Flying Together

She loves it when I call her 'captain'

Pilots often say to me, "John, you're really lucky that Martha will fly with you."

And my answer is, "Lucky? What are you talking about, lucky? She wants to fly half the time, it costs twice as much, and she has an opinion about everything!"

This, you see, is the price a pilot has to pay to have a flying companion who participates productively. I can passionately testify that it is well worth it. But it isn't a matter of luck. It takes a lot of effort from both of us.

Martha and I have been flying together for more than 37 years now, and I have to admit we haven't always gotten along all that well together in an airplane. Getting along in an airplane requires mutual respect and a strong desire to share flying, but through the years we've come to understand that these alone are not enough. We have discovered some tools that make it easier for pilots to work well together in an airplane. And many of these work just as well for a pilot and a participating nonpilot.

I think we had the most difficulty getting along during the 10-year period when we were flying around the country every weekend in our Cessna 340 to teach two-day ground schools.

Both of us were flight instructors by then, and the pilot flying often felt that the other was instructing him or her unnecessarily. The pilot would resist, and the other would be frustrated that the input was ignored. By the time we got home from a trip we usually would be so annoyed with each other that we would put the airplane away in stony silence and drive back to the house with steam coming out of our ears. To put it simply, we weren't having fun flying together. And occasionally, it was downright dangerous.

I told a friend about this problem and he said, "You can fix that problem with just one word."

I responded, "There's no way one word is going to solve our problem. We've had it too long and the problem is too deep-seated."

He said, "Well, I know you can fix it with one word."

I said, "OK, what's the word?"

And he said, "The word is captain."

Our friend explained that when the person not flying uses the word captain it says, "I acknowledge your authority and I recognize you are in charge. But as the person responsible for the safety of this flight, you will want this information."

Our friend was right.

We realized that neither of us, as the pilot not flying, was willing to allow the flying pilot full authority. The way we were commenting was continuously challenging the authority of the other. And it wasn't just me challenging Martha. Martha was just as willing to criticize me as I was to criticize her.

Now when Martha and I are flying together the person not flying uses the word captain when addressing the flying pilot. When our passengers hear this, they think we're joking. But we're not. We find that the pilot flying accepts input far better when addressed as "captain." Plus the person not flying frames comments more thoughtfully and respectfully when he or she has to start the comment with "captain."

Also important is agreement in advance on what help the pilot should expect from the other. Once Martha, as the nonflying pilot, switched the frequencies on the navigation radio I was using to shoot an ILS. I didn't notice the flags and thought the centered needles meant I was doing a fantastic job.

Later, when we bought our old Cessna Citation 500, which wasn't certified for single-pilot operation, we had to learn to fly with each other as a two-pilot crew. We learned standard operating procedures, which set out very clearly who was to do what.

Now when we are flying together in any kind of aircraft, even in a single-pilot operation, we make an agreement with each other about what the captain expects, if anything, in the way of help from the other pilot. For example, who will tune the communication and navigation radios? Who will talk on the radio? Who will track our progress on the navigation charts?

Another thing we learned from our training in two-pilot operations was that the captain needs not only to accept input from the other pilot, but also to encourage it. After all, the most important role the second pilot plays is to catch mistakes in either procedures or strategic risk management. To fulfill this role, he or she must be able to challenge the captain.

Martha and I have to be very careful to ensure these challenges don't represent a threat to the captain's authority, or descend into a husband-wife argument. We know from experience that it is not comforting to our passengers to see John and Martha arguing with each other in the cockpit.

The pilot not flying needs to offer information, not an opinion. Plus, that information has to be delivered in an agreed-upon standardized format. For instance, when I am the copilot I am not allowed to say, "You're too low!" This, by the way, as I know from personal experience, is guaranteed to start a fight over how low is too low.

What I can say is, "Altitude 3,400 feet, and descending." That's information, not opinion, and it's helpful to Martha because it's precise.

Or when I am flying, Martha can (and frequently does) say, "Bank angle 40 degrees and increasing." Again, this is precise information that is useful to me, not just an opinion.

Now another part of this deal is that the captain has to respond properly to challenges. Since our standard operating procedures say our maximum allowed bank angle is 25 degrees, I can't just say to her, "That's OK, I know what I'm doing." Nor can I just say OK and keep on doing what I was doing. The only thing I am allowed to do (and this is tough for me) is to say one word, correcting. And then I have to take action to correct the situation.

The word correcting acknowledges the nonstandard operation and represents a commitment to return to standards. If I say, "Correcting" and fail to make the correction, Martha is not only authorized, but also required, to say, "No correction noted." If I still fail to make a correction, she is to assume I have gone brain-dead and say, "I have the controls." I can assure you that Martha is quite willing to do this.

As you can see, for us, getting along in the cockpit means that although the authority of the captain is clear, so is the responsibility. The captain is required to fly by standardized procedures, and to accept and respond to challenges when the procedures are not standard. At the same time, the nonflying pilot must provide information in an acceptable format. These limitations can, from time to time, be a threat to my male ego.

Plus, I have to admit that this business of sharing the cockpit equally frequently exposes me to ridicule. For example, our friends are fond of telling me that Martha makes better landings than I do. I explain that landings are not really all that important — it's overall risk management that counts most. (Unfortunately, I have the sneaky feeling that Martha might be better at risk management, too. She is very good at planning ahead to keep us out of trouble.)

Now, I won't guarantee this system will completely eliminate all in-flight conflicts, but it will go a long way toward making every flight deeply rewarding — and a lot more fun.

Besides, I know Martha loves it when I call her "captain."

John and Martha King are the first couple to hold every category and class of FAA pilot and instructor certificates. They are the founders and owners of King Schools Inc., which produces aviation training videos and computer software, a company the couple started in 1974.