Individual Differences and Interpersonal Relationships — Page 246, Lesson 404

I want to walk you through a concept that is absolutely critical to safe flight operations — the autocratic cockpit. This is a pattern of command behaviour that can seriously degrade crew coordination and, ultimately, safety. Let's start with the definition. The autocratic cockpit is one in which the Captain decides and imposes his or her decisions without consultation. That means the Captain makes the call alone and simply tells everyone else what will happen. The Captain takes no account of the opinions of the other members of the crew — so the First Officer's input, the Flight Engineer's input, it's all ignored. The Captain rarely delegates, meaning he or she holds onto tasks that could and should be shared. The Captain makes general comments which teach nothing — so feedback is vague, unhelpful, and doesn't help the crew learn or improve. The Captain does not listen and is isolated from the rest of the crew. And here's a key one: the Captain considers forcefully made suggestions as either criticism or insubordination. So if a crew member speaks up firmly, the Captain treats it as a personal attack or a challenge to authority. The result is that the Captain encourages a tense and non-communicative atmosphere in the cockpit. Now, by the very nature of the way the cockpit is run, the Captain is normally overloaded in the event of a problem. Because the Captain isn't delegating, isn't listening, isn't using the crew's resources, all the workload lands on one person — and that's exactly when you need the most help. So when does this nightmare scenario occur? The book gives us three typical situations. First, when the under-confident Captain uses his or her authority to hide inherent weaknesses. The Captain isn't actually confident in their own ability, so they lean hard on rank to cover that up. Second, when there is a large gap in both the seniority and technical ability or knowledge between the Captain and the remaining members of the crew. For example, a very senior Captain flying with a new co-pilot. That gap can make the Captain feel they don't need to consult, and the co-pilot may feel too intimidated to speak up. Third, when the Captain has a very strong character and the co-pilot has a personality which is weak and self-effacing. So the imbalance isn't just in rank or experience — it's in personality style as well. Now, faced with a Captain whose manner is too authoritarian, crews tend to react in a stereotyped manner. In a three-seat cockpit — that's a cockpit with a Captain, a co-pilot, and a Flight Engineer — there tends to be collusion between the co-pilot and flight engineer, thus somewhat redressing the situation. They team up, talk to each other, and that can balance things a little. However, in a two-seat cockpit — just Captain and co-pilot — this is not possible, and the co-pilot is forced to handle the situation alone. In this case, the classic reactions of the co-pilot can be any of the following. First, aggression is met with aggression and, with this confrontational attitude, the tension in the cockpit is increased. So the co-pilot fights back, and things get worse. Second, an apparent submission and withdrawal coupled with the decision "to say nothing more". The co-pilot outwardly gives in, but internally shuts down — and that means critical information stops flowing. Third, the unexpressed aggression is turned against a third person, or scapegoat. This is normally ATC or cabin staff. The co-pilot can't express anger at the Captain, so it gets displaced onto someone else. Fourth, the aggression is delayed, contained and "mulled-over". Not only will this preoccupation deprive the co-pilot of his or her situation awareness, but the aggression will be suddenly and unexpectedly released — possibly in just the situation which demands careful and analytical reasoning and in which emotion has no part to play. So the co-pilot broods, loses track of what's happening around the aircraft, and then explodes at the worst possible moment. Now, the book gives us guidance on how to handle this. Crews meeting such situations must be aware of the potential dangers and approach the flight with as positive an attitude as possible. The presentation of cooperation can be made in a conciliatory form, but the contents of this cooperation must be firm. So you can be polite and diplomatic in how you say it, but what you say — the substance — has to be clear and unyielding. Finally, a very important qualification. This is not to say that there is no place at all for authoritarianism in the air. In an emergency situation and when pressed for time, the Captain must give crisp, clear orders needed for immediate reactions and responses. So the autocratic style is dangerous as a default, but in a genuine time-critical emergency, direct command is necessary. The key is knowing when to use it and when not to.