A large operator hires an experienced pilot from a smaller airline where they were a captain. At the large airline they are flying as a first officer on a different aircraft type. One day, the weather is marginal and they are flying with a newly promoted captain who has low total hours. During the approach, the young captain has an uneasy feeling about the weather conditions and calls for a go-around. The experienced FO replies "I've made plenty of landings in worse weather, we will be fine" and continues the approach. Moments later, the aircraft crashes into a mountain short of the runway. Which of the following options correctly describes this scenario?
-
A
Invulnerability attitude. The captain felt too safe flying with their experienced colleague and fully trusted their abilities to land the aircraft in below-minimum conditions, which led to a loss of situation awareness and consequently the crash of the aircraft.
-
B
A laissez-faire cockpit. The captain let the first officer proceed as they liked, without executing any control over their actions or providing an opinion, up to the point at which the aircraft crashed into the mountain.
-
C
A steep authority gradient. The inexperienced captain lacked assertiveness and was unable to put forward their opinion, which led to the FO assuming control and finally crashing the aircraft.
-
D
A mismatch of status and role. The assigned captain has the role of commander. The experienced first officer has a higher status, assumes the commander’s role during approach and executes its privileges with the consequence of crashing the aircraft.
Invulnerability attitude. The captain felt too safe flying with their experienced colleague and fully trusted their abilities to land the aircraft in below-minimum conditions, which led to a loss of situation awareness and consequently the crash of the aircraft --> INCORRECT. The captain did not feel safe, so he called for a go-around. When the FO continues the approach the captain doesn't have a chance to address the situation as the aircraft crashes "moments later".
A laissez-faire cockpit. The captain let the first officer proceed as they liked, without executing any control over their actions or providing an opinion, up to the point at which the aircraft crashed into the mountain --> INCORRECT. The captain did execute control and give an opinion, he called for a go-around. The FO ignored him and before the captain could do anything else the aircraft crashed "moments later".
A steep authority gradient. The inexperienced captain lacked assertiveness and was unable to put forward their opinion, which led to the FO assuming control and finally crashing the aircraft --> INCORRECT. A steep authority gradient is the exact opposite of this definition - it would be the captain dominating the cockpit, ignoring the FO and doing everything his own way.
A mismatch of status and role. The assigned captain has the role of commander. The experienced first officer has a higher status, assumes the commander’s role during approach and executes its privileges with the consequence of crashing the aircraft --> CORRECT.
Status: Your social position within a group, e.g. Captain/First Officer.
Role: Your expected behaviour for a given position, e.g. Pilot Flying/Pilot Monitoring.
The danger in this situation is that an inexperienced Captain may start to defer to the more experienced First Officer. The Captain should be the ultimate authority on the flight deck, but there is a risk that if the Captain perceives the First Officer to be "better" (due to experience/total flight time) then he may become confused between his status as Captain and behaving as the lower status (lower experienced) role when dealing with a more experienced, but lower ranked, First Officer.
Your Notes (not visible to others)
This question has appeared on the real examination, you can find the related countries below.
-
Germany1
Use Keyboard Shortcuts
