Young ATPL F.O. 200Hrs TT on right seat.....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nobody is saying that there aren't experienced co-pilots around. Of course there are. The arguement is about risk mitigation.
Interesting. To broaden this aspect somewhat; there was a discussion a few months ago about F/O landings in strong testing weather conditions or in NNC. The opinion was firmly divided about PF (F/O) staying PF or Captain taking over. This former was more the case in strong gusty x-winds, for various aesthetic reasons: there were even some advocating PF (F/O) remaining so for engine failure or flap/hydraulic NNC landings. IMHO the captain is expected to take responsibility and mitigate the perceived risk in anything untoward.
In the RTO case, for those who advocate F/O's calling STOP, it is likely, unless it is very well trained, that when the Captain is PF & oblivious to the reason, there might be a hesitation as the WTF question is asked. If this happens close to V1, the stop might occur some knots beyond.
The ability to call STOP might well be relevant if F/O is PF and feels the a/c is not quite right. It would be difficult to conduct a conference with the captain as you hurtle down the ever reducing stopping tarmac. The 'unsafe to fly' part of the RTO/takeoff brief might be more apparent to the F/O (PF) than the non-tactile captain.
A debatable topic and one I've never come across in any of my airlines.
The closest I got to it was an F/O can call Stop, but it was advisory. A STOP from the captain was mandatory and always executed from LHS. There are airlines, I believe (BA???????), where the F/O (PF) can execute the RTO from RHS. Is that correct?
Interesting. To broaden this aspect somewhat; there was a discussion a few months ago about F/O landings in strong testing weather conditions or in NNC. The opinion was firmly divided about PF (F/O) staying PF or Captain taking over. This former was more the case in strong gusty x-winds, for various aesthetic reasons: there were even some advocating PF (F/O) remaining so for engine failure or flap/hydraulic NNC landings. IMHO the captain is expected to take responsibility and mitigate the perceived risk in anything untoward.
In the RTO case, for those who advocate F/O's calling STOP, it is likely, unless it is very well trained, that when the Captain is PF & oblivious to the reason, there might be a hesitation as the WTF question is asked. If this happens close to V1, the stop might occur some knots beyond.
The ability to call STOP might well be relevant if F/O is PF and feels the a/c is not quite right. It would be difficult to conduct a conference with the captain as you hurtle down the ever reducing stopping tarmac. The 'unsafe to fly' part of the RTO/takeoff brief might be more apparent to the F/O (PF) than the non-tactile captain.
A debatable topic and one I've never come across in any of my airlines.
The closest I got to it was an F/O can call Stop, but it was advisory. A STOP from the captain was mandatory and always executed from LHS. There are airlines, I believe (BA???????), where the F/O (PF) can execute the RTO from RHS. Is that correct?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm perfectly satisfied that my employer selects, and then trains, all occupants in the RHS seat to make accurate decisions, according to a very small number of extremely strict criteria. A decision in which there is zero time for interpretation, or the use of experience.
Clearly others feel less happy about their empoyer's selection, training and/or the qualities of those sitting next to them. I couldn't possibly comment about that, but I suspect it is THAT which would attract the attention of any ambulance chasing lawyers.
Purely out of curiosity, which reasons for a stop call require 'experience'?
Clearly others feel less happy about their empoyer's selection, training and/or the qualities of those sitting next to them. I couldn't possibly comment about that, but I suspect it is THAT which would attract the attention of any ambulance chasing lawyers.
Purely out of curiosity, which reasons for a stop call require 'experience'?
Clearly others feel less happy about their empoyer's selection, training and/or the qualities of those sitting next to them. I couldn't possibly comment about that, but I suspect it is THAT which would attract the attention of any ambulance chasing lawyers.
4468: I am more concerned about decisions to STOP which are not appropriate. How about a yaw caused by a tyre burst at high speed. You will be lucky to make a safe stop with less than all tyres working. How about flying through a large flock of birds causing multiple loud bangs which a less experienced crewmember might react badly to.
You seem reluctant to address the decision/responsibility issues her regardless of how good you consider your training regime. Aerocat2SA understands my point completely.
You seem reluctant to address the decision/responsibility issues her regardless of how good you consider your training regime. Aerocat2SA understands my point completely.
It will be interesting to see how long this one runs. It has been my experience in the past that trying to criticise BA procedures on pprune is as likely to succeed as trying to push butter up a badger's rear end with a red hot needle.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great. Now at least we have ACTUAL examples we can debate.
So, a yaw caused by a burst tyre, is a fair case in point. I agree that a stop call may not be appropriate. I can also see that it might be easy to confuse a bang and swing from a tyre burst, with a bang and swing from a failed engine. One we would continue from, one we would stop! Easy to make the wrong call!
So here's the million dollar question: Who is best placed to determine the CAUSE of your 'bang and swing'?
A) The guy at the controls, attempting to correct the swing by looking out?
B) The PM who has been monitoring the engine instruments as you hurtle down the runway?
C) The captain, regardless of whether he is A) or B)?
I presume, regardless of opinions, EVERYONE accepts that B) is able to make the fastest decision?
For the avoidance of doubt, in most airlines B) would be the captain on only 50% of occasions?
How about a yaw caused by a tyre burst at high speed. You will be lucky to make a safe stop with less than all tyres working. How about flying through a large flock of birds causing multiple loud bangs which a less experienced crewmember might react badly to.
So here's the million dollar question: Who is best placed to determine the CAUSE of your 'bang and swing'?
A) The guy at the controls, attempting to correct the swing by looking out?
B) The PM who has been monitoring the engine instruments as you hurtle down the runway?
C) The captain, regardless of whether he is A) or B)?
I presume, regardless of opinions, EVERYONE accepts that B) is able to make the fastest decision?
For the avoidance of doubt, in most airlines B) would be the captain on only 50% of occasions?
JW411: That is so true!!!!
I have to declare a conflict of interest having flown for BA for 7 years before "getting time off for good behaviour" and leaving to enter the big wide world outside!
4468: ref. option B - are you now suggesting that a co-pilot in your airline could make a "CONTINUE" call? If so, that is the first operator I have come accross which tolerates that.
I have to declare a conflict of interest having flown for BA for 7 years before "getting time off for good behaviour" and leaving to enter the big wide world outside!
4468: ref. option B - are you now suggesting that a co-pilot in your airline could make a "CONTINUE" call? If so, that is the first operator I have come accross which tolerates that.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
meikleour
Not at all, only you have made the suggestion that a copilot can call continue. I have simply pointed out that a copilot may be better placed to make an accurate 'stop' call.
I'm heartened that you appear to agree.
Thanks
Not at all, only you have made the suggestion that a copilot can call continue. I have simply pointed out that a copilot may be better placed to make an accurate 'stop' call.
I'm heartened that you appear to agree.
Thanks
4468: No need to be heartened - because I do not agree with you!
If I read your post correctly, option B may be the co-pilot as PM so with the tyre burst scenario, in your world, he says "I say skipper, Old Man, I think the engines are OK" To which the captain says "thank you very much for your input , Young Man - in my experience I think the better course of action will be to continue". I guess this would mean that V1 was successfully passed!
If I read your post correctly, option B may be the co-pilot as PM so with the tyre burst scenario, in your world, he says "I say skipper, Old Man, I think the engines are OK" To which the captain says "thank you very much for your input , Young Man - in my experience I think the better course of action will be to continue". I guess this would mean that V1 was successfully passed!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468
ECAM. It will tell you if engine has failed. The co-pilot PM only calls engine fail without identifying which one at that stage. Captain PF decides and executes after saying STOP! If Co pilot is PF where he is not permitted to reject then the captain has thrust levers when he sees engine fail he calls STOP and executes. In your airline the co-pilot PF will do so. In any case the co-pilot doesn't call STOP. I will be surprised if it is otherwise. I had two rejects at low speed one in 747 as the thrust was being set engine failure with N1 stuck and over temp and in A300 with co pilots window opening. No one tells you to stop. You do it.
Who is best placed to determine the CAUSE of your 'bang and swing'?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow
You're going to wait until ECAM 'tells you' (whether??) the engine has failed? Where does that little gem appear in your emergency brief?
In my airline, if a copilot (who is monitoring the engine instruments as PM) identifies an engine failure. He/she will call STOP! Why on earth would he/she call "engine fail"???? Nobody has explained why he/she would not just call stop!
It's all clearly briefed. I fly with people who are well trained. There is (and has been!) absolutely no issue whatsoever! Maybe you fly with poorly trained F/Os? I guess I'm just lucky?
You're going to wait until ECAM 'tells you' (whether??) the engine has failed? Where does that little gem appear in your emergency brief?
In my airline, if a copilot (who is monitoring the engine instruments as PM) identifies an engine failure. He/she will call STOP! Why on earth would he/she call "engine fail"???? Nobody has explained why he/she would not just call stop!
It's all clearly briefed. I fly with people who are well trained. There is (and has been!) absolutely no issue whatsoever! Maybe you fly with poorly trained F/Os? I guess I'm just lucky?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potential Chief Pilot for a new airline LHS.
Our Flight Manager in RHS.
Runway not limiting.
"Engine fire warning" before V1
Potential Chief Pilot... Did nothing... Said nothing...
Our Flight Manager...closed the throttles and used the brakes.
Potential Chief Pilot was sent home.
(Some may have felt embarrassed for him or even pity. His new airline has good standards with someone else as their first Chief Pilot.)
At the time the Pilot in LHS should have initiated closing the throttles, to give a tactile indication of his intentions, just in case his words alone might be mistaken. He would have a hand just forward of the throttles until V1, ready if necessary, to reduce power.
LT
Our Flight Manager in RHS.
Runway not limiting.
"Engine fire warning" before V1
Potential Chief Pilot... Did nothing... Said nothing...
Our Flight Manager...closed the throttles and used the brakes.
Potential Chief Pilot was sent home.
(Some may have felt embarrassed for him or even pity. His new airline has good standards with someone else as their first Chief Pilot.)
At the time the Pilot in LHS should have initiated closing the throttles, to give a tactile indication of his intentions, just in case his words alone might be mistaken. He would have a hand just forward of the throttles until V1, ready if necessary, to reduce power.
LT
Last edited by Linktrained; 31st Aug 2016 at 23:58. Reason: throttles
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468
You should be loyal to your pay check but it is abundantly clear that you don't follow manufacturer's SOP/recommendations. What I have written is the way airbus teaches and recommends. I can see some merit in FO PF allowed to reject take off but PNF ordering STOP is ridiculous. There are incidents where Airlines have changed airbus procedures and come to grief and one of them with good record and they changed back to Airbus procedure.Nobody can keep looking at instruments alone the PM needs to monitor the take off run as well. If PM did not monitor parameters ECAM will but a PM who did not notice runway excursion cannot be called well trained.STOP call is a decision and it cannot be done by PM. Except four abnormal situations ECAM warnings are supressed to prevent reject take off. What happens to that if PM is going to remember when to say stop. There is no justification other than your airline doesn't do that way.
You should be loyal to your pay check but it is abundantly clear that you don't follow manufacturer's SOP/recommendations. What I have written is the way airbus teaches and recommends. I can see some merit in FO PF allowed to reject take off but PNF ordering STOP is ridiculous. There are incidents where Airlines have changed airbus procedures and come to grief and one of them with good record and they changed back to Airbus procedure.Nobody can keep looking at instruments alone the PM needs to monitor the take off run as well. If PM did not monitor parameters ECAM will but a PM who did not notice runway excursion cannot be called well trained.STOP call is a decision and it cannot be done by PM. Except four abnormal situations ECAM warnings are supressed to prevent reject take off. What happens to that if PM is going to remember when to say stop. There is no justification other than your airline doesn't do that way.
Last edited by vilas; 2nd Sep 2016 at 15:43.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: ringwood
Age: 91
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I retired in 1983, how times have changed, so many more things to go wrong and from what you guys are saying, they do seem to be going wrong!!! Even my car suffers from over complication, or is just my age? Just keep flying and contributing to my pension!!!!
The safest method is, of course, to have captain monitored take offs in all cases. Capt monitors all parameters and can call an informed "stop" or "continue".
"stop" means "i have control" and captain stops the a/c as trained. "continue" means FO continues as they have been trained.
It is very simple and obvious but.....
This won't happen because pilots like to take off.
Sorry if this puts anyones noses out of joint.
"stop" means "i have control" and captain stops the a/c as trained. "continue" means FO continues as they have been trained.
It is very simple and obvious but.....
This won't happen because pilots like to take off.
Sorry if this puts anyones noses out of joint.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a 3-crew operation, or a check pilot on the jump seat. Can they call "Stop"? If maybe, is that a seniority-based command for the bod on the jump-seat?
Many of us fly 3-crew ops, sometimes there is even a 4th pilot on the flight deck, and they may spot something seriously wrong before the others.
Surely this is a common-sense issue. Anyone who see sit, calls it. And the consequences of a "Stop" call are the same for all.
Many of us fly 3-crew ops, sometimes there is even a 4th pilot on the flight deck, and they may spot something seriously wrong before the others.
Surely this is a common-sense issue. Anyone who see sit, calls it. And the consequences of a "Stop" call are the same for all.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willy
Whilst some reasons for a 'stop' call are best confirmed by information inside the flight deck, other reasons for a 'stop' call can only be decided by looking outside the window.
I make no comment on the notion that a pilot controlling a yawing a/c during a high speed ground roll might have the capacity to look at the engine gauges, to decide whether or not to stop! Or may even delay the decision until ECAM senses and displays the failure. All (and ONLY!) because he/she doesn't trust the colleague sitting next to them!
It seems the captains of some airlines aren't as omnipotent as others!
The safest method is, of course, to have captain monitored take offs in all cases. Capt monitors all parameters and can call an informed "stop" or "co
I make no comment on the notion that a pilot controlling a yawing a/c during a high speed ground roll might have the capacity to look at the engine gauges, to decide whether or not to stop! Or may even delay the decision until ECAM senses and displays the failure. All (and ONLY!) because he/she doesn't trust the colleague sitting next to them!
It seems the captains of some airlines aren't as omnipotent as others!
I have seen several variations of SOP over the years in both Boeing and Airbus types and I have to say that in general terms, the ones who stuck to the guidance of the manufacturer were simpler, more effective and less prone to being peppered with distracting management "pet projects". Having FOs making reject decisions is one such project, IMO.