Am I wrong about all this? Please help!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I join this from a point of the intelligent layman?
I have 5000 hrs Helicopters, mostly SAR.
The question I come to is ,was the FMC a formal limit, or just advisory info?
If it is a limit, then your captain is not justified in exceeding it unless life is at risk, which I seriously doubt in a 747 at FL410 cruise.
If it is advisory, then you possibly need to find a way of asking your captains to explain themselves to you.
This is like defensive driving in a car - you are not at fault but you need to manage others so that they do not put you in an awkward position. Not being an airline pilot I bow to your brothers in the business at this point as to how.
I would say that you are absolutely right to raise the issue and talk it through and if your captain and company won't you have made a brave step raising it here.
I'll fly with you any day.
Sven
I have 5000 hrs Helicopters, mostly SAR.
The question I come to is ,was the FMC a formal limit, or just advisory info?
If it is a limit, then your captain is not justified in exceeding it unless life is at risk, which I seriously doubt in a 747 at FL410 cruise.
If it is advisory, then you possibly need to find a way of asking your captains to explain themselves to you.
This is like defensive driving in a car - you are not at fault but you need to manage others so that they do not put you in an awkward position. Not being an airline pilot I bow to your brothers in the business at this point as to how.
I would say that you are absolutely right to raise the issue and talk it through and if your captain and company won't you have made a brave step raising it here.
I'll fly with you any day.
Sven
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Captain Airclues,
I agree with your 'flying ahead of the aircraft'. As a matter of fact, I do keep note and check time from to time, about the things you mentioned. But I do not check the maximum altitude when terrain is not a factor, as I don't see any immediate need. But of course, that's not a bad idea. And also, whether anyone like it or not, accepting an altitude, has to be by the decision of the captain. And 'standby', just seems to be pretty standard to me, before the PIC nods or shakes his head.
The reason the airplane climbed up to 410, with A/T and A/P engaged under VNAV, was because the captain changed CG to 27%, after he found out 23% doesn't work.
If the CG is 22%-23% by experience(please don't get me wrong, I do look up to your experience and I trust that), should we change it to 27% just to receive higher FLs from FMC?
I'll have to think more about my CRM skills, although I always keep low profie whenever I can, not to think poorly of myself, but I think that helps in most communication enviroments.
Once again, thank you all
Tony
I agree with your 'flying ahead of the aircraft'. As a matter of fact, I do keep note and check time from to time, about the things you mentioned. But I do not check the maximum altitude when terrain is not a factor, as I don't see any immediate need. But of course, that's not a bad idea. And also, whether anyone like it or not, accepting an altitude, has to be by the decision of the captain. And 'standby', just seems to be pretty standard to me, before the PIC nods or shakes his head.
The reason the airplane climbed up to 410, with A/T and A/P engaged under VNAV, was because the captain changed CG to 27%, after he found out 23% doesn't work.
If the CG is 22%-23% by experience(please don't get me wrong, I do look up to your experience and I trust that), should we change it to 27% just to receive higher FLs from FMC?
I'll have to think more about my CRM skills, although I always keep low profie whenever I can, not to think poorly of myself, but I think that helps in most communication enviroments.
Once again, thank you all
Tony
Tony.
Don't forget CRM stands for Cockpit Resource Management or infact these day it's Crew Resource Management because it now also includes the cabin crew.
Crew Resource Management is not just about conflict resolution, it is also about the decisions that need to be made on each and every flight to get the job done efficiently and safely, and the processes employed to make those decisions.
Part of that decision making process is utilising all the resources available. In your example those resources include the captain's wealth of knowledge and experience, your wealth of knowledge and experience, the performance figures in the QRH, the performance figures in the FMC, and standard company procedures. These resources supply the information required to make an informed and safe decision. The more resources called upon to make a decision, the more informed the decision will be.
Of course you have to consider the amount of time available too. Sometimes you simply don't have time to consider all the options and utilise all the resources as you would like, in which case experience tends to be relied upon more. But in your example, there was no such time pressure as far as I could see.
Your complaint seems to me to be that the captain didn't utilise all the resources available to him when quickly deciding to climb to F410.
This certainly does involve the concepts of CRM.
I hope this makes sense. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Don't forget CRM stands for Cockpit Resource Management or infact these day it's Crew Resource Management because it now also includes the cabin crew.
Crew Resource Management is not just about conflict resolution, it is also about the decisions that need to be made on each and every flight to get the job done efficiently and safely, and the processes employed to make those decisions.
Part of that decision making process is utilising all the resources available. In your example those resources include the captain's wealth of knowledge and experience, your wealth of knowledge and experience, the performance figures in the QRH, the performance figures in the FMC, and standard company procedures. These resources supply the information required to make an informed and safe decision. The more resources called upon to make a decision, the more informed the decision will be.
Of course you have to consider the amount of time available too. Sometimes you simply don't have time to consider all the options and utilise all the resources as you would like, in which case experience tends to be relied upon more. But in your example, there was no such time pressure as far as I could see.
Your complaint seems to me to be that the captain didn't utilise all the resources available to him when quickly deciding to climb to F410.
This certainly does involve the concepts of CRM.
I hope this makes sense. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Moving along
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
Both of you got a low mark for CRM, but in a very different way. On the return flight, when you challenged him again about figuring out Max Alt you could accept, I would not have liked it either. You should have pretended nothing happened the day before, totally ignored him until he had finished with the QRH.
And for him to reply "I'm the captain, I make the decision, YOU'LL HAVE TO TRUST ME' is very weak on his behalf. Meaning: Rule #1, I am the captain, I am always right, rule #2 if in doubt go back to rule #1. You sure know better then him for picking a good cruising altitude and probably more.
Why going to FL410 when 370 was available is beyond comprehension. He had the chance to end the flight at altitude very close to Optimum Alt and he picked the worst one actually. Even FL310 would have giving pretty much the same fuel flow than FL410 if flown at LRC, but a slightly lower TAS, I admit. What increases fuel burn as well when flying near Max Alt and it's not perfectly smooth, is that A/T are really working hard, moving back and forth trying to maintain the darn speed and when these throttles are moving all the time, we all know it means so much for fuel economy.
Tony, if that captain has the habit of accepting or requesting altitudes close to Max Alt, he's costing tons of fuel ($$$) to your airline and he stands to be corrected. I noticed that this is a modern times' disease with some pilots to thing that the higher the better. Where they got that from, not from you nor me I guess. Before getting ponded here, sometimes it is justified, self explanatory I think.
The guy who answered your report was either forced to write what he wrote, or he should go back to his books as well. Your airline has put in their SOP how to pick the right altitude, and avoid what happened, by staying within 2000 feet of the Opt Alt for optimum fuel burn and that guy had no reason whatsoever to act otherwise and your are being answered something like: "the captain is at no fault, correct the First Officer". With what happened between the time you reached FL410 and TOD proved you were right.
Next time I suggest you think twice before sending that kind of reports to Ops. Ask an experience guy whom you trust before pressing "send message". Sleep over it a couple of nights and when well rested, with most of the emotions behind you, and some advice, then go ahead.
Good luck and keep up the good work. Some finesse maybe on how you express your concerns to your boss could help, I think.
Ready for the flak, guys.
Cheers!!!
Both of you got a low mark for CRM, but in a very different way. On the return flight, when you challenged him again about figuring out Max Alt you could accept, I would not have liked it either. You should have pretended nothing happened the day before, totally ignored him until he had finished with the QRH.
And for him to reply "I'm the captain, I make the decision, YOU'LL HAVE TO TRUST ME' is very weak on his behalf. Meaning: Rule #1, I am the captain, I am always right, rule #2 if in doubt go back to rule #1. You sure know better then him for picking a good cruising altitude and probably more.
Why going to FL410 when 370 was available is beyond comprehension. He had the chance to end the flight at altitude very close to Optimum Alt and he picked the worst one actually. Even FL310 would have giving pretty much the same fuel flow than FL410 if flown at LRC, but a slightly lower TAS, I admit. What increases fuel burn as well when flying near Max Alt and it's not perfectly smooth, is that A/T are really working hard, moving back and forth trying to maintain the darn speed and when these throttles are moving all the time, we all know it means so much for fuel economy.
Tony, if that captain has the habit of accepting or requesting altitudes close to Max Alt, he's costing tons of fuel ($$$) to your airline and he stands to be corrected. I noticed that this is a modern times' disease with some pilots to thing that the higher the better. Where they got that from, not from you nor me I guess. Before getting ponded here, sometimes it is justified, self explanatory I think.
The guy who answered your report was either forced to write what he wrote, or he should go back to his books as well. Your airline has put in their SOP how to pick the right altitude, and avoid what happened, by staying within 2000 feet of the Opt Alt for optimum fuel burn and that guy had no reason whatsoever to act otherwise and your are being answered something like: "the captain is at no fault, correct the First Officer". With what happened between the time you reached FL410 and TOD proved you were right.
Next time I suggest you think twice before sending that kind of reports to Ops. Ask an experience guy whom you trust before pressing "send message". Sleep over it a couple of nights and when well rested, with most of the emotions behind you, and some advice, then go ahead.
Good luck and keep up the good work. Some finesse maybe on how you express your concerns to your boss could help, I think.
Ready for the flak, guys.
Cheers!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony I back you 100%
Sticking a large jet in 'coffin corner' exposes it to a jet upset situation if you encounter any turbulence, ie: A loss of control - not pretty.
To you naysayers; I don't care what your view of the accuracy, conservatism or whatever of the FMC is, it should only be ignored on firm grounds, IE; the AFM which, from my read of the first post was not done on the A-B leg. Your airline ought have guide-lines in its SOPs on that. Also; my philosophy on the FD is only proceed if everyone is in agreement otherwise think of something else. An old captain in my airline only stops putting on fuel when everyone around him is smiling, including the dispatcher!! May be not the accountants, but who cares?
The C of G on page 1 is put there by the airline and is a statement of ITS cruise configuration policy. I cannot believe an airline management condones tinkering with it in order to change the flight envelope, unless of course they do not understand the system.
Tony, I don't know how old you are or how far from your own command you are but... Emirates are recruiting right now.
Best of luck, youre doing a good job, I hope your union gets in behind. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Sticking a large jet in 'coffin corner' exposes it to a jet upset situation if you encounter any turbulence, ie: A loss of control - not pretty.
To you naysayers; I don't care what your view of the accuracy, conservatism or whatever of the FMC is, it should only be ignored on firm grounds, IE; the AFM which, from my read of the first post was not done on the A-B leg. Your airline ought have guide-lines in its SOPs on that. Also; my philosophy on the FD is only proceed if everyone is in agreement otherwise think of something else. An old captain in my airline only stops putting on fuel when everyone around him is smiling, including the dispatcher!! May be not the accountants, but who cares?
The C of G on page 1 is put there by the airline and is a statement of ITS cruise configuration policy. I cannot believe an airline management condones tinkering with it in order to change the flight envelope, unless of course they do not understand the system.
Tony, I don't know how old you are or how far from your own command you are but... Emirates are recruiting right now.
Best of luck, youre doing a good job, I hope your union gets in behind. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that I am correct in saying that some Far Eastern airlines fly around with 1.2 G buffet margins in the FMC.Reduced margins along with a TCAS RA to "CLIMB" could be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony first of all I'd like to commend you for being frank and open minded in posting your problem on this forum.
I agree with various people who said that why put a large jet in the coffin corner when FL370 was available. That definitely is wrong decision making. I also agree that both of you scored very low on basic CRM issues.
Coming to your point of how this Captain came up with his decision I wish to say the following. Many Captains who have accumulated substancial experience in one type of aircraft have the ability based on previous experience to know the ability of their aircraft at any time. Sounds weird but believe me it is very possible and it does not require genious. First of all the FMC is a guideline, the QRH is the limiting factor. Now how did this chap know, simple maybe 5 minutes ago while looking through the FMC he noticed the MAX as being lets say 409. I agree that when questioned by you as to how he came to his decision he did not elaborate but you must admit that your attitude did not encourage discussion either.
All in all it's good to question things that make you unhappy or un-easy, however I do not think that this was a reportable event, I believe you could have discussed it at the hotel over a few beers.
By the way it sounded from your description that this Captains attitude was known to you, had you had any problem with him in the past?
I agree with various people who said that why put a large jet in the coffin corner when FL370 was available. That definitely is wrong decision making. I also agree that both of you scored very low on basic CRM issues.
Coming to your point of how this Captain came up with his decision I wish to say the following. Many Captains who have accumulated substancial experience in one type of aircraft have the ability based on previous experience to know the ability of their aircraft at any time. Sounds weird but believe me it is very possible and it does not require genious. First of all the FMC is a guideline, the QRH is the limiting factor. Now how did this chap know, simple maybe 5 minutes ago while looking through the FMC he noticed the MAX as being lets say 409. I agree that when questioned by you as to how he came to his decision he did not elaborate but you must admit that your attitude did not encourage discussion either.
All in all it's good to question things that make you unhappy or un-easy, however I do not think that this was a reportable event, I believe you could have discussed it at the hotel over a few beers.
By the way it sounded from your description that this Captains attitude was known to you, had you had any problem with him in the past?
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree with Ready and CaptA320 that climbing to FL410 wasn't the best option when FL370 was available. I also hadn't realised that the captain had changed the CG to 27% so as to achieve tha climb. From your first post it sounded like the MAX ALT FL409 was at the default setting, which would then have given approximately FL417 as the MAX ALT with a CG of 23%. However, in the light of this latest revelation, the captain was definately at fault. No amount of experience allows you to fiddle the figures.
I still think that this could have been resolved by talking to each other (preferably over a beer). We never stop learning in this business, and perhaps the captain might have learned something about the way that he treated you.
I congratulate you on posting this on PPRuNe. We all learn from each other, and PPRuNe has allowed the lessons to be learned by a wider audience.
I'll fly with you any day Tony.
Airclues
I still think that this could have been resolved by talking to each other (preferably over a beer). We never stop learning in this business, and perhaps the captain might have learned something about the way that he treated you.
I congratulate you on posting this on PPRuNe. We all learn from each other, and PPRuNe has allowed the lessons to be learned by a wider audience.
I'll fly with you any day Tony.
Airclues
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the controller asked them if they could accept FL410 then it is my guess that FL370 may have been available short term but due conflicting traffic crossing or slower traffic ahead would have become unavailable. Rather than hand over a potential conflicting situation to the next sector, by getting the following a/c up to FL410 immediately it made for a smooth transfer?
Tony, I worked in SE Asia for over ten years and am aware of the culture within, if you are going to file reports be sure and have a full debrief with the Capt. concerned first, that way you will avoid writing most reports! Your report will land on the desks of pilots who have themselves transgressed at some time, sad but true, if it is considered minor they will support the Captain against a relatively inexperienced F/O, also sad but true.
Suggest you put this one behind you, the Capt. could have handled it a lot differently, but do speak up in future, you have to. Be sure to talk any problems of this nature out to exhaustion before you get your pen and paper out. Just my thoughts, best of luck. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: G.Khan ]</p>
Tony, I worked in SE Asia for over ten years and am aware of the culture within, if you are going to file reports be sure and have a full debrief with the Capt. concerned first, that way you will avoid writing most reports! Your report will land on the desks of pilots who have themselves transgressed at some time, sad but true, if it is considered minor they will support the Captain against a relatively inexperienced F/O, also sad but true.
Suggest you put this one behind you, the Capt. could have handled it a lot differently, but do speak up in future, you have to. Be sure to talk any problems of this nature out to exhaustion before you get your pen and paper out. Just my thoughts, best of luck. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: G.Khan ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-flying, vertigo suffering wrinklie. I hope you 'll take this recomendation in the spirit it was intended.....
Go to the Tech/Safety room on this site ( click on Tech/Safety on left handside of screen) and have a read of Korean Air-Delta Audit Report.
Lottsa CRM issues examined there as well as (briefly)your "coffin corner" situation.
Just food for thought.
Good luck and don't ignore the "couple of pints" solution which was suggested earlier .
Be good. be safe ......be happy <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Go to the Tech/Safety room on this site ( click on Tech/Safety on left handside of screen) and have a read of Korean Air-Delta Audit Report.
Lottsa CRM issues examined there as well as (briefly)your "coffin corner" situation.
Just food for thought.
Good luck and don't ignore the "couple of pints" solution which was suggested earlier .
Be good. be safe ......be happy <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that a qualified crewmember was unhappy, for whatever reason, with the situation, given this, the prudent decision byt the capt, would have been to decline the level, unless by doing so the flight was placed in further jeopardy. The burden then would be placed on the airline taining dept to "enlighten" the f.o. as to his error, or to do the same for the capt...a major crm problem here....
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup..........I only deal in two dimensional promlems as a sailing guy..at so much slower speeds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........but I can't duck the fact that under international law I am the "Master under God " So are airline Captains !!!!!!!!!. as I understand it.
Personaaly I prefer SNAFU's at 8 knots rather than 180 knots............but I still try to practice CRM hoever unsuccessfuuly !!!!!!!!!!
Personaaly I prefer SNAFU's at 8 knots rather than 180 knots............but I still try to practice CRM hoever unsuccessfuuly !!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You sound like a trouble-maker to me Tony...better to have a "talk" with the Captain before going into print....if I was the Chief Pilot...you would be called on the carpet for not doing so....grow UP!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL180 when usable.
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think neither the captain nor you were able to achieve efficient communication. He was wrong the way he instructed you to accept 410. You were wrong with all the subsequent questioning to his decision making and I think I would not have filed that report like that. I would have been more careful, but that´s just me.. .I think it´s a good thing you bring this up...it´s a good CRM situation we can all learn from.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Moving along
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A. .Were you Tony's captain to come up wih something like that??? Ole cow!!!. . . .Tony is just a keen guy who obviously knows his airplane better than the guy he was flying with.
The reason why he should not have gone ahead with his report is for one, because being an FO it's a no-win situation. There are other reasons, and it has been discussed thoroughly in other postings. BTW, he already admitted that his CRM was as good (or as bad) as the other guy, so.... . . .That captain should be in Chief Pilot's office and not him. Definately some theories on flying would be appropriate. If not, at least they should make sure he knows what to do when stick shaker is activated. Man, he entered false information into the FMS to prove he was right, and we all know how hectic it got when they reached FL410, plus he didn't have the decency to admit he screwed up royally and ask for a lower level. At one point I thought I was reading the first part of an incident (or accident) report. And you think Tony should get the call down. Get lost. Tony, I think, has learned what there is to be learned from what happened, and will come out a better person and a better pilot from it. The other guy? He still think he was right because HE'S THE CAPTAIN. Thank God, we're not all like him, and you by the same token.
CRM part can be discussed in a bar with the two parties involved but the captain needs quite a bit more that, and it's not two pints nor ten pints that will do unless it comes from another B747 Captain, because they all know better than all the First Officers instantly when they get to that left seat position. Right? That attitude has killed people before and it looks like we are not out of the woods yet.
Flying with Tony? Any day any time.. .411A ???
The reason why he should not have gone ahead with his report is for one, because being an FO it's a no-win situation. There are other reasons, and it has been discussed thoroughly in other postings. BTW, he already admitted that his CRM was as good (or as bad) as the other guy, so.... . . .That captain should be in Chief Pilot's office and not him. Definately some theories on flying would be appropriate. If not, at least they should make sure he knows what to do when stick shaker is activated. Man, he entered false information into the FMS to prove he was right, and we all know how hectic it got when they reached FL410, plus he didn't have the decency to admit he screwed up royally and ask for a lower level. At one point I thought I was reading the first part of an incident (or accident) report. And you think Tony should get the call down. Get lost. Tony, I think, has learned what there is to be learned from what happened, and will come out a better person and a better pilot from it. The other guy? He still think he was right because HE'S THE CAPTAIN. Thank God, we're not all like him, and you by the same token.
CRM part can be discussed in a bar with the two parties involved but the captain needs quite a bit more that, and it's not two pints nor ten pints that will do unless it comes from another B747 Captain, because they all know better than all the First Officers instantly when they get to that left seat position. Right? That attitude has killed people before and it looks like we are not out of the woods yet.
Flying with Tony? Any day any time.. .411A ???
It's getting late and I haven't read all this thread in great detail but I certainly get the gist of it and have got that feeling that I have also been there before - got the T-shirt, seen the film etc! Tony you have all my sympathies.
Not going to comment on the technical aspects but I thought we could just look at it from another angle.
Try reading John Adair's books, one I recall is called "The Skills of Leadership" where he talks about action-centred leadership. There are three "needs", 1. the task need, 2. group needs and 3, individual needs.
I remember a well respected human factors expert on my very first CRM type course stating that the biggest mistake we make in the western world is to be too "task" oriented. If we concentrated more on the individual and group needs we would be able to get the task done much more successfully.
Tony, I have no criticism of your actions - we all know that being a good FO takes real skill. However my suggestion is to get away from the "task" a little bit and get to know this guy as an individual. This may not be as easy as it sounds but it's much more difficult to fall out with someone who has become a friend. Maybe there is something else going on in his life which is presenting him with challenges! Try and find something in common outside of aviation - even, as has been suggested, it 's having a couple of pints in the hotel bar.
If you want to be better at getting "rapport" then I suggest you take a look at the techniques of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) called mirroring and matching. Any good book shop has books on NLP and I would certainly recommend those written by Tony Robbins as a starter.
Finally, dare I say it but when I started flying for BOAC in 1970 we had many more colourful characters to fly with and this was before any CRM. However, those captains certainly knew the job inside out even if they were difficult to fly with. I made it a personal rule that I would always fly with whoever I was rostered to fly with because I would always learn something new even if it was the wrong way to run a flight deck! I often found that the individuals who were more difficult to fly with taught me the most about crew cooperation. A bit like a good marriage really - there has to be a bit of give and take although in the final event the commander carries the can.
The fact that you have raised these issues show that you have a professional approach to the job. Remember though that you always have a choice as to how you respond in a given situation and that you are looking for a win/win situation on the flight deck.
Not going to comment on the technical aspects but I thought we could just look at it from another angle.
Try reading John Adair's books, one I recall is called "The Skills of Leadership" where he talks about action-centred leadership. There are three "needs", 1. the task need, 2. group needs and 3, individual needs.
I remember a well respected human factors expert on my very first CRM type course stating that the biggest mistake we make in the western world is to be too "task" oriented. If we concentrated more on the individual and group needs we would be able to get the task done much more successfully.
Tony, I have no criticism of your actions - we all know that being a good FO takes real skill. However my suggestion is to get away from the "task" a little bit and get to know this guy as an individual. This may not be as easy as it sounds but it's much more difficult to fall out with someone who has become a friend. Maybe there is something else going on in his life which is presenting him with challenges! Try and find something in common outside of aviation - even, as has been suggested, it 's having a couple of pints in the hotel bar.
If you want to be better at getting "rapport" then I suggest you take a look at the techniques of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) called mirroring and matching. Any good book shop has books on NLP and I would certainly recommend those written by Tony Robbins as a starter.
Finally, dare I say it but when I started flying for BOAC in 1970 we had many more colourful characters to fly with and this was before any CRM. However, those captains certainly knew the job inside out even if they were difficult to fly with. I made it a personal rule that I would always fly with whoever I was rostered to fly with because I would always learn something new even if it was the wrong way to run a flight deck! I often found that the individuals who were more difficult to fly with taught me the most about crew cooperation. A bit like a good marriage really - there has to be a bit of give and take although in the final event the commander carries the can.
The fact that you have raised these issues show that you have a professional approach to the job. Remember though that you always have a choice as to how you respond in a given situation and that you are looking for a win/win situation on the flight deck.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sydney,NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me we have heard tony's version.. .A report was filed and was found wanting.. . The captain told Tony he was wrong, management told Tony he was wrong. . . Maybe Tony should let go.. . Contrary to some myths expounded here, this was not a coffin corner experience.. . I haven't been on the -400 for some time, however by memory, there are many ways to increase max alt. Changeing the cost index changes it. In fact many operators operate at LRC. Increasing the speed, increases the pad on min speed, thus increaseing max alt.. . Sure CRM comes into it. ON both sides. Tony sounds like he doesn't like authority. . . Putting in a report on someone in this way does not help CRM. This was not a dangerous situation (on the evidence submitted).. . I would suggest a bit more diplomacy from Tony may have had a much better result.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: KLAX
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
Like they always say - imagine yourself at the enquiry if something had have happened. Say, unexpected turbulence or a climb TCAS RA resulting in a stall. No doubt a recovery would have taken at least several thousand feet. May have resulted in an unusual attitude.
Had something happened, at best you would find yourself sitting in the chief pilot's office having "tea and bikkies" explaining why you, as a crew, chose 410 instead of 370, especially when 370 was available. Even at the lightest weights 370 is not that far from optimum.
I cannot imagine that many of the reasons being "bandied" around this post <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> for proceeding up to 410 would have cut the mustard had something happened. Here are some of the pearlers:
"All this over 100ft" ; . ."seems like he [captain] knew what he was doing"; . ."That FMC , its just a computer and a very crude one at that. It works out lets say max cruise height for example, from the input data it gets from a very limited system environment. Learn to distrust computers and learn procedures from each captain that you fly with" ;. ."That FMC is an old design with dumb logic";. ."I see a lot of fuss made over this 100'" ;
<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I have no problem with verifying what the FMC is saying, but surely this should err on the conservative side not the other.
We are talking about a large, jet transport aircraft carrying 400 people. There is no place in the pointy end for needless risk, particularly when there is virtually no potential gain.
Tony, can you remember the a/c weight at the time? Was there any reason not to take 370? Also, engine type? Winds (big ask to remember, I know)?
Like they always say - imagine yourself at the enquiry if something had have happened. Say, unexpected turbulence or a climb TCAS RA resulting in a stall. No doubt a recovery would have taken at least several thousand feet. May have resulted in an unusual attitude.
Had something happened, at best you would find yourself sitting in the chief pilot's office having "tea and bikkies" explaining why you, as a crew, chose 410 instead of 370, especially when 370 was available. Even at the lightest weights 370 is not that far from optimum.
I cannot imagine that many of the reasons being "bandied" around this post <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> for proceeding up to 410 would have cut the mustard had something happened. Here are some of the pearlers:
"All this over 100ft" ; . ."seems like he [captain] knew what he was doing"; . ."That FMC , its just a computer and a very crude one at that. It works out lets say max cruise height for example, from the input data it gets from a very limited system environment. Learn to distrust computers and learn procedures from each captain that you fly with" ;. ."That FMC is an old design with dumb logic";. ."I see a lot of fuss made over this 100'" ;
<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I have no problem with verifying what the FMC is saying, but surely this should err on the conservative side not the other.
We are talking about a large, jet transport aircraft carrying 400 people. There is no place in the pointy end for needless risk, particularly when there is virtually no potential gain.
Tony, can you remember the a/c weight at the time? Was there any reason not to take 370? Also, engine type? Winds (big ask to remember, I know)?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Tony....put your money where your mouth is....out with the facts....no BS.. .Weight at the time, temperature, winds...so all can decide. Oh, and by the way, nothing wrong with 1.25G for a short time especially if the flight is smooth, and forcast to remain so. . .I have had F/E's object to 1.3G...they thought 1.5 was the least that should be accepted...clearly misinformed. Some of these guys could NOT even read the buffet onset/boundry chart.. .IF you go into print to management, be SURE to have the facts straight. Chief Pilots are ALWAYS inclined to believe the Commander...and it will always remain so, whether the younger guys like it or not.. .And many won't.