>>> Mike Courtney <mcourt_at_gte.net> 05/13 9:07 AM >>>
Group,
During a type-rating check for a new captain, the following situation
occurred:
1. An instructor was to serve as the copilot during the check. The new
captain had been the instructor's student.
2. The check was being conducted by a company check airman and observed
by an FAA inspector. The company check airman was not an APD so the fed
would be issuing the type rating.
3. During the briefing, the new captain briefed the copilot on CRM
issues including instructions to speak up immediately if he saw anything
that was wrong, or that he had missed, or if he was making a mistake,
etc. In other words, he briefed the copilot to perform just as would a
good line copilot and as prescribed in the company's manuals and taught
in the company's CRM program.
4. The inspector spoke up and countermanded that part of the briefing
saying that the copilot was NOT to inform the captain if he made a
mistake, and that he was not to make suggestions or bring things to the
captain's attention that he had missed. He said that he had to see if
the captain could perform adequately if the copilot failed to perform
appropriately.
I can see the fed's point, but it is also a fact that we do not certify
pilots to fly "single-pilot" MD-80's. They are to have a fully
qualified crewmember working with them as required by both PTS and the
company's approved training manual.
During the break between the briefing and going into the simulator, the
check airman and the instructor decided to continue without causing a
confrontation with the fed because they felt that the new captain would
do well and that the fed's instruction to ignore normal CRM procedures
regarding crew errors would have little effect in this case.
Fortunately they were correct and the new captain got his type rating
with no difficulty. (They should have been more assertive and have
insisted that the company's normal procedures would be used or the check
would not continue, but they didn't.)
While recognizing the fact that the person conducting a proficiency
check must determine that the person being checked is fully competent,
are we building a bias against CRM into the system when we eliminate
normal CRM procedures during proficiency checks?
Does that say to the pilot that all this CRM stuff is good in theory,
but that when it really comes down to it you are on your own; that you
can't count on your crew or--even worse--that you should ignore your
crew?
Is this just another "do as I say, not as I do" situation, or am I over
reacting?
Comments?
Mike Courtney
!
!