Challenging First Officers!
 

Well here goes with this one!

How do you deal with First Officers who are reluctant to accept advice when they are operating a sector?

For example, we get to circa 15 miles out when it is clear we need to start slowing up to achieve a stable approach. I think I am a pretty reasonable guy to fly with (although not in training with my current company I have extensive experience in the role) but when I suggest that it's time to slow up and/or select another mode (Level Change vice V/S) and/or take speedbrake etc the reply I get is "I am flying the aircraft!" - I then insist that changes are made and we just manage to be comfortably stable although a flap setting is called for above the limit speed.

I believe this event is quite a serious CRM issue. It is obvious to me that this FO is weak in certain areas despite being quite an experienced aviator.

Any helpful comments/observations appreciated!

I think in the case you mention I would be inclined to let him continue until it was obvious he was not going to meet the SOP requirements for a stabilised approach, (and don't give him flap above the limit speed!), and as soon as it is obvious tell him to go around, he can't refuse and if he does then you have control, he is unsafe.
Fortunately the vast majority of FOs I have come across are only too keen to get things right as it is one less problem when it is time for upgrade if their personal SOPs are identical to the company's!

Then the answer is simple, you state "I have control" and the Commander then becomes the pilot flying. As a Captain you will have a comfort zone, outside of which you need to be doing something positive and corrective. With increased experience, that comfort zone will change and adapt. It is also important to realize that the First Officer will also have a comfort zone, and in many cases will need some latitude from you that allows them flexibility to learn and acquire experience. Obviously it as the edges of these two zones that the situation requires a high level of discrimination and increased vigilance.

Nevertheless as the commander you are "in charge" and the final decision rests with you. That is why they promoted you and why they pay you more. If you are at any time unhappy, it is your responsibility to ensure the situation is resolved. Most F/O's are very receptive to advice as it is part of the learning process that assists them in becoming good Captains. It has to be said that on occaisions, the "advice" may not qualify as a golden nugget, but a good F/O can make that distinction for themselves. Similarly advice that is proffered late, or that simply overloads the other pilot when they may already be reaching saturation point, may fail to have the desired or indeed any effect.

In summary my advice is don't be afraid to take control, and don't be afraid to break off an approach if things start getting too rushed or late. I know it is obvious advice, but there are few of us who are not guilty of failing to always do this when we should.

Interesting question...
 

Not being a CRM guy, I find these threads interesting...always comes down to the same old queston...'who's flying the plane?'

SpaceBetweenThoughts

Yes there are F/O's who are certainly a challenge!

What concerns me also is the fact the F/O in question has passed "through the hoops" at the selection stage. How do these people get through? Should this F/O have been weeded out previously? Maybe it is CRM that is out of control in some cases.

As to previous comments on this thread, letting it get as late as a missed approach, before sorting the handling pilot out. It is tempting of course to let them "get on with it" but the question will be asked as to why the missed approach accured? Why did you, the PIC allow events to develop to the extent when a missed approach was required? Of course a missed approach should never be discouraged should the need arise for a safe operation. However some "chiefs and managers" would not be easily convinced, a MA was necaessary in this senerio.

The handling pilot, in his/her breif should encourage input or critisim from the NHP or PNF, as none of us are perfect. We all screw up, once in a while and it is nothing to be ashamed of. Invite constructive input.

If one looks at a behaviour marker system such as NOTECHS ( as recommended within JAA Regulations) this can give some guidance to measuring this scenario.

Assessment of Non Technical skills are always to be associated with a technical incident/consequence and are mandated for crew and individual crew members in JAR/EASA regulations. This scenario is therefore suitable for assessment.

The first question to ask under assessment is " Was this flight actually or potentially unsafe in operation or intention" If yes then assessment almost always indicates a failure in behaviour somewhere that was associated with the technical consequence.

Look at CAP 737 ( available from UK CAA website free) and one can see examples of good and bad behaviour under Leadership and Managerial Control, Decisionmaking, Cooperation and Situation Awareness.

Diagnosis of these markers including communication will give an idea of where this scenario is acceptable and where not acceptable.

The debriefing and remedies are best contained within this NOTECHS or chosen BM vocabulary so that the meaning of the remedies are understood in a uniform way by both crew members.

Can't fill up the page as this requires a five day course but hope this directs thinking towards why this was unacceptable/acceptable and where it was remedied and how it might be remedied in the future.

WAP

Someone has to seriously address this issue otherwise the person involved will end in the left seat influencing others with a suspect attitude to aviation...

Octane

To let him do the mistake or removing him from the control is not an option. This will only exaggerate the situation.

I think you should talk to your FO on the ground, first explain to him that this is not a criticism on his flying, but inform him that you are a team, and that you as captain don’t feel comfortable or safe with this behavior. If he does not realize the problem, you have to take this higher, talk to the chief pilot.

Norrington and others. If you allow your FO to fly an unstable approach, exceed the limitations of the aircraft, make a dirty dart at the ground and then get away with it he will regard it as satisfactory, as far as he is concerned, probably quite pleased with himself, certainly, I would say, the "I'm flying the aeroplane" character.
If, on the other hand, you let him demonstrate that he has made a total cock-up, (exercised poor judgement), requiring a GA after you have tried to advise him where he is going wrong then he is unlikely to forget it. A GA may be expensive but it is much cheaper than an accident, I can remember each and every go-around I made in my entire career, (five and not all my fault!;)).

At the end of the day it is really simple, as the Captain, you are, under international law, responsible for the safe conduct of the Flight. In this case I would have taken control, and when on the ground, made sure the FO knew why.

You tried all the CRM techniques, by suggesting and advising, but all said and done if it all goes wrong you as the Captain will be at fault, with the FO saying, 'well if he didn't like it he should have taken control, it's not my fault'. CRM does not mean we can teach FO's how to walk all over Captains and get away with it.

I agree with the poster who said talk to the FO on the ground. Away from the aeroplane and the relatively stressful environment. Its very hard to see yourself as others see you, especially when in a situation. Often its easier to understand the situation when you look back at it.

Try talking with other captains and see if they have experienced similar problems, so you are sure its not just a personality clash on top of inexperienced handling. If they have seen similar traits, then consider the option of a couple of you talking to that person together, that way making it clear it isn't a personality issue.

Tempting tho' it is, I definitely would not leave it until you have to take control, or the FO has to commence a go around. The trusting travellers down the back have put their faith in you to operate a safe and efficient flight, not a training flight for a curmudgeonly, or under-confident FO.

Good luck. It would be interesting to hear how you get on.

More like, "Who signed for the plane?" I would suggest.

Reminds me of an anecdote when I was doing my IR.

Getting close to destination (on the sim) my instructor says "might be an idea to slow down".

"Nah, be alright" says I.

Nope, it wasn't. At all. :O Taught me a lesson.

Actually they are options, which is why they were suggested. The First officer is only in control under the Captains supervision. You need to remember that in the air moving at anywhere between 130 and 300 knots you need to carefully plan ahead and when the plan changes for whatever reason it is incumbent on the aircraft commander to take the necessary action to rectify the situation. In some cases this may well involve abandoning the approach and starting again. Your suggestion that "this is not an option" belies a lack of experience in this regard.

Yes indeed, but that is as you say on the ground. The posters problem was concerning what was happening in the air. It is relevant that much more timely and positive action is likely to be required. It is quite unusual to find F/O's who are not receptive to corrective suggestions and input, as I am sure the author of this thread would readily acknowledge. However the problem related with what to do with an individual who was less receptive. In this case the Captain must decide on a course of action that they deem appropriate.

I have had a similar situation and found it quite tricky to deal with. I had only had my command for a few months and it was my first ever real CRM issue. It wasn't as black and white as this situation. It was as if there was zero authority gradient in the cockpit (he was senior f/o and me junior captain). I talked to a senior captain about it and in the end had a chat to him on the ground, basically I said that if i suggested something while operating the a/c he needed to do it unless it compromised safety rather than think about it for ten seconds and decide if he thought it was the best course of action. He was very good about it, we flew together a few times after that and had a good working relationship. I'm still not sure why it happened like it did but it was good to get it sorted, it feels wrong when the authority gradient is dead flat. I think my relaxed approach to authority when we first started flying together had something to do with it, I was aware that he was senior and treated him as such but it seems he took advantage of that a bit, he may have had a heightened awareness that I was a junior captain and felt an added responsibility because of that. Regardless, it worked out well in the end and thankfully it is still my only CRM issue of any consequence.
Personally I would be hesitant to let your situation slide without at least saying to him on the ground " did you think there was any fat built into that approach for an unexpected wind etc?" I'm also unsure I would let it slide in the air either but it is difficult to tell in a forum like this how hot you really were and just how uncomfortable you felt.
Anyway, tricky these ones. Ya can't always be Mr nice guy.

Hi cjam,

I didn't think we had SFOs here in Oz?

I am under the impression that the Capt. is senior to the FO under all circumstances - except those that disqualify the Capt. from exercising command, such as incapacitation.

I hope I have not misunderstood you mate.

ABX:ok:

I come from a small company and I know most FO's by first name, I would certainly make a mention like "you're getting a bit high on the profile bla bla", not much more, if the FO does blow it, no big deal, when on the ground talk about the 3 to 1 rule and try not to make him or her feel bad about it, part of the learning curve.

We have a little mnemonic we use 'round here thet works pertty good:

ASI ( I remember it as tha 'breviation fer AirSpeedIndicator)

Ask - a leadin' type question, in the non personal manner of includin' yerself: "Are we gettin' a little high on our profile?"

Suggest - "It might be a good idea if we began to slow down - we're only 15 miles from landin' an' we're still doing 250"

Insist - Pure 'n simple: Do this: or Do that: whatever's appropriate, or if necessary: "I have control". :ok:

Always remember, yer the guy/gal that signs fer the wreckage!

Happy Contrails!
k-o-t-s

Hang on just one minute please! Let us give the F/O a break.

Let us be open minded on this and consider if the Captain was right at getting agitated at 15 miles out. Maybe the captain did not give us all the facts therefore the whole story. We haven't been told what type of aircraft was involved. Maybe the aircraft in question was a CESSNA 150 for example.:}

Only trying to stick up for F/O's, who think they should be Captains!:rolleyes:

If that's the question, it's the wrong one. The question might better be phrased as "Who's responsible for the same outcome of the flight."

If I understand the scenario correctly, the F/O is the one flying the airplane; it's "his" leg. He seems to feel that he's going to do it his way, and even appears to be attempting to assume that he has the ultimate responsibility for the airplane. Who is flying has nothing to do with who is pilot in command of the flight, and the F/O is NOT pilot in command.

I like the Ask-Suggest-Insist method described above. It's very much the way I prefer to conduct business in the cockpit. However, when confronted with a F/O who states "It's my leg, I'll do it my way," my response is inevitably going to be "It's not your leg any more. You may resume non-flying pilot duties and we'll talk about it on the ground."

On the ground we can carry on a rational discussion to explore his reasoning or purpose. If his attitude continues, then he can be referred to the Chief Pilot or Professional Standards.

A PIC should always be fully open to the suggestions, questions, or comments of the crew, but it's got to go both ways. A crewmember who stipulates that it's his airplane and he's doing it his way regardless of another's input (particularly that of a more experienced member...such as the Captain), has become a serious detriment to safety. Time for either an attitude change or a change of employment.

Weirdo,

There is not really any need to "stick up" for F/Os as nobody here is attacking them either individually or collectively. The type of situation that the thread author was referring to, is one that does come up from time to time for everybody. Without going too deeply into the specifics, it was a very valid question and particularly so in a CRM context.

This type of authority gradient problem is found in many other walks of life and probably with far greater frequency. The concern here is that it is impinging on a Captains perception of safety, in a time critical scenario. The problem may well have greater relevance to the Captain (in this particular case) than it does to the First officer.

Weido Salt
The FO does not deserve a break in this case. He is WRONG. I think after the replies on this thread the Captain will realise that with hindsight (of which I have a PhD:) ) then perhaps he would not have been so lenient with the FO.
SNS3Guppy has said it all, "you now resume non-flying duties, we will talk about it on the ground'. Simple. Whether it is 4 down the back or 300 down the back, they do not need a FO with an ego to take them to the scene of the crash.

??!!
 

There are a lot of good points here but...

I can't imagine any team member in any semi-professional occupation even considering displaying an attitude like that!


We weren't there to hear the inflection and subtleties of the interchange but for goodness sake..!

Perhaps I'm just getting old...:ugh:

:hmm:

Especially liked the analogy of comfort zones and the mnemomic ASI, Ask, Suggest, Insist. Wish I had thought of that in the past.
As a hypothetical scenario, there could arise a series of instances where an FO goes into a sort of Walter Mitty routine every time it is his leg. He becomes the Captain in his own mind and expects to be left to make all the decisions himself, almost up to and in some cases including, the fuel loads. This situation of the imagination would be further exacerbated if the FO were unable to grasp the big picture, specifically the sort of canvas one finds flying older aircraft in northern Europe in the middle of the winter darkness.
At the end of the day, if the sort of problems outlined above were to persist, the only option open to a Captain, possibly after consultation with the Chief Pilot or Fleet Manager, might be to take the chap to one side and gently explain to him that actually, he holds his 'leg' at the discretion of the Commander and to remind him that it is all very well and good to regard himself as Master and Commander when flying that sector but that in reality and at best he is only operating as P1/US?:ouch:

F/O attitude
 

If the Captain has to seek advice as to how to approach a F/O who is not open to suggestions on how to better control the aircraft maybe the Captain should still be a F/O himself. No one enjoys being bullied, however the incident described hardly constitutes bullying. As the Captain you are the one with the ultimate responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. Pretty simple I would think.

:hmm:

One can of course lay the blame for all of this squarely at the door of CRM.
Many will know the story of the ancient Captain, rumoured in this case to be Dan Air who, on being told that he would have to undergo a CRM course expressed the opinion that such training was unnecessary for him.
In the matter of first officers he was quite clear. He never let the little so so's touch anything in the cockpit below 10,000ft.
Thereby he no doubt placed a somewhat different interpretation than was originally intended on the concept of a sterile cockpit.;)

If you want a simple one-line answer to "I'm flying the aircraft", I have found that, "And I signed for it." works quite well, immediately followed by "Slow down" or whatever you require to be done.

I do believe that the whole CRM situation has been turned on its head in recent years. I find that I am flying more and more with F/Os who think they are in charge, talk to you as if you're an imbecile and make decisions without seeking consultation or approval. I was taught that CRM involved individuals being gentlemanly and cordial towards each other, respecting each other's status, working together as a team for a common goal. Now I find that CRM encompasses, in some cases, the F/Os fulfilling a need to prove themselves by scoring points against their colleague and continually treading on toes with the pretense that he or she knows better!

Although we would never wish to return to the bad old days where the Captain is an infallible God and the F/O a fortunate understudy I do feel that the cockpit gradient is being more and more challenged. Although I am a fairly easy going guy and happy to allow the F/O the opportunity to gain the experience of making command decisions I feel that with a growing number of individuals I am required to be more assertive and to reign them in.

Is it that with this generation a Captain's respect is something that is earned rather than accepted?

It doesn't have to be such a difficult day out. Does it?

Man Flex - I think your comments summarise well what is going on. There have been cultural shifts in society, there is less respect for authority and whilst, like you, one would not want to return to the days of the Captain being "God" some individuals need to bear in mind that he/she is the Captain and that all those on board have to obey all legal commands that are made.

Like you, all I want is a nice day out. In my days as FO (and I did quite a few years in the role) I would not have dared to make a comment such as "I am flying the a/c". I recognised that the granting of any a/c handling was a privilege and not a right!

Thanks to all for some great comments - I like the ASI system!

:hmm:

Well, it rather looks as though the days when the captain could give the foe a smack on the back of his head with the fireaxe have passed away. (F27)
Some of us old lags probably respected our captains first and foremost because they were the commander and, having discovered that they were actually quite normal and did make mistakes, carried them from time to time with a certain wry sense of humour and perhaps pride. Possibly that attitude made for a safer flying environment than one sometimes seen today where two relatively inexperienced flight crew operate a machine which increasingly does the job for them with neither one of them knowing who really is God in the cockpit.:uhoh:

Follow the captain's command --provided he's not incapacitated or obviously in an unsafe flight condition---and especially if he's coming from the more conservative standpoint--is it really so simple?

Can't there be a balance between Van Zanten and Pinnacle 3701?

OK, I am going to be flamed for this but I have to ask it here and not while being an SLF between flights.

While I have every respect for the captain's authority and the fact that he signed for the aircraft let along that an avoidable go-around is a very expensive way to learn, why not let (to a safe extent) let a first officer to learn by his mistake. Thus maybe making him a better pilot.

A very naive approach but an answer would be most welcome.


Rwy in Sight

Not naive at all and a very valid question.

Of course the F/O must be allowed to learn from their mistakes, just as they would learn from the things that they perform well. Captains dont stop making mistakes from time to time either, simply by virtue of the change of seat, or the length of time they have been occupying it. However the Captain is the Captain because they have aquired the necessary experience and been tested to satisy the basic requirements of that position. There are additional responsibilities and authority that are encumbent with the promotion. Perhaps the most obvious one is that you are then "in charge" and the de facto manager of the flight. Regulation and statute places various legal obligations on you as a result of that postion, and the company employing you, expects a proper discharge of these obligations as well as additional responsibilities that it will define in its operating manual.

The other crewmembers operate under your authority in the dischage of their duties. When everything runs well (as it usually does,) then your role as a manager is a fairly easy one. When problems occur, it is often a case of allowing the crewmember to suggest and effect a solution usually through you. Sometimes the problem or the solution requires direction or input from you as the manager. On rare occaisions you may well need to intervene and initiate an entirely different solution. It is this latter case, and the borderline margin leading up to it, that is really the subject under discussion here.

Certainly nobody should ever be discouraged from performing a go-around in an unstable approach scenario or where the outcome of a landing is in any reasonable doubt. If you are unhappy, then throw it away and start again. However in Public Transport operations there are other serious considerations as well. It is very important (and just as much part of the learning process) that developing mistakes are pointed out and corrected in a timely manner. The F/O will be aware that it is not just a case of satisfying the Commander, but also his responsiblity to the hundreds of paying guests down the back. Whilst a go around should be a normal if seldom practised manouever to the pilots, it will be less happily received by the passengers who might have to wait some considerable time for an explanation. As such, the situation that might lead up to a go around, should not be allowed to develop simply to satisy the F/O's need to learn from his mistakes. That might be the end result, but subjecting the passengers to any discomfort is most certainly not to be entertained lightly, and definetaly not something any responsible captain would normally allow to occur.

In order to become a good leader, you must first become a good follower. This means supporting your Captain and being respectful while being pro-active in the decision making process. If this means that sometimes you have to bite your lip, then so be it, that is the essence of good character.

If you don't develop the traits of a good follower, you will never develop the traits of good leadership. I imagine that the F/O in question will enjoy a long career in the right seat.

In the scenario described, with the benefit of hindsight and the other posts, I think the correct actions would have been;

1. Take control yourself. The comment; "I'm flying the aircraft" indicates a break down in CRM. We are flying the aircraft you as PF and me as PM is more accurate. BOTH pilots must be happy with state of the aircraft at all times.

2. On the ground, conduct a thorough debrief. Make him understand the above.

3. Tell him that he is flying the next sector (Weather permitting). Thoroughly brief him on your expectations of his descent profile. Give him gates to pass; e.g. 250 kts/ 5000ft/ 20 miles and 210kts/ 3000ft/ 12 miles and Flap 5/ 10 miles.

Artisan, I do NOT agree at all with your first few lines.

If the FO has the better idea, he is not to "bite his lip", it is the Captains time to realise that. I always try and stay open to suggestions just as I have expected my captains to do when I was FO.

Being a good follower makes you a sheep, you should be a creative thinker and an assertive First officer, to do your job right.

However, in this case I would sign my name under what you have written in numbers 1,2 and 3...

Nic

The Captain`s role is one which is earned by him-/herself by going the ranks. The Captain`s role is one which is to be accepted by his/her crew.

It`s easy for an F/O to become hot`n`high og slow`n`low:ugh:. This has to do with experience. There are a lot of inputs which add up to the F/Os level of experience. One of them is planning ahead. And a Captain is correct to notify the F/O when things are getting to a point close to not stabilized or exceeding limits of the aircraft.

There are several ways of dealing with this, but upon reaching your stabilized gate, and you`re not stabilized, then the call from the Captain should be "not stabilized - go around". There`s too much emphasis on the committment to land as to the option of a go-around. The stabilized gate is there to safeguard to the landing. The rest is dealt with on the ground during debriefing (yes, there should be a debrief done by the Captain after such an approach).

BTW, I`m an F/O and consider any inputs/debriefings from my Captain to be valuable to my level of experience. It also is a learning experience for when I someday will earn my 4 stripes as well:ok:. Much respect to the Captains who debrief their F/Os when something needs debreifing!

Admiral346,

When you were an F/O (a follower), you learned to be open to other peoples suggestions. This skill is called Receptiveness. This skill, learned as a follower is now put to good use in your role as a leader (Captain).

When you were an F/O, and when you had a good idea, you learned to put forward your idea using effective interpersonal skills, styles and methods. This skill is called Influence. This skill learned as a follower is now put to good use a a leader.

When you were an F/O, you learned situational awareness, the ability to see the big picture and the ability to project a present state (Plane/Path/People) into a future state. This skill is called Envisioning. This skill is now put to good use as Captain.

The F/O in this scenario was not open to the Captains suggestion.

The F/O in this scenario thought that he had a "better idea" but did not use effective interpersonal skills to influence the Captain.

The F/O in this scenario probably had poor situational awareness.

The F/O in this situation should have bitten his lip and accepted the Captains authority.

the problem with todays FO's is that they never have been through the laundry, first a soak cycle for the delicate followed by a thorough rinse of the unworthy in ground school you should eliminate all the delicates and perm press in Ground school--- Afterwards you get a heavy duty washing machine [Stearman/ Waco/ T-6] and wash the rest of the arrogant sorry Bums outta the business-- and then hang the rest out to dry in an E-18:}

so the problem--- they jus' don't make good washing machines these days:}

PA, that sounds a lot like the sorry song of "if you ain't military, you ain't nothing." Hopefully that tired saw won't rear it's ugly head.

The FO was wrong. Nobody here disputes that. You may be right that a certain level of disrespect, and certainly a certain level of inexperience, exists today. the cockpit enironment is not the same today as it was decades ago, and that's a good thing. Inexperienced pilots have populated cockpits for many, many years; this isn't new. The environment today provides for a greater latitude for input by each crewmember, as opposed to the kingdoms and dictatorships that pervaded cockpits of old. Brashness in youth isn't new. There's nothing new here under the sun.

What is needed is a clear lesson in the chain of authority so that the F/O who misunderstands, is brought to comprehend his role. He should speak up when he has a concern. He should be assertive in his input. He should not hesitate to do his job. His job does not include taking charge of the flight, and should always be equally receptive to the captain for input and instruction; particularly when it's his leg.

An interesting analogy Pugil. This is a subject I feel quite strongly about (it has a direct effect on flight safety). As a previous poster has stated, "I wouldn't dream of saying...".

One would hope that the recruitment process would be able to weed out those pilots who lack the necessary "people skills". Unfortunately the feedback I have had is that these individuals often come across well during the interview. Perhaps some different scenarios should be tested.