^^^ what he said.
It would obviously be sensible to not allow brand new low hour cadets in their first airline RHS to taxi until they had, say 500 or 1000 hours of airline flying, and are familiar with the airport, but otherwise, why not?
I do not get this. Everything in the flight-deck is done double-stitch style. One executes, the other watches. When released for the first solo, were we not allowed to taxi then, un-supervised? Would there be a test exercise after those 1000 hrs to evaluate their (never practiced) taxying skills? Hope many would agree that whenever taxi gets seriously demanding it's better that the responsible PIC has a chart at hand and is looking out, delegating physical steering to the other cockpit resource.
It is understandable that different airlines have different policies, the foundations of which may had been laid down eons ago. Different airframe configurations and trying to have a single shared concept across fleets must play a role. Having acknowledged that fact, as long as the installed controls allow, the work assignment should be completely symmetrical. It's 2020. Even with new colleagues with less than 250 hrs total time it's not a problem (assuming at least late 80's design of the A/C). Clearly, the responsibility and authority of PIC rest undivided. Hence the actions and maneuvers that require (unlike taxying) experience and immediate command judgment remain pegged to the LHS.
In my world that would be:
- fuelling decision
- aircraft technical acceptance
- loadsheet verification
- close the door authorization
- choice of deicing
- RTO stop/go call
- narrow or short runways
- BA medium or worse
- LVP
I believe the RTO = PIC is not a handling debate but a one of authority instead.