Your description of your FO paints a picture of overwhelming incompetance in the right hand seat.......so I have two questions
I would have said underwhelming incompetence, but yes; the individual was exceptionally incompetent. How he managed to get certificated, much less get hired, was a mystery.
1) If you had dropped dead midflight on a nasty weather day, would this person be able to safely land the aircraft, something the passengers should be able to depend on ? If not how are you properly exercising your authority as PIC by allowing the situation to continue ?
As stated previously, I did not hire this individual, and made pointed requests not to fly with this individual, as did everyone else to whom he was assigned. This individual had a good attorney, and the company was looking for good, solid backing before letting him go. Until then, the fact of the matter was he was going to go fly.
The airplane involved as certified as a single pilot airplane, and although we operated as a crew, could have been operated alone. He was not required to be there, but was on board as a function of company policy.
I am familiar with many operations in which the First Officer or Copilot may or may not be able to handle completion of the flight alone. In this particular case, as I stated before, he is one of two individuals throughout my career for whom I have written letters recommending termination. A third individual cropped up last year, for whom I was asked to do an evaluation flight. I recommended his release before his initial checkride. He was given the ride, and failed the first, passed the second, as was put on payroll. I was able to learn afterward that his experience and background was falsified, and he was subsequently terminated.
These individuals were found at different companies with very different kinds of operations.
2) Why did you not simply exercise your captains discretion and refuse to depart with this individual in the right hand seat ? After all in an earlier post you related how you refused to fly with a overbearing and abusive Captain ?
I was able to operate safely with or without this individual on board. Until the incident with the locked tires, he was all talk and wind, and only flew on empty legs. After the locked tire incident, he never flew a leg again.
In the case of the overbearing captain...he was a little more than overbearing. He operated unsafely, and as the captain with full PIC authority, and ultimate control of the flight. I did not have the legal place to dictate how the flight would be conducted or to ensure it's safety, beyond refusing to get on the airplane at all.
In the case of the first officer on board an airplane certified for single pilot operations (but flown by policy with a crew of two), the first officer wasn't necessary to begin with, nor legally required. It was my hope initially that he could be trained, but experience showed that this was not the case, hence my letter recommending his termination. And the letters from other captains in the company, as well. That particular operation, a fractional company, hired a very diverse group of pilots, most of whom were very competent. How this particular pilot got hired is rather a mystery, and of no concern to me. His level of incompetence emerged in spurts; his character wasn't revealed overnight. He initially dressed and acted very professionally. I became wary of him, attempted to train him, and gradually abandoned any hope for him at all.
Contrary to the evaluations of some here, I tried harder to help him than most, and for a longer period of time, before giving up on him as a lost cause. I highlighted here a couple of incidents which illustrate the pilot he turned out to be. Some here have demanded that I train pilots to be a captain, that when acting as PIC, I have some sort of obligation or duty to make others a captain. While this is assuredly untrue, rest easy on the fact that I worked very hard to prepare this individual to improve himself on the job. He was more interested in partying and playing than study, and couldn't be helped.
Very simple. The captain works for the operator. So if the FOM (OM-A) requires that he should give the controls to the FO for at least 50 or 75% he must follow that rule.
If the situation is not safe it should be pointed out to the Chief or the training manager or the safety pilot and resolved. There are ways of fixing substandard performance for the FOs (or Captains of course)
The captain does not own the aircraft. He just operates it according to the FOM of the company and the JARs or FARs or whatever...
So, if the company requires the 50/50 or at least 25% rule, that is exactly what he must follow.
Absolutely not.
The FAA issues my pilot certification. The FAA determines my responsibilities in the cockpit, and my authority.
The company can demand or dictate what they will, but it's my pilot certificate, not the employers. Now, I will do what I can within reason with the employer, to include adhering to guidelines and policies if safe and legal. That said, I have never seen an operations manual that stated that company policy takes precedence over the regulation. Ever. In fact, every operations manual I've ever seen says exactly the opposite; where a conflict with the regulation exists, the regulation is to be followed.
Moreover, I have yet to see an operations manual which states that the captain will give 25% or 50% of the legs to the First Officer. I don't believe such a policy exists, and I defy anyone here to present such a document.
You'll find guidelines that suggest crews alternate legs, nearly always with the caveat that it's "at the captain's discretion." You show me a manual where the company dictates that the captain will allow the F/O to fly a certain percentage of legs, or alternate every leg. I've asked someone to do that repeatedly in this thread; thus far nobody has been willing or able to do so.
No company is going to be stupid enough to abdicate the authority and judgment of the pilot in command, who has legal ultimate authority and control over the operation of the flight, by demanding that the captain acquiesce X number of legs or XX percentage of legs. In most operations, the legs get split fairly evenly, 50/50, but this is at the captains discretion, not at company mandate. At best, an operator will suggest an even split, but that's as far as it goes.
Have you a documentation that shows otherwise?