I think I don't care:p

PM was just made up to make those of us with identity issues feel better about not flying.

Just be glad your not a sanitation associate. Or then again depending on where you do your monitoring it could be a significant pay increase.

Isn't the pilot not flying the one in the wearing the wet suit sitting in the back of the jet sitting in premium enjoying their adult beverage of their choice?:D

Not window dressing. As noted, define by what one does and it defines who does what. But more interesting is that you, as Capt, were still flying while the F/O ran the checklist. Many outfits have gravitated to having the Capt run the checklist since s/he is the final decision maker and to enhance SA (sorry but had to use the term) and to reduce cockpit chatter. The F/O flies while the Capt checklists (verb) and the F/O handles the airplane.

Your description makes it sound as if you were working separately and not as a team (his head in a checklist ...)

Granted, a lot of the stuff is recycled and the jargon changes. CRM went through TEM and is now SMS. You can't sell yesterday's stuff as the latest and greatest without changing the powerpoint and the terms. The problem is the jargon and junk create a jaundice toward things that may actually promote better cockpit comm and work.

I like the term "Support Pilot" for the PNF, er MP, oops I meant PM. There, got it.

It's just so much eyewash......The fact that it is a two-pilot airplane alone should make this obvious in these days of CRM. Someone always has to try to put their stamp on something as their "legacy".

e.g.: ATC>>>>>MATS>>>>MAC>>>>AMC>>>>what next?

Though I understand the evolution that you lay out in your post, and I have seen PLENTY of semantic changes in my time in the military, can you imagine a pilot saying that they didn't notice the decrease in airspeed (or the bust of an altitude or not understanding the ATC's instructions) until it was too late because s/he was called the PNF instead of PM?

I could see that excuse matrix while sitting at the end of the long green table.
"No sir, I didn't hear ATC issue me hold short instructions. But if my official title had been PM instead of PNF, I'm sure that my hearing would have improved dramatically!":rolleyes:

USMCFLYR

Thanks for you insight. This was a simulator and the copilot was being evaluated on his checklist discipline. Some airlines but not all have gravitated towards the captain running the checklist. Where I work, we are trained to do both and it is the captain's discretion. As for the last comment or yours, I really don't think you have enough information to ready, fire, aim as you did.

My PNF/PM comments are mainly saying a change in titles is just window dressing. I understand those that say it is a change in mindset but calling me something else does not make things safer and that "pilot monitoring" is not always the case. I made an example that I was the pilot actively flying the aircraft and monitoring while the copilot ran a very complex checklist. We were both "monitoring"....sometimes I more than him. But, another way to look at is this: the copilot/first officer was doing a lot more than just monitoring. He was monitoring, running a checklist, keeping me up on what he was doing, manipulating the aircraft computer and doing any other task I needed him to do. He as doing all the stuff the "pilot not flying" does. Calling him the "pilot monitoring" short-changes him in my opinion.

Just wait till the MPL comes into being and we will see just how much the 250 hour wonder in the right seat is "monitoring."

Not intended as a critique but as merely an observation. IF it worked for you, fine. On another day, it may not.

Without an explanation and training for what the PM does, it IS window dressing. But we change sometimes for the sake of change and sometimes we realize we should define more accurately what we are doing. For example, for a LONG time checklists used 'as required' or 'as desired' for switch position or system use. Someone then realized it was actually NOT an answer to the challenge

In the Dover C-5 accident, someone monitoring the airspeed called out the airspeed was slow. The response was something to the effect of "Yeah.. we're heavy." ??? That makes no sense but it satisfied the person monitoring and the person flying

I agree that we see a lot of change. CRM became TEM and now is SMS. One has to wonder how did those 22yr old pilots fly B-17s and B-24s with crews decades before there was CRM. Yes, some good crews and no doubt some bad ones. I flew with some of the old WWII vets and some were great at crew dynamics and others were "..just do it. I'm the Captain!"

But with the Capt running the checklist, s/he is using his/her experience for decision making and notifying the F/O the choices and why. The autopilot is flying the airplane and the F/O is monitoring the autopilot functions. Everyone has a good task loading and all brain cells are being used. With the Capt flying, the F/O has to interrupt and ask, "You want the APU?", "You want flaps 15 or flaps 25?" It disrupts the flow.

Granted but calling the inexperienced right seater PNF is also not going to ensure safety or monitoring either. One can not accurately monitor and challenge what one does not understand. So I believe it really is not germane to the argument.

Main point.. change without training and explanation is often met with skepticism and doubt.. as demonstrated here.

They Make ' Em, They Call It What They Want
 

I'm with Boeing. It's Pilot Monitoring.

Just my two cents.....but that's from Seattle, Everett or Renton depending on which product you're flying.

G'Day Mate:)