Baywatcher, a few pages back some posters began asserting that there was no difference between a Captain and an F/O. Their argument being that airlines need not place a premium on trying to retain their experienced pilots beyond normal retirement age because any first officer with a P1 rating could do the same job (making the same argument made by the management at every low cost carrier today).
Oval....You seem to be hung up on some status issues, telling me to get off my high horse for example; and that I think that I am somehow better....
Well..... Am I proud to be a Captain? You bet I am? Why shouldn't I be? I was damn proud to be hired by Cathay as a junior F/O (even with 6000 hours of command time on smaller jets), and I was damn proud when I was allowed to take off my two bars and put on my shiny new three bars, and then even more so with my four bars. I was proud every step of the way throughout my career. You weren't?
But more to your points......Every airline has its own standard for the completion of a command or Captain course. It's just that some airlines have looser standards than others. Some airlines, like Cathay, are right to spend money in training that other airlines refuse to do....some CEO's and senior managers justify spending less on training by using some of the arguments that you make. That is a shame, because the accident statistics speak for themselves. It remains up to us as pilots to point out the risk of lowering the bar. Perhaps you should consider it a good thing that our training standards here at Cathay are second to none.
You seem intent on focusing on the fine points of a P1 rating while ignoring the broader context. The fact that a captain and an FO both have P1 on their license does not mean that they are assessed to the same standard….and therefore, we cannot just say “congratulations…you are now a Captain…” as you would like.
No STC that I know would expect the same performance from an FO than he would expect from a captain. Would you care to point out the particular passage in Vol 7 that specifically lays that out? You can’t because the Vol7 must be read in conjunction with the CAD170, the Ops A manual and the ANO's, which read together form the basis of our training structure and speak to our testing standards.
The testing guidelines in CAD170 are objective standards. In addition to the objective standards mandated by CAD, STC's are taught and expected to apply subjective standards as well (was it safe and was it effective). It’s only after evaluating both these concepts that a pass/fail decision is made. What can be considered safe and effective for an FO is obviously different to what is expected of a Captain. To do otherwise would be unfair. An FO could do things on a check and pass that a captain could not.
To qualify to even begin a command course an FO's past performance is reviewed to consider his/her potential to achieve what is expected of a Captain by the end of the allotted time structured in the command course. That's in the Vol 7, did you skip that part? And 90% of our guys succeed on their first go…..I'd argue that speaks well about our training system.
And then regarding Cat D FO’s you say : “imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!”
Are you suggesting that Cathay do what other carriers do when an FO in their company fails to upgrade?
I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of your command training. But to claim as you do to have learned nothing during your command course is arrogant. It is not what the vast majority of command course graduates tell the third floor. You must be an exception.....
It’s obvious I am not convincing you and that you are not convincing me…..and I'm sure we're beginning to bore the h*ll out of everyone here. You are entitled to your opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.