“My Aircraft!”

No one wants to hear a crew member shout “My Aircraft!” when they are the pilot flying (PF). Although it only happens when things have gone astray, it is something that every pilot should be comfortable with.

Recent incidents across the aviation industry support the concept of taking the controls from the PF when circumstances dictate that necessity. It is one thing for the pilot monitoring (PM) to comment on airspeeds, fast or slow, and altitude, high or low, but at what point is it acceptable to take the controls? As a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI), it is acceptable and even expected to take the controls early and often. It is much more challenging as a seasoned professional pilot working with other seasoned professional pilots.

Why is it so hard? It comes down to respect. As a two-member crew, it is paramount that pilots trust each other. We trust each other because we know each of us has completed the requisite training for the aircraft being flown and has extensive certifications and pilot in command (PIC) experience. It is almost considered rude to take the controls and state “my aircraft” unless the unthinkable has occurred and the aircraft is grossly out of parameters or literally out of control.

Not so! If the PF is not correcting a called deviation, or worse, unresponsive due to startle, it is important to transition the controls immediately to prevent a further flight path divergence. Trust, but verify.

Role of the Pilot Flying and the Pilot Monitoring

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released a Safety Alert For Operators (SAFO) back in 2015 that “encouraged operators to define roles and responsibilities for the PF and the PM… because associated tasks of the PF and PM are not always clearly defined.”¹ The definitions reflect that the PF is the person at the controls and flying the aircraft whilst the PM is quality control of that flying and required to call out deviations in intended airspeed, altitude or angle of attack. It is also implied that the PM will intervene and take the controls when the PF is not meeting expectations. There might be a little gray area in these definitions across the industry, but it is understood that the PM will take control when necessary. How to define when necessary is what makes this discussion challenging.

My experience as a Naval Aviator, civilian CFI and airline pilot exposed me to different perspectives on what is and is not acceptable. Operating around the aircraft carrier, if flight parameters were not met and the PF was not correcting called deviations, I would take control of the aircraft without hesitation. This was also true as a CFI.

Yet, there is a significant difference in the airline industry, especially for young, inexperienced first officers supporting very senior, much more experienced captains. Military training and years of instructional flying drives me to take the controls early and often. Unfortunately, it is just not that easy for everyone.

Ego in the Cockpit

The reality of taking the controls from a captain as a first officer is a bit taboo. That captain generally has more time in the aircraft, more experience in the operational necessities of the organization and it is “their aircraft.” To take the controls from them without a solid defendable reason to do so could be professionally catastrophic. There would have to be an egregious deviation. Airlines define these deviations, yet each individual pilot must have individual parameters that will or will not be tolerated.

There are four solid examples of where a pilot’s strong ego compromised the safety of a flight according to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports. For ready reference, these accidents include the Avjet Aspen crash in 2001, the Tenerife Airport disaster, Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 and Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701.² Each accident has its own unique set of circumstances and an impetus to better address crew resource management (CRM) in varied training scenarios.

CRM through an upset is especially critical and this video depicts a solid methodology and effective information exchange to manage the aircraft’s energy.

Within the last year, although not yet verified by the NTSB, we have seen multiple accidents where a PM could possibly have taken the controls from a PF and prevented the worst from occurring. In my mind, I know that my tolerance is two uncorrected deviation callouts. Where that deviation occurs will also affect my decision.

An uncorrected deviation when low, slow and/or maneuvering, where a PF does not respond after two callouts, will result in a call for “my aircraft” as the PM and to take the controls. This might be a conservative approach for some and aggressive for others. Either way, I feel confident that it will keep my crew and my aircraft safe.

Personal Boundaries

It is critical to define personal boundaries in every area of one’s life; the cockpit is no different. Whether it is a lack of response or a hard altitude or heading deviation, know what you are willing to tolerate and accept nothing less.

References:
¹FAA, Roles and Responsibilities for Pilot Flying (PF) and Pilot Monitoring (PM). FAA SAFO 15011 (November 17, 2015). https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/SAFO15011.pdf

²O’Bryan, K. M. (2011). Freud’s Ego in the Cockpit. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 21(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.58940/2329-258X.1341