Pilot flying and pilot monitoring
PF and PM are the two-crew role split that governs multi-crew operations. Every take-off, sector, and approach has one pilot primarily managing the flight path and one primarily monitoring that path and the other crew member. Training and assessment that ignore the split grade half a crew.
Definitions (ICAO)
PF. Primary task: control and manage the flight path. Secondary tasks: non-flight-path actions (radios, systems, other operational tasks) and monitoring other crew members.
PM. Primary task: monitor the flight path and its management by the PF. Secondary tasks: non-flight-path actions and monitoring other crew members.
Monitoring is a cognitive process: compare actual state to expected state. It requires knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA) to hold a mental model and act when deviations appear. Monitoring is embedded in role competencies as a TEM countermeasure, not an optional courtesy.
PM intervention ladder
Operator SOPs define callouts and control-transfer phraseology; the ladder below is the decision structure behind them. PM intervention escalates in steps; do not jump to takeover when a query would still recover the situation, and do not stop at a query when the aircraft state is already mismanaged.
| Step | What PM does | Owed when |
|---|---|---|
| Query | Calibrated question or confirmation call that surfaces PF intent without assuming error ("confirm altitude", "what's the plan", "are we stable") | PF leaves the briefed plan without a clear reason; early deviation detected; cross-check reveals uncertainty about intent; SOP deviation not yet creating a mismanaged aircraft state |
| Challenge | Assertive callout naming the actual state, the required state, and the action owed per SOP | Query unanswered, dismissed, or acknowledged but the error continues; flight path, speed, or configuration trending away from briefed targets; automation or mode error persisting after confirmation |
| Takeover | Unambiguous control transfer ("I have control" / "you have control"), then recover and manage consequences | Safety margin exhausted; PF non-responsive to challenge; mismanaged aircraft state persists (unstable approach, insufficient engine-out recovery, long landing; the scripted in-seat instruction (ISI) triggers in Doc 9995 module design); instructor takeover when training safety requires it |
Task sharing in practice
Training philosophy develops crew concept and task sharing on synthetic devices using SOPs. Practical implications:
- Support and correct the other crew member when they deviate from SOP.
- PM queries PF when the PF leaves the briefed plan without a clear reason.
- Handover of control is unambiguous (standard "I have control" / "you have control" discipline).
- During airborne instruction, instructors do not "help" on the controls with the student; they take over cleanly if safety requires it. Dual simultaneous input is a known hazard.
The PM intervention ladder operationalises the support-and-correct rule: query is the default first move; challenge and takeover are owed when the situation outruns query.
Sidestick teaching on generation 4 types
On generation 4 (Gen4) fly-by-wire sidestick types (A320-family and similar), follow-me-through (FMT) cannot transmit control feel: the stick does not move appreciably under the instructor's input, so the student's hand learns nothing from contact.
train-the-trainer (TTT) Ch 8.4 rule (sidestick). Follow-me-through (FMT) depends on the student feeling displacement, rate, or timing through the control. On A320-family sidesticks the control does not move under instructor input; there is no point in using FMT. Substitute direction of attention (where to look, what attitude, what rate) and keywords that bridge Demonstrate and Direct; explain FMT limits to the student before any hands-on expectation.
The PM seat carries extra load when PF displacement is invisible to the other seat: task-sharing and monitoring still follow SOP callouts and challenge; the type removes a kinaesthetic cross-cue the yoke flight deck provided.
Seat-swap logistics in EBT modules
EBT lesson-plan tools mark which seat is PF for each exercise. In lesson plans:
- A yellow vertical line on the left column means PF is in the left seat; on the right column, PF is in the right seat.
- The PF icon in cockpit-preparation and reposition blocks states the assignment explicitly (e.g. PF = Left Seat).
- When the yellow line moves between exercises, the PF role changes for the next manoeuvre; that colour shift is the instructor's cue to confirm handover before the next segment starts.
- Pink reposition blocks after an exercise carry the setup for the next phase, including PF assignment; treat PF = as mandatory, not decorative.
- Some plans show Crew or Instructor Decision for PF; if the crew chooses, the instructor must log who flew which exercise before grading.
Operational sequence at a role change: freeze or pause at the reposition point, confirm "you have control" / "I have control" per SOP, verify the lesson-plan PF matches the actual seat, then proceed with instructor operator station (IOS) setup. Instructors who let the stronger handler monopolise PF because the lesson plan "allows crew decision" break the both-seats rule in EVAL.
Training and assessment implications
Doc 9995 requires that assessment of all competencies in the evaluation phase give each pilot time as PF and as PM. A pilot who only flies never demonstrates PM monitoring, challenge, and support behaviours; a pilot who only monitors never demonstrates flight-path management competencies under that seat's workload.
In-seat instruction and scripted PM intervention scenarios (Doc 9995 module design) deliberately train detection of PF path errors and appropriate verbal or control intervention. That is PM skill as a designed training topic, not an accident of seating.
Grading traps
| Trap | What goes wrong | Correct grading move |
|---|---|---|
| PF-only path grade | Unstable approach or path excursion continues; instructor grades only PF FPM down | Record PM failure on situation awareness, communication, and LTW for missed scan, late query, or absent challenge. PF and PM grades are separate evidence lines on the timeline. |
| PM catch masks PF | PM takes over and recovers; instructor records a clean PF segment | Note the takeover in Record; PF may still warrant a low FPM or application of procedures grade for creating the state PM had to fix. Recovery does not erase the error that forced intervention. |
| Single-seat EVAL | One pilot flies every EVAL segment; the other only monitors | Incomplete competency coverage. Doc 9995 requires each pilot as PF and PM in EVAL. Re-run or restructure before signing competent. |
| Untagged timeline | observe, record, classify, evaluate (ORCE) notes list behaviours without seat role | Tag each recorded behaviour with PF or PM seat. FPM and automation grades come primarily from PF segments; monitoring, challenge, and intervention grades come from PM segments (and from PF monitoring the PM when roles reverse). |
ISI phase performance is not scored into the session outcome grade, but missed PM interventions in ISI still inform training needs and the debrief; do not treat ISI as "off the record" for monitoring skill.
Instructor use
Brief. From the lesson plan, state PF and PM per manoeuvre before IOS setup. Confirm the crew knows when the yellow line moves and what handover callouts apply. For ISI segments, brief the expected PM intervention level (query, challenge, or takeover) so PM knows the training target.
Conduct. At every reposition block, verify PF assignment matches the plan and SOP handover occurred. In EVAL, observe silently; note PM missed catches as they happen; do not coach PM through the scenario. In ISI, coach the PM ladder: a late takeover after a missed query is a PM training outcome, not only a PF error. When intervening for safety, take control cleanly; never blur who is flying.
Debrief. Separate PF path errors from PM missed catches using TEM framing: threat → error → who detected it → what intervention step was owed → what happened. Use concrete indicator language for both seats.
Assessment. Both seats must appear in EVAL for full competency coverage. Do not let the stronger handler monopolise PF across the module. Grade monitoring and challenge under the relevant competencies, not as a vague "CRM good/bad." When MV failure exposes manual-flight gaps, condition EVAL FPM grades accordingly; PF/PM seat tags make that conditioning defensible.
Connections
- Crew resource management. Task sharing is CRM made concrete in SOPs.
- Threat and error management. Monitoring is a primary TEM countermeasure.
- Line-oriented flight training. Line roles are exercised end-to-end.
- Flight simulation training device. Where multi-crew roles are trained off the line.
- Core competencies. Where PF/PM behaviours are graded.
- Evidence-based training. EVAL requires both PF and PM for full competency coverage.
- VENN grading. Seat-tagged timeline evidence feeds HOW WELL / OUTCOME for each competency cell.
- Type operating and training documentation. Type SOPs for seat roles, callouts, and control transfer live in the fleet and manufacturer stack.
Sources
- Doc 9995, Glossary. PF, PM, and monitoring definitions.
- Doc 9868, Part I Ch 1 (Definitions and acronyms). Parallel PF/PM definitions.
- Doc 9995, Part I Ch 7 (Conduct of evidence-based training). Each pilot acts as PF and PM in EVAL.
- Doc 9995, App 3 (Design of an evidence-based training …). ISI and PM intervention scenarios for error management.
- 1.4 Methods of Training and Checking. Crew concept and task sharing on STDs.
- 6.1 Introduction. Support/correct and PM query of PF.
- 8.4 Fundamentals of Airborne Instruction. Control takeover; follow-me-through (FMT) limits on sidestick.
- A4.2.6 Guidance for Using Electronic Lesson Plans. PF seat indicator in lesson plans.
- A4.2.4 Grading Methodology for Recurrent Training and Checking. ORCE discipline and per-phase grading rules.