You're the FO...
- Thread starter Cherokee_Cruiser
- Start date
You damned right, son.
99.8% of the time, I do it exactly like you just described. This was the only time I've ever told the captain " your leg home." It was the last leg home. I had been micromanaged the entire 4 day, and had had enough. What's somewhat comical about the whole thing, is there was another captain I was chatting with before the trip, and my captain walked up and introduced himself and joined in on the conversation. "You don't need to worry about this guy, he'll keep you out of trouble" was what he said about me. Made me feel good. After day two, I felt like I couldn't do anything right. And by day for, I was done. Which is why I have him the last leg. Bm very vocal up front. "This is my plan... This is why I'm doing this...etc." I never had a chance with this guy. He was also the kind of guy who, so I've been told, is consistently unstable below '500, FO's have called for the go around, and he continues. One if our "Fab Five" from what I'm told. I honestly have no clue who most of them are. I'll fly a trip with anyone, except two guys. The first one cussed me out for asking him, as a new FO, if we were going to make a speed restriction, and locked the door at the gate after I opened it to chew my ass some more. We have one guy who likes to instruct on the flight deck. He's on a lot of peoples list. I love flying with him because I always learn something. Plus, we have a good time together.
But everyone has their limit. I had reached mine. So, I relented control, in what I thought was a very tactful, respectful way. I asked what I was doing wrong, he couldn't give me a solid answer, so I backed off, and let him get us home.
Not sure what I could have done differently. Thoughts?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
It's really quite simple: fly it the way he wanted you to fly it as long as it didn't violate any SOPs, regulations, or safety concerns.
Pulling boards out when we were as slow as we were, with the green line inching up on the speed tape....no thank you. Look at the banana bar. We are going to make the altitude charted on an ILS, but this is a visual approach. Also, SOP is now to fly SmartCI, unless there are mitigating factors. He rode the pole the entire trip. Why do we need to go .82/.83? If company wants me to go .74, I'll happily go .74.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
I just browsed this thread and I'll add this to the discussion. There are a number of airlines worldwide that require the use of autothrottles at all times. As autopilot and autothrottle systems have improved to the point that the ride stays quite smooth with them on, the argument that it is better to turn them off goes out the window.
The increase in safety and reduction of required mental capacity, i.e. increase in situational awareness, in a busy ATC environment means having them on is probably a smarter decision. Many airline managers will state that you are being paid to fly the passengers from point A to point B in the safest manner possible. By turning the automation off in order to "practice" your hand flying you are not holding to their desired level of safety. They will state that you can practice your hand flying during recurrent simulator training. In the United States you are actually quite lucky to have a liberal policy with the use of automation.
Some airlines have a policy that you can only turn the autothrottles off if the autopilot is also off. The logic being that if you have the autopilot on and the autothrottles off you may forget what your automation level is in a high workload environment. In other words it is a mixed automation situation. Everything is either on or it's off, not some combination of the two.
So before condemning the captain perhaps it would be better to understand where he is coming from with his request. To me it sounds quite likely he is in the camp of the last paragraph.
Typhoonpilot
The increase in safety and reduction of required mental capacity, i.e. increase in situational awareness, in a busy ATC environment means having them on is probably a smarter decision. Many airline managers will state that you are being paid to fly the passengers from point A to point B in the safest manner possible. By turning the automation off in order to "practice" your hand flying you are not holding to their desired level of safety. They will state that you can practice your hand flying during recurrent simulator training. In the United States you are actually quite lucky to have a liberal policy with the use of automation.
Some airlines have a policy that you can only turn the autothrottles off if the autopilot is also off. The logic being that if you have the autopilot on and the autothrottles off you may forget what your automation level is in a high workload environment. In other words it is a mixed automation situation. Everything is either on or it's off, not some combination of the two.
So before condemning the captain perhaps it would be better to understand where he is coming from with his request. To me it sounds quite likely he is in the camp of the last paragraph.
Typhoonpilot
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Good grief, dude, it's an easy frickin' job. You show up, you move the airplane from Point A to Point B, and you go home/to the hotel. It ain't rocket surgery, and it doesn't require all this drama. El Jefe signed for the airplane, so if he wants to fly at .82, you fly at .82. Arguing about it or getting upset just turns an easy job into a stressful one. Set the thrust levers for .82, put your feet up, and read a magazine.
I don't argue about it. I never said I did argue about it. If he wants to fly fast, go for it. But I was making a point as to the type of person I was dealing with.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I told you my thoughts.
Every single one of us that's been an FO in a proper crew environment had flown with this guy.
One situation that comes to mind was flying up the east coast to LGA after 9/11. The way the airspace was set up, you flew to an unnamed airway break then joined a northbound airway. But ATC gave a clearance to fly a PXT radial to join the airway. At this time the unnamed waypoints would have a bracketed name (this one was [VIPKE] I think) for the FMC.
The Captain I was flying with was PNF and got the daily clearance of flying the radial to the intersection. The CA didn't, and was trying to intercept the airway using some PBD deal with no luck. I suggested using the bracketed name with a response of that's not our clearance.
So I let the CA keep trying to jam the box. On the Barbie Fun Jet, there was only one FMS, so one pilot had to stay on ground based nav. As we came over the fix, the CA was still trying to jam stuff in the box. I simply flew the RMI outbound and had the airway dialed up on the HSI. The MFD looked like it had Mandarin characters on it, so I couldn't fly the fms route.
That was the extreme example.
This example is much like what you are saying. We're flying a fat whale into Dubai. We have a short turn, it's my leg, so I ask for Flaps 30( the most) brakes 2 (The min) and briefed I'd use idle reverse (still left like 4000').
CA was like "nope, flaps 25, brakes 3, idle reverse."
I said OK.
CA wondered why the brakes were so hot.
I said "I don't know" then went and got a cold coke out of the chiller.
TL; DR: Say what you rant to do. If CA Says no, use your company guidance training. If CA still says no, ask yourself "Will I get hurt? Will I get violated? Will I make CNN?" If ask the answers are no, do it. If the boss calls and asks why the CA did it, tell him what you suggested, and go on with life. The secret is that you won't get called.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
See, this is why I always fly single pilot, depart VFR, cancel with the airport in sight, and raise the flaps in the flare.
121 doesn't mean one to one. It equals 4; Three votes for the CA, one for the FO.
ClarkGriswold
Non Nutritive Cereal Varnish Engineer
Sounds like you need a butt hurt form. Poor thing.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Yup, and it wasn't a US airline that crashed at SFO because the pilots didn't know the status of the ATs. The last paragraph policy you mention doesn't exist at my shop. AT can be turned off with AP on or with AP off.
When crap hits the fan, I hope the people up front are pilots. Not button pushers.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
I'm actually more in agreement with @ATN_Pilot. I wasn't in the past because I was single pilot most of the time. Most ops in aviation are not. It took a lot of observation of both our single pilot, and crew ops, and another job title to see the light, but what he's saying in general is pretty bang on IMO.
That being said, I will always believe that someone with a good stick and rudder BACKGROUND will prevail in the "oh poop" situation over the ab initio/cadet/indoctrined servant button pusher. In my opinion, you're NEVER going LEARN stick and rudder in a big airplane, EVER. It's too numb and forgiving. Big jets might be different from something like a lear 24, but you're not going to learn stick and rudder in something like a Brasilia vs a Metro/1900 regarding turbo-props, and even then, both of those pale in comparison to just learning it the right way in ANY under-powered piston in the beginning. I'm sure someone with a tail-dragger rating will comment further. That, I don't have experience with. Based on what I've flown, C172>Metro>E120 for stick and rudder skill building. My ego says Metro>all the planes, but that's another discussion.
I don't believe it's a perishable skill either. An airplane is an airplane is an airplane. If you have it early on, it stays with you, maybe not as smoothly, but you should be able to keep it fairly clean if the situation arises.
I'm arguing stick and rudder skills ONLY. Which is only a part of what makes you a good pilot, particularly in a crew environment. Systems? Meh... That can add a variable, but it's entirely out the books. You either know them or you don't. Overall, an awful personality in the cockpit in a crew environment is FAR more dangerous than any lack of skill or knowledge. A single pilot, uh, pilot, that doesn't follow the GOM/SOP is far more dangerous or a liability over one with average stick and rudder skills.
All in all, in a crew environment, I rank it:
Personality
Knowledge
Stick and rudder
There's A LOT more to the list if we really want to get specific, but that's the top 3 and how I rank them.
I met a guy that did his private in a Maule. Would fly with ANY other pilot over him. His stick and rudder skills we're probably better than 90% of what's out there. D-baggery for a personality and total lack of knowledge won't make for a successful outcome when the poo hits the fan though. Give that guy a personality though and he'd be gold.
That being said, I will always believe that someone with a good stick and rudder BACKGROUND will prevail in the "oh poop" situation over the ab initio/cadet/indoctrined servant button pusher. In my opinion, you're NEVER going LEARN stick and rudder in a big airplane, EVER. It's too numb and forgiving. Big jets might be different from something like a lear 24, but you're not going to learn stick and rudder in something like a Brasilia vs a Metro/1900 regarding turbo-props, and even then, both of those pale in comparison to just learning it the right way in ANY under-powered piston in the beginning. I'm sure someone with a tail-dragger rating will comment further.
That, I don't have experience with. Based on what I've flown, C172>Metro>E120 for stick and rudder skill building. My ego says Metro>all the planes, but that's another discussion. I don't believe it's a perishable skill either. An airplane is an airplane is an airplane. If you have it early on, it stays with you, maybe not as smoothly, but you should be able to keep it fairly clean if the situation arises.
I'm arguing stick and rudder skills ONLY. Which is only a part of what makes you a good pilot, particularly in a crew environment. Systems? Meh... That can add a variable, but it's entirely out the books. You either know them or you don't. Overall, an awful personality in the cockpit in a crew environment is FAR more dangerous than any lack of skill or knowledge. A single pilot, uh, pilot, that doesn't follow the GOM/SOP is far more dangerous or a liability over one with average stick and rudder skills.
All in all, in a crew environment, I rank it:
Personality
Knowledge
Stick and rudder
There's A LOT more to the list if we really want to get specific, but that's the top 3 and how I rank them.
I met a guy that did his private in a Maule. Would fly with ANY other pilot over him. His stick and rudder skills we're probably better than 90% of what's out there. D-baggery for a personality and total lack of knowledge won't make for a successful outcome when the poo hits the fan though. Give that guy a personality though and he'd be gold.
Last edited:
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
AAIB accident report on the British A319 both cowl door left open and took off...
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55a4bdb940f0b61562000001/AAR_1-2015_G-EUOE.pdf
I just learned this today: If the EPR gauge(s) fail on either engine, and N1 mode is required on either engine, autothrust is not available. There are no worries on the CFM engines because those are already N1, not EPR.
FO was flying with the sidestick while CA did the thrust levers, then at ~500 feet AGL, CA took over aircraft control, and gave the FO the power levers. And it was this way to touchdown.
One little nugget, the CA said he had last done autothrust off 7 years ago, while the FO mentioned he had never flown with autothrust off.
"
The commander, as PM, deviated from the SOP in that in he took responsibility
for operating the radio and, later, the thrust levers, diverting some of his
attention from his other tasks. With the benefit of hindsight, it could be argued
that had he adhered to the SOP, he might have had more mental capacity to
assess the situation and decide on the appropriate actions. The ECAM/QRH
procedures might have been completed more thoroughly and the fuel leak on
the right engine might have been isolated, preventing the fire. On the other
hand, it could also be argued that by managing the radio and operating the
thrust levers (autothrust was no longer available), the commander reduced the
co-pilot’s workload significantly, allowing the co-pilot to concentrate solely on
flying the aircraft and maintaining the required flightpath.
"
I guess I can see it both ways. However, a fuel leak and a fire are serious things. And shutting down the engine + pushing fire button (both) without the FO confirmation is bad ju ju. If the CA himself felt comfortable with the AT off and knew the FO is the same, it could have allowed the FO to control the aircraft with both sidestick and thrust levers, leaving the CA to properly follow ECAM and other actions that could have alleviated the situation a little bit more, and not made it worse than it already was.
But at the end of the day as long as you get the ship on the ground and everyone is ok/uninjured, that's the big picture item that matters. Still, a terrible fail for missing both cowl doors obvious. MX fail and then FO walkaround fail. Actual pic of aircraft at gate:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55a4bdb940f0b61562000001/AAR_1-2015_G-EUOE.pdf
I just learned this today: If the EPR gauge(s) fail on either engine, and N1 mode is required on either engine, autothrust is not available. There are no worries on the CFM engines because those are already N1, not EPR.
FO was flying with the sidestick while CA did the thrust levers, then at ~500 feet AGL, CA took over aircraft control, and gave the FO the power levers. And it was this way to touchdown.
One little nugget, the CA said he had last done autothrust off 7 years ago, while the FO mentioned he had never flown with autothrust off.
"
The commander, as PM, deviated from the SOP in that in he took responsibility
for operating the radio and, later, the thrust levers, diverting some of his
attention from his other tasks. With the benefit of hindsight, it could be argued
that had he adhered to the SOP, he might have had more mental capacity to
assess the situation and decide on the appropriate actions. The ECAM/QRH
procedures might have been completed more thoroughly and the fuel leak on
the right engine might have been isolated, preventing the fire. On the other
hand, it could also be argued that by managing the radio and operating the
thrust levers (autothrust was no longer available), the commander reduced the
co-pilot’s workload significantly, allowing the co-pilot to concentrate solely on
flying the aircraft and maintaining the required flightpath.
"
I guess I can see it both ways. However, a fuel leak and a fire are serious things. And shutting down the engine + pushing fire button (both) without the FO confirmation is bad ju ju. If the CA himself felt comfortable with the AT off and knew the FO is the same, it could have allowed the FO to control the aircraft with both sidestick and thrust levers, leaving the CA to properly follow ECAM and other actions that could have alleviated the situation a little bit more, and not made it worse than it already was.
But at the end of the day as long as you get the ship on the ground and everyone is ok/uninjured, that's the big picture item that matters. Still, a terrible fail for missing both cowl doors obvious. MX fail and then FO walkaround fail. Actual pic of aircraft at gate:
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I'll just leave this here:https://gma.yahoo.com/plane-stalls-...-altitude-072100516--abc-news-topstories.html
Outcomes.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Media fail...............
OMG!
TT?
ME?
Upgrade time?
How soon can I hold LAX?
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
Airline pilots almost universally pull when the altimeter starts unwinding and the shaker/pusher come on.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Why the distinction? Of all people(what do you mean YOU PEOPLE?) I would think would do what they're trained from their first flight lesson.
If anything, dude/dudette in GA anything, would yank it back when clearly too slow.
Similar threads
