Re: Building in a system bias against CRM?

Steve Swauger (TheSwaugers_at_CompuServe.COM)
Wed, 13 May 1998 18:07:26 -0400


It sounds like the FED was trying to get a fair evaluation of the
new Captain. That is his/her job. Their diplomacy and tact are, as
always, open to discussion. I would draw a clear line between full-scale
"CRM" and standard company call-outs. If the PNF makes company-standard
deviation callouts or normal informative calls, this should be permitted.
If the PNF is `carrying' the new captain with above-and-beyond CRM, then
the FED has every right to intervene.
The most common problem occurs when the FED doesn't know the
company's procedures (more common than uncommon) and tries to curtail
normal procedures. CRM is important and vital, but the new captain should
not be evaluated using the an "All-Pro FO". He/She should be evaluated
using a average "company-standard FO."

Steve Swauger
Southwest Airlines

>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.