Border between being assertive or arrogant/rude
 

Just finished my annual CRM refresher and one of the excercises simulated being on a boat which was about to sink in the middle of an ocean. Our group of 4 had to decide which items to take with and put in order which items were the most important.

To cut a long story short, 2 of the guys were in agreement that a certain item should be put on top of the list as the most important. I was after another item. The other guy did not offer an opinion. I placed my argument for some time. The other guys placed their item first after I 'gave in' with reservations.

At the end we discussed the excercise and it happened that the item I was after was indeed number 1 on the priority list (according to a survival expert).

My question is this: was I assertive enough? In my opinion I was not, even though the other 2 guys 'hijacked' the discussion (they are best friends and me and the other guy were left out a little).

On the other should I have kept pressing on with my argument without portraying an image of being arrogant or rude?

The problem is that with such group excercises there are not any right or wrong answers.

Any help on the matter would be greatly appreciated as I have being pondering on this question for 2 days :ugh:

Did you try to explain why it should have been first or did you just state that it should have been? A good argument as to why could have settled it...or a vote :ok:

Let's look at this real life scenario. Captain meets his first officer for first time and asks the first officer which leg he would like to fly? F/O shrugs his shoulders and says he doesn't care as long as he gets equal share..

Captain completes fuel figures and shows the total to F/O with the comment "are you happy with these figures?" F/O says no - there is too much fuel. Captain puzzled asks why there is too much fuel aboard. F/O replies that he (F/O) calculates three tonnes less than captain's figures. Captain then points out it is a tankering sector and that is why he has additional fuel aboard. F/O grunts.

Captain gives F/O the leg and during descent it is clear the F/O is behind the profile. Captain suggests F/O should take necessary action to get back on profile asap due getting close to airfield. F/O says he is working on it but does nothing effective except speed up and gain more energy. Captain gets edgy and suggests that best get the landing gear out to create drag. F/O says OK in a minute...Captain exasperated says gear going down NOW and F/O grunts. Aircraft barely attains a stabilised approach by 500 afl. After close down the captain asks the F/O if he would have changed his flight profile earlier given they were high from 10,000 ft downwards. F/O says "if you hadn't bloody interfered with my descent planning we would have made it in OK..."

And that is what happens when CRM becomes the catchword for everything.
So called CRM has destroyed the "old fashioned" good manners and respect that was once a feature of a well run cockpit.

Hold on a minute there...... The archetypical 'old fashioned, well run cockpit' was a dictatorship where the captain was god and the other cockpit occupants warmed the seats. We all know how good this was for flight safety.

The modern cockpit is a much safer place with the introduction of CRM. What has changed is society in general and much of your 'old fashioned' good manners and respect is lost on the younger masses. However, the individuals that display such undesirable traits are few and far between in the flight deck in my experience and the situation you describe is not one that I have come across. Most guys welcome the input if they are getting it wrong and certainly are happy to talk about it in a much more positive, open way once the engines are shut down, grasping the opportunity to learn from the experience. I was certainly like that when I was in the right seat and continue to be so in the left.

It is easy to make up an example of 'failed CRM', but put it into context. For every failure like the one you describe there are several successes due to CRM.

PP

What a wonderful thread....
 

My two pence worth..

Boeing - the real quandary is what is the best possible outcome.

At its worst, with two non-listening votes carrying fixed mindsets, they are part of the problem. So the theoretical possibility of a better outcome if they were different is as relevant as a better outcome if the boat wasn't sinking, or if you were on Southend beach rather than in mid-ocean.

If there isn't sufficient time to solve the problem of the non-listeners, you do the best you can with them as they are.

You deal with the situation as it is, making the best of a bad job if necessary.

And picking up on Centaurus:

So you're too fast on finals and the FO is taking too long to come round to your way of thinking ....

CRM orthodoxy or ( the payload + your life + the airframe + the FO )?

No contest!

So going back to the original scenario, you pick up the No 1 choice and sit on it whilst they decide on the other three.

Or you tell the scenario inventor that you don't give two figs for putting them in order so long as your number 1 choice is on board with you. Putting them in order is simply training mischief to generate unnecessary and inappropriate conflict.

What the exercise leaves out - crucially - is the role of captain, and if anything, the (imho flawed) exercise demonstrates the need for it. In an emergency, wisdom, judgement and experience need to be recognised and used, and in time critical situations to be used without democratic debate.

For my money, CRM is about establishing an environment in which that can happen smoothly, effectively and instantly if a time critical situation arises.

And the captain must be especially skilled at recognising the wisdom, judgement, experience, skill and knowledge assets of the whole team.

Thanks to all for your feedback.

It is indeed true that modern cockpits are a safer place today with the advent of CRM. Nowadays a lot of emphasis is put on assertiveness during initial CRM courses. At times I fear that we are going too far and so meet the occassioanl too assertive or maybe arrogant F/O.

That's why I came with this dilemma on these forums. Pressing on with my argument during the CRM excercise might have sounded as arrogance whilst resting my argument might be perceived as weak or not being assertive. After all I could have been 'wrong'.

B777:
Would the outcome have changed significantly if the problem had been solved your way? I think we all judge the importance of things by looking at what the outcome will be. Lets say I'm between a rock and a hard place. Which errors will create the biggest danger?

I think of the outcome versus the working environment. In as many situations as possible, one should avoid being too assertive. Once you draw the line and start dictating, out goes cooperation and with that a great deal of safety.
I think your action shows that you were more focused on maintaining the cooperation and valued this higher than the outcome, that is, if the problem was solved your way it wouldn't have made much difference. I think this simply reflects a healthy attitude towards situational awareness and cooperation. It would be interesting to see though, where you draw the line, that is, when the outcome is very important and there is a erronous descision being made and you know it.

Centaurus: CRM is not a recent invention. It's simply management-speak for "he's a good guy to work with", "airmanship", "captaincy", etc. etc. Just because one acts the fool in the cockpit and behaves like a dictator and then gets upset when the commander intervenes in the flying, you can't take cover behind the proverbial CRM shield. I know many do it, but the same rules that have allways been in force, still apply. Smirking at high fuelfigures or when someone flies the plane a bit slower than Vmo/Mmo is simply poor airmanship, ie. that person has poor CRM becase it puts negative pressure on the other pilot.

/LnS

A few months ago we had some similiar group exercises. I've done them time and time again. I got the same kinds of exercises, this time with some slight twists. As I heard the scenario, I had my decision in mind before even reaching for the pen. Very straight forward. I knew that everyone else would come to the same conclusion, because it was clear. No other possible outcome.

Imagine my surprise when I found a wide divergence of opinions. I don't know that there's any great need to be agressive in aserting one's viewpoint in these exercises, but what did come out was the ability to listen to others and learn. As I heard other's viewpoints and the questions they asked, my observations fell flat. They had ideas I hadn't even considered, and suddenly the scenario took on an entirely different meaning. I could have pressed on with my view, but in the end it would have been entirely wrong.

By working with the group, we opened up our thinking and solved the problem. This was the point of the exercise; it was a group effort in which no one person was correct. We all coordinated our discussion to include each member of the group to come to the proper end...perspective was provided. No loss of group leadership occured. There was no breakdown in the discussion.

Perspective.

And that was the problem B777, you probably displayed a lack confidence in your decision therefore other crew members lacked confidence in you and took over.

goudie
 

Yes I think having a strong personality and confidence affects the group's outcome. In a way it is good however very dangerous if in the wrong

1. The aim of these exercises is to show that a group working together will get a better result them if they would work alone.

2. Assume that you have 2 persons that need to explain or defend something to a group. person A is talking nonsense because he does not know what he is talking about but he is convinced about him being right and explains with a LOUD VOICE and a lot of CONFIDENCE. Person B is an expert in the matter and explains everything correctly, but he is a bit timid, and is not so confident while talking to the group. The result will be that person B will not be taking so serious as person A and the group will tend to believe what A said. At least that is my experience.

Greetings, Bart

B777

In a group environment the rules can be quite simple. There are many ways of skinning a cat. If a group decide to go about a particular task and it's not quite the way you would do it but the outcome will be safe, if, despite your input the group still wish to proceed down their original route then it saves a lot of stress and time, just to go along with it ,PROVIDING you believe it is safe to do so. If however, you believe that the actions about to be followed could or would compromise the safe conduct of the flight then you must assert your position until you are heard and listened to. There are countless First Officers who have allowed the Captain to take them to the scene of the crash.

I think in the exercise you did the right thing, as you were tasked with an ideal outcome rather than one where if the solution were wrong you all (in the exercise) forfeit your lives (or at least a stack at 3pm on the last day instead of 5pm :))

Just having done yet another Human factors course these old chestnuts were trotted out again...

Risky shift and group think

Don't automatically assume groups make better decisions. :=

Arrogant against assertive
 

Retired after 41 years of flying and with almost 2 decades as a trainer and checker, here is my 2 cents worth. A young pilot newbie normally have problems with the question of arrogance and assertiveness.......after ten years or so on the RHS as a result of going through both hardcore skippers and softie lambs, he/she will be able to be mature enough to distinguish between the two and exercise good judgement. It all boils to maturity and a willingness to learn. For those who are recalcitrant and intransigent, it's a lost cause!

If you look at "conformity within groups" it is much more difficult to get your point accepted if you are "on your own". In a big group if there is ONE other person who agrees with your proposal it is much more likely that your proposal will be accepted by the group.

Quite frankly, I couldn't agree more.
Very well said.

First off, I could see a problem from the very first, if I was in the referenced Captain's shoes.
I seems to me that said First Officer has forgotten his manners, and indeed it could also be said that he has just a tad little chip on his shoulders, and this can be further confirmed by...

Said First Officer clearly has forgotten just whom is in Command, and for those who still might not be sure, it most definitely is not said First Officer.

IF I ever came across an F/O like this, he would be referred to the fleet manager for additional training...and would quite likely receive same, directly from said fleet manager, usually with a suspension from flying duties, and told to go home and not return uintil he finds his manners.

After the recent frenzy of silly theories on Pprune --all I can say about FO's is that when you are confident:ok:--confidence is great---knowledge and competence ---are great:ok:---- arrogance sends you to oceans---and for such a huge gap in knowledge [V1, Vmc, Vyse, WET RWYs]---I'd firmly suggest they cool themselves and those hot egos and listen to someone who knows what they are talking about:*

Because in aviation we only have two types of terrain --mountainous and non-mountainous and most of the non-mountainous is oceanic

and really the mountains don't understand CRM and you CAN NOT LIE to an airplane

I with 411A and Centaurus WRT to Respect and manners:ok:

PA

Being assertive is NOT about being arrogant and/or rude, quite the opposite in fact!

Assertiveness means (amongst other things) being respectful of others feelings and views and their right express them in an adult manner. It also means that you should also be able to do the same and be listened to with respect.

B777,

Rest assured that you weren't too far off the mark! Yes, you could have been more assertive/forceful - but at what cost? You opted to keep group harmony with what you thought (correctly) was second best. In the real situation that was a reasonable, and (without details) I think best solution. Unless the item was essential - in which case I am sure you would have been a lot more forceful- you are better off.

If you really are on that sinking ship: your companions will kill you a lot faster than the lack of almost any piece of equipment. The group may not be correct 100% of the time, but they are all you have at the time.

Next time, trust yourself a bit more, use a bit more authority, but stay in the group - unless they are going to Jonestown. Ultimately, you just have yourself and your own judgement.

Not-so-clever F/O asked one of my colleagues - his Captain for the day - which sectors he would like to fly.

Captains response - " Well thank you, I'll fly them all"