Personal opinion - The FED should have known better!! It is not
uncommon for us to use a flight instructor as a "seat filler" (Capt. or
F/O) on an MD-11 rating ride at Delta. The person conducting the rating
ride should state something to the effect of "conduct your normal Delta
F/O duties as you would on the line, as long as you DO NOT lead the Capt.
by the hand especially concerning his calls, duties and
responsibilities". An MD-80 IS NOT flown single pilot, and the FAA DOES
NOT expect to see that kind of an operation even in a check environment;
I would recommend someone at your carrier politely take the FED on the
side and discuss the issue - we do not need FEDs upsetting rating ride
applicants - it can easily snowball - worse, the applicant may be led to
believe he/she is expected to fly as if solo. BAD SCENARIO!! I feel sure
the FED meant to say something other than what he actually did say. If
that is indeed what he meant - time to talk with his boss - IMMEDIATELY!!
Regards-
Lonny
Mike Courtney wrote:
>
> 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