FAA Denies Pilot Communication Issues, Fielder Responds "That's Dumb"

so we are supposed to believe that someone that watched a powerpoint as part of a non-FAA approved training program and doesn't hold an air transport license is supposed to know more than the tens of thousands of US airline pilots and their regulator?

Yes, there have been plenty of accidents that have been caused by poor pilot communication within the cockpit; that is why CRM - Crew Resource management - was developed and it is the standard in the US.
The cases where accidents have happened are largely from countries where cultural barriers have stood in the way of adoption of CRM techniques.
There have been plenty of accidents that have happened in the US where BOTH pilots failed to identify and correct something that was wrong.

The FAA IS right. In the US, cockpit communication failures are not a significant cause of accidents.
The FAA does not regulate air transportation in other countries where CRM adoption has been less well accepted in the US.

I think it's telling that the NTSB has various failures by FAA oversight as one of its leading contributing factors to accident causes. Be it approving ineffective training, failure by inspectors to actually inspect their assigned portfolios (or assigned duties they aren't qualified for - like having an entire airline overseen by an inspector who is on the general aviation side and not even located in the same state as its headquarters), failure to act on safety recommendations, or approving/allowing airline procedures that contribute. That doesn't even start on the rest of what comes under FAA purview i.e. ATC.

This guy is a moron. He doesn't work for an airline, so yeah he hasn't had actual CRM training. He did the Cliffnotes version of "I can fly, I'm pilot" and now he thinks he knows what he's talking about. Among pilots, controllers, flight attendants, dispatchers, etc., poor CRM exists, but in my experience, it's very much in the minority of individuals. You can't get everyone to subscribe to CRM, but most do, particularly as the "old school" mentalities leave the building.

Like most safety-related things, CRM requires training, constant refreshers, and continuous effort from professionals in the air and on the ground. Professionals put in the work because they know they're stronger as a team. This guy is not a professional. Credit to him for bringing light to this and for achieving something that's pretty impossible, but he doesn't get to speak for the rest of us.

The headline makes it sound like the FAA said what was actually said by Nathan Fielder. It could use an update for clarity, as it seems misleading.

Agreed!

@ C-B -- Fair enough! Updated the post for clarity. Thanks.

+1

good point, Duffy seems as well informed as you about aviation

and yet an actual air traffic controller - above - agreed with me.

A moron? Nathan Fielder graduated from one of Canada's top business schools with really good grades!

He's a comedian and his job is to troll people. He does it brilliantly. The genius of a great comedian is taking the piss but there's a grain of truth at the core of it.

Haven't seen this series yet but Nathan For You had me choking from laughing at times. Gonna binge it this summer at some point.

that's all true but when he ventures into substantive issues and people believe what he says, therein lies the problem.

He shouldn't be believed for much of anything that is remotely fact-based

Tim, that's a ridiculous standard. So we can't use humor or satire to address anything "substantive"? What's next, we can't artistically depict anything "substantive" because the interpretation might be irresponsible?

I watched it, and was surprised how awkward and anti-social most of the pilots were. I mean the one pilot was practically ignoring Nathan staring at his phone. I mean, you are on tv, buddy. Put down the phone for 30 seconds. And then the social at the bar. Ugh. Awkward folk. The show did not give me a whole lot of confidence in the pilots communication skills.

No suprise the FAA denied it. What perhaps they should have done is not really agreed but agreed that improvements could be made and make public how they plan to do this. On the other hand, let's keep in mind that often times the people on the flight - cockpit and flight staff are meeting for the first time minutes before the flight begins.

Santos, just like Tim's posts.

Literally the core of training at all U. S. airlines is CRM, which empowers the first officer to speak up to the Captain as one of its main tenants. All airline operations manuals give specific communication tools to all thier pilots describing how to communicate when something is unsafe. Every pilot is graded on how well they work together as a crew during every training event and they are even asked to critique each other after each training event and even each flight This has been the case since the late 1980’s and was one of the most consequential changes in culture and safety in the airline industry. This guy has no idea what he is talking about and is about 40 years behind the rest of the industry. Also, for the layman: A Private Pilot getting a type rating in a 737 is not the same as going through a FAR part 121 training program. He is basically falsely claiming expertise by implying this.

Yet as a commercial pilot you would be surprised how many incidents happen where communication errors either between captain/first officer or pilots and ATC happen. There is a reason why the ASAP program is so highly regarded as a means to correct such errors that are not trapped between crew members and pilots.

The show used humor at times (the whole sully part) and even his quote “the Miracle over the Mojave” etc as a means to get an issue brought to the forefront. There are tons of incidents and accidents where communication errors was a link in the chain of events.

Spoiler warning for all those NOT TimDunn or ATCSunDevil, but in the last episode it shows Nathan going through an APPROVED FAA training course to receive a B737 type rating for his Commercial-Airplane certificate (C-ASMEL).

It’s likely true that course he took in Henderson, NV was light on CRM topics relative to an airline’s course, the show indicated he was trained on the roles of CA and FO, namely because he was going to act as the CA of this stunt flight. Regardless, I’m sure he received more CRM training to act as part of a crew repositioning B737 across continents and oceans… something else they showed in the epilogue.

Your reaction to the show and the points Nathan tried to make, gruff dismissal and minimization, sound just like the FAA’s tone deaf response. Ironically (well, probably not for you) is that is the SAME tone I’ve heard from a number of CA’s I’ve flown with in my 25 years of professional aviation. It’s telling that some of those uncommunicative CAs were just as ignorant as you two seem to be: eager to express your opinion but no real talent to lead.

I think that more biting point was the one about pilots avoiding health care to avoid being grounded. And that's going to be tougher to fix, as well.

I think it's more of an issue in countries with a stronger culture of respecting authority, like in much of Asia. In the US, where questioning authority is celebrated, I don't see it as a major issue.

There’s a reason I refuse to fly over U.S. airspace, much less to U.S. airports. You need to get things sorted out.

you're either a comedian or you deal w/ serious issues.

No one can take a "funny approach" to serious issues.

and are you suggested that he isn't really serious about pilot communications issues because THAT is the gist of the discussion?

he either met the requirements to get an ATP or it was a stunt.

and for you and others that think there is a communication issue in cockpits regulated by the FAA, please provide evidence from NTSB accident reports

there are plenty of holes that need to be fixed in US aviation safety but CRM is one that works quite well and is simply not the reason for US accidents. If it was, then you and others should be able to prove it. as should Fielder

You're just going to hand me that straight line, aren't you?

Thanks, Tim! Glad you're bringing your expertise on aviation safety to bear in this forum! Oh, wait... what are your qualifications, again?

And you are claiming false expertise by commenting on something you haven't seen and have no idea what you are talking about.

He consulted with John Goglia who was a member of the NTSB. And I just read through the report of one of the crashes from the NTSB:

"The NTSB concludes that the first officer’s failure to assert herself to the captain and initiate a go-around maneuver when she recognized the unstabilized approach likely resulted from the steep authority gradient in the cockpit and the first officer’s minimal training on assertiveness; further, the captain’s quick dismissal of the first officer’s go-around inquiry likely discouraged the first officer from voicing her continued concerns and challenging the captain’s decision to continue the unstabilized approach. The NTSB notes that the first officer’s CRM training did not include any role-playing activities in which pilots could practice developing assertiveness skills. Practice allows pilots to bridge the gap between their knowledge of assertiveness and the actions needed in the cockpit to effectively be assertive."

I guarantee you Nathan did more research than you did. You are coming across like the captains who are more concerned with their ego, and would rather crash a plane into the ground and kill everyone on board than listen to someone else's ideas.

Is John Goglia a moron as well? Or are you the moron?

From an NTSB report:

"The NTSB concludes that the first officer’s failure to assert herself to the captain and initiate a go-around maneuver when she recognized the unstabilized approach likely resulted from the steep authority gradient in the cockpit and the first officer’s minimal training on assertiveness; further, the captain’s quick dismissal of the first officer’s go-around inquiry likely discouraged the first officer from voicing her continued concerns and challenging the captain’s decision to continue the unstabilized approach. The NTSB notes that the first officer’s CRM training did not include any role-playing activities in which pilots could practice developing assertiveness skills. Practice allows pilots to bridge the gap between their knowledge of assertiveness and the actions needed in the cockpit to effectively be assertive."

The whole reason he did this show was because he did a shit ton of research and he found that the NTSB had recommended roleplaying exercises.

He's also a comedian, don't forget that.

And maybe for you a few of the "minority" causing the deaths of everyone on board is acceptable. But knowing that people died because a captain's ego got in the way is pretty depressing.

Sounds like you haven't seen the show and shouldn't be talking about it.

He spoke with pilots and members of the NTSB. It was the NTSB recommendation for roleplaying exercises that sparked this entire show.

So, he's not making shit up, he is basing it on what the experts say. And one of the reports by the NTSB specifically mentions that the co-pilots CRM training was lacking, and she likely did not feel comfortable speaking up to the captain.

If you were familiar with the show, you might have picked up on how truly meticulous Nathan is, I guarantee he's done more research than you have.

And like the other "expert" here, you're coming across more like the type of person that would tell the co-pilot to shut up as you led everyone on board to a fiery death. Your "so we're supposed to believe this guy" attitude, is the same attitude as "SHUT UP, I'M THE PILOT."

Airline Pilot here, Jay is absolutely correct in his statement.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, just throwing it out there.