Leading from the Cockpit

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

By Lieutenant Geoffrey Frank, U.S. Navy

Personalities and interpersonal relations characterize the following tragedies, termed crew coordination mishaps in the jargon of aviation. But naval air doesn’t monopolize this type of accident. A re­view of any community’s safety records reveals the challenge posed by the human element during hazardous operations.

• A commander, squadron executive officer, is obviously flying a marginal approach but doesn’t want to add to his embarrassment by “waving off” to try again. The lieutenant with him, a desig­nated instructor, doesn’t want to risk his executive officer’s notorious temper by calling for the wave-off. He thinks the executive officer, an outstanding pilot, can pull it off. After they crash, it takes rescue workers six hours to pull their bodies out of the wreckage.
• During a night tactical mission, a crew focuses on a baffling but minor electrical problem. Frustrated, they begin arguing about its source. As the pilot points out a circuit breaker he wants cycled, the air­craft impacts a hilltop.
• Two lieutenant commanders have been performing unauthorized “show” ma­neuvers during routine training flights. The airmanship competition escalates until they wisely call a truce. Months later a young lieutenant, considered one of the unit’s best pilots, crashes after at­tempting similar maneuvers for weeks. The one survivor admits that other crew­members were “uncomfortable” about the stunts. But no one objected.

The sea services routinely operate in harm’s way, and safety ranks among the highest concerns of our officers. In de­stroying our own assets through operator

Coordination problems are not con­fined to aircraft with large crews; two-seaters (here, an F-I4 prepares to launch from the Theodore Roose­velt) and single-seaters in flights are also vulnerable.

error or mechanical malfunction, we ac­complish our enemies’ objectives for them—and the loss of a close relative or friend costs far more than just a wasted percentage of U.S. readiness.

The crew-caused mishap is especially tragic because it is so preventable. Good crew coordination is best achieved through effective cockpit leadership.

Aviation presents unique challenges, but so do surface, submarine, and am­phibious operations. The teamwork re­quired for success in the air is universal; good leaders anywhere achieve it in the same ways. A flight crew’s performance, like that of any other team, directly re­sults from the quality of its leadership.

Naval aviation safety managers believe that nothing happens by accident. They painstakingly search the chain of events and actions preceding a mishap, seeking lessons learned to prevent another. Over the past decade this approach has high­lighted weak aircrew coordination as an insidious villain, causing or contributing to a majority of aircraft mishaps.

Today’s carefully selected aviation personnel receive years of training for specific crew positions and must demon­strate readiness for every imaginable con­tingency. Survival in the air, however, depends upon the successful integration of their efforts. Too often mishap investi­gators find that perfectly competent indi­viduals simply failed to work together, with disastrous consequences.

Surprisingly, this situation has not been unique to aircraft with large crews, nor is it confined to the high-pressure, “seconds count” emergencies one asso­ciates with aviation. Inadequate crew coordination creates two-crew aircraft mishaps during routine evolutions; it also can affect single-seat aircraft, which usu-

ally launch in flights of two or more.

Safe mission accomplishment depends upon the entire team’s performance.

Even when it’s time to “do that pilot stuff,” the best make maximum use of all the eyes, ears, and judgment on board. Crew coordination became one of mili­tary and civilian aviation’s buzzwords for the 1980s. Its emphasis has greatly con­tributed to safety and mission success.

Target: Crew Coordination

Our pursuit of improved crew perfor­mance includes many elements. Aircraft manuals, which primarily addressed emergencies from a purely functional, systems approach (what steps must be taken for the aircraft) have been reori­ented toward specific duties (who must accomplish or monitor which step). Ex­panded pre-flight briefs review individual responsibilities and clarify their interac­tions.

Aircrew Coordination Training (ACT) courses have been added to the fleet re­placement squadrons; they provide spe­cific model and mission training for avia­tion personnel en route to fleet squadrons. Modeled after successful pro­grams developed in the commercial- airline industry, ACT emphasizes cockpit management and team-simulator train­ing.

Crew-coordination programs highlight critical cockpit skills such as communica­tion, clearly assigned delegation of tasks, expectations for performance, monitor­ing, and feedback. Interpersonal relations are stressed—including respect, praise, and criticism.

These terms probably sound familiar to graduates of leadership training courses. ACT makes an equivalent contribution to cockpit leadership.

Like leadership courses, though, these outstanding programs only provide tools for the job; the rest is up to us.

Leadership

We are often reminded that airmanship is only one grade on a naval aviator’s fit­ness report. We tend to think of it as "stickwork,” or technical mission knowledge. But successfully operating °ur multicrewed aircraft in the increas- ■ngly crowded and interdependent arena °f modern aviation requires every trait of ^a strong officer.

Successful flight crews do a lot of •hings well, but all feature a climate that dicks superior performance; one in ^which individuals share an attitude of Professionalism and dedication. This ntmosphere is the intangible secret ingre-

Pr

dient that generates safety and mission success in any unit. We quickly recognize its presence—or absence—in com­mands, divisions, and work centers. It is every bit as critical in the air, where the measurement of performance is quick and unforgiving. By creating and maintaining this climate, the aircraft commander per­forms his or her most important duty: leading the crew.

The Basics

There are nearly as many leadership guidebooks as there are Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard officers. Any will pro­vide useful insights if reviewed from an aircraft commander’s perspective. Con­sider some fundamentals:

► Respect: Relationships between seniors and subordinates should be based on mu­tual respect and trust. Surely this obvious maxim applies to aviation’s “top cut” professionals. Yet countless articles in Approach, the naval aviation safety mag­azine, mention some pinheaded ogre whose cockpit tyranny causes or worsens an unsafe situation. This embarrassingly common scenario is almost an aviation parable: The copilot who tried to prevent the accident was told to shut up. An E-8 crew chief gets personally humiliated before the entire crew because the box lunches weren’t perfect.

Nearly every aviator or aircrewman has suffered hair-raising encounters with appallingly stupid and dangerous leader­ship malpractice. We shake our heads— but no one is shocked. Is there a waiver that, during flight operations, relieves officers of their responsibility to conduct themselves like leaders?

Organization

The best division officers keep the big picture in mind at all times. They look ahead, setting goals and priorities to pre­vent the need for crisis management. They delegate to reduce workloads and ensure that each critical area receives at­tention. They assign responsibilities clearly, so that everyone knows what is expected; they continuously monitor the results. They wouldn’t think of doing everything themselves.

An outstanding aircraft commander functions exactly the same way. When a new situation develops, he (or she) re­views his options, soliciting inputs as time permits, and decides on a plan of attack. He briefs the crew and assigns tasks. The copilot might be assigned to fly the aircraft within specific parameters; another crew member to prepare several contingency fuel plans; a third to break

out the books.

Meanwhile, the aircraft commander monitors their performance and weighs his next steps. He limits his workload, allowing himself time to use his experi­ence and common sense. Of course, he has already prepared his crew for as many contingencies as possible.

In contrast to a division officer, who may be completely unqualified to per­form any of his unit’s work, the aircraft commander’s specialized skills are often the most critical to mission success. This reality probably contributes most to the “prima donna” epithet earned by some aviators; it certainly affords the opportu­nity to lead one’s crew by example.

But this entails far more than simply demonstrating one’s prowess in the air. No one is surprised when a senior pilot or flight officer has impressive abilities, but when 4,000-hour aviators show that they still hit the books, 400-hour nuggets take note. The best pilots are good copilots when they don’t have the controls; the best aviators maintain their composure and are always professional on the radios. They acknowledge and stay within their limits. They’re aggressive but disci­plined.

Young flight crews imitate their supe­riors far more than most subordinates do. They watch everything and join in with enthusiasm. Nurse your scotch at the bar past midnight before your 0600 brief, and three weeks later your juniors will pound beers until dawn before theirs.

Command

Aviators frequently make life-and- death decisions without the luxury of consulting their superiors. One night emergency at sea provides an unforgetta­ble education. Add bad weather and 20 passengers and it just gets lonelier. While it’s nice to solicit and value everyone’s inputs, the aircraft commander has to make the decisions and must be unequiv­ocally supported.

We may later question his or her judg­ment, but we must never compromise the imperative to command. Further, any air­craft commander unable to earn and keep the respect commensurate with this au­thority shouldn't be one. Flying under such leadership frightens and demoralizes a crew to the point of danger.

The commanding officer’s designation of an aircraft commander requires a unique trust and confidence. Standard operating procedures and regulations will never substitute for the aircraft com­mander’s judgment; one can’t legislate headwork. Commanding officers who oversee aviation operations must apply