Augmented Crew Flight Deck Protocol
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dunmow
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Augmented Crew Flight Deck Protocol
Are there any companies out there that have any special "protocols" for augmenting crew ops. Maybe it seems silly but sometimes you think it would be nice if there were some guidelines for certain people to follow when operating on augmented crews so as to make life comfortable and less stressful for everyone. On one or two occasions I have had the other Capt hanging over the back of my seat during preflight operations, (well meant I am sure) but only adding to more unnecessary stress etc at a very busy time. It is one thing if the extra crew can help out with various aspects on the flight deck before flight, but on some types (eg A380) this is not possible due to everything having to be done by the operating crew, together with the fact that the flight deck is normally full of engineers etc. I generally try keep out of everyones hair until the aircraft is virtually ready to go.
And the problem with the other Captain "Hanging around" is? He might spot an error you've made?
I'm more than happy to utilise everyone available, and make it clear they are to speak up if they see anything they aren't sure about.
I'm more than happy to utilise everyone available, and make it clear they are to speak up if they see anything they aren't sure about.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Wiz you want an extra guy on the jumpseat just to spot errors on every flight? If I've got augmenting guys I ask them to check the rest area and do the walkaround - and then stay out of the flightdeck until doors are closing.. Otherwise too many people on the 'deck
There are very specific SOPs for flightdeck prep and a 'helpful' extra can put a spanner in the workflow
If I'm the augmenting guy I stay away anyway 'til doors close....
There are very specific SOPs for flightdeck prep and a 'helpful' extra can put a spanner in the workflowIf I'm the augmenting guy I stay away anyway 'til doors close....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operating Captain should assign preflight duties to the augmentees. One can do the exterior walkaround; another can greet passengers, get coffee...
We operate augmented crews all the time. Usually the extras volunteer to do all that stuff before even being asked.
We operate augmented crews all the time. Usually the extras volunteer to do all that stuff before even being asked.
The heavy crew should ask for the operating captain's wishes.
If one of them is in the way then the operating captain could tactfully ask for a coffee or set some other small task.
I recollect, on takeoff, sitting in the RHS whilst my captain was eating up runway and negating the perf calculation as he tried to diagnose a minor engine problem before setting thrust.
I asked if he wanted to continue or abandon.
The heavy FO immediately said "Don't say 'abandon'."
After we were clean and climbing away I asked him what he meant. His answer was something along the lines of "If you say 'abandon' you'll have a lot of paperwork."
WTF! He had dangerously interfered in a dialogue between the operating crew.
OTOH, on another occasion we had a perceived fuel feed problem in the cruise. Unable to resolve it, the heavy crew were called from their movie and dinner to assist. The heavy FO solved the problem
If one of them is in the way then the operating captain could tactfully ask for a coffee or set some other small task.
I recollect, on takeoff, sitting in the RHS whilst my captain was eating up runway and negating the perf calculation as he tried to diagnose a minor engine problem before setting thrust.
I asked if he wanted to continue or abandon.
The heavy FO immediately said "Don't say 'abandon'."
After we were clean and climbing away I asked him what he meant. His answer was something along the lines of "If you say 'abandon' you'll have a lot of paperwork."
WTF! He had dangerously interfered in a dialogue between the operating crew.
OTOH, on another occasion we had a perceived fuel feed problem in the cruise. Unable to resolve it, the heavy crew were called from their movie and dinner to assist. The heavy FO solved the problem
I'd agree that a heavy crew is useful to get to do things outside the cockpit like external checks. I prefer having three people up front for takeoff rather than the full complement as I find a conversation taking place that I'm not part of rather distracting.
I also prefer to have the heavy Captain sit with the passengers as 1 Captain & 2 FOs is easier to manage and more natural than 2 Captains & 1 FO, IMHO.
On occasions, having four pilots working flat out has saved the day, like on a long haul bad weather diversion with a medical emergency piled on top that I had some years ago. If there hadn't been so much capacity available we'd have never made it back to destination within the max. allowable discretion.
I also prefer to have the heavy Captain sit with the passengers as 1 Captain & 2 FOs is easier to manage and more natural than 2 Captains & 1 FO, IMHO.
On occasions, having four pilots working flat out has saved the day, like on a long haul bad weather diversion with a medical emergency piled on top that I had some years ago. If there hadn't been so much capacity available we'd have never made it back to destination within the max. allowable discretion.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company policy is that at least 1 augmentee is in the jumpseat from push to TOC and from TOD to shutdown. He is a full member of the operating crew for the critical and work-intensive phases of flight. If there are 4 pilots, the 4th can stay in back...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar policy in Argentina as described by Intruder's above.
Extra crewmember performs walkaround. Participate in paperwork.
Taxi/takeoff and landing, extra pair of eyes for traffic. Monitor R/T.
Remain in cockpit until above 10,000 ft. Take turns in cruise.
xxx
And correct "operating pilots" if/when making mistakes.
Happy contrails
P.S.
For those many of you never making mistakes, tell extra pilot to shut-up.
Extra crewmember performs walkaround. Participate in paperwork.
Taxi/takeoff and landing, extra pair of eyes for traffic. Monitor R/T.
Remain in cockpit until above 10,000 ft. Take turns in cruise.
xxx
And correct "operating pilots" if/when making mistakes.
Happy contrails
P.S.
For those many of you never making mistakes, tell extra pilot to shut-up.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I'm generally against having any "heavy" pilot involved in normal cockpit operations in two-crew aircraft. Routines are designed for two pilots and quite often the intrusion of a third person can become distracting and sometimes even counter-productive.
Having a "heavy" do the walk-round is certainly OK and can help significantly with getting the show on the road, especially ex-base or after a full shut-down. However, three people on a flight deck designed to be operated by two can at times feel claustrophobic and interfere with the normal flow of events and responsibilities. There is also the view that, if you are used to having a "heavy" always doing some of your normal tasks, the basic two-crew sector will catch you out because the routine of your normal duties has become unfamiliar and un-practised.
Clearly, many situations like diversions, medical emergencies and other abnormals will often benefit from a third person "on task" but in general I believe two-crew aircraft are best operated by two crew. In any event, common-sense dictates that it is essential that the "operating" Captain should always brief on the level of involvement that he requires or expects from any extra crew member(s). Only in extreme situations, therefore, should there be any uninvited intrusion into the basic two-crew flight-deck operation.
JD
Having a "heavy" do the walk-round is certainly OK and can help significantly with getting the show on the road, especially ex-base or after a full shut-down. However, three people on a flight deck designed to be operated by two can at times feel claustrophobic and interfere with the normal flow of events and responsibilities. There is also the view that, if you are used to having a "heavy" always doing some of your normal tasks, the basic two-crew sector will catch you out because the routine of your normal duties has become unfamiliar and un-practised.
Clearly, many situations like diversions, medical emergencies and other abnormals will often benefit from a third person "on task" but in general I believe two-crew aircraft are best operated by two crew. In any event, common-sense dictates that it is essential that the "operating" Captain should always brief on the level of involvement that he requires or expects from any extra crew member(s). Only in extreme situations, therefore, should there be any uninvited intrusion into the basic two-crew flight-deck operation.
JD
Last edited by Jumbo Driver; 20th Feb 2009 at 09:34. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hola JD -
xxx
Although your points are basically contrary to the ones I described, we were talking about two different things. You talk augmented crew, obviously generally applicable to shorter range aircraft used on longer routes, I was talking about long range aircraft which are always crewed by 3 pilots, and take part of a well established departure and arrival procedure.
xxx
You see, we went from a fleet of 5 B747-200s (2 pilots + 1 F/E) which are now stored, to only 2 B747-400s, which are always crewed by 3 pilots of which a captain, a first officer (cruise captain qualified) and a second officer (cruise co-pilot qualified). That crew always works as a unit crew, we never operate the B747-400s with only 2 pilot crewmembers. Same remarks apply to our fleet of 5 A-340s.
xxx
Should we operate say a B737, MD80 or A320 with an augmented crew, a rather unusual situation, the additional pilot would, at worst, offer to do the walkaround and be an extra pair of eyes for departure and arrival...! And for that situation, I entirely agree with your opinion about the "extra body". Leave the guys play with their toy and tell him to sit on his hands...
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
Although your points are basically contrary to the ones I described, we were talking about two different things. You talk augmented crew, obviously generally applicable to shorter range aircraft used on longer routes, I was talking about long range aircraft which are always crewed by 3 pilots, and take part of a well established departure and arrival procedure.
xxx
You see, we went from a fleet of 5 B747-200s (2 pilots + 1 F/E) which are now stored, to only 2 B747-400s, which are always crewed by 3 pilots of which a captain, a first officer (cruise captain qualified) and a second officer (cruise co-pilot qualified). That crew always works as a unit crew, we never operate the B747-400s with only 2 pilot crewmembers. Same remarks apply to our fleet of 5 A-340s.
xxx
Should we operate say a B737, MD80 or A320 with an augmented crew, a rather unusual situation, the additional pilot would, at worst, offer to do the walkaround and be an extra pair of eyes for departure and arrival...! And for that situation, I entirely agree with your opinion about the "extra body". Leave the guys play with their toy and tell him to sit on his hands...
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
¡Hola! BelArgUSA
I was talking mainly about the 744, which I have operated with both augmented and heavy crews and where the extra crew member(s) has/have been carried only when the FDP requires, not as routine. Thus, on shorter longhaul routes (e.g. UK - East Coast USA), there would only be the basic two crew. Our 744 operation was designed around 2-crew. However, had we (like you) had at least 3-crew on the 744 at all times, it would have made good sense to incorporate the third crew member formally into the normal operation; we didn't, so it wasn't - hence my comments.
Before the 744, I flew the 747 Classic for many years. The three-crew complement (CPE) was, I think, by far the best combination - I much preferred it to the 2-crew 744. On the 742, augmented (4) crew worked well for such routes as UK-LAX but the heavy (5) crew and occasional double (6) crew could be cumbersome at times - even though they were needed to meet FDP requirements.
That said, I recall few difficulties with the 742 Long Range crewing. As I have said, I believe the 3-crew concept works so much better than 2-crew and so there was seldom any need to have more than the basic 3 (CPE) on the flight deck at any one time. About the only "heavy" participation would be that the extra F/E would do the walk-round.
So, all-in-all, that would be similar to what you are saying, I guess.
JD
I was talking mainly about the 744, which I have operated with both augmented and heavy crews and where the extra crew member(s) has/have been carried only when the FDP requires, not as routine. Thus, on shorter longhaul routes (e.g. UK - East Coast USA), there would only be the basic two crew. Our 744 operation was designed around 2-crew. However, had we (like you) had at least 3-crew on the 744 at all times, it would have made good sense to incorporate the third crew member formally into the normal operation; we didn't, so it wasn't - hence my comments.
Before the 744, I flew the 747 Classic for many years. The three-crew complement (CPE) was, I think, by far the best combination - I much preferred it to the 2-crew 744. On the 742, augmented (4) crew worked well for such routes as UK-LAX but the heavy (5) crew and occasional double (6) crew could be cumbersome at times - even though they were needed to meet FDP requirements.
That said, I recall few difficulties with the 742 Long Range crewing. As I have said, I believe the 3-crew concept works so much better than 2-crew and so there was seldom any need to have more than the basic 3 (CPE) on the flight deck at any one time. About the only "heavy" participation would be that the extra F/E would do the walk-round.
So, all-in-all, that would be similar to what you are saying, I guess.
JD
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/E -200 to F/O -400
JD -
xxx
The end of our -200 fleet was also the end of our F/Es... although until some 6 months prior to the -400 arrival, we had considered acquiring -300 types instead. We did not need that little range increase of the 400 and the passenger capacity is... same.
xxx
What happened was this, and I was one of the proponents. We had some 70 747 F/Es... of which some 25 held a PPL or a CPL (altough they never flew with the airline, only privately for fun) - They were offered to be trained to be qualified as Second Officers (cruise co-pilot) on the 747-400. Since all our sectors on 747-400 would be with 3 pilots, we just incorporated ex-F/Es, to become (in effect) "747-400s F/Es" when on the ground, and "F/O" when above 10,000 feet, taking their turn, flying in cruise.
xxx
Our 747-400 check-lists reflect 3 cockpit crewmembers, active in cockpit. The F/E, now called Second Officer, did walkaround, monitored fueling, and did most flight logs, mass & balance and flight papers as before in the 747-200. We still have some 15 of these ex-F/Es active on the 747-400.
xxx
Even though we had to train them to get a valid CPL with 747 rating, they all qualified without problem, For heaven's sake, as F/E, they knew 90% of the procedures applicable to pilots, R/T, enroute and approach maps... it was a definite plus to keep highly qualified crewmembers with us. After all, many were not of the age of retirement. And they now enjoy a window seat.
xxx
Heard other airlines did same as well - Cargolux, some F/E got trained as pilots in the mid-1990s.
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
The end of our -200 fleet was also the end of our F/Es... although until some 6 months prior to the -400 arrival, we had considered acquiring -300 types instead. We did not need that little range increase of the 400 and the passenger capacity is... same.
xxx
What happened was this, and I was one of the proponents. We had some 70 747 F/Es... of which some 25 held a PPL or a CPL (altough they never flew with the airline, only privately for fun) - They were offered to be trained to be qualified as Second Officers (cruise co-pilot) on the 747-400. Since all our sectors on 747-400 would be with 3 pilots, we just incorporated ex-F/Es, to become (in effect) "747-400s F/Es" when on the ground, and "F/O" when above 10,000 feet, taking their turn, flying in cruise.
xxx
Our 747-400 check-lists reflect 3 cockpit crewmembers, active in cockpit. The F/E, now called Second Officer, did walkaround, monitored fueling, and did most flight logs, mass & balance and flight papers as before in the 747-200. We still have some 15 of these ex-F/Es active on the 747-400.
xxx
Even though we had to train them to get a valid CPL with 747 rating, they all qualified without problem, For heaven's sake, as F/E, they knew 90% of the procedures applicable to pilots, R/T, enroute and approach maps... it was a definite plus to keep highly qualified crewmembers with us. After all, many were not of the age of retirement. And they now enjoy a window seat.
xxx
Heard other airlines did same as well - Cargolux, some F/E got trained as pilots in the mid-1990s.
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/E -200 to ..... redundancy
BelArgUSA
Your lot were obviously more enlightened than mine. The demise of our Classsic fleet unfortunately brought redundancy for most of the remaining F/Es, despite the vast experience, knowledge and skills that they had to offer. A very small number of F/Es had previously been offered full pilot courses but there was no tolerance of the idea of making the remainder even cruise-only co-pilots. The main stumbling block was the fact that the attitude of early management of the 744 fleet was significantly ex-shorthaul and their opinion of F/Es was dismissive to say the least. They had no respect for the value and experience of our F/Es and refused to accept the views of many in our established longhaul community.
They behaved as if they had something to prove and as if they didn't need to be helped in any way to fly the 744. The attitude was that they had been operating 2-crew aircraft since the year dot and, despite having no longhaul operating experience, certainly didn't want a Flight Engineer telling them what to do on a 744. After all, it was only another aircraft ...
So the early days of the 744 were marked more by ex-shorthaul narrow-bodied egos with something to prove than by established longhaul pilots with proper longhaul wide-bodied operating experience.
Different companies - different philosophies ... a great shame, really ...
JD
Your lot were obviously more enlightened than mine. The demise of our Classsic fleet unfortunately brought redundancy for most of the remaining F/Es, despite the vast experience, knowledge and skills that they had to offer. A very small number of F/Es had previously been offered full pilot courses but there was no tolerance of the idea of making the remainder even cruise-only co-pilots. The main stumbling block was the fact that the attitude of early management of the 744 fleet was significantly ex-shorthaul and their opinion of F/Es was dismissive to say the least. They had no respect for the value and experience of our F/Es and refused to accept the views of many in our established longhaul community.
They behaved as if they had something to prove and as if they didn't need to be helped in any way to fly the 744. The attitude was that they had been operating 2-crew aircraft since the year dot and, despite having no longhaul operating experience, certainly didn't want a Flight Engineer telling them what to do on a 744. After all, it was only another aircraft ...
So the early days of the 744 were marked more by ex-shorthaul narrow-bodied egos with something to prove than by established longhaul pilots with proper longhaul wide-bodied operating experience.
Different companies - different philosophies ... a great shame, really ...
JD
