Who would you prefer to fly with?

[Okie_Pilot]

Please remember your non-standard maybe someone elses SOP.

I like that.

I don't fly big shiny jets or anything that really calls for extensive use of checklists, but I'd go with guy #1. He'll keep it interesting, maybe I can learn something from him I haven't seen somebody else do. If he's doing his own thing by now, I'm sure he can fly the plane respectfully.

I believe #2 would be more of a safety concern for me. He's worried about weather and things that are of no concern at the moment, these are only taking focus and awareness away from the current situation.

Then again, I just fly little airplanes really close to the ground and not complex airframes at 30k feet.

 

[mshunter]

Our procedure for that scenario is that you get on the ground ASAP, if you have time to run the checklist you do.

Bottom line, though, is that is an emergency, so you are supposed to, and should be trained to, do what is necessary to get on the ground. The person who does not follow SOPs is actually a lot more at risk in this scenario. That might seem counter intuitive, but it really isn't, and years of accident analysis support that.

You completely missed the point. I'm not saying you're wrong, you just missed the point.

 

[ZWflyer]

The biggest problem that I see with the #2 type guys is that they can be so unbelievably paranoid about things that it becomes a major distraction. In fact, much more so to me personally than keeping my eye on a guy that doesn't do things standard, but at least does them consistently. A good example was given earlier in a reply about missing a flap retraction limitation due to being distracted.

 

[Roger, Roger]

What if company SOPs conflict with manufacturer recommended procedure? That was the case in several instances in the DA42s I taught in. I typically followed the manufacturer procedures. In little planes part 91 ops I'd say I'd rather go with number 1. 121 though would definitely have to be #2.

 

[seagull]

You completely missed the point. I'm not saying you're wrong, you just missed the point.

I believe your point was that the #2 guy would want to follow procedures even if on fire. However, if those procedures were to get on the ground ASAP and just accomplish what you can, would the #2 guy not do that?

Adding more to the situation, in the event of a fire, history has shown that you want to start your divert at the first smell of smoke, not wait for confirmation. Mr. Paranoid might be more likely to do that, and if properly trained, would also ignore other rules (like 250kts at 10k). No way to know that guy #1 would do.

 

[dasleben]

I think there's some misconceptions in this thread about 121 (and certain types of 135) flying. I keep getting the impression that a lot of the guys who haven't done it think we're all robots. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 121 initial training program I just completed was designed to show you situations that require you to think "outside" the QRH. They roughed us up pretty good from time to time just to make sure they weren't creating button-pushing robots. I liked that. Case in point: As you touch down, you get an engine fire warning right at the same time "ATC" tells you the entire right side of the aircraft is engulfed in flames. Are you going to sit there and run through the checklist line by line before you command an evacuation, or are you going to get the people off the boat before nobody can escape?

How about a cargo fire warning on approach? There's no memory item for that, but are you going to linger around in a hold doing a checklist? No, you're going to reach down, discharge both bottles into the compartment, and land.

121 flying is extremely safe, and it is so for a very good reason. Adherence to SOP is the norm, with deviations during an emergency using the best judgment of the crew.

 

[mshunter]

I believe your point was that the #2 guy would want to follow procedures even if on fire. However, if those procedures were to get on the ground ASAP and just accomplish what you can, would the #2 guy not do that?

Adding more to the situation, in the event of a fire, history has shown that you want to start your divert at the first smell of smoke, not wait for confirmation. Mr. Paranoid might be more likely to do that, and if properly trained, would also ignore other rules (like 250kts at 10k). No way to know that guy #1 would do.

We are not talking about a company poster boy, because thats what it seems you are describing, and I completely agree with you. We are talking about this, or at least I am, and it seems so was the OP.

Paranoid man may have frozen up in this situation which, in an airplane as complex as an RJ or bizz jet would leave me to handle the emergency on my own and smack the crud out of them when we were back on the ground and safe. Thats not something I ever look forward to having to do.

 

[seagull]

Going back and reading the third post, I'm not sure that either of us are talking about the person being described. From the initial description it sounds like NEITHER are standard, just one is jumpy and non-standard. If THAT is the case, then it is a tougher call. Remember, also, this is not about riding in the back, this is about flying WITH you, meaning you have a vote and can influence things. In my experience, paranoid man is the easier one to get to do what needs to be done, as they are grasping at things, while #1 has set ideas on how things should be done (even though he's wrong).

We are not talking about a company poster boy, because thats what it seems you are describing, and I completely agree with you. We are talking about this, or at least I am, and it seems so was the OP.

 

[jtrain609]

Just an observation here.

Say you have a situation of smoke/fire in the cockpit. You run your memory items and then take the time to pull out the checklist, start running the procedures and double checking all the while the flames are licking up against your leg. You never make it to the ground because the smoke and flames overcome you.

Or, you completely throw the checklists out the window, push over for an emergency decent, turn everything off, find a field and just put it down. You get out, pull out your cell phone and tell your boss that his plane is in a field burning, but you and the guy in the other seat are o.k., or maybe have minor burns and some smoke inhalation.

That IS the book at many companies. Smoke in the cockpit/cabin fire/whatever those memory items are, then emergency descent into whatever you can to get the plane down safely.

I understand that this doesn't necessarily relate to the OP directly, but it does indirectly. My point is, the guy that is paranoid may just react the way described in the first scenario. I have had smoke in the cockpit before. I didn't pull out a checklist. I turned of everything, closed up all the vents and turned the airplane around ASAP (I had just departed). I landed, and got out of the airplane. Everyone was fine, and I lived to fly another day. I also was completely non-standard with what I had done. I was more concerned with preservation of life than adhering to SOP's or checklists. Why, because SOP's and checklists be damned if I am in serious danger. I didn't know if it was going to get worse, or what had caused it. And I didn't really care either. All I knew is I had a problem that could get serious REAL quick. I knew there was an airport less than 3 minutes behind me, with a riverbed for me to put down in if I had to right under me. I didn't declare an emergency because I didn't have time to, nor was I in contact with anyone that I could have (I was at a non-towered field). So, #1 was getting back on the ground and getting out.

Paranoid man may have frozen up in this situation which, in an airplane as complex as an RJ or bizz jet would leave me to handle the emergency on my own and smack the crud out of them when we were back on the ground and safe. Thats not something I ever look forward to having to do.

Again, at many companies, what you are describing are memory items followed by checklist items. Getting on the ground ASAP is THE NUMBER ONE GOAL at every company I am familiar with.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Yep, I'd go with #2 every day; seagull put it better than I could. That type of captain is annoying to fly with, but at least I know what he's going to do next.

Yup, I aint here to make friends, I'm here to get somewhere safely. If I can do both, fan friggin tastic, if not. Oh well, at least I get to go home.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Actually, from personal experience, I had the exact opposite reaction. I wouldn't know what to expect, and that's far worse than dealing with someone who's paranoid. 121 airlines didn't become the safest form of travel in the world because we're all flying how we think the airplane should be flown. It became that way because of standardization of procedures and crew interactions.

Yup. Here's one way to look at it.

Person 1) sorta stops, no turn signal, and doesn't give way to traffic like he's supposed to at a 4 way stop. He does it every time.
Person 2) Approaches slowly, turn signal on for a long time, looks both ways about 6 times.

I'll still take number 2. Annoying, probably. But at least you're gonna get there.

This isn't meant as an insult to anybody, but I've been going through this thread thinking "based on personality, who will _____ pick". And those who pick #1 tend to be the "screw you, I'm right" let the emotions do the talking kind of guys on the site. Everyone picking #2 seem to be the people who play well with others and approach things a bit more logically.

Most people who are picking pilot #1 are talking about "thinking outside of the box" during an emergency. Absolutely important. But in a two pilot cockpit, not doing things standard is a quicker way to find yourself in an emergency/violation situation. Standards and rules are there for a reason. Absolutely everything should be approached with common sense, but day to day ops are pretty cut and dried.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

The gloves are off baby!

Really though. It irritates me when i make every attempt to be diplomatic and open minded, trying to see something from other's point of view (121,) only to have someone come back at me and tell me im wrong, simply because they dont understand where im coming from. I dont mean anything personal by the RJ remark, but if someone really doesnt want to take the time to see how others might be forced to do things that there isnt a SOP for, then they should really just stay inside their comfort zone.

Just please dont assume im wrong, or dangerous, or cavalier, just because you dont know any better. Thats all im sayin.

I really don't think you are as diplomatic and open minded as you think you are.

 

[cmill]

I really don't think you are as diplomatic and open minded as you think you are.

you're probably right; you have me figured out. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

you're probably right. Thanks for the insight.

Much better

 

[Okie_Pilot]

And those who pick #1 tend to be the "screw you, I'm right" let the emotions do the talking kind of guys on the site. Everyone picking #2 seem to be the people who play well with others and approach things a bit more logically.

Most people who are picking pilot #1 are talking about "thinking outside of the box" during an emergency. Absolutely important. But in a two pilot cockpit, not doing things standard is a quicker way to find yourself in an emergency/violation situation. Standards and rules are there for a reason. Absolutely everything should be approached with common sense, but day to day ops are pretty cut and dried.

Or, as I see it. Most of the guys picking #1 are your guys flying bush planes, float planes, and other small planes over the tops of trees.

#2 guys are the ones wearing gay looking uniforms.

 

[cmill]

Or, as I see it. Most of the guys picking #1 are your guys flying bush planes, float planes, and other small planes over the tops of trees.

#2 guys are the ones wearing gay looking uniforms.

careful, you'll be labeled unprofessional and dangerous

Also: ROADHOUSE

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Or, as I see it. Most of the guys picking #1 are your guys flying bush planes, float planes, and other small planes over the tops of trees.

#2 guys are the ones wearing gay looking uniforms.

Speaking of funky uniforms, brought a Airborne Express guy up to Rochester. That's a funky looking uniform. Normal pilot stuff, hat, blazer, etc, but its all gray. Looked like the milk man or something.

Oh, and if I knew you better I'd say something about your mom liking my gay uniform. But I don't, so instead I'll say that its Mikecweb's that does. (true story)

 

[Okie_Pilot]

careful, you'll be labeled unprofessional and dangerous

Also: ROADHOUSE

Ahh man, if they only knew... If they only knew...

Oh, and if I knew you better I'd say something about your mom liking my gay uniform. But I don't, so instead I'll say that its Mikecweb's that does. (true story)

The milkman. Ouch!

I'm down with that. This forum could use some "yo momma" jokes every now and then to lighten the mood up. Poor Mikecweb, must be an interesting story. Haha!

 

[seagull]

Careful, some of us who wear uniforms these days once did the other stuff. I had almost 5000 hours before I got my first "airline" job, and that was just scheduled ops in a C-402 into high mountain airports.

Or, as I see it. Most of the guys picking #1 are your guys flying bush planes, float planes, and other small planes over the tops of trees.

#2 guys are the ones wearing gay looking uniforms.

 

[Gonzo]

Alright... I'll give it a good shot...

Consistently non-standard:

Has their own flow of procedures that is independent of corporate procedures, runs checklists without them being called for, flies non-profile climbouts, cruise, and approaches, etc... Yet does it the same exact way every time and is highly predictable.

What do you mean by non-profile?

Because every EMB Eagle pilot goes non-profile every take-off and climb-out of of ORD.