2 pilot/small airplane CRM

Michael wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote

Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation?
I can't think of one.


Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.

Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.


I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial
like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However,
this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use
to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-)


And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

I put them in the back seat! :-)


Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the
controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this
time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on
an ATP ride.


Perhaps it's because the axaminer was also a corporate pilot, and knew
that refusing a tight but flyable vector was a great way to be sent to
the back of the line, delaying the flight. Why have the skill to do
it if you're not going to use it? An ATP should exercise good
judgment, sure, but he should also be able to demonstrate a high level
of skill.

Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
skill. That is my policy.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote
Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.
Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.

I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at
it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the
ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain
and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation
skills were weak.

And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

I put them in the back seat! :-)

Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count
on having a desk OR having a useful copilot.

Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
skill.

Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT
obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill
necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned
maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the
LOFT to asess judgment.

Sometimes, BOTH superior judgment AND superior skill are necessary for
the safe and expeditious conclusion of a flight. That's why the ATP
ride should test both. At the instrument level, safe is enough.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote

Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.

Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.


I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at
it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the
ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain
and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation
skills were weak.

Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed
fairly large engineering groups (60+ people) and have a fair bit of
experience at delegation of tasks and managing multiple competing
priorities.


And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

I put them in the back seat! :-)


Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count
on having a desk OR having a useful copilot.

Well, I can try!


Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
skill.


Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT
obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill
necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned
maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the
LOFT to asess judgment.

It is a fairly famous quote, but I can't remember now who said it. I'll
try to search it out for you.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote
Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed
fairly large engineering groups

As have I. In fact, that's what pays for the airplane. Nevertheless,
I learned that there are differences in how it's done in the office
and in the cockpit. Like I said - I had the same opinion of this you
did, until I started working on my ATP.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote

Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed
fairly large engineering groups


As have I. In fact, that's what pays for the airplane. Nevertheless,
I learned that there are differences in how it's done in the office
and in the cockpit. Like I said - I had the same opinion of this you
did, until I started working on my ATP.

Michael

That's one reason I wrote earlier that I'll be curious to see if Mike R.
changes his opinion one that he's beginning his ATP. I doubt I'd change
mine. I don't care whether in sports, shooting, flying, motorcycling,
etc., I've always used the "train as you X, X as you train", with X
being whatever activity of interest to you. Since I fly single pilot
IFR, I'm not going to train or fly with a copilot who won't always be there.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote
That's one reason I wrote earlier that I'll be curious to see if Mike R.
changes his opinion one that he's beginning his ATP.

I'm betting that if he trains with a real, practicing ATP (meaning
someone who flies in a crew environment day in and day out) he will.
If not, not.

I don't care whether in sports, shooting, flying, motorcycling,
etc., I've always used the "train as you X, X as you train"

Well, that's your choice - but I believe in cross-training. There is
value to getting out of your comfort zone and doing something
different from, but related to what you do normally. I believe in
tailwheel training for trigear pilots, glider training for power
pilots, rotorcraft training for fixed wing pilots - you name it. Not
at the initial stages, but once you reach a level of proficiency where
there are only very small gains to be made with further practice,
cross training opens up new perspectives.

The essential point is that at some level, the best bet in improving
your skills at X is to do Y. If I'm doing a recurrent training
session for a multiengine pilot and he executes a near-perfect single
engine partial panel non-precision circling approach to a short
runway, I will not suggest to him that he should keep practicing this
until it is absolutely flawless. I will suggest that he get into a
glider, or a seaplane, or a biplane - something different.

If you don't believe in cross-training, you're not going to suggest
that.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote

That's one reason I wrote earlier that I'll be curious to see if Mike R.
changes his opinion one that he's beginning his ATP.


I'm betting that if he trains with a real, practicing ATP (meaning
someone who flies in a crew environment day in and day out) he will.
If not, not.


I don't care whether in sports, shooting, flying, motorcycling,
etc., I've always used the "train as you X, X as you train"


Well, that's your choice - but I believe in cross-training. There is
value to getting out of your comfort zone and doing something
different from, but related to what you do normally. I believe in
tailwheel training for trigear pilots, glider training for power
pilots, rotorcraft training for fixed wing pilots - you name it. Not
at the initial stages, but once you reach a level of proficiency where
there are only very small gains to be made with further practice,
cross training opens up new perspectives.

The essential point is that at some level, the best bet in improving
your skills at X is to do Y. If I'm doing a recurrent training
session for a multiengine pilot and he executes a near-perfect single
engine partial panel non-precision circling approach to a short
runway, I will not suggest to him that he should keep practicing this
until it is absolutely flawless. I will suggest that he get into a
glider, or a seaplane, or a biplane - something different.

If you don't believe in cross-training, you're not going to suggest
that.

I never said I don't believe in acquiring new and varied aviation
skills. I'm simply saying that you use the skills where they fit. I
have no problem learning two-pilot CRM techniques, I'm just saying I
wouldn't apply them occasionally just because I have a warm body in the
right seat. Having additional skills doesn't mean you use them where
they aren't appropriate. To me, it simply isn't appropriate to randomly
depend on another person when this isn't your normal operation. I want
to keep my single pilot skills as sharp as possible and have good habits
that will automatically come into play should an emergency occur. I
believe the best way to keep my single pilot skills sharp is to always
fly as a single pilot and to use another person only for noncritical
supplemental stuff such as handing me charts or monitoring descents,
etc. I have no problem having a right-seat pax performing redundant
operations such as monitoring my altitudes, but I would not give them a
critical role to play in my operation.

Mike R., you will report back as to how your ATP training is progressing
and any change of heart that you have with respect to single pilot
operation, right? :-)


Matt