What would you do if the captain __________?

[Boris Badenov]

Maybe, just maybe, if most pilots would do that, the government just might fix it. Just might take a few congress-critters getting delayed and complaining about it before FAA fixes these issues. I know FAA is working on trying to fix the NOTAM system, but IMO it needs a lot more than they are trying to do, and, of course, they have no influence on the rest of the world.

I guess I'd just observe that it's easy to stand on Principle when you're way up the seniority list at a "too big to fail" legacy (this is an assumption on my part). It's not that I disagree with what you say, but I think expecting the young and hungry (and deeply indebted) to throw themselves on the pyre of "professional ethics" is a little bit wishful. That said, I apologize for making nasty assumptions and intentionally being unpleasant...caught me at a bad moment, but it was uncalled for.

Inevitably, there's a line to be walked between getting the job done and discharging your duty and responsability as a professional aviator. I guess maybe my complaint is that a lot of people seem to confuse checking off the appropriate boxes and operating as a cog in a flow chart for being a thinking, breathing pilot capable of parallel processing and (God forgive me for deploying this term) "thinking outside the box". If we act like computers, we've only ourselves to blame when we're replaced by them.

 

[seagull]

It's not that I disagree with what you say, but I think expecting the young and hungry (and deeply indebted) to throw themselves on the pyre of "professional ethics" is a little bit wishful.

You stated the problem, which I understand. However, willful non-compliance is still at the issue, first with our supposed "captain" behavior, and second with their first officer not calling them on it. Both are examples of willful non-compliance. If all the captain's are doing those these things, then we have a systemic problem with the carrier. If only some, then we have "rogue" captains. Either way, the f/o should speak up, although it is a larger problem in the case of the former, and that much more difficult. Still, in those scenarios, the other consequence is DEATH, very probably. You would think that would be enough incentive, but maybe not.

What the F/O really needs is some sort of "safety net", that will protect them from the "he said, she said" and even the company, should it come to it. What the f/o needs is a copy of the CVR and FDR. A video would be even better. As I said in another thread, the only one that would be adversely effected by this would be the person not complying with the established procedures. Sure, it might prevent people from bad mouthing the company while in the airplane, so pilots would be in the same boat as office workers in that regard, in that they would have to save that talk for the bar or other off work hours.

Regardless, it is the only solution that I can think of to create an environment where the f/o is not so afraid to speak up. It still will be hard, as confrontation is hard, but at least they won't fear losing their jobs, etc. The company would be forced to act against the offending captain.

 

[derg]

It's everyone's favorite interview question; the WWYD.

What would you do if windshear is occuring and the captain decides to land anyway?

Got a procedure for that. When we've got the windshear warning, we're more or less bound to react except for a few stipulations. I need to dig out my FOM.

WWYD if there's a cell at the end of the runway and the captan decides to land?

This discussion should have occurred long before the approach to landing phase. During the approach brief "Looks like the sharp gradient is within X miles of the runway sir, we've got Y minutes of holding fuel, tower says it's stationary"

WWYD if the captain flies an unstabilized approach?

At what point? Below 500 AFE when he should be on-flightpath/on-airspeed or are we talking 15 miles out?

"Go around"

WWYD if someone told you they saw your captain in the bar 7 hours before the flight?

Is he drinking a beer, dropping by with the ice bucket because the ice machine is broken, more data needed.

WWYD if you're a new FO and the captain told you not to read the checklists or follow company procedures?

I'd probably confirm that I was directed not to follow standard company procedure and if I was forbidden to read checklists, I'd probably remove myself from the flight after clarifying what his intentions were.

A long long time ago, I had a situation where I was asked to do something far, FAR in conflict with the limitations of the aircraft in a non-emergency situation before engines had started.

The limitation for (whatever) is (X)

"Maintenance says it's ok, we're going to get the plane back to XXX"

We'll be landing X thousand pounds over max landing weight, if I'm wrong, I'll buy all the beer on the layover, but we should confirm with dispatch that we're getting good gouge from MX

"We're going."

I'm not, sorry man, but I'm gong to talk to crew scheduling and remove myself from the trip. You may be right, but I'm uncomfortable with the legality. Then I start repacking my flight kit.

Dispatch eventually calls and says that MX was giving us bad information and that it was not legal to dispatch the flight under those conditions under any circumstance.

 

[jynxyjoe]

You stated the problem, which I understand. However, willful non-compliance is still at the issue, first with our supposed "captain" behavior, and second with their first officer not calling them on it. Both are examples of willful non-compliance. If all the captain's are doing those these things, then we have a systemic problem with the carrier. If only some, then we have "rogue" captains. Either way, the f/o should speak up, although it is a larger problem in the case of the former, and that much more difficult. Still, in those scenarios, the other consequence is DEATH, very probably. You would think that would be enough incentive, but maybe not.

What the F/O really needs is some sort of "safety net", that will protect them from the "he said, she said" and even the company, should it come to it. What the f/o needs is a copy of the CVR and FDR. A video would be even better. As I said in another thread, the only one that would be adversely effected by this would be the person not complying with the established procedures. Sure, it might prevent people from bad mouthing the company while in the airplane, so pilots would be in the same boat as office workers in that regard, in that they would have to save that talk for the bar or other off work hours.

Regardless, it is the only solution that I can think of to create an environment where the f/o is not so afraid to speak up. It still will be hard, as confrontation is hard, but at least they won't fear losing their jobs, etc. The company would be forced to act against the offending captain.

God man, I love what you are saying but here's the problem (in my opinion only). Having CVR's to toss around turns into a full out investigation of "well he was pushing the mins" "well my FO wasn't calling the title of checklists or pointing to things as he said them, using positive x-fer of controls, blah blah blah". Then the company has little choice in the matter and both sides lose.

You talk to Pro Stands at your union, talk to other FO's, get everyone's opinion and experience with the guy as possible and come to some consensus, normally with the union making some hard decisions. Just recently we downgraded (punishment) a rogue captain out here doing some silly stuff and the union helped out the 5 or 10 FO's who were calling him out.

Every company has cultures which are fostered by procedures. Be advised I may not be using the word "cultures" right but I don't know the word for the pieces of the culture which add up to one culture. For instance it's not uncommon to not do the "below the line" on the starting engine check at my company and it's even less common for guys to call out "starting engine check complete". There's a long story there, but simply the callout is cumbersome because of the flows the Capt does anyway. That's a simple example, there are many other examples at any company.

The important thing to ask is, "is the captain respecting the procedures in a reasonable sense". There are guys that say you need to be 100% book, I'd lean more toward 98%-95%. That's part of the reason why books and procedures change so constantly at 121 carriers. You must fly the airplane safely and using your best judgement, and not be a robot.

If the guy is busting mins, why? If there is a history or a pattern there it may need to be addressed.

Edit: upon reading my post I realise I may have rambled a little too much when I should have said the safety net needs to be with pro stands and not use video, cvr or fdr.

 

[seagull]

God man, I love what you are saying but here's the problem (in my opinion only). Having CVR's to toss around turns into a full out investigation of "well he was pushing the mins" "well my FO wasn't calling the title of checklists or pointing to things as he said them, using positive x-fer of controls, blah blah blah". Then the company has little choice in the matter and both sides lose.

Actually, the way to do it would be to have it handled like an ASAP, but to eliminate the "he said, she said". It is not probable under that scenario that the reporting F/O would have anything to worry about. In my experience, the union usually has the same problem with certain individuals that the company does, so everyone is on the same page.

You talk to Pro Stands at your union, talk to other FO's, get everyone's opinion and experience with the guy as possible and come to some consensus, normally with the union making some hard decisions. Just recently we downgraded (punishment) a rogue captain out here doing some silly stuff and the union helped out the 5 or 10 FO's who were calling him out.

Pro stan might or might not do anything. It took "5 to 10" FO's to get anything done, over what time period? A lot of risk occurred before action was taken.

Every company has cultures which are fostered by procedures. Be advised I may not be using the word "cultures" right but I don't know the word for the pieces of the culture which add up to one culture. For instance it's not uncommon to not do the "below the line" on the starting engine check at my company and it's even less common for guys to call out "starting engine check complete". There's a long story there, but simply the callout is cumbersome because of the flows the Capt does anyway. That's a simple example, there are many other examples at any company.

Then change the procedure, or put in a request for the change. However, that sort of thing would be VERY unlikely to get someone fired in the present legal environment.

The important thing to ask is, "is the captain respecting the procedures in a reasonable sense". There are guys that say you need to be 100% book, I'd lean more toward 98%-95%. That's part of the reason why books and procedures change so constantly at 121 carriers. You must fly the airplane safely and using your best judgement, and not be a robot.

It should always be safe, legal, reliable, in that order. If the procedure is contrary to safety, then it needs to be changed. ASAP is the means. If people are doing something different to keep the system working, but it is not compromising safety, then, again, a change needs to be made to have the system match what is occurring. SMS is the tool to find and fix those kinds of issues.

If the guy is busting mins, why? If there is a history or a pattern there it may need to be addressed.

Obviously there is.

Edit: upon reading my post I realise I may have rambled a little too much when I should have said the safety net needs to be with pro stands and not use video, cvr or fdr.[/QUOTE]

Pro stands could be more effective with the use of cvr, fdr and video. Nothing here is a reason NOT to have those tools available.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Actually, the way to do it would be to have it handled like an ASAP, but to eliminate the "he said, she said". It is not probable under that scenario that the reporting F/O would have anything to worry about. In my experience, the union usually has the same problem with certain individuals that the company does, so everyone is on the same page.



Pro stan might or might not do anything. It took "5 to 10" FO's to get anything done, over what time period? A lot of risk occurred before action was taken.



Then change the procedure, or put in a request for the change. However, that sort of thing would be VERY unlikely to get someone fired in the present legal environment.



It should always be safe, legal, reliable, in that order. If the procedure is contrary to safety, then it needs to be changed. ASAP is the means. If people are doing something different to keep the system working, but it is not compromising safety, then, again, a change needs to be made to have the system match what is occurring. SMS is the tool to find and fix those kinds of issues.



Obviously there is.

Edit: upon reading my post I realise I may have rambled a little too much when I should have said the safety net needs to be with pro stands and not use video, cvr or fdr.

Lol. Well with all due respect my man, I just don't think 121 groups move at that pace. I've only experienced Colgan and Mesaba I can't speak for everyone.

Unfortunately the way I propose does take more time and I'm willing to admit that it does open the passengers and the company up to more "risk" as you put it earlier. I hope I'm using that the way you want it to be used. Nothing moves quickly in aviation and a little slower pace helps error on the side of the pilots, both sides, in my opinion.

As for your quesiton of "how long" for that pilot that was downgraded. Not very long. It got dealt with a little slowly, but it's in the interest of every other pilot here we don't go on witch hunts. There is enough of that by the company.

 

[ppragman]

...

It should always be safe, legal, reliable, in that order. If the procedure is contrary to safety, then it needs to be changed. ASAP is the means. If people are doing something different to keep the system working, but it is not compromising safety, then, again, a change needs to be made to have the system match what is occurring. SMS is the tool to find and fix those kinds of issues.
....

Procedures, and the FARs aren't always what's safest either. I do what is the safest procedure that I can come up with in the airplane at that time. I'm not going to do something that's unsafe even though its procedure. For example, procedure has us reducing power from max cont. to cruise-climb at 500'AGL, well, sometimes that's just not going to work because there's terrain in front of us that needs to be cleared. Same with retraction of the flaps, which is procedurally required at 200' according to the checklist, that doesn't work all the time either, especially if we're in the turn climbing out of a valley (like PAGY) sometimes we need to actually add flaps to keep from stalling. Do what's safe first, don't follow bad procedures or contextually inappropriate procedures into a coffin. I think that's what Boris is getting at here.

As for when legal issues that could be unsafe, sometimes it comes down to which law do you follow in an abnormal situation (such as getting caught out in bad weather)? Do you bust your cloud clearance rules, but maintain gliding distance to shore? Or do you go off shore to stay "legal" on one end but you'll have to put it in the drink if you lose a motor?

SAFE, should be the overriding premise, or as one fellow JC'er put it to me:

ASS, LICENSE, JOB, and in that order.

As for the other "what would you do if..." its all irrelevant, each type of operation handles these situations differently and the contextual lens through which we are viewing this discussion is so vastly different from one perspective to the other that this discussion in and of itself is based on flawed logic. When you're taxiing a 185 on floats on the Mississippi you may not have time to use the checklist before takeoff, lest you run aground, hit a boat, or hit a large piece of floating debris, or otherwise damage yourself or others, you have to have everything memorized. Similarly, the guy coming from the single pilot world will say, "well hell, the guy probably knows what he is doing because hey, I did a bunch of those things and knew what I was doing." Indeed the single pilot freight dawg might not even find it possible to use inflight checklists in the severe weather that they fly through. That doesn't make it wrong, or dangerous, its just different.

The problem is when a pilot transitions from one type of operation to the other. Its bad juju for the airline captain who transitions to a single pilot corporate world to think, "HEY, THIS IS HOW WE DO IT AT <BRAND X>, THUS ALL OTHER MODES OF OPERATION ARE DANGEROUS," despite the fact that the operation targeted by such slander probably has thousands of accident free hours that underscore the contextual relevancy of their procedures and levels of crew autonomy. Similarly, the freight dawg / bushrat / etc. transitioning to a more controlled and structured world should bear in mind that doing 200kts to the final approach fix, configuring all the way down the approach to the marker, then breaking out at mins is not how its done everywhere, nor how it should be done in slicker airplanes with more people on board.

Let us also bear in mind the fact that this whole charade of a career we call aviation is built on the hypocritical notion that for-profit companies are going to willingly comply with safety legislation that limits their already slim margins. Many many companies push their pilots and the limits. To suggest that many of us have grown up in such an environment and consider it normal, is not a stretch. So what one considers "normal," and "realistic," may not in anyway be congruent with the outlook and methodology of another.

 

[seagull]

Lol. Well with all due respect my man, I just don't think 121 groups move at that pace. I've only experienced Colgan and Mesaba I can't speak for everyone.

Unfortunately the way I propose does take more time and I'm willing to admit that it does open the passengers and the company up to more "risk" as you put it earlier. I hope I'm using that the way you want it to be used. Nothing moves quickly in aviation and a little slower pace helps error on the side of the pilots, both sides, in my opinion.

As for your quesiton of "how long" for that pilot that was downgraded. Not very long. It got dealt with a little slowly, but it's in the interest of every other pilot here we don't go on witch hunts. There is enough of that by the company.

Not sure what "pace" your referring to? When I used "ASAP" I was referring to the safety program, not "as soon as possible".

Nobody said that a "witch hunt" was required, only that the immediate solution is utilizing the recording devices we already have installed. Protects all parties.

 

[seagull]

ppgrag

If current policies and procedures do not conform to the real world, they need to be changed, otherwise you WILL get willful non-compliance, which leads to more problems as the line becomes more fuzzy. The solution is not just to ignore the policies, but to take an active roll in changing them. That is the beauty of an ASAP program, as FAA is also in on the loop.

 

[KLB]

This has turned into a very good discussion and I see both sides of the arguement.

I can see some instances where there may need to be a deviation from SOP, but I also often question how far is too far? I can see going down a slippery slope of starting with a very small divergence from SOP and the next thing you know, you're not operating the aircraft according to SOP at all.

One of the biggest deals with SOP's and checklist in a 2 crew enviroment is your operation of the aircraft where the other guy always knows what you're doing or supposed to be doing. I you diverge to far from the SOP, you'd actually make the crew operations less efficient.

 

[FLflyer]

What would you do if you walked in the bar and saw the Captain wearing a dress?

 

[Polar742]

What would you do if you walked in the bar and saw the Captain wearing a dress?

Is she hot?

Best answer I ever received when I was giving interviews:

"Buy her a drink." Said without hesitation.

That won a job with just that answer.

 

[dasleben]

Is she hot?

Best answer I ever received when I was giving interviews:

"Buy her a drink." Said without hesitation.

That won a job with just that answer.

You really asked the "captain in a dress" question to an interviewee? :insane:

 

[MikeD]

What would you do if you walked in the bar and saw the Captain wearing a dress?

Don't be the airline guy found hanging in his hotel room, self induced.