Narrative:

Copilot's brash attitude had been a sore spot with me all month and repeated discussion with him had failed to achieve any results. Although I noticed early on that his plting skills didn't justify his confidence level and I had recognized the need to continually monitor his performance, I had to take my eyes off of him for about 2 mins (2 mins!!). In that period of time he deviated off our routing by about 8 mi prompting an inquiry from ZAU. The first officer's attitude was 'ok, I made a mistake -- so what?' I believe (due to interacting with this individual on previous trips) that he felt his role in the cockpit was one of decision maker. Although I explained to him that we were a team, and each member of the team was essential to our safety, it is in the captain's job description as being the final authority as to the operation of the flight. With the advent of cockpit resource management I've noticed a tendency with some first officer's to ignore the fact that there is a hierarchy within the cockpit, to the point of considering themselves autonomous (as in this extreme case). While the intent of cockpit resource management is ok, I must say that the crew's relationship with the captain is one of ordinate-subordinate, and cockpit resource management tends to overlook or minimize this concept. If my assessment is correct, cockpit resource management should be modified to reflect the realities of line operations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FO OF ACR LGT ACFT INADVERTENTLY WANDERED OFF ASSIGNED COURSE CAUSING ATC TO INTERVENE AND BRING THE FLT BACK ON COURSE.

Narrative: COPLT'S BRASH ATTITUDE HAD BEEN A SORE SPOT WITH ME ALL MONTH AND REPEATED DISCUSSION WITH HIM HAD FAILED TO ACHIEVE ANY RESULTS. ALTHOUGH I NOTICED EARLY ON THAT HIS PLTING SKILLS DIDN'T JUSTIFY HIS CONFIDENCE LEVEL AND I HAD RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO CONTINUALLY MONITOR HIS PERFORMANCE, I HAD TO TAKE MY EYES OFF OF HIM FOR ABOUT 2 MINS (2 MINS!!). IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME HE DEVIATED OFF OUR RTING BY ABOUT 8 MI PROMPTING AN INQUIRY FROM ZAU. THE FO'S ATTITUDE WAS 'OK, I MADE A MISTAKE -- SO WHAT?' I BELIEVE (DUE TO INTERACTING WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL ON PREVIOUS TRIPS) THAT HE FELT HIS ROLE IN THE COCKPIT WAS ONE OF DECISION MAKER. ALTHOUGH I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT WE WERE A TEAM, AND EACH MEMBER OF THE TEAM WAS ESSENTIAL TO OUR SAFETY, IT IS IN THE CAPT'S JOB DESCRIPTION AS BEING THE FINAL AUTHORITY AS TO THE OP OF THE FLT. WITH THE ADVENT OF COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT I'VE NOTICED A TENDENCY WITH SOME FO'S TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE IS A HIERARCHY WITHIN THE COCKPIT, TO THE POINT OF CONSIDERING THEMSELVES AUTONOMOUS (AS IN THIS EXTREME CASE). WHILE THE INTENT OF COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT IS OK, I MUST SAY THAT THE CREW'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CAPT IS ONE OF ORDINATE-SUBORDINATE, AND COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT TENDS TO OVERLOOK OR MINIMIZE THIS CONCEPT. IF MY ASSESSMENT IS CORRECT, COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE REALITIES OF LINE OPS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.