USMCFLYR

Thanks for the detailed description HSLD. I am just now beginning to dig into this multi-crewed concept, having been a single seat guy my entire career and even when instructing we taught a single seat mentality. I never would have guessed that there would have been a change of controls during the approach brief.

Rickair - thanks for your format too. I was given the training manual for the UC-12s out of Miramar and this is where I first read that they had a change of controls and the PF briefed the approach.

I knew there would be a lot of different ways of doing things. I'm sure in the end I can adapt .

USMCFLYR

joepilot

As I am looking at this thread, two things stick out: At some carriers the PF briefs, at others the PNF briefs. At some places there is always a transfer of control during the brief, at others the control transfer only occurs if the aircraft is NOT on autopilot.

Joe

HSLD

Coming from the single-seat background where you are quite adept at multi-tasking, it must seem odd to hand-off the jet. However, if you frame it as "you have two heads in the cockpit - use them" it makes more sense.

One guy can mind the store (fly) and the other guy can do something else. This is really a luxury during an emergency - one guy flys the jet and the other guy runs checklists and pushes buttons. The key here - someone is always flying the airplane and as long as you have two pilots, why not divy-up the work.

USMCFLYR

I'm all for the divvying up the work approach. We sold CRM to the single seat community by considering your flight members (2-3 others in some cases), your duty officer (SOF in the AF maybe), and even ATC as your *help* in duties and certainly during emergencies.

It does seem odd to me to hand-off the controls though. When I did fly with other instructors (with controls in the back), or the FEW times I actually flew a two-seater with a WSO in the back, I would be more inclined to have the crew member not flying brief the approach to me. Of course I have already looked it over and I would have the approach open myself, but the brief (and the backup) would be performed by the crew member not flying, and the change of controls seems unnecessary.
Concerning the pilot backing himself up on the approach plates; I know of a situation (wx divert, low on gas, a hydraulic emergency (loss of brakes), a few other problems and things got very hectic) where the backseater briefed the approach but misread a symbol for displaced threshold as an arresting gear symbol and ended up running off the runway when they tried to take a trap. If I remember right the pilot never took a look at the approach plate or airfield diagram.

As far as learning to do things differently - I'm flexible It will take more getting use to having other people's hands on the throttle or reaching ACROSS my hands/arms to accuate switches (as I saw in some video when the PNF reached across the PF's hand/arm to raise the gear handle or seeing a flight engineer working the throttles). This will take some chair flying to work these flows out!

USMCFLYR

GrummanCT

I know an interviewer who is very keen on hearing the plates are current, and also noting the MSA.

USMCFLYR

Is there a reason you aren't mentioning WHO this interviewer is?
I have also heard that mentioning the MSA can be a good thing.

USMCFLYR

Phantom Flyer

There are many ways to accomplish the objective and a lot of the advice already posted is excellent!

In my experience, it's up to the PF as to who does what predicated on cockpit workload. If the PF wants the PNF to brief the approach, that's fine, as long as it's done correctly. Another reason to accomplish the briefing early....but not 200 miles out as I've seen done.

As has been stated, double check everything, check the freqs, tune and identify radios and don't "assume" the other pilot has everything set correctly. Also, one last point that seems almost ridiculous to mention but it has happened. In the heat of battle, ALWAYS make sure someone is flying the aircraft, especially when the workload is the heaviest and the tendency is to be "heads down" !!

Just my two cents worth....

G'Day Mates

Phantom Flyer

I think you'll find that with most 121 carriers, the preference is to have the PF brief the approach as s/he is going to be "flying the approach and initiating the missed approach, if required". It is a common practice for the PF to hand off the aircraft control to the PNF and have the PF install the approach, tune and identify the radios and brief the approach and then take control of the aircraft and have the PNF double check everything. Of course, if the PF wants to do it in the opposite sequence, that's fine as long as it's done correctly and double checked.

The key is that someone has to be flying the aircraft at all times and most carriers don't want the "PF" flying and briefing or setting the approach up at the same time. It may sound trite to be so specific as to duties and responsibilities but you'd be surprised how many times I've seen both pilots "heads down" in the terminal area and had to ask "who's flying the aircraft ?".

G'Luck Mates

N9373M

Not sure if it's mentioned anywhere in the thread, but make sure you've got the right airport as well as the correct runway.

dojetdriver

Same at my previous carrier. The PF did what was called an "arrival brief", which was a big picture thing. Something along the lines of "this going to be a coupled/hand flown ILS/VOR/LNAV/VNAV approach, plan on flying the published missed unless directed otherwise, we'll plan on exiting at (insert taxi way) to the gate via (insert taxi ways)", as well as any special considerations like runway contamination, fuel state if you might have to go missed and try another approach or just go to the alternate, etc. The PNF did the actual approach brief.

Also, we had two take off briefs. One at the gate before we pushed, another before take off in case there were any changes to the original brief.

My current job, PF does all the approach briefing, and just one take off brief.

It's on the plate, there should be no reason to omit it. Especially if operating in mountainous/obstacle laden areas. Also state fix that the MSA circle is based off of.