Training as a crew - the vexed question of what seat you should occupy in an LPC/OPC
The fixed wing world and particularly the airline world has long recognised a need for pilots to be qualified to operate the aircraft from each of the crew stations. They may hold a LHS qualification a RHS qualification and for some training staff both LHS and RHS qualifications.
This has not been the norm for the helicopter fraternity although in some jurisdictions training staff are required to alternate their Proficiency Checks between L and RHS.
When conducting a type rating on a twin-engine turbine helicopter the crew station is a critical part of the course design. The course may be Single or Multi Pilot if the aircraft can be operated single crew, It must be MP if the aircraft requires two crew at all times.
Under EASA regulations there is no such thing as a co-pilot rating – one where the candidate is qualified only to occupy the co-pilot’s station. Other jurisdictions may have a different approach but it is not possible to ignore the fact that where the cockpit design is focussed on the RHS it may not be possible to operate effectively (easily) from the co-pilot station should the captain become incapacitated.
This mixture of priorities presents us with a potentially confusing picture, If the pilot undergoing a proficiency check holds a SP Type Rating achieved at an EASA ATO then he MUST conduct his test in the RHS. However if his normal crew station is the LHS because he is employed as a co-pilot the he will forever train and be tested in the one crew station he never occupies during his day-to-day work. This is illogical and will do nothing to improve his workplace performance or prepare him for a situation where his captain is incapacitated. He may then not be able to easily access the parking brake, the rotor brake and some switches that are not duplicated on his side of the cockpit without removing his seat harness. If required to operate the aircraft from the LHS he must adjust to the different instrument configuration (critical to a stable and strong instrument scan strategy) and the different visual cues when landing, particularly if the landing is offshore.
So the questions we have to ask are:
1. Do we train as a crew and remain in the normal designated crew station throughout? OR
2. Do we continue to train all those with a SP TR in the RHS?
What would the regulator in your jurisdiction say? Which compromise is acceptable, train as a crew and ignore the SP TR requirements with regard to RHS or train forever in the RHS and ignore the implications for the day-to-day operation?
Evidence Based Training favours Crew Training so that crew members occupy their normal station throughout. If we are to progress this excellent concept then we need to review our attitude to the conduct of proficiency checks. Your views are welcome.
G