Scenario:
In-experienced FO climbs out of sim with skipper and TRE/TRI and TRE/TRI says:
"How do you think that went?"
FO says:
Like a dogs dinner. Wish I could spend a bit more time in the sim to ensure a better performance. Once every six months isn't enough.
How many times have we all heard it? How many times have you heard the
skipper say the aforementioned! How many times does the TRE/TRI disagree?
Its easy to leave the speedbrake out during a GPWS manoeuvre. Not serious? Thats a killer.
So why don't we? Nothing to do with safety and everything to do with economics.
However, lets run with the notion that if you meet the CAA LPC/OPC requirements, you're
good enough. (We'll forget about the fact that these details are predictable - I mean an EFATO on T/O, to a OEI ILS to DH, followed by a OEI GA for a OEI NDB/VOR/LLZ to minima to land...)
Why don't we let two guys/gals up the front then with 200hrs on their ticket?
Normally the occupant of the LHS has enough hours on his license (albeit there probably isn't any evidence to justify the generally accepted belief that 3-3500hrs is good enough to see you knocking on the door of a command assessment - in fact that figure is probably the result of a clause on an insurance policy somewhere and it is this that dictates the policy more than anything else...I stand to be corrected. It does spring to mind, though, that the skipper of the DHL A300 that got hit by a missile out of Baghdad had only slightly more than 3000hrs TT...) to guarantee that, if on the day you have a EFATO and you're
both a little complacent, his/her wider breath of knowledge and experience is going to get you through the experience.
Now maybe BA pilots, being the diligent bunch they are, take advantage of their freely available sim facilities prior to their sim checks (I certainly know a few mates who exericse this luxury I don't have but would certainly like!), but, generally, a 2000hr FO has only done ~3 LPC/OPC's!
The bottom line is that safety isn't about time in the seat when everything is going right, but how you react when everything is going wrong.
The reason we don't have a monkey in the flightdeck with us, is because although a monkey could be trained to execute our various SOP's, the most important and significant part of claiming a
safe operation is what happens when something non-normal occurs. An in-experienced monkey at this point, isn't much use.
Airrage believes that having met the CAA requirements and in the absence of evidence to suggest the contrary,
JS is a safe pilot.
I suggest not half as safe as she/we could be.
Bloody bean-counters.
