How to get a promotion?

[SunDog]

Uhhh..yeah. Are you really a pilot? I'm also a MO. Before we start grumping, maybe we should be sure we aren't talking past each other?

I'm all for the MO taking the lead in mission planning; no sweat. When I'm MP I have enough stuff to handle. MP or MO, I expect we'll agree before we go. Or we don't go with me aboard. In flight, things change, as happens - in my experience,  whichever seat I'm in, we tallk it over, agree on a course of action.

In the left seat, as I was in this case, with a VOR and IAP  in our grid, it looked like the Battle of Britain at the planned altitude. I decided we'd go lower. As PIC, my call. My MO  disagreed, no drama, but he was adamant we stay in the fur ball. I offered to knock it off, if he preferred that, and we'd go back and get him another MP. He was a little worried MB wouldn't like the change, and wanted to call and ask.

I was cool with that, not that it helped, as MB wasn't interested. .

Here's my point - we plan the mission together. Whether I'm MP or MO, we agee on the plan before we go, or we (or at least I!)  don't go. As MP, once airborne, I'll listen attentively to any chsnges tbe MO gets from MB, or ideas on our own initiative. See something? Cool, give me a turn or steering command! Sun glare too much, change the direction, sure thing. . .re-run that last leg, or take break, no problem. The key is we agree. Whn I'm MO, I expect that level of colaboration, that the MP will turn, or go back, or whatever - that's what we're there for, both of us.

But, when I'm PIC, the final call is mine - unless the MO  wants to knock it off, and even then, the where, and when, we land is on me. I won't be a jerk and land out for no reason, or go into slow flight to delay getting to a bio break. Really, this isn't an issue, at least not often, and never to a big degree, for me, anyway.

I'll hear what the MO says, and if it makes sense to me, we'll do it. And if not, and we can't agree, on an akternative, we can call it a day and he can make his case to management.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Sundog, when you explain yourself you make sense but it's your matter of fact counter-CAP culture short thoughtless statements that get you into trouble.

Thank you for explaining and making sense for everything except for the "final call is mine".  That's BS, the final call for safety is yours, the mission execution, if done safely is the MO's.

Remember, we MP's are the bus drivers that safely get the important eyes on the target.  We are not searching in the Grid, we are keeping our crew safe.  That is our job.

[SunDog]

Just safety? Really? I've changed plans as MP for operational reasons lot's of times. And suggested such changes as MO. The diffrence being, as MO it was a suggestion. As MP it was a decision.

"We'll land at XYZ now, get fuel and a bio break, and bring the airplane back to MB nearly full, save the turnaround time on the very busy fuel truck".  As MP, quoted - if the MO. objected, I'd listen to his objections, but 90% certain we're landing at XYZ, unless he was adamant. But my call, per FAR and common sense. Doctrine aside, the airplane goes where the MP points it, as a practical matter.

Or,

"Let's land at XYZ, save the long wait for fuel at MB" quoted me, as MO. Suggestion, as really, that's all it can be for practical purposes. Probably a good one, and it'll probably go that way - teamwork.

Real world, the MP can pretty much support any decision,, based on "safety".  I didn't trust the fuel gauges. I was tired and needed a break.  The patten at MB was jammed and the tower was bolloxing up the call signs again, so I hung back. . .and upper management will probably back him up.

Semantics, maybe, but I'm not keeping anyone "safe" - I ain't blessed with supernatural powers. I'll fly as safely as I can, but lightplanes are, well, light. . .it's not an inherently safe activity. Not as safe as bus driving, say. Sometimes I chise to ride the right seat, knowing I'm trusting PIC. If I'm in the left seat, I'll fly it as I determine it should be flown.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

SunDog, sometimes it's helpful to read back your postings to get a sense how others might perceive you, in this forum, around your Squadron, at a SAREX, during your sortie planning.  Would it surprise you to know SunDog, that in years of flying with CAP I have never come close to having to say knock it off, that I have never had a conflict with an MO either on the ground or in the air, that we never had to call base to determine which crewmember had the correct answer.  I did have crew call knock it off twice for mechanical reasons, but that is another story.

CAP has a some Crew and Cockpit Resource Management continuing training here: http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/aircraft_ops__staneval/crew-and-cockpit-resource-management/

In the CRM-in-a-box course they talk about the Behavior Continuum and the three levels of Assertiveness: Passive, Assertiveness, and Over Aggressiveness.

Based upon your statements below, it appears that you fit into the assertiveness chart at the over-aggressive level?  Is that level of assertiveness beneficial to your crew comfort level?  Crewmembers must feel comfortable enough to question a decision that could cause the loss of a crew.  Over aggressiveness is a barrier to crew being comfortable enough to say "Knock It Off".

I highly suggest you review this course in light of your comments below.

Otherwise, when I'm PIC, the  "how"  we do the mission is my call.

We agreed to disagree, and since I was the PIC and the pilot on the flight release, we did it my way.

When in the left seat, I adhere to the "The Pilot in Comand is solely responsible for, and the final authority as to, the operation of the aircraft".

I expect we'll agree before we go. Or we don't go with me aboard.

I decided we'd go lower. As PIC, my call. My MO  disagreed, no drama, but he was adamant we stay in the fur ball. I offered to knock it off, if he preferred that, and we'd go back and get him another MP. He was a little worried MB wouldn't like the change, and wanted to call and ask.

Whether I'm MP or MO, we agee on the plan before we go, or we (or at least I!)  don't go.

But, when I'm PIC, the final call is mine - unless the MO  wants to knock it off, and even then, the where, and when, we land is on me.

I'll hear what the MO says, and if it makes sense to me, we'll do it. And if not, and we can't agree, on an akternative, we can call it a day and he can make his case to management.

The diffrence being, as MO it was a suggestion. As MP it was a decision.

If I'm in the left seat, I'll fly it as I determine it should be flown.

[SunDog]

Or, your evaluation is way off, having cherry picked some assertive statements, while overlooking the references to teamwork, mutual planning, consensus, and listening and considering other crew members input?

I've knocked it off for airsickness, and for a MS-T being shook up by turbulence. When I had to knock it off for mechanical reasons, I didn't need the 'crew" to make the call, and you probably didn't either. If the plane got sick, I bet you made the call on the course if action. You might have listened to the others, but you were the arbiter.

Previos post, my MO wanted to clear the altitude change with MB, and if that made him feel more confortable, that was OK with me. I wasn't looking for a referee, or permission; just giving him the room to explore what he felt he needed to explore. No fussing, yelling, or pouting Just two grownups working it out. He felt MB should know I made that change - perhaps he was hoping for direction to the contrary from MB I don't know, as they didn't care. He git a "copy" I think, with no further comment, which I think is what you would have expected, too. If they had come back with "No, stay  up there", you and I would both be shocked. Not sure now, but I think my next call would have been RTB.

In over a decade, my only other isuue was a proposed change by a new MO, who wanted to change an expanding square spacing from 1/2 mile to 1/4, on the way to the starting point.

I explained the diffrence between a square and a spiral, and how the MS would be spending the first few minutes looking at sky from the left window.  The MO was "assertive" in this case. Someone has to be in charge, though, and so we did 1/2 mile. Just a minor snit, as far as I know.

I could have weaseled out, played the "safety" card, and said I didn't want to fly a continous steep turn without a chance to lift the wing and peek for traffic. But just gave him the real reasons.

Indecision, or lack of assertiveness, is dangerous. I'm not a bully, tyrant, or deaf to the crew. I listen and consider, always. But at some point, someone has to make the final call.

Example; if MB calls and says divert to another location, I'm hearing that from the MO, assuming he's qualified. If he is qualified, I'm not listening to the FM, anyway.  I'll get the nose pointed in the approximate direction, and ask him what they want us to do. Then I think we'll work out a plan together. That's it,  99.99% of the time. But we gotta agree, don't we? And if not, someone has to make a decision.

[Eclipse]

^ The problem is your seeming inability to end a sentence without reminding yourself you're in charge.

It's not just this thread, just about every place you've posted it appears to be important to you that everyone
understands you're in charge, you know better, or you have no time for anything you personally deem optional.

Those of us who have had to deal with, and clean up after, members who "know better", can read right through that.

[Alaric]

Or, your evaluation is way off, having cherry picked some assertive statements, while overlooking the references to teamwork, mutual planning, consensus, and listening and considering other crew members input?

I've knocked it off for airsickness, and for a MS-T being shook up by turbulence. When I had to knock it off for mechanical reasons, I didn't need the 'crew" to make the call, and you probably didn't either. If the plane got sick, I bet you made the call on the course if action. You might have listened to the others, but you were the arbiter.

Previos post, my MO wanted to clear the altitude change with MB, and if that made him feel more confortable, that was OK with me. I wasn't looking for a referee, or permission; just giving him the room to explore what he felt he needed to explore. No fussing, yelling, or pouting Just two grownups working it out. He felt MB should know I made that change - perhaps he was hoping for direction to the contrary from MB I don't know, as they didn't care. He git a "copy" I think, with no further comment, which I think is what you would have expected, too. If they had come back with "No, stay  up there", you and I would both be shocked. Not sure now, but I think my next call would have been RTB.

In over a decade, my only other isuue was a proposed change by a new MO, who wanted to change an expanding square spacing from 1/2 mile to 1/4, on the way to the starting point.

I explained the diffrence between a square and a spiral, and how the MS would be spending the first few minutes looking at sky from the left window.  The MO was "assertive" in this case. Someone has to be in charge, though, and so we did 1/2 mile. Just a minor snit, as far as I know.

I could have weaseled out, played the "safety" card, and said I didn't want to fly a continous steep turn without a chance to lift the wing and peek for traffic. But just gave him the real reasons.

Indecision, or lack of assertiveness, is dangerous. I'm not a bully, tyrant, or deaf to the crew. I listen and consider, always. But at some point, someone has to make the final call.

Example; if MB calls and says divert to another location, I'm hearing that from the MO, assuming he's qualified. If he is qualified, I'm not listening to the FM, anyway.  I'll get the nose pointed in the approximate direction, and ask him what they want us to do. Then I think we'll work out a plan together. That's it,  99.99% of the time. But we gotta agree, don't we? And if not, someone has to make a decision.

Goodness knows I've flown with pilots  of varying degrees of experience from many wings on both training and actual missions.  I'm certainly glad I've never had the misfortune of flying with a pilot with the attitude you've displayed on this board.   

[SunDog]

You wouldn't want to plan the mission? Work together, agree on the plan, handle the MB comms? Give me steering commands, make suggestions and have them be considered seriously?  Work up a new plan on the fly, when we get diverted? Work the panel mount GPS, get into the chart, reccoomend an altitude for the new search area? Fly with me, and I won't even LOOK at the Becker, it's all yours, unless you ask me to do something with it. . . I'll gladly go with the MO as far the rules allow - you'll be busy, and I'll be grateful. As the book says, you get all the above, and my respect.

How about having an MP who is willing to terminate without pause or question if you're airsick, tired, or had enough of the turbulence? Or, as I do, brief that one vote wins on mission actions? If you, or the MS, don't like what we're doing, we stop doing it, regardless if I think it's safe or appropriate. I ain't dragging you into ANYTHING you aren't comfortable with.

But. Would you get annoyed if I decided, as PIC, to land out, because the the oil pressure was dropping and the oil temp was rising? Would you really want to have a meeting and a vote on that? MO and MS vote, 2 -1, we press on to MB?  Silly example, I know, but I use it to illustrate only.

Please, look back; the other guy and I went down a OT rat hole IRT to who commands a flight - and my point is we, MP & MO, are making the calls together, as a team. On the very, very rare/odd occasion that can be possible in human interaction, an honest disagreement may occur, and two people of good will may agree to disagree. I decided we'd fly lower, and the MO wasn't on-board with it, but he didn't think it was worth calling it a day over, either. If he did, I'd respect it and head for the barn. But it was, in fact, my perogative. CAP, FAA, universal morality, whatever authority you want to cite, I'm avoiding the fur ball.

He characterized me as control freak (though I'd suggest a mirror for his use), but misses or forgets the narrowness of the topic - at some point, someone MAY have to arbitrate, on rare occasion. His description of the MP as a "bus driver" was silly - and no qualified MO is going to "issue commands" IRT the mission. He won't have to - both of us are working together. And no MP is driving along oblivious to the conduct of the mission. Or shouldn't be. Maybe a chaffeuur drives like that, or a bus driver, but you and I better be involved cross-task - I'm telling you what I'm thinking, and you're telling me what's going through your head, too.

[SunDog]

^ The problem is your seeming inability to end a sentence without reminding yourself you're in charge.

It's not just this thread, just about every place you've posted it appears to be important to you that everyone
understands you're in charge, you know better, or you have no time for anything you personally deem optional.

Those of us who have had to deal with, and clean up after, members who "know better", can read right through that.

"Who is in charge" was the narrow focus of the discussion, command preogative; so common sense would indicate "who's in charge" would be the in the text, wouldn't it? If we were talking about bird strikes, "birds" might get mentioned, right?

I think you're letting your righteous indignation with my other posts influence you here. But, I could be wrong. About this and anything else. You ever think that, yourself?

I can gripe, complain, think "I know" better, and still do things by the book. I can think a procedure is badly designed, poorly implemented, wasteful, and stupid. And still follow it. I can vent here, no harm done, except to delicate sensibilities. You aren't cleaning up after me, at least not so far - for the better part of four decades, the airplane has ALWAYS been re-usable after my last flight, and everyone in it went home with all their fingers and toes.

Don't confuse my critcism of some aspects of CAP with sloth and blithe disregard. My opinion, based on my experience, is that some of what (and how) we do things is gacked. But I go along as a contributing team member, as well or better than the general CAP population.

If I do bend something, someday, it won't be becasue "I thought I knew better" - it'll be an honest, human error, deeply regretted and personally painful. I like airplanes. . .

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

You wouldn't want to plan the mission? Work together, agree on the plan, handle the MB comms? Give me steering commands, make suggestions and have them be considered seriously?  Work up a new plan on the fly, when we get diverted? Work the panel mount GPS, get into the chart, reccoomend an altitude for the new search area? Fly with me, and I won't even LOOK at the Becker, it's all yours, unless you ask me to do something with it. . . I'll gladly go with the MO as far the rules allow - you'll be busy, and I'll be grateful. As the book says, you get all the above, and my respect.

How about having an MP who is willing to terminate without pause or question if you're airsick, tired, or had enough of the turbulence? Or, as I do, brief that one vote wins on mission actions? If you, or the MS, don't like what we're doing, we stop doing it, regardless if I think it's safe or appropriate. I ain't dragging you into ANYTHING you aren't comfortable with.

But. Would you get annoyed if I decided, as PIC, to land out, because the the oil pressure was dropping and the oil temp was rising? Would you really want to have a meeting and a vote on that? MO and MS vote, 2 -1, we press on to MB?  Silly example, I know, but I use it to illustrate only.

Please, look back; the other guy and I went down a OT rat hole IRT to who commands a flight - and my point is we, MP & MO, are making the calls together, as a team. On the very, very rare/odd occasion that can be possible in human interaction, an honest disagreement may occur, and two people of good will may agree to disagree. I decided we'd fly lower, and the MO wasn't on-board with it, but he didn't think it was worth calling it a day over, either. If he did, I'd respect it and head for the barn. But it was, in fact, my perogative. CAP, FAA, universal morality, whatever authority you want to cite, I'm avoiding the fur ball.

He characterized me as control freak (though I'd suggest a mirror for his use), but misses or forgets the narrowness of the topic - at some point, someone MAY have to arbitrate, on rare occasion. His description of the MP as a "bus driver" was silly - and no qualified MO is going to "issue commands" IRT the mission. He won't have to - both of us are working together. And no MP is driving along oblivious to the conduct of the mission. Or shouldn't be. Maybe a chaffeuur drives like that, or a bus driver, but you and I better be involved cross-task - I'm telling you what I'm thinking, and you're telling me what's going through your head, too.

Thank you for clarifying, everything you've said here makes sense and is reasonable.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

^ The problem is your seeming inability to end a sentence without reminding yourself you're in charge.

It's not just this thread, just about every place you've posted it appears to be important to you that everyone
understands you're in charge, you know better, or you have no time for anything you personally deem optional.

Those of us who have had to deal with, and clean up after, members who "know better", can read right through that.

Don't confuse my critcism of some aspects of CAP with sloth and blithe disregard. My opinion, based on my experience, is that some of what (and how) we do things is gacked. But I go along as a contributing team member, as well or better than the general CAP population.

Constructive Criticism is healthy and so is being part of the solution.  Let's work towards making the system better from within, by being the most professional aircrew, ground team member, base staff volunteer in our unit, group or wing.