backside.
They should also appreciate that many airlines have their line Commanders fill out a First Officer assessment form each month with the guys/gals they fly with...and being an overbearing co-pilot will certainly not win many brownie points in the fleet managers office.:uhoh:

One wonders what type of Captain these “rather younger inexperienced” and “ stroppy/arrogant/chip on their shoulders” First Officers will turn out to be. :rolleyes:
Why do I get the feeling that the more things change, the more they stay the same?
Smudger – spot on mate!:ok:

Maximum, sorry captain, try not to feel too sorry. Rgds.

‘Airmanship’ Smudger? How quaint and old fashioned, but I fully agree. As one of the ‘old school’, I was taught Airmanship every day. At the time I probably did not appreciate what I was being taught or what airmanship was and it has taken the last 40 years to gain at least some understanding. However, whatever ‘it’ is, it enabled me to get this far – retirement, without too many mishaps.

It would be foolish to expect that the ‘old way’ would still apply in a complex world; therefore what has changed that prevents the well founded principles of our profession being heeded today?

At each stage of my training, and throughout my professional career there were hurdles to be overcome, examinations passed, licenses and ratings to be earned; today the young graduate is ‘empowered’ with a frozen “captain’s” license, given the belief that within a few hours he (she) too can become a captain. Not so, captaincy requires airmanship that has to be developed though continuing education and experience. Now-days there may be fewer regulatory examinations during this progression, so greater the need for self examination and criticism.

The skills required in aviation are far more than stick and rudder, yet the license and the image focuses on the physical. A newly qualified pilot is safe – the regulators say so, they cover themselves. However, operators require safe but also effective pilots in a crew. Effectively has to be learnt and developed, which transforms into efficiency, - someone who can become a captain, who in turn must then strive for precision and expertise. These qualities are not bestowed, or bought; they have to be learnt through time and with considerable effort.

The qualities involved in monitoring and intervention are those of airmanship and once gained they have to be employed constructively. I often met pilots who had little knowledge of how or when to alert the captain, latterly I found a good reference for these – P.A.C.E. Probing for a better understanding; Alerting Captain of the anomalies; Challenging suitability of present strategy; Emergency Warning of critical and immediate dangers. It appears from this thread that many younger pilots are forgetting step 1 – Probing for information, for reasoning and understanding. Similarly Captains must provide the answers; the basis of this is good communication.

The principles of airmanship still apply in a CRM world. Airmanship defines an individual; discipline, skill and proficiency, knowledge, awareness, and judgment. Many of the examples given in this thread identify failures in one or more of these areas. Most of these areas depend on self discipline, a rarely taught and often lost commodity in modern life. Discipline also involves respect, both for those above and below. The pressures on the modern industry make the development process all the harder; less stick and rudder flying, less time for explanation, and fewer debriefs. The ‘automated’ world implies less need for knowledge, fewer courses, lower standards of understanding, and narrowing of subjects; but there is growing evidence that the very opposite is required. How or where are awareness, thinking, and judgment taught? All of these require experience, not taught, but gained. Experience requires time, situation, and opportunity, but so often not available today.

Life’s expectation is for instant gratification, instant profits, at minimum cost or investment. Yet in high risk industries this may not be possible. Note those industries where rapid progression results in top jobs in the early thirties, then what? Disillusionment, complacency; this problem will affect our industry as well. Try management? But that too requires all of the qualities of airmanship. Indeed all of our industry requires these qualities; engineering, dispatch, cabin, and management; take note, CRM is coming (is here), but what is actually required are those personal qualities contained in the definition of airmanship.

CRM is a relatively modern or a relabeled older tool for maintaining professionalism and safety in the industry. Its mentor Robert Helmreich readily accepts that that CRM is in it’s sixth phase; mix this with the three major cultures in flying (national, organisation, and profession), and then flavor with biased or uneducated viewpoints, then it is no wonder that few people understand what CRM is. CRM is promoted as a tool, a method, a process of maintaining safety through threat and error management. However, like most tools, methods, or processes, if their purpose is not understood, if misidentified, employed with inadequate instruction, or misused, then mistakes are inevitable.

Airmanship depends on experience; experience is what you get when you don’t get what you expected. The industry and particularly the regulatory authorities are just gaining experience of CRM.

fully agree with alf5071h, just been looking at my company training manual and found that "airmanship" does not appear anywhere on the company recurrent paperwork - not for a line check, a 6 monthly sim check, an annual sim, nor for a command assessment, so it seems it is no longer a company requirement!

glad the autopilot knows its place

Maximum,

considering the gloomy departure scenario that you have painted what do you suggest the Fo should have done:

1.- Said nothing (the cpt must be right, after all he has lots of experience and he does not make mistakes).
2.- Forced the situation at the holding point and request sufficient time to get himself up to speed with the changes. (possibly missing the slot in the process)
3.- Given up flying as he is so obviously not up to the task
4.- Any other suggestions people may like to make

Is there anything that you think you may have done differently in both situations that you mention that may have prevented them from arising.

We can all roll out stories when the other guy was about to do something and we prevented him, etc this is the bread and butter of flying and only proves that we are all fallable. I beleive it is therefore imperative to speak out. To be both assertive and receptive. This must be done with politeness and sensitivity. Nobody should take ofence at a polite question :

Cpt do we have sufficient performance for this intersection?

Yes we did work it out remeber?

Ok

Are we turning in the right direction?

etc.

Aviation is full of accidents that would have been prevented if this had happened. Do we all agree on this?

Doesn’t this come down to mutual respect?

I am currently flying with a bunch of F/Os who break down into two camps interestingly enough, divided roughly along linguistic lines. One lot work as part of the team and understand that we both take a turn at steering. The others assume that you haven’t just given them the sector but handed over command.

I welcome any advice, observations and help – I need all the help I can get! As for questions I would certainly risk missing a slot to clear up a query on a potentially dangerous matter. I heard some very good advice once. It said “Go through the accident report in your head. If you sound like an idiot change your plan.” I would not like the last words on the CVR to be “Of course we can take the intersection – SOI”

I do however object to being taught to fly again by a junior pilot with 1000 hours or less. Usually the over baring ones (left and right seats) are the ones who can’t demonstrate superiority and so have to claim it.

Why don’t we just treat each other with respect while remembering that the Captain carries the can when it all goes tits up?

On the subject of “Call me Captain” I heard a great CRM related tale. An airline used to send crews off on week-long freighter missions on the 74 classic. Multi-sector, multi-night stop trips. The Captain on this trip was very much of the old school and insisted on calling everyone by “P2”, “P3” etc. On about the fourth night stop when “P3” was asked if he wanted a drink in the bar he replied, “Come on Captain, we know each other well enough now, you can call me P.”

Kirkout…

To Calypso and others who seem to (in my opinion) taken my comments as a criticism of all f/o's, I suggest you re-read my posts. Dare I suggest you appear a tad sensitive? A little touchy perhaps?

In no way am I putting f/o's down. In no way am I denying that MCC and CRM techniques contribute to flight safety.

All I am saying is that it's incumbent on new f/o's (and their MCC facilitators) to recognise that the application of these techniques can in certain situations dramatically increase the workload of the Captain.

And it must also be recognised that they cannot replace basic deficiencies in airmanship.

In the departure scenario I gave, you seem to making a major assumption. That I, the Captain, when queried, was 100% sure which way to turn. Well, I wasn't, I'm only human (what this is all about), and as soon as I was confronted with a very forceful demand to turn the other way, obviously the seeds of doubt were sown in my mind. So one of us was right, but which one? Precisely because I do listen to my f/o's, I was presented with a difficult situation, that needed to be solved rapidly. And obviously that's when I earned my money.

So all I'm saying, in a nutshell, and all I have ever been saying, is that when they need to speak up (and I'm all for that) f/o's must do it with an awareness of how it effects the operation overall, and how it can influence the Captain's workload.

I think some high horses need dismounting.:cool:

I'm reminded of something I use when facilitating CRM sessions: "Its not what we fly that counts, but how we fly it... Its not the position we occupy that counts, but how we occupy it..."

Just another thought for some of our more senior left seaters:
An NTSB study showed that in a/c accidents investigated between 1978 and 1999: (1) in 80% of the accidents surveyed the captain was flying; (2) in 73% of the cases it was the f/deck crew's fist day of operating together; (3) 44% of the time it was their first leg together; (4) 55% of the time the flight was behind schedule....

So I still submit that if we treat one another professionally and respectfully, we'll create the correct environment for a safe flight

A good thread......I concur with those who think CRM and Airmanship are much the same thing. However, for all the stuff printed in company policies/ops manuals about CRM theory, it should be remembered that you have to actually practise it EVERY time you fly and an important part of this is according everyone else [pilots/crew/atc etc. ] the same consideration and respect you expect for yourself.
I recollect a few years ago in South America [Cali?] an American Airlines [I think!] Boeing 7*7 crashed after some confusion about where they were in relation to an airport. The crew were not working together as well as they should have been. Apparently, the previous week the crew had attended a CRM theory refresher course back in Stateside .
The culture of the air operator/country/crew all play a big part in determining if CRM/Airmanship are effectively and routinely utilised.:bored:

oh dear
 

Dear Sir Discretion, i suggest that if the commanders authority is being eroded, then it is down to the individuals fault, rather than the systems.
Surely a captain should have respect from his fellow workers because they appreciate the job he is doing, just as he or she appreciates the job everyone else, from the baggage handler to the SFO, is doing?
The moment Captains start to assume that they have God given rights to respect because of their position, is the moment that the system deservedly falls apart!
PS I'm writing this as a current Captain!:sad:

jigsawjockey, agree with your comments 100%.

It does, however, take two to tango, as they say. Just as the commander needs good communicatiion skills, the second in command also has to learn to do the same. Good commanders will make some allowance for this and coach their fellow colleagues in a non confrontational style.

Its all really a question of a bit of "give and take" by both parties. I am reminded by a comment from a highly respected CRM teacher (one of THE originals actually!) who said that the foundations for achieving the task (successfully) are laid when the task is NOT being worked on.

It's when the crew are not actually working at the job, as it were, when we have time to build rapport and find some common ground. Dare I say it but this might be over a drink at the bar or a meal at a restaurant etc or particpating in anything together which has nothing directly to do with the task. Given current lifestyles in many airlines this can be more difficult to achieve but its an area well worth working on and airline managements also have a key role in this area.

This is a highly chalenging area since we are dealing with human beings! Find out what yout employees are doing when they are NOT working and you will be amazed by their considerable skills and talents. It is just very sad that find that these creative skills are not encouraged at work due to the current culture. The companies that can capitalise on these skills and use peoples talents will be around for a lot longer than the other ones.

Good point Fireflybob - while many other industries send their people away on expensive courses to "team-build", we in the airline industry who have a tradition of social "interaction" have fewer opportunities to do this.

Has CRM gone too far? If we let it yes. As a facilitator myself, I try and encourage people to realise the importance of keeping the right balance on the flight deck - some may know it as the authority gradient. If we all strive for that then we should all be going the right distance CRM wise. i.e a young and low experience FO would be unprofessional if he/she was making the Capt feel that every decision was questionable. There are ways of making points: it is correct for an FO to ask a question if he/she feels concerned, but the tone and manner of the question is important so that "authority" is not questioned, but a point of airmanship is. I have never flown with an FO because I am one! I adjust my manner and bearing according to who I am flying with and the general situation of the flight, but at all times I try to behave in a manner which enhances the "correct" gradient. Some people are better at this than others, and no doubt there are times when people need to be put in their place. If a Capt needs to remind someone who's boss then that's fine by me - CRM isn't about being "fluffy" it's about getting the best out of people to ensure a safe operation. As FireflyB alluded to, it isn't going to be easy because you are dealing with people.

As a newly qualified FO going staight onto a medium jet I can definitely say that basic JAA training to fATPL does precious little to prepare you for the multi-crew environment.

Throughout basic training you do everything yourself - radios, nav, fly, plan make decisions. Whilst this is probably a good thing I definitely think there should be more of a bridge to the real multi-crew world. The MCC course doesn't quite cut it as it's usually 2 newly qualified pilots together for the course so the gradient is contrived / unrealistic. That goes for much of conversion training too.

I've asked the question of 'what are the qualities of a good FO' to most of the Training Capts I've encountered so far. Here are some of the responses I found helpful..

'Be supportive of the Captain'

'Make sure safety is your No 1 boss'

'Asking a question can be a better way of highlighting a potential problem than stating it in the first instance.'

'Be on time and come prepared always'

'Don't try to go for promotion by acting like the Captain. The best way to get promoted to Captain is to be a good FO.'

'Be aware of your issues as a person. If you have a tendancy to be abrassive or passive for example (we all have something), be aware of it and constantly compensate for it - keep looking in your personal mirror'.