I’ve written about HBO’s “The Rehearsal,” starring Nathan Fielder. The show is unlike anything I’ve ever seen before, as it culminates with Fielder flying a real Boeing 737 full of actors, just to see what it’s like to be a pilot. I can’t recommend the show enough, with the caveat that Fielder is a quirky guy, and you need to see the whole show through, since it’s easy to fall off after an episode or two.
Anyway, the show is all about aviation safety, and specifically, about how issues with pilot communication contribute to some aviation accidents. Given the popularity of the show, it seems that Fielder and regulators are now having a bit of a spat over the show’s premise.
In this post:
FAA baselessly denies the entire premise of The Rehearsal
The premise of Season 2 of The Rehearsal is that pilot communication issues are a contributing factor to many aviation accidents. More specifically, the problem is that first officers often aren’t comfortable speaking up to captains, even when they see something that’s wrong.
I think it’s hard to deny that reality, and there are a countless number of accidents that prove his point (in the first episode, they even have recreations of those accidents, based on cockpit voice recorder data). Fielder even teamed up with John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member, who agrees with his conclusion.
Unfortunately the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) apparently disagrees with Fielder’s conclusion, claiming it doesn’t see the data that supports the show’s central claim, that pilot communication issues are to blame for airline disasters. The FAA continued with the following statement:
“The Federal Aviation Administration requires all airline crewmembers (pilots and flight attendants) and dispatchers to complete Crew Resource Management training. They must complete this training before they begin working in their official positions and complete it on a recurring basis afterward.”
Fielder was confronted about this statement from the FAA during a CNN interview, and was asked for his opinion on the statement, to which he responded as follows:
“That’s dumb. They’re dumb. Here’s the issue: I trained to be a pilot. I’m a 737 pilot. I went through the training. The training is someone shows you a PowerPoint slide saying, ‘if you are a co-pilot and the captain does something wrong, you need to speak up about it.’ That’s all. That’s the training, and they talk about some crashes that happen, but they don’t do anything that makes it stick emotionally.”
Should we be surprised by the FAA’s response?
It’s by no means uniquely an American problem, but there’s simply no denying that communication issues between pilots have been a factor in many aviation accidents over the years. To be clear, no one claims it’s the only cause of accidents, but instead, it’s a contributing factor.
More often than not, the issue arises when a first officer is unwilling to speak up to a captain, rather than the other way around. While other pilot is supposed to feel comfortable speaking up, that often doesn’t actually reflect reality, given the general vibe in the cockpit, plus the dynamic.
As Fielder accurately points out in the show, when explaining why first officers often don’t speak up, “we’re all just people in the back of an Uber, looking to avoid an awkward conversation.”
Yes, pilots are trained about how to communicate, but there’s a difference between what you’re taught in a class, and how that information is implemented in person. Now, is Fielder’s exact roleplaying recommendation in the show the right solution? I don’t know, maybe not… actually, probably not. But his concern and conclusion is spot on, and I think most reasonable people wouldn’t disagree.
I’m not sure what to make of the FAA’s statement. Like, does the FAA really not think that pilot communication has been a factor in some major accidents? The way I view it, there are a few possible explanations:
- The FAA is mincing words, claiming that communication isn’t to “blame” for accidents, rather than it being a contributing factor
- The FAA is downright incompetent, and/or this statement just came from a spokesperson, without much consultation with someone actually familiar with this topic
- The FAA doesn’t actually want to make any changes or open up this can of worms, because it’s easier to just ignore it
Bottom line
The Rehearsal did an incredible job examining aviation safety, all while being part of a comedy show. While people can reasonably disagree on whether Nathan Fielder’s exact proposal makes sense, most people should be able to agree on the premise, which is that pilot communication issues have contributed to accidents over the years, and that this should be looked into.
Oddly, the FAA seems to be in full-on denial mode, claiming that they don’t agree with that premise. That sure makes you wonder.
What do you make of the FAA’s statement, and Fielder’s response?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
Thanks, Tim! Glad you're bringing your expertise on aviation safety to bear in this forum! Oh, wait... what are your qualifications, again?
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
+1
A moron? Nathan Fielder graduated from one of Canada's top business schools with really good grades!
You're just going to hand me that straight line, aren't you?
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?
Santos, just like Tim's posts.
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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
good point, Duffy seems as well informed as you about aviation
and yet an actual air traffic controller - above - agreed with me.
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...
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.
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...
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."