Característica de la Pérdida de Sincronismo

One morning, as a relatively inexperienced First Officer, I was required to challenge my Captain’s fitness to fly. We had flown together only once previously, when he had acted in an erratic and distracted manner, completely unlike any other Captain I knew. On that occasion I had monitored him particularly closely in flight, later discussing the experience informally with my flight safety officer.

On the morning in question, I was first alerted to his potential unsuitability by the cabin crew. I continued my flight-deck preparations while the Captain conducted the external inspection and refuelling. However, the cabin crew were making known their increasing unhappiness and soon were being supported by the dispatcher and other ramp personnel. I tried to reassure all these people before the Captain returned and I then started to prepare discreetly a contingency plan. In anticipation of the worst outcome, I was forced to inform company operations of the developing situation so that a stand-by Captain could be called-in at very short notice, if required. Passenger boarding was imminent and I advised the dispatcher to continue with the boarding, in case there was no problem actually. However, I reassured my colleagues that, if upon closer scrutiny I had any doubts at all, I would express these to the Captain despite the risk of confrontation. I was faced with a dilemma: If I questioned my Captain’s suitability to fly, he might not co-operate, thereby forcing me to refuse to fly, based upon a view which although shared by others, might be wrong. Alternatively, if I decided he was fit to fly with, but I was wrong, flight safety would be compromised. I was facing a totally avoidable situation, given the concern already expressed; and the possibility that the cabin crew might also have refused to fly (which I later discovered had been their intention).

My final assessment was that my Captain was unfit. I asked him how he felt and when he said, “fine” I explained that I thought he looked unwell and that despite a looming departure time, it might still be sensible to declare himself unfit. He then admitted to feeling unwell but made no indication of whether he therefore wanted to press on or otherwise. I

expanded, saying that it was not only my judgement and that, in addition, questions might be asked if the incapacitation scenario arose. He finally agreed with me and declared himself unfit to fly, albeit with passengers now boarded. Whilst awaiting the arrival of his replacement I kept the passengers and crew reasonably informed without going into details. In retrospect, I think I managed the situation well by listening to the input of others, by considering all possible outcomes, by contingency planning, and by being assertive when necessary.

QUESTIONS

1. Would you have handled the situation differently had you been faced with a senior captain giving you a route check? … For example?

2. If so, how?

3. Would one need to be more forceful in similar circumstances? … If so, in what way?

WHAT CAN ONE LEARN FROM THIS?

1. In such a situation, it is not possible to accuse someone of being ‘under the influence’ of either drink or drugs, unless this is established by a police officer or a doctor, following accepted tests for the condition. Prescription drugs have been known to cause impairment to some extent and this must also be considered before any drastic action is taken to stop the person from remaining on duty. Careful questioning might explain irrational behaviour, which might be caused by taking prescription drugs such as anti-histamines. The person concerned could be made to voluntarily ask to be stood-down in the circumstances, with no further action taken other than to make him or her aware of the dangers of alcohol and/or drugs affecting operational performance. There are hidden dangers in using Prescription drugs, such as anti-histamines and many of the common cold remedies, which produce side effects that might interfere with flying efficiency. These drugs are widely prescribed and used without the full realisation of the restrictions on their use by flying staff using such drugs and then flying. This subject could also be usefully discussed with those whose behaviour seems irrational and raises concern.

2. Pilots are subject to a much lower alcohol limit than motor car drivers, before being considered as being unfit to operate their respective machines.

3. The event illustrates the difficulty that a co-pilot may find himself in when challenging his Captain’s authority, whether in a situation such as this one, or in an operational situation in his capacity as a professional; who is there to fulfil the ‘backstop role’ in an emergency. The need for diplomacy and careful handling, coupled with a firm but polite challenge as in this case, may need to be used in the face of unusual circumstances.

4. However new to the role, crew members must challenge abnormal behaviour and be prepared to act, such as taking-over if necessary in any case of incapacity of the other pilot. For example, it may be imperative to call for a go-around if an approach is being conducted in such a manner as being outside accepted tolerances. This needs moral courage and maybe immediate appropriate action from the other pilot, if an accident is to be averted. 5. Numerous instances of positive non-intervention from other crew members have resulted in dreadful accidents,

such as the Tenerife crash when a B747 started take-off without ATC clearance. The first captain had misunderstood the airways clearance given and commenced take-off in the fog, unable to see another backtracking B747. This was still on the runway and on the way to the exit it had been cleared to, but invisible to the first aircraft taking-off in the prevailing 300 metres of RVR. The captain continued the take-off, regardless of the weak protest from both the flight engineer and the first officer, who was flying with his chief training captain and of whom he was clearly awed and afraid of. They collided with the back-tracking B747, which had been cleared to taxi back on to the active runway in fog. This back-tracking aircraft was supposed to have exited the runway half-way down, as instructed by ATC, to then continue taxiing on a parallel taxiway. It had not reported clear (so what was going on with the ATC flight control strips?) when the first aircraft commenced take-off. Both aircraft were destroyed, with major losses of life.

6. The bottom line is that the safety of a flight rests in every crew member regardless of rank. If you do not like something that the other person is doing regardless of his rank, never be afraid to speak up. Stand up and be counted at all times, with discretion but firmly.

COMMENTS

There can be a variety of reasons for erratic behaviour. Intoxication may be the result of prescription or non-prescription drugs taken quite innocently. A person who appears intoxicated may in fact be suffering from a medical condition, known or unknown. In this context fatigue and stress are medical conditions. Comments must therefore be confined to the facts of the behaviour which has caused concern. Having raised the issue it cannot be assumed that an improvement in behaviour, if one is apparent, will continue. So the decision to allow the person to continue the operation should only be taken after very careful consideration and probably after a medical examination. Insisting that the problem is dealt with, even if this involves a refusal to fly with someone who believes that they are fit, is in fact in the interests of everyone involved; even the unfit person. It is far easier to assist someone with a problem, even a substance abuse problem, if it is brought into the open before a serious incident occurs in flight.

On one occasion, a pilot behaved very erratically and was subsequently diagnosed with a brain tumour. In this case he was not only unaware of a problem but was unaware that there was anything wrong with his behaviour. This emphasises the point being that one can only comment on the observed behaviour and not on the possible reasons for it.

SITREP 24 – In flight