Pre-flight brief

[Richard]

Assume you and another pilot, equal or better qualified, decide to make a multi-leg x/c. This will be a Part 91 IFR training flight in the respect of looking for actual IMC and to further develop the lessons obtained when flying with two qualified pilots onboard.

I'd like to eavesdrop on what your conversations would sound like with respect to division of cockpit duties, especially about situations when the manure contacts the rotary oscillator. To guide the initial responses may I suggest an encounter with unknown rime ice as an example.

Further, would those duties change (or revert to default setting mimicing single pilot chores) when things really do start to go south? That is, how would you ensure that what you briefed would remain intact once the situation bacame urgent?

And since wx is such a large part of the brief, assume the first leg begins in day VFR with high DA with expected passage through warm front. Front turns stationary and then you encounter a cold front. WA, WS may/may not exist along route.

 

[poadeleted20]

When I make such a flight, I'll tape it for you.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

Richard, the best example of what you're referring to is a trained crew in a multi-crewmember airplane.

Modern CRM training practices call for a division of duties between the PF - pilot flying - and PNF - pilot not flying. The PF may or may not be the PIC. The PF's sole responsibility is, you guessed it, flying the airplane. Heading/course, altitude, and awareness of factors such as terrain and weather are his only concerns.

The PNF has the more difficult job. Radio communications, panel setup, navigation, checklists, and aircraft configuration changes (gear, flaps, slats, etc. as called for by the PF) are his domain.

In an emergency, the PF will call for the appropriate emergency checklist and/or perform any "memory items" (or what some still refer to as 'immediate action items') which apply to time-critical emergencies and abnormals. The PNF will read and run the checklist while the PF flies the airplane, monitoring the PNF's actions. Some procedures require the participation of both pilots - for example, an engine shutdown. (PNF: "Shutting down #2." PF: "Confirmed, shut down #2." PF guards thrust levers and/or fuel controls of the 'good' engine while the PNF shuts down and secures the trouble engine.)

This extremely basic description encompasses the cornerstone of modern CRM training/procedures. There will be plenty of exceptions and differences based on the type of aircraft, the company, etc. But for the most part, this is the accepted method of dividing crew duties in multi-crewmember airplanes.

I see no reason to do it differently in a light GA aircraft being flown by two pilots of similar experience and skill. A caveat, though, is that unless both pilots are truly on the same page w/r/t procedures and division of duties, "two heads" can be worse than one. Too many accidents have been caused by someone on the flight deck forgetting to fly the aircraft. The PF/PNF concept was designed to combat this problem.

 

[Richard]

Ryan, okay, so how to get this Part 121 training into the Part 91 cockpit? The other thing is, even with all the intense CRM training available to 121 crews, the CRM sometimes fails on the 121 flight deck. Why?

If you were to poll Part 91 pilots, most would say they recognize the value of CRM; heck, they would even say they practice it, after a fashion. But getting it to stick when the chips are down is Part B of my query here. Also, it's not valid to compare 121 crews with 91 pilots. 121 crews fly exclusively with CRM in practice; the 91 pilot rarely does. So is the answer repetition? It seems the airlines think so. But they also have their thick book of SOP which has been drilled into their head with every flight being another practice session in CRM.

I truly appreciate your response but my concern is the 91 cockpit and not the 121 flight deck. Tell me if I'm wrong but I don't think a 121 'overlay' on the 91 cockpit is viable. One reason is because each pilot has to develop a trust of the other. A trust that the other has received and understood the proper CRM training. Not many 91 pilots receive the kind or intensity of training as does the 121 crew.

Okay, here is the flight which spawned this thread:

Two of us on a night IFR x/c leg. He was PF on this leg and I was to navigate and communicate. Those duties could be swapped in any phase of the flight but only if announced first, not during a transmission, and after allowing for the other person to say 'stand by' or 'one moment'. This seemed to satisfy the command/challenge requirement. We covered this and more in detail back on the ramp.

We encountered mod rime. He was PF. I was talking to center at the time when PF stated he was making a 180*, immediately begins the turn and hits the PTT (stepping on my transmission) to announce the turn to center. I was talking to center because there was following traffic at our alt. I told center to stand by while I asked why we were turning. Conditions would have allowed us to climb as an out but he turned about 90* even without descending. We got back to our heading after I explained.... We ended up on our original heading, lower at the lowest MEA. It turned out we were exiting the last bit of IMC for that leg and the rest of the leg was MVFR-VFR. I had expected that and even commented that I expected it to clear. Besides, look, the ice has melted and now its light snow.

Anyway, it was a few anxious minutes and I spent the rest of the leg thinking how all our briefing went right out the window at the first sign. With anything else layered on that the flight safety could have been in jeopardy. He was worried about traffic at our 12 o'clock, that is why he delayed the descent. That traffic was a problem because center said he was only a primary target. (Yep, VFR non-participating traffic in IMC.)

He is a fine pilot with very good skills. I felt on top of my game too. But he and I weren't jibing just then so that's why I want to hear from other pilots concerning the 91 environment.



Oh yeah, I didn't see the problem as anyone dropping the plane, but one of improper communications.

 

[grattonja]

My wife is a PP also. We have a simple rule to avoid divorce court. Left seat is in charge. Period. Right now that is easy in IMC b/c your's truly is the only one of the two of us with an IR. That will be more difficult in 2006, when the better half is also so equipped. I will say that I have, on at least two occasions where we had some weather issue to deal with, queried for her opinion. Which I happen to hold very highly. She married me after all, right? But, in IMC, the final call is mine.

If she is in the left seat and has any question about conditions (marginal VFR visibility for example) she may query me, with higher minimums. But she makes the call. And I eat it, even if it means the 5 NM vis stops us from going to a lunch that I am perfectly comfortable with. Ce la vie. Can't have two chiefs and no indians.

She has also terminated several IR practice flights, when she has questioned conditions as reported. I have respected that, as she is PIC. However, we have also cancelled one trip with her under the hood, en route, where conditions were obviously deteriorating below VFR, in my opinion, as safety pilot. On that occasion, I informed her that we needed to turn around, as I felt we would be flying into a cloud in approximately two miles. She looked, concurred, and turned. We have both agreed that, when the left seat is under the hood, the right seat HAS to be the "eyes" of the operation. After all, that is what the safety pilot is there for.

It is not always easy with two pilots in the front seats together. But I sure would rather have that than the folks who have a spouse who won't fly.

Jim G

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

Richard, thanks for your insightful reply.

Ryan, okay, so how to get this Part 121 training into the Part 91 cockpit? The other thing is, even with all the intense CRM training available to 121 crews, the CRM sometimes fails on the 121 flight deck. Why?

Yep, sometimes it does fail. The CVR of the recent Pinnacle Flight 3701 crash - which resulted in two fatalities and a destroyed CL-600-2B19 - is an example of abysmal CRM. But usually, it works, and works very well.

However, I don't think this a 121/135/91 issue. It's a training issue. Multiengine jets of all sizes, right up to wide-body business jets and even the BBJ can and are flown under pt. 91. All of the 'true' CRM training I've received has been for, and under, pt. 91 operations.

The "CRM" we practice as GA pilots is basically just cockpit organization, as well as utilizing the labor force available over the radio (i.e. ATC) to help us out. Most of us are not operating airplanes designed for two pilots under normal circumstances. We train for single-pilot operations, and for the most part, we are also examined and checked for our ability to fly the airplane single-pilot. Private, commercial, instrument, multiengine, etc. are usually conducted without the benefit of a Second-In-Command to assist the PIC (unless some rich guy's going for his private pilot certificate in a jet - they've had those guys before at Simuflite, according to the instructors there.)

If you were to poll Part 91 pilots, most would say they recognize the value of CRM; heck, they would even say they practice it, after a fashion. But getting it to stick when the chips are down is Part B of my query here. Also, it's not valid to compare 121 crews with 91 pilots. 121 crews fly exclusively with CRM in practice; the 91 pilot rarely does. So is the answer repetition? It seems the airlines think so. But they also have their thick book of SOP which has been drilled into their head with every flight being another practice session in CRM.

Couple of comments on that. As I mentioned above, this is not a 121 vs. 91 issue, it's equipment and training. If you don't fly aircraft which require more than one pilot on the flight deck, you're not going to get the initial training and 'reps' as you put it to create a truly professional crew which is greater than the sum of its parts. Airline training is so complete and rigid that any captain can fly with any F/O and the results will be the same - the Opspecs dictate everything, and everyone trains at the same place, in the same way. Done deal, it works marvelously well most of the time. Take it down a notch for 135 or 91 operators of equipment which is just as advanced if not more so (corporate/charter/business ops in turbojet equipment.) Now you might have crews which only fly together infrequently, and their initial training may have come from different providers. Maybe they attend recurrent training at the same facility, and maybe they don't. Maybe the training provider is standardized enough across their instructor force to keep all the crewmembers on the same page. Maybe not. Unlike the airlines, the training is not conducted in-house. The captain might have received a 'quickie' type rating from a type-rating mill while his F/O went the full formal route involving simulator training. My point here is, a crew employed by a small corporate flight department, moving at Mach .80 at FL410 may not have any special expertise or training in CRM above and beyond your own, which is essentially none. Good crews will still understand how to work together, especially in a pinch, and there's no guessing involved.

I truly appreciate your response but my concern is the 91 cockpit and not the 121 flight deck. Tell me if I'm wrong but I don't think a 121 'overlay' on the 91 cockpit is viable. One reason is because each pilot has to develop a trust of the other. A trust that the other has received and understood the proper CRM training. Not many 91 pilots receive the kind or intensity of training as does the 121 crew.

I am talking about the flight deck of a Cessna 172, for all practical intents and purposes. My essential response to your query is summed up thusly:

1) The airplane doesn't really require two pilots in the first place.
2) If you want to use the other guy, you'll need to clearly delineate responsibilities.
3) If you're not comfortable with the trust factor, or feel that you're not flying together often enough to make the most of the two-crewmember advantage, you're probably actually at a disadvantage.
4) CRM isn't a mystical fix for all the problems a crew might face. Rather, it's a technique to maximize the input of both pilots while keeping everyone organized. That's it.

Okay, here is the flight which spawned this thread:

Two of us on a night IFR x/c leg. He was PF on this leg and I was to navigate and communicate. Those duties could be swapped in any phase of the flight but only if announced first, not during a transmission, and after allowing for the other person to say 'stand by' or 'one moment'. This seemed to satisfy the command/challenge requirement. We covered this and more in detail back on the ramp.

Sounds fine so far.

We encountered mod rime. He was PF. I was talking to center at the time when PF stated he was making a 180*, immediately begins the turn and hits the PTT (stepping on my transmission) to announce the turn to center. I was talking to center because there was following traffic at our alt. I told center to stand by while I asked why we were turning. Conditions would have allowed us to climb as an out but he turned about 90* even without descending. We got back to our heading after I explained.... We ended up on our original heading, lower at the lowest MEA. It turned out we were exiting the last bit of IMC for that leg and the rest of the leg was MVFR-VFR. I had expected that and even commented that I expected it to clear. Besides, look, the ice has melted and now its light snow.

So in this case, it sounds as though two of you working the problem together probably created more confusion than if there had been only one on-board.

Anyway, it was a few anxious minutes and I spent the rest of the leg thinking how all our briefing went right out the window at the first sign. With anything else layered on that the flight safety could have been in jeopardy. He was worried about traffic at our 12 o'clock, that is why he delayed the descent. That traffic was a problem because center said he was only a primary target. (Yep, VFR non-participating traffic in IMC.)

To put it bluntly, your concepts were good but the total execution on the part of the "team" was poor. If you feel that your PF's decisions are bad, you'll need to speak up and voice your opinion. I've always liked the saying, "Whoever's more scared, wins."

He is a fine pilot with very good skills. I felt on top of my game too. But he and I weren't jibing just then so that's why I want to hear from other pilots concerning the 91 environment.

Oh yeah, I didn't see the problem as anyone dropping the plane, but one of improper communications.

More than anything, it was probably a combination of unfamilarity with operating as a crew, and differing skill/experience/judgement between the two pilots. Maybe you should go out in VMC and practice some approaches together, if you intend to keep doing this sort of thing.

Best regards,

-Ryan

 

[Len Lanetti]

Under Part 91 two pilots are operating under "CRM" and something happens, who is the FAA gonna hang?

Something tells me that when the PIC says to the inspector I thought the other guy was taking care of "that" the inspector isn't gonna give a hoot.

 

[poadeleted20]

Under Part 91 two pilots are operating under "CRM" and something happens, who is the FAA gonna hang?

The PIC. Now, who's the PIC? Unless someone's name is on a flight plan or there's an instructor in the right seat, they generally start by assuming that the pilot in the left seat is PIC and work from there.

Something tells me that when the PIC says to the inspector I thought the other guy was taking care of "that" the inspector isn't gonna give a hoot.

That's correct. You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility -- only share it.

 

[Everskyward]

Richard, I think that learning to fly as a crew takes some training and practice. It's not something that comes naturally, at least it didn't to me, especially if you are used to flying single-pilot. It's also seems easier in a true 2-pilot airplane where the controls, switches and instruments are designed with that in mind.

At least in my world (I do Part 135 charter), the PIC and SIC each have specific duties from the time you show up to take a flight to the time you leave the airplane which can be delgated or modified, but the PIC is the PIC throughout the whole flight regardless of whether they are the PF or PNF or which seat they are physically occupying.

As far as when things start to go downhill, the PIC has the final say but it's a good idea to get input from the SIC unless it's an instantaneous decision, which doesn't happen often. Of course, there's usually not time for long drawn out analysis and discussion like what happens on message boards.