9780991975808

Today's young First Officers (FOs)—and Second Officers (SOs) and Cruise Relief Pilots (Cruisers)—are unprepared for line operations when they are assigned line duty, unless they had received some sort of formal "lieutenancy" training before they joined the airlines. In nearly all cases they are unprepared to assist the captain in the conduct of a flight. This is not their fault and they ought not be criticized for this deficiency. All of them came from previous pilot-in-command (PIC) positions on other (usually smaller) equipment operated by other carriers. The fault is with airline training curricula, which fail to recognize the second-in-command (SIC) as the Staff Officer of the flight. Further, since they do not receive any lieutenancy training during their employment, they work the line for years without really fulfilling their roles as FOs. At some point in their careers they are promoted to captaincy and usually receive some form of "Upgrade Checkout." However, at no point in their careers are they thought what Staff Officers are supposed to do. True, they are well trained to fly the airplane and to handle the tons of paperwork. But there is much more to the FO's billet than just filling Pilot Flying (PF) and Pilot Not Flying (PNF) roles, and shuffling paper.

Like captaincy, lieutenancy is a billet, a position, an office that stipulates what the man who fills it—regardless of rank—is paid to do. The job description of an FO is summarized as "assist the captain" in the Flight Operations Manual under "Responsibilities of First Officers." But what does it mean, "assist the captain?" The overwhelming majority of FOs simply does not know. When asked they usually list aircraft handling, administrative work, PF and PNF duties and the like. During the author's career, very few FOs came even close to the correct definition of "assist," though one described his job as "keeping the captain out of trouble." Although incomplete, his description was, nevertheless, the most accurate.
...

Lieutenancy(113) means a state of mind that accepts the responsibilities of the captain as the responsibilities of the FO. This mind set is based on the recognition that the captain is responsible for more than what he can personally control. It is the main reason FOs are needed. Without them, captains would fail, as do micromanagers.

(113) Adaptation from Inman, Vernon K., Command and Lieutenancy, Marine Corps Gazette.

(Excerpt: G.N. Fehér, Beyond Stick-and-Rudder, Hawkesbury, 2013, p. 268-269)

hypoxia

"Lets take a vote. My four stripes beats your three"
-anonymous.

Toonces

"There's no rank in the cockpit." -Said every military pilot

I always found that difficult when flying with my commanding officer, but eventually you learn that your life is just as valuable as everyone else's in the airplane; or for that matter, your job. Know when to speak up, and know how to back yourself up.

rickair7777

This makes no sense at all. It looks like somebody took an article and military infantry leadership and did a find/replace. Company commander does not equal Airline Captain. Platoon leader does not equal FO. Different jobs, different modes of interaction.

9780991975808

Thanks for your comment, rickair7777. The author of this excerpt is yours truly. I agree. "Company commander does not equal Airline Captain. Platoon leader does not equal FO. Different jobs, different modes of interaction." But I don't think I'm suggesting that it does, that these offices, jobs or modes of interaction are the same: only that their relationships are based on the same principles. I concede, however, that it's sometimes difficult to get the gist of an argument in isolation. Also, I realize, the word "lieutenancy" isn't a common word.

Nevertheless...

Dictionaries define lieutenancy as the office of a lieutenant and lieutenant as an "officer who acts for a superior." Since there is no longer a need for FOs to physically assist the captain with heavy flight controls (excepting some emergencies), to climb down into hell holes (access to below-deck compartments) to close hatches, or to add their ten fingers to complicated engine start procedures, "acts for" covers the concept "assist" fairly well in today's Air Carrier operations. And since "lieutenancy" best defines "acting for," this term seems appropriate to label the FO's billet. (ibid)

E.g. an assistant's professional relation with whoever is charged with reaching a goal or operating a process is the same in principle whether he/she is the minister of a government or the vice-principal of a high school. Same goes for "deputy," "aide," "adjutant," etc. "Lieutenant" literally means "holding the place of," i.e. "standing in for." The military simply applied this principle, as did other organizations whose mandate demands clear responsibility-distribution - e.g. fire fighting, law enforcement, nuclear power generation, etc. - regardless what they call their people. It just so happens that in flight operations whoever is assigned "lieutenancy" is called FO, SO, Cruiser, etc. If there's a better word for this billet, I for one would like to learn it.

thurberm

The OP is spot on. I've seen the military and the civilian world now, and I think those who are criticizing might be missing the point.

The piece is not trying to say that FOs should "take charge" more, rather that they are poorly trained in the civilian flying industry to be the real "Captain Support Officer" that they really could, and should, be.

"My four stripes beats your three..." is a big part of the problem, along with non-existent leadership (not management, there is a difference) training in the civilian aviation sector. FOs going out of their way to help is, more often than not, met with suspicion and disdain from a lot of Captains, who were themselves never taught how to really be that support guy. Especially true outside the highly structured 121 world. Consequently, many--instead of properly utilizing a good FO when they're fortunate enough to team up with one--are threatened, and so proceed to beat all intitiative out of said individual.

Unfortunately, those FOs eventually become Captains, and the cycle perpetuates itself. In a world where one must go along to get along (as well as keep one's job), where one butthurt Captain or CP senior to you means cleaning out your locker with no good explanation, future cockpit leaders are poisoned and rarely recover.

There are exceptions--when my trips started out on day one, leg one with the Captain saying "We're in this together--I consider you a co-captain, I'm just the guy who signs the paperwork..." it always put me at ease and made me want to help the guy out as much as possible. Even though I still knew that at the end of the day HE'S still the Captain (and I never forgot it), with all the attached rights and responsibilities. Because he gets it. Unfortunately, I see the opposite far more often in the time I've spent at multiple companies now in the civilian world.

Yes, there's no rank in the cockpit in the military world. Or in the debrief either, for that matter. But then I never had to worry about being able to make my mortgage or feed my family or have a bad reference follow me around for a lifetime because I spoke up. That's ALWAYS in the back of my mind now, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

So, I'll continue to be a good Lieutenant, Captain Support Officer, FO, whatever you wanna call it, whenever that's my role, and set the example at every opportunity. And when I'm the Captain, I still consider it part of my duty to grow the FO in the other seat into a good Captain Support Officer too--which, by the way, is usually in every company's Captain job description... Not just make sure he's got a hotel room and knows the bus time in the morning. 'Cause he'll upgrade one day too, and if he doesn't learn how from me, then who?!

9780991975808

Thanks for the feedback, thurberm. You raise some vary valid points, considerations no less important — and neglected — than those already taken out of the closet, above. Some of these are probably best addressed under headings of their own. Others could be fitted in here even though they are meant for captains and captain-trainees. (Look for the thread, “Captaincy” — to follow.)

There are times when FOs develop the jitters. They do not seem able to do anything on their own; they turn to the captain for even minor decisions. However, in nearly all cases, such jitters are the products of extended service under captains who "rule by reversal." Whenever the FO makes a decision, these captains strenuously look for and find ways to reverse it. These captains act out their self-importance by constantly issuing commands to do the obvious, correcting for the sake of maintaining supremacy, giving advice about routine matters, explaining the self-evident, engaging in long-winded discourse, bombast and the like. Unfortunately, constant exposure to such incompetence will eventually drive even the most conscientious FO to abandon his enthusiasm for initiative, and let the captain make all decisions and fly the airplane himself. The best advice to these unfortunate FOs is to take the abuse in stride and not let someone else's lack of professionalism stain their own professional standards.

...

Captains are well advised to meditate on the following realities. The FO is not there because he wants to benefit from your counseling or wisdom, or to enjoy the "privilege" of your company. He is there because he loves to fly and because he has to bring home a paycheck to feed his hungry kids. Chances are he is trying hard to get along with you: he must often swallow his pride and his opinions and bite his tongue; he must accept to do things your way even if he does not agree. He tries to do his job well and he tries to make the best of the hierarchy imposed on him by the seniority system. Although he will learn by observing you — and you, by observing him — he does not consider you his instructor or mentor. His only feeling towards you, personally, if any, is that you are an obstacle to "his left seat." If you acknowledge his presence as an officer of the flight — which he is — and listen to and respect his views, he just might consider you a means — rather than an obstacle — for him to reach his goals. If you do your job well, he reasons, your common employer will succeed and he will get your seat in due course. (ibid p. 265-266)