At my clue the rules for any of this messing about are to start at a height that enables recovery by 3,000' solo or 2,000' (IIRC).
Why the difference between recovery by 3000 ft solo or 2000 ft dual?
You should not be certified for solo spinning until you are competent.
That means if it considered safe to recover by 2000 ft if it is dual instruction, then as far as the aircraft type is concerned recovery by 2000 ft is safe. If the instructor himself is on solo practice does that mean he is also restricted to recover by 3000 ft? Either you are fully competent to recover by 2000 ft or you are not. There should be no difference between dual and solo spinning practice if you have been signed off as competent.
A similar principle applies in airline type rating e.g B737, Airbus etc with regards to certified competency in crosswind landings. Any type rating training should include certified competency at landing up to the crosswind limit of the aircraft type. That should include first officers as well as a captain.
The first officer is legally second in command. It would be logical to expect his type rating training is the same standard expected of a captain. Passengers of an airliner would sincerely hope the first officer has the skills of a captain, in the event of the captain being incapacitated.
That said, it is common airline policy to reduce the crosswind limit for first officers landings or take off's. That is an open admission that first officers are not trained to command competency standard in some handling sequences such as crosswind landings to the aircraft type limit. Yet by unforeseen circumstances, they could well be required to fly in command single-handed if the captain was incapacitated. Food for thought?
