0
$\begingroup$

This question basically stems from Air Algerie Flight 6289 1, 2 , which crashed mainly due to pilot error combined with engine failure. One thing in particular that intrigued me is that in both Mentour Pilot's Youtube video and the Wikipedia page, it was stated that the captain's last minute decision to take control was a bad decision that contributed to the crash.

He was originally the Pilot Monitoring, or the Pilot Not Flying (PNF), and the first officer was the Pilot Flying. Immediately after the engine failure, he declared that he is going to become the Pilot Flying, told the first officer to let go of the controls, but didn't know what to do himself.

My question is, is this a bad decision simply because the captain wasn't prepared to handle the situation (since he was chatting with the purser and skipped the briefing), or is it a general rule of thumb to not initiate a change of roles in the middle of an emergency (impending stall in this case)? Is it generally applicable that the captain should not take over, or is it the opposite, that the captain actually should take over the controls in an emergency?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
9
$\begingroup$

Normally the Captain would let the FO continue flying and execute the PF's emergency drill and the capt will do the PNF's tasks.

This is what they train for in the sim. If you're PF, you remain PF.

If the FO was smart, he/she would be constantly drilling all those procedures to death whenever there was free time, so when the time comes, they just go into automatic mode and their mind is free to think ahead. That's how new pilots can outperform expectations.

If the FO was falling behind or starting to freeze up from becoming mentally saturated, the Capt would then intervene, call out "my controls" and take over the PF's tasks while the FO takes over the PNF's tasks. And if the FO is completely freaked out and out of the picture, or just doing things completely wrong, the Capt would simply start doing everything him/herself and tell the FO to read a book or just stick to the radio or something. This assumes a Captain who, you know, actually belongs in command.

Air Algerie was both a training problem and a cultural one. Developing world operators can tend to be 50 years behind the times when it comes to crew interaction and command, that is, following Crew Resource Management principles (by behind the times, I mean, for example, where the FO's job is to shut up and follow orders, like in the West in the 50s). And, in some countries, where you get ahead by your connections, pilots may get promoted to Captain because of who they are. The airlines recognize this problem, which is why you see so many expat Commonwealth/European/American Captains (retirees mostly) flying at these operators.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Great answer, so usually if assuming both pilots are professional and competent, they would not switch roles. I didn't know that Air Algerie was that unadvanced. I also didn't know that there was once a time where the captain had absolute authority over the FO. That sure didn't work out! :) Thanks for the answer, by the way. $\endgroup$
    – Aircraft Enthusiast 007
    Commented Sep 14 at 4:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The old phrase to describe copilots was "gear puller". Things changed with the advent of CRM. I knew of an Iraqi Airways captain taking a CRJ type course. He failed his check ride. He EXPECTED to be passed anyway, because that's how things went back home, and was indignant, threatening the instructor/examiner. He was whisked away and told never to come back. You wouldn't get me on any Middle Eastern (or Russian or Chinese or South American) airliner without an expat capt, even today. $\endgroup$
    – John K
    Commented Sep 14 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ As Anas Maaz pointed out below though, US Airways Flight 1549 is an opposite case. The FO, Jeff Skiles, is certainly competent and outstanding. He obviously did not freeze, panic, or freak out, even though in such dire circumstances that they were facing. The captain, Chesley Sullenberger, still took over controls nonetheless and even pressed the override button. So that somehow is contrary to the normal rule, then. $\endgroup$
    – Aircraft Enthusiast 007
    Commented Sep 20 at 19:17
1
$\begingroup$

It depends on the situation. Normally, Captains tend to take over controls if something goes wrong because ultimately they are responsible for the safety of the aircraft. For example, in the case of US Airways flight 1549, first officer Skiles was the PF, but the Captain (Sully) took over when they hit the birds. It eventually lead to a successful outcome. Most recently, we saw the same thing on United Airlines flight 1175.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .