9780991975808

Dictionaries define captaincy as the office of captain; and captain "From Lat., caput: head." In practice then the captain is the head of a self-contained group of people that functions as a single unit. By extension captaincy is a billet, an office that requires the individual — regardless of rank — who fills that billet to assume command of such unit. In Civil Aviation the captain is usually defined in the Flight Operations Manual (FOM) as the "pilot-in-command (PIC) of an aircraft and crew." Captaincy, however, is inferred from the captain's job description under "Responsibilities of captains" which generally state: "To take charge of the aircraft and crew." But just how does one go about "taking charge of the aircraft and crew?"

To most pilots this question is seldom an object of contemplation. They assume that captaincy is exercising command and, therefore, "to take charge of the flight" is the same as assuming command. However, it is suggested that command and captaincy are not quite the same. Though both imply trust in, and responsibility for the actions of the commander, captaincy augments the commander's responsibility with responsibility for the actions of every member of the crew. Though captaincy and command are interchangeable in general reference to the office of PIC of an aircraft and its crew, there are times when a little hair-splitting is necessary. This chapter discusses the finer points of command when a crew is involved.
…

Nevertheless, once a pilot becomes the PIC of a multiple-crew complement, he must add captaincy to his skills inventory if he expects to effectively discharge his responsibilities. There are good reasons for multiple-crew operations, not the least of which is workload (others are safety, fatigue, etc.). In such operations the PIC simply would not be able to carry the workload by himself regardless of his command competence: he must distribute it. This is where captaincy skills come in handy. They are the skills he can apply to evaluate needs; to delegate and supervise tasks; and to assess the results. Only by distributing the workload can he hope to accomplish his assigned mission and thereby discharge his command responsibilities.
…

Captaincy then is the combined skill of command and leadership and a billet that requires the PIC to discharge his responsibilities for his flights and crews he is assigned. It demands that the captain learn how the crew perceives him by recognizing hints and by observing subtle signs. He should then adjust his posture and the tone of his command to assure completion of missions with the help of a loyal crew. Captains should exact a minimum degree of deference to assure effective control.

Captains should keep in mind that the performance of a crew is more often a measure of captaincy than of the crews ability. They should also remember that crews are assigned for the convenience of operations, not of the captain.

Skilled captains balance command and leadership to make line flying look easy by being proficient commanders and by leading their crews. Unskilled captains turn routine operations into tribulations by trying to manage their flights and by pushing crews. Briefly, skilled captains command and lead; unskilled captains manage and push. (G.N. Fehér, Beyond Stick-and-Rudder, Hawkesbury, 2013, p. 261-262, 267)

OzoneRanger

I'm reminded by certain foreign countries that fly with an "aircraft commander." This guy's sole job is to be in command of the aircraft, and not necessarily take hold of the controls. Much like modern (and historical) maritime operations.

That seems to better fit your example of captaincy, but as an aside I wonder what those aforementioned countries CRM is like?

80ktsClamp

I love how this guy keeps quoting his own horribly written book in his posts.

9780991975808

Thanks for your observations, OzoneRanger. I haven't had any experience with any "aircraft commanders" of the kind you refer to, so I can't say how they might compare with the example. However, I have flown maritime patrols where the "mission specialist" was in control of operations, but the captain had operational control (of the flight). These two modes of control are not the same. Control of operations is a management (staff) function to set or change destinations, terminate or revise or reroute missions (or flights), and so forth. As a rule, the mission specialist isn't a pilot: he's a manager and as such is not vested with command authority either in law or in regulations (Canada and the US). Consequently, he cannot legally command. Only the PIC can. Operational control, on the other hand, is a command function to carry out the orders of the mission specialist if present, or those of Flight Operations if not (e.g. airlines).

9780991975808

Thanks for your feedback, 80ktsClamp. It would help a lot if you could be a little more specific. Which are the sections you find "horribly written" and why? What do you find objectionable? The style, the diction, or something else? The book's Flesch Reading Ease index is 52 and the Flesch-Kincaid Level (developed by J. P. Kincaid for the U.S. Navy and became the DD military standard) is 10. I believe these numbers are generally in line with the targeted readership's expectations, but I admit, they might not fill everyone's needs. How would you write the sections you object to? I'd appreciate any constructive criticism and suggestions.

OzoneRanger

Very interesting. The "aircraft commander" business was from second hand knowledge of several Russian airlines/military. I have no idea if they still run their crews that way, but as it was explained the commander was essentially a senior pilot who had moved up from Flight Engineer, F/O, Capt, then Aircraft Commander.

Seemed to me like they had way too many bodies in the cockpit.

9780991975808

Could be. During the Cold War, armed "navigators" were assigned to Aeroflot's and other Soviet-bloc flag carriers' flights. These (trustworthy) commissars were empowered by the Politburo, KGB, or some other CIA/DHS-equivalent state agency to take whatever action they saw fit, included killing the pilot(s), to "safeguard" the flight. They weren't pilots a far as I know, though they may have been given some minimal flight training. I don't know. Those I've asked were reluctant to engage in any conversation, and the pilots usually answered with a look I was expected to understand. I didn't. Can't recall now, but I believe on the TU-134 these "navigators" didn't have a seat. They strapped themselves standing up into a 5-point harness anchored to the cockpit access aisle bulkhead for takeoffs and landings.

propfails2FX

"Captaincy" is a term that was thrown around a lot in the RNZAF. Sort of what the USN/USMC/USCG calls "Airmenship".

On another note, RNZAF P-3 crews can have a Navigator/Captain (not the norm, but an exception). He/she signs for the airplane. I know we had "Mission Commanders" in the USN, but no kidding the Kiwis considered the nav/capt as an ultimate authority of safety of flight.

9780991975808

Excellent example of how title-role relation can vary between cultures. Hence the need for some sort of standardization, starting with defining terms, describing jobs, and relating one to the other. If it's of any consolation, the ICAO here, in Montreal, has been wrestling with this issue for decades without notable success. Without any teeth, its findings and recommendations end up in its member states' file 13. So maybe if pilots worldwide start reading the same sheet music, the industry just might pay attention to the harmony. But for that to happen, they must take an active role in shaping their industry. Consider the following:

As an industry, aviation now boasts a century of history. As a profession, it is mature enough to take care of itself if line pilots are willing to accept the challenge to take care of themselves. Given the necessary attention, pilots can establish their own order as do other professionals.

The model suggested is a self-policing professional society of Air Carrier pilots with a mandate and powers to license its members based on its own standards. (ibid p. 325-326)

Such national orders could then conciliate their standards and thereby bypass ICAO and its impotence.

OzoneRanger

Now that's an interesting idea. However the maritime industry, with it's rich history, does not function internationally in this manner (though they do have a pretty strong international union). Good food for thought though.