Re: Building in a system bias against CRM?
Cezar Prates (tprates_at_ibm.net)
Sat, 23 May 1998 14:47:31 -0700
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 CourtneyWe had this kind of problems some years ago when our company (VARIG Brazilian
Airline)was the only one to apply CRM philosophy.The DAC checkers (our FAA) used
to do like that. What we did was to inform the new culture and invited these check
officers to attend to CRM seminars with our pilots. Things worked all right,since
this kind of actions didn't happen anymore.
I guess communication and interaction is the key.
Cezar Prates
Member of the GPDC