Left seat only for ME captains? [Archive]

Guy Willesley

17th Feb 2005, 22:32

According to our good books, as well as taxying nosewheel steering on the 'J' is REQUIRED to maintain directional control in the event of an abort, 3-eng landing, double assy landing, or if an outboard engine fails after V1. From experience it can also be quite useful following a new Co's landing in any reasonable crosswind... To put the co in the LHS as PF would leave the Capt as the one signing for the aircraft but not always able to control it.

Having said that, I don't see this as a problem when the Co has gained some general aircraft experience. I do believe though that giving a 180hrTT pilot straight from the OCU over-riding control of a 4-engine aircraft is doing it too soon. Simply, it introduces an avoidable risk unnecessarily.

My tuppence worth. Powers that be have other ideas methinks.

Magic Mushroom

17th Feb 2005, 22:59

Why does it make it more expensive?!!
LHS only steering on the E-3D as well but no dramas in converting pilots to both seats. Seat choice tends to be an issue only when planning for drogue AAR due to the offset probe (but we prefer boom anyway!).

Having said all that, I'm a backseat goat, so what do I know?!!

Where's SonicStomp?!!

Regards,
M2

skaterboi

17th Feb 2005, 23:25

Well chatting with OCU instructor last week a certain 'loving' OCU at a certain secret wiltshire base will be teaching the next 2 courses as being LHS and RHS interchangable. Co's will be able to operate from the LHS starting engines and operating the NWS.

Whether or not it works, or indeed stays in favour remains to be seen.

Always_broken_in_wilts

17th Feb 2005, 23:38

Time to have a good look at my life insurance methinks:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

LunchMonitor

18th Feb 2005, 00:10

I do seem to remember a K a few years back departing the runway to get a closer look at the tacan or ILS hut, following the instructor demo of a 3 engine abort. That was with an OCU instructor captain on the nosewheel never mind a newly qualified co-pilot.
They never even used to let D CAT (LCR) Copilots land when you had pax on, never mind land and steer!

ctj

18th Feb 2005, 04:58

Beags,

More expensive to train them to fly in both seats?

I know lets wait a couple of years and send them back to the ocu for a month or 2 and train them to fly in the other seat...

Far more cost effective........maybe

BEagle

18th Feb 2005, 06:12

Yes - it's called a co-capt course.

The Vickers FunBus has steering on both sides, so there is absolutely no need to spend time on the basic course teaching the novices of today to fly from both seats.

Even V-bombers had steering on both sides!

Guy Willesley

18th Feb 2005, 08:15

There is no need to send an experienced Co back to do a full OCU just so they can use the nosewheel steering - just as there is no need to make them do it straight after their first OCU!

They never even used to let D CAT (LCR) Copilots land when you had pax on
True - and now there's a proposal to go from one extreme to the other.

Dan Winterland

18th Feb 2005, 09:00

Actually, the Victor only had it on the left. However, it was close to the centre pedestal just above the 1st pilot's (correct V Bomber term for the LHS occupant) knee. So those co-pilots with gibbon length arms (like me!) could reach and use it.

The V force did have a comprehensive system of co-pilot training and advancement, the culmination of which was the ICC (Intermediate Captain's Course) which in the fianl phase coverted the co-pilot to the LHS where he could fly from then on so long as the captain was RHS qualified as well - as many were.

Roland Pulfrew

18th Feb 2005, 09:19

Unusually I am going to have to disagree with Beags on this issue. :oh: There is absolutely no reason why pilots should not be trained to operate in both seats (IMHO on all RAF multi-engined types). There are the usual arguments of "it would be too confusing for the poor little darlings" which can be countered with " they know no different so will except what ever they are taught as abos". If the sims were set up so that the course crew pilots (a captain and a co) alternated between seats then they would accept that as the norm. This would then mean that when a co was deemed ready for captaincy he would just be given captain status. No dramas, no need for a co-captain course, no extra costs!

The additional benefits are if you are short of co-pilots you have captains who can fly together from either seat. As long as one is the nominated captain for the trip then again no dramas (except the argument over who is going to carry the nav bag). Indeed on Beags old Sqn they went through a period of retraining captains in the RHS to act as cos because of an extreme shortage of that type of beast.

Despite Beags anti Mighty Hunter comments the fact is that both pilots on an OCU course would probably be abo first tourists. Both flew from either seat (except for T/O and landing and below 1000' AMSL if my fading memory serves correct, but stand to be corrected, when the QFI would occupy a seat) and both learned how to do all the trick flying ie DEFATO, flapless etc.

The system works on maritime and has done for 30+ years so there is no reason, IMHO, that it could not work elsewhere. Perhaps only the old shiny 10 mentality that still pervades 2 Gp is the only problem!

Art Field

18th Feb 2005, 09:45

Why are co-pilots?. (a) Because they just out of training and therefore inexperienced. (b) Because they are making a major role change and therefore inexperienced but should make LHS fairly quickly. (c) I can say this being well retired. Because they are not very good.

What then is the advantage to the RAF in making them LHS qualified early in their tour?. Very little bar a morale element, they always have to fly with a qualified captain. What advantage is there to the individual?. 1st pilot hours, but is it not deceitful to count them as such and could the CAA not accuse the RAF of fraud?.

The LHS is a reward to be earned, not given away in the style of modern education. The V force ICC may well have been an over heavyweight means to achieve an end but its placing within a tour was an appropriate measure of an individuals ability and value to the service.

Oh, Beags, sorry but the Valiant was also LHS steering only and well on the left so unreachable from the right.

The Real Slim Shady

18th Feb 2005, 10:31

Just for your interest this is what JAR Ops says about operating from either seat.

Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.968

Pilot qualification to operate in either pilot’s
seat

(a) Commanders whose duties also require
them to operate in the right-hand seat and carry out
the duties of co-pilot, or commanders required to
conduct training or examining duties from the righthand
seat, shall complete additional training and
checking as specified in the Operations Manual,
concurrent with the operator proficiency checks
prescribed in JAR–OPS 1.965(b). This additional
training must include at least the following:
(1) An engine failure during take-off;
(2) A one engine inoperative approach
and go-around; and
(3) A one engine inoperative landing.
(b) When engine-out manoeuvres are carried
out in an aeroplane, the engine failure must be
simulated.
(c) When operating in the right-hand seat, the
checks required by JAR–OPS for operating in the
left-hand seat must, in addition, be valid and current.
(d) A pilot relieving the commander shall have
demonstrated, concurrent with the operator
proficiency checks prescribed in JAR-OPS 1.965(b),
practice of drills and procedures which would not,
normally, be the relieving pilot’s responsibility.
Where the differences between left and right seats
are not significant (for example because of use of
autopilot) then practice may be conducted in either
seat.
(e) A pilot other than the commander
occupying the left-hand seat shall demonstrate
practice of drills and procedures, concurrent with the
operator proficiency checks prescribed in JAR–OPS
1.965(b), which would otherwise have been the
commander’s responsibility acting as pilot nonflying.
Where the differences between left and right
seats are not significant (for example because of use
of autopilot) then practice may be conducted in
either seat.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98]

Normal practice is that only Training Captains would fly in both seats as the Licence Skill Test (LST) and Licence Proficiency Check (LPC) is carried out in the simulator in the LHS or RHS. To operate from both seats requires a further check in the RHS if the bulk of the LPC was completed in the LHS.

That said there is nothing to prohibit any Captain or F/O being qualified to operate from both seats providing the JAR and approved training is completed. Normally up to the company with the agreement of the Authority.

As to logging flight hours, time spent as P1 where the individual is 'The sole manipulator of the flight controls' may be recorded as P1C even though the pilot was not the aircraft commander as recorded in the documentation.

Also, if the type rating qualification is in Part 1 of the licence i.e. recorded as P1 as opposed to P2, all flying could be claimed as P1 from either seat.

All a bit wooly.

Always_broken_in_wilts

18th Feb 2005, 12:10

Folks, this move has nothing to do with common sense it is merely a cost saving excercise. "Bums on seats" is what it is all about.......god help us:(

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

USasBRIEFED

18th Feb 2005, 12:18

A few points (hopefully) worthy of note:
1. Co pilots converting to Capt in a Funbus by and large learn Captaincy on their conversion to being a Captain, piloting skills are assumed to be present.
2. Due to the layout of the funbus cockpit in an emergency (ie DEFATO) the Capt and Eng sort it whilst co and Nav fly it. From Co seat it is very very difficult to see eng panel.
3. Most co's in the last few years arriving on the funbus have not been anywhere near the top graduates of the flying training system.

Becoming a captain should not be a race against time (unless you are desperate to be airline fodder) but more of a quality issue. I have had the pleasure of flying with generally the best aircrew in the world ie RAF for over 20 years (including Beagle)lets keep the standards up rather than rush canidates forward. And finally remember what works for one fleet does not necessary mean it is a cure all result for everyone else.

Lets fly safe.

mystic_meg

18th Feb 2005, 14:44

...Cor! I'd give my right arm to be allowed to fly from the LHS!:E

StopStart

18th Feb 2005, 14:50

On the herc captains can fly from either seat if they maintain their RHS currency. The Aircraft Captain is, however, still the bloke sat in the LHS. Instructors etc get a separate qualification to operate as Aircraft Captain from the RHS.

As for training abo copilots to operate from the LHS......don't get me started :mad: what a pointless exercise. If we have to save money on our core business (er, flying) there are better and more constructive ways of doing it than this sort of half arsed tosh.

P-T-Gamekeeper

18th Feb 2005, 15:02

A couple of issues here methinks.

VC-10 and Nimrod are narrow engined jets.
C-130 K/J/E/H/W2 etc are wide engined TP

C-130's have significant asymetric and x-wind issues, which require significant nosewheel steering inputs for directional control. As only LHS has nosewheel steering, captaain can only control his ac in emergency situations from the LHS. OCU QFI's are considered suitably experienced to captain from either seat, but other captains, if qualified and current IAW GASO'S are only allowed to operate RHS as non-captain.

I believe strongly in the progression of competent co's, which we have many, but trying to make LCR (just!!) copilots LHS/RHS qualified is a significant flight safety issue, and I believe IFS should be involved to stop this lunacy.

It has been suggested that we can let co's fly LHS on basic sorties when the weather is good. How do you then change seats when you lose 2 on T/O, or have to divert to a contaminated strip with a significant x-wind.

In a system where the captain is solely responsible for the operation of his ac, how can he do so when he cannot operate the necessary controls.

buoy15

18th Feb 2005, 16:26

Beags

I think you jumped in a bit too quick there mate

Zeibart was referring to pilot captains who are required to "bring on" their co's by changing seats.

If you have a seroius problem at rotation (engine failure, or fire ) with a heavy jet, the priority is to fly the plane and sort the problem.

If the student is in the left hand seat with a right hand circuit, (difficult) still below a 1000ft, what do you do.?

Let him continue to finals and assess his performance before taking control, in the meantime working as the "co-pilot" with the Eng, ATC and the crew to sort the problem, or jump into the left hand seat and take over causing more problems? (GASO's illegal)

Or do you simply say. "I have control" and deny him the training value of a real situation.

I was crewed with an ex truckie who was promoted to Maritime, and his "very funny" brief to the co-pilot was - ok Bloggs, today looking forward, I'm in the left hand seat and on the next trip, looking aft, I'm in the right hand seat, any questions ?

Beags, I have been a 'back end' captain 3 times and took time to learn the mechanics of the ac, but never lost sight of it's complexity; Iv'e always trusted my experts

On more than one occasion with an ac problem, fully diagnosed, I simply said to the P1

"OK. wer'e Off Task. return to ISK in a safe and timely manner - you have control, I will talk to OC Ops"

NO CROSS-COCKPIT AUTHORITY HERE CHAPS!

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle to the front of the queue

BEagle

18th Feb 2005, 16:51

I firmly agree with Art Field - a wise sage of much experience - and Stoppers - a wise youngster (ish) who has a clear perspective.

The boat people with their odd ways are in the minority - they can keep them. Along with their non-pilot captains.

Didn't know that about the Valiant, Arters - thought it would have had some tiller-like thing ;) Or a large mahogany job with big spokes!

scroggs

19th Feb 2005, 09:26

if we can spend a couple of mill training young Scroggins to haul a big grey/green/black/shiny bus around the sky...

God, yes - I was young once! :cool: Did it really cost that much to train me? Hope they got good value before I poked off to the bearded one's airline (where line captains always occupy the LHS)....

BEagle

19th Feb 2005, 09:33

And quite rightly too, scroggs!

A chum of mine has just started with the Bearded One's fine airline - on the A340-300 and sparkling new A340-600...with a very good chance of the A380 in a couple of years' time!

Whereas had he (or you) stayed in the mob, the option would be a desk or some clapped-out old jet years past its sell-by date held together with speed tape and black bodge tape with no replacement yet in sight. Or perhaps C-17s to and from the Great Sandpit.

And they wonder why people aren't staying.....??

Dan Winterland

19th Feb 2005, 10:26

Not sure about the alleged 'easy' aspects of VC10 assymetric compared with that of the C130 / C17. A catastrophic engine failure could take out the adjescant engine, so an EFATO could very rapidly become a DEFATO. The MTOW DEFATO drill in the VC10 (sim!) was the most demanding feat in aviation I had the pleasure of experiencing. In comparison, double assymetric flying on my current type (Boeing 747) is a doddle - although we don't practice DEFATOs.

However, with the Victor Mk2 one engine out wasn't considered as proper assymetric - just 3% extra on the live engines and a touch of rudder - so we didn't practice it. Double assymetric wasn't a problem either - 6% and a bit more rudder. Co-pilots used to practice it on their IRs! Two engines being pulled just after rotate at MTOW and in the real aircraft - not the sim! The real handing difficulty came on the overshoot where you had very real Vmca problems thanks to the titchy rudder.

I wonder why 10 out of the 88 built crashed?

Tonkenna

19th Feb 2005, 11:26

This is a total waste of time for little benefit. If the Sqn is manned properly there should be no need to send two captains away together (though it has happened in the past.... remember Vegas Dan?:) ).

The move to the LHS is not that difficult in handling terms but an captains course is great as a reminder of tech and the like. I agree that a full course is not always required but cannot see the point of having everyone qualified in both seats... even as an ex-Nimrod chap (but pse keep that quiet... I am having therapy for it:ugh: )

Tonks:rolleyes:

sonicstomp

19th Feb 2005, 17:10

A few thoughts :

1. Giving OCU studes exposure to both seats early is more affordable and time-efficient in the long-run. A Captain's course can then concentrate on tech revision, more challenging sim and air scenarios and (particularly for the Maritime & AWACS fleet) increasing knowledge of tactics and mission operations.

2. A P1 qualification on the OCU should be given when the QFI's are happy with the studes ability to cope with operating from either seat. There is plenty of opportunity to use the SIM to prove this ability in a number of demanding emergency scenarios.

3. This approach has caused no problems on the E3 (a large swept-wing jet with big assy issues). The only people who get it wrong are senior officers who don't fly often enough!!

4. The seat issue is only an issue for those Capts not holding a RHS ticket in either Boom or Probe AR, in which case the Copilot is stuck in the right.

5. The E3 has only flirted with 2 Gp and although we have inherited some Cr*p from it, luckily we have avoided this inflexible constraint.

Standing by for incoming :-)

Mystic Meg - Good to hear from you again!

16 blades

19th Feb 2005, 18:28

There is alot of sheer nonesense being talked here, most seems to be coming from 'old school' captains who believe a copilot needs to spend 3 years taking ritual abuse before he can be considered 'worthy' of operating the aircraft properly.

Copilots are qualified military pilots - they have completed RAF Pilot training to the required high standard for the award of their wings. They did not get this far without being able to taxy an aircraft or use nosewheel steering to maintain directional control in an abort situation (albeit in a Jetstream / King Air). To intimate that a copilot is not capable of taxying an aircraft is patronising in the extreme. On this subject, I have never used NWS above 70kts on t/o, or about 50kts on landing, as there is no need to - the rudder is effective enough at these speeds, even if double assy (C130-K). In fact, attempting to use NWS for directional control at high speeds is not the approved technique, and will have the sim staff jumping down your throat in the debrief, if nothing else.

IMHO the issue of captaincy has nothing to do with what seat you are sat in. You can command the aircraft from any seat. I see no good reason why copilots should not be able to operate the aircraft from either seat, and to be trained to do so from the outset and assessed as competent to do so in order to pass the OCU. I personally find the aircraft alot easier to fly from the left hand seat, but flying double assy is just as difficult in either seat.

The fact that the checks require the bod in the left hand seat to reply 'Captain' is no excuse - most other nations use the terms 'Pilot' and 'Copilot' for check responses.

My view is that copilots are professional members of the crew and should be treated as such, rather than objects of derision and ridicule. Remember, our copilots might just one day save us from a monumental f**k-up - S...... B...... is owed many beers, in my opinion!

16B

H Peacock

19th Feb 2005, 19:07

Long, long ago, I had the pleasure of flying the wonderful Puma (a hecloplater). Won't bore you all with the background, but helos are invariably driven from the RHS. At the time the Puma was usually flown with one pilot and one crewman. Apart from the single sqn QHI, the sqn had a few training captains and some LHS captains. The TCs and LHS caps could all captain the ac from the LHS. They were all experienced operators and had completed the LHS handling sortie. The latter was an attempt to teach you how/when to take control of the ac if the ac was mis-handled from the RHS.

Being a Helo an enormous amount of our flying was spent very close to the ground/buildings/underslung-loads etc. This, although not excessively risky, didn't give the LHS pilot much time to recognise any error and, if needed, take control. The beauty of this system was that it allowed many inexperienced sqn pilots to do most of the hands-on flying while being monitored from the LHS. Therefore, the sqn JPs rapidly benefited by doing the majority of the flying.

The Puma had no nosewheel steering, but did feel somewhat different when flown from the other seat. At no stage were there any limitations impossed on the JP flying the ac from the LHS.

I accept the point made above that, what works in one fleet may be totally inappropriate to another, but do think we make too much of an issue over what a co-pilot can or cannot do. They are invariably competent aviators that lack experience. The more they operate/handle the ac the better.

Tonkenna

19th Feb 2005, 19:35

Do the airlines have all pilots qualified in both seats:confused:

I don't know... but just a thought. And if not, why not.

Stanley Eevil

19th Feb 2005, 19:56

The `quality` of co-pilot is really the issue here. It is a fact of life, whether you like it or not, that some multi-engine fleets get the cream of the crop from METS; and some get the dross who have scraped through, and who will be carefully kept well clear of 2, or even 3-man flight decks because they will not cope with the workload. It is therefore abundantly clear that what may suit one fleet may be totally inappropriate for another.
These individuals, believe me, are not capable of the transition to the challenges of the LHS at OCU stage. Many are not even fit after a 3 year tour.
This initiative, in short, is not about increasing the effectiveness and flexibilty of crewing, IT IS ABOUT SAVING MONEY!!
The end game is that an accident could happen because of flight safety and commonsense being sacrificed (yet again) for financial expediency.

16 blades

19th Feb 2005, 21:15

the challenges of the LHS

...and what 'challenges' might these be? Starting the engines? Taxying the aircraft? If these are challenges to you, I truly hope I never fly with you. It's not rocket science, gentlemen... don't forget these abbo co's have just come from an entire course in the left hand seat of a King Air acting as a student captain.

The K fleet is hadicapped by the assumption that all copilots are automatically witless unless and until they prove otherwise. Copilots are taught cock-all on the OCU, except how to sit there, shut up and take abuse from the crew. How can you expect them to demonstrate or develop competence when they are never given the chance? If they cannot handle the arduous task of steering the aircraft on the ground and spinning the knob when they get bored, then they should fail to graduate from the OCU, forcing the trg system to address the subsequent IPS problem.

16B

P-T-Gamekeeper

19th Feb 2005, 21:31

16B

It isn't that a co can't do it, but as a skipper, I would like to be able to control my ac too. At the subsequent BOI, what would you answer when asked why you didn't control the double assy landing in a crosswind? Because I couldn't?

Last time I looked the ACM requires braking and use of NWS to land in a x-wind. Im sure ours is the same as yours.

16 blades

19th Feb 2005, 21:59

I've never required NWS to maintain directional control at speeds where the flying controls are still effective (down to 50-60kts) in any x-wind conditions - I honestly don't know what's different about the J, although I am aware you have slightly more restrictive x-wind limits.

I do, however, accept your point re 'overall control' for commanders, however NWS is not even necessary for taxying - I remember taxying the ac quite successfully from the RHS using diff pwr. I know that diff braking is regarded as a no-no, however you still can use it in an emergency - it's all you'd have left in the case of a double engine failure on the utility side.

The fact that the fleet's copilots are considered 'unfit' to operate from the LHS is, I believe, our own fault - primarily because we refuse to train them to do so, but also, if some people's assertions are true, because we accept too low an output standard from the training system. We will get, at the end of the day, what we ask for. But I suspect that the first reason is the more accurate one. That, and the way co's are traditionally viewed in the AT world.

16B

buoy15

20th Feb 2005, 02:31

Since conception, the Nimrod OCU L8 sortie was a 3 hour profile

A bit of handling followed by an intermediate landing, QFI departs to the tower, Bloggs 1 assume LHS, 1 circuit and intermediate landng

QFI gets back on, Screen Eng gets off (GASO legality), Bloggs 2 takes LHS, 1 circuit and intermediate landing.

Result - both pilots qualified as P1 - Eng qualified as safe to operate without supervision - with 18 more conversion sorties still to go!

Worked for years, giving confidence to a "young flight-deck" in the early stages - then, after the Toronto crash, they panicked about ar*e covering and wrote it out of the syllabus!

Love many, Trust a few, Why change things that were true ?

BEagle

20th Feb 2005, 07:05

That's easy enough to answer..

It was bolleaux.

A complete waste of money as well.

shack

20th Feb 2005, 08:45

BEagle

_____That's easy enough to answer..

It was bolleaux.

A complete waste of money as well._____

BEagle whilst I bow to your obvious superior knowledge and command of the English language, after all I was only a A1 QFI/IRE/Trapper, the Maritime OCU using the Old Grey Lady always trained both pilots to fly from the LHS, as it did initially with the Nimrod. The thought in the kipper fleet was that equal shares was to the benefit of both pilots and the norm was to alternate take offs and landings and co-pilots were certainly not looked upon as an inferior species.
I fear from what I read that some members of the Transport fleets consider themselves to be superior to others, are we getting back to the "white gloves BOAC" from my youth.

Please don't come back with "back seat Captains", as I did what all Maritime skippers did, when in a tactical situation the Nav is the boss he has ALL the information (but don't start me on AEOs thats different!!)

BEagle

20th Feb 2005, 09:41

An unnecessary luxury these days, sorry.

No-one in any fleet is any more superor to those in others; however, when the budget is limited and pre-OCU training even more so (e.g. no BFTS courses for ME pilots...), cross-training both pilots to operate from the LHS unless there is a proven need is a waste of time and money.

I will readily admit that it makes sense to cross-train co-pilots to first pilot standard and thus to operate competently from brakes-off to brakes-on; if that means using the LHS because that's where the nosewheel steering is, then fine. But there is no actual need to do so in many a/c (e.g. VC10) as the co-pilots can do everything from the RHS which can be done from the LHS - except see the weather radar.

scroggs

20th Feb 2005, 10:43

Tonkenna wrote:
Do the airlines have all pilots qualified in both seats? I don't know... but just a thought. And if not, why not.

No, they don't. The simple reason is that there is no need, and that it would cost extra money in simulator time. Certain duties are seat specific rather than pilot role specific, and to train all new pilots to learn the duties of both seats would be unproductive - and potentially detrimental to new pilots on type.

That is not to say that the civilian experience reads across to the military environment. If there is a need for the RAF to have pilots qualified in both seats, the costs can be justified, and there are no control or command issues, then there is no intrinsic reason why a junior co can't be qualified in either seat.

StopStart

20th Feb 2005, 11:24

Exactly. As BEags says, where is the need to train Cos to operate in the LHS of the Herc? There is none. The "need" is being driven by a potential cost saving whim of someone further up the food chain.

Yes, we know it's easy to taxy on assy power and starting the engines isn't exactly rocket science, especially on ours. I would suggest 16B though that your comments on use of NWS and rudder etc come from a few years of experience and having a feel for the aircraft? I agree, it is not hard. With experience. I just do not see that can be any benefit gained from training abo copilots to operate the aircraft from the LHS when they have so little experience of operating a large cargo/pax aircraft. Whilst I would be the last person in the world to "big up" (good lord...) the Herc as a difficult aircraft to fly I just see no merit in a such a policy. It's just money saving rubbish. In the same vein why do we bother fitting 4 serviceable engines to the aircraft? We know it'll fly on 2 so think of the savings?!?!?!

I'm not in the business of rubbishing copilots and think that the standard of folk we have today is somewhat better than the window-lickers of yesteryear. If we have to save money (always from our core business though - aircrew training - probably to fund another wing of Abbey Wood.... :rolleyes: ) then can we not look at it rationally rather than the current "oh it'll be ok"? Counter arguments such as "when did we last ever land on 2 in anger?" hold no water: if that's the line of attack then lets bin the BTR along with ditching drills and wet liferaft drills. I'm sure we could lose a few more too. Think of the savings there! We really could start training for mediocrity properly then :mad:

How about his way around it? New pilots are posted in for a 5 year tour. They are told that at any point in that 5 years they can be selected to move across to the LHS as a Captain (and start claiming the hours towards their ATPL, which seems to be the only driving force these days....). Selection for Captain is based on ability and effort.
As it stands at present copilots can just cruise along for 2.5 years doing the bare minimum once a year to get a good annual cat ride. The rest of the time they have no real incentive to work hard or "improve" themselves. If, however, they knew that they could get across to the LHS in, say, a year or even 6 months if they put the effort in then suddenly things change. If they're in competition against their mates for captaincy places every 6 months say (like "competition" for the Tac Cse) then there is suddenly massive incentive for them to put the effort in. Such a system would also allow for experienced operators from other types to quickly transition to the LHS once they had a few months experience of AT ops. There would be no reason why those displaying the potential for the LHS could not start doing the odd sim from the LHS to get a feel for it prior to actually moving across proper.

LHS training could be done in a couple of dedicated sims on Sqn. No captaincy training mind, as this (or the potential for this) would need to be demonstrated for selection to the LHS. Purely a couple of handling Sims, a local training sortie, a training route and then a check. At least by this stage you know that your "stude" in the LHS has enough time on type to have a feel for the aircraft and has already demonstrated his abilities as a copilot.

There are probably holes in the above idea but I suspect they are only big enough to fit a butty box through, unlike the 12 ship you could fly through the holes in the plan being suggested from on high....

BEagle

20th Feb 2005, 12:26

Who on earth is driving this daft idea?

Shackman

20th Feb 2005, 13:05

Shack beat me to the punch re LHS or RHS. As both a Shackleton Co-pilot and Captain I was expected to fly the aircraft from either seat (but usually from the LHS - and how I remember the 2 hour change over routine, jumping from one seat into the other!). That also meant that we were expected to be able fly and if necessary fight the aircraft on any task or operation, Capt or Co, no matter the height or weather conditions. Bombing (practice depth charge runs) was normally done at 100ft from the LHS, and god help you from the wrath of the rest of the crew if you failed to get '50-50 Zero line' on cat checks and the rest. Assymetric really did mean something on the old lady, but if it was 'the co's turn' for landing he would be expected to deal with it.

Bouy 15 - Interesting, it was C8 on MOTU when we first went off as Captain (the same point as Nimrod OCU L8 presumably) and all pilots qualified from MOTU as 1st pilot!

However, surely there is one thing missing from this thread. This a military environment, which in turn leads to a threat that your average A320 driver will not have to expect. We operate into potentially hazardous places. It only takes one man with an AK47 - or even an old musket with a lucky shot - to potentially disable the person in the LHS. If you fly an aircraft where it is essential (as many contributors seem to hint) that the aircraft is landed from the LHS then both should be capable of doing it - and if necessary being able to change seats in the air. War (and even peace these days) is messy, and that is our job in the military - not building up hours for ATPLs ( but it does help).

Art Field

20th Feb 2005, 13:07

It would be interesting if someone could post the so called logic behind this crazy scheme, it does not point to an obvious cash saving.

Shak, I'll not trade ticks with you though I would probably win, but I must defend Beags if only on his command of the English language, he is too damn clever by far. I also do agree with him on this however in relation to the AT/Tanker fleet. We had the privilege of wellcoming ex Kipper fleet pilots to BZ and while some were excellent value, not all could get out of the RHS and all benefitted from a time in that seat.

It may be non PC to say so but many years of flying and checking co-pilots have convinced me that the ones who winge most about being a co-pilot are often those who have an over optimistic opinion of their ability, the good guys get on with it and use the opportunity to learn as much as they can, both the good and the bad, from the LHS occupant.

PS, I know what you mean about AEO's, they are good at eating though.

oldfella

20th Feb 2005, 13:11

I agree with 16 Blades in as much as Herc Co-pilots are often treated as U/T Pilots, and have been for years, rather than U/T Captains. All Co-pilots are potential Captains and some Captains should do more to bring them on.

I disagree that Co-pilots need to fly in LHS. Where is the advantage. Training as Captains, in all aspects of captaincy, can be done when they are in the RHS.

Spanish Air Force had an interesting training method seen during GW1 - 1 Captain, 2 Co-pilots, no Nav. Each day they moved round one seat so on day 2, 2 Co-pilot in front, Captain at Nav station.

Canadian Air Force used to have a policy of junior and senior Co-pilots. On becoming a senior, short course then allowed to fly LHS with some restrictions, may also have been allowed MCT with two Co-pilots but memory is faiding.

The disadvantage, and the only one I can see, in Co-pilots flying LHS is during an abort. They can be trained in the sim to a competent standard but the responsibility for the aircraft lies with the Captain. He, as a training captain, has the right to brief that he will take control during an abort from the RHS. Been there, done it!!!!!! By the time you realise that it is time to take control it can get very very hairy.

Trumpet_trousers

20th Feb 2005, 13:36

Counter arguments such as "when did we last ever land on 2 in anger?" hold no water: if that's the line of attack then lets bin the BTR along with ditching drills and wet liferaft drills.

Slightly off-topic, but reminds me of the story, possibly true, possibly not, regarding the imminent life-expiry of the Hung Up Parachutist Release Assembly (HUPRA) on Albert some years ago....the bean counters were, allegedly, loathe to replace the holdings of said item with new stock as they clearly weren't needed, because the present ones had not been used!! :uhoh:

Guy Willesley

20th Feb 2005, 23:11

TopTrump, right up until HUPRA was used in anger. Made a ‘999 Special’ telly prog about it too. Anyway, back to topic.

NWS is required on the 'J' if assymetric, even after V1 (don't ask me how it got certified, but it did) never mind the x-wind landing stuff. Giving control of such an aircraft to someone with only 180hrsTT when the Captain can’t override them is not a sensible move!

Co's, RHS 'til experienced enough - however long or short a time that may take - LHS after that no problem. No reason, not even for cost saving, to make it earlier.

It's not co-pilot bashing. It's keeping the aircraft as safe as practical.

Zeibart

21st Feb 2005, 19:18

OK, here's what I believe is the sketch. It's been suggested that all co's become qualified in RH and LHS from the OCU. They seat swap during their tour and come up to captaincy needing only a short convex due their expertise. Theoretical advantages:

1. Gives co's credit for being capable pilots (contentious, possibly!) and enhances their credibility and confidence.

2. Double-co OCUs need run only half as frequently to meet co IPS figures. No stude capt, because they're on the short course. Half the OCUs = half the costs (simplistic, I know).

3. Less time in training world (possible disadvantage in today's micro fg hours climate - for some fleets) = more time in operational environment = better professional/career potential.

So, take aim. In your own time - carry on. Any CAA wallers know if 'capt in LHS only' could become air law in the future?

Z

BEagle

21st Feb 2005, 20:15

"OK, here's what I believe is the sketch. It's been suggested that all co's become qualified in RH and LHS from the OCU. They seat swap during their tour and come up to captaincy needing only a short convex due their expertise. Theoretical advantages:

1. Gives co's credit for being capable pilots (contentious, possibly!) and enhances their credibility and confidence.

Why do they need to swap seats to achieve that objective? That can be achieved from the RHS quite easily. As any airline can prove....

2. Double-co OCUs need run only half as frequently to meet co IPS figures. No stude capt, because they're on the short course. Half the OCUs = half the costs (simplistic, I know).

Implies that people are being rushed through to meet some pointless training target rather than to meet fleet manning requirements. Hence it's bolleaux!

3. Less time in training world (possible disadvantage in today's micro fg hours climate - for some fleets) = more time in operational environment = better professional/career potential.

If they are still alive to enjoy a career at the end of such a foolish experiment! When they are being so cruelly short-changed by missing out the BFTS stage of their training, the last thing such woefully inexperienced pilots need is even less training 'within the disciplined environment of a formal training organisation'. A phrase, it should be noted, used by an AOC after previous inadequate C-130 osmotic training practices led directly to a fatal accident....

So, take aim. In your own time - carry on. Any CAA wallers know if 'capt in LHS only' could become air law in the future?"

It is already the law in Germany that, with the exception of Flight Instructors, all PIC flying shall be flown from the certificated Commander's seat. Ipso facto, that means the LHS in a multi-pilot aeroplane. However, whether that would apply to military flying is unlikely.

As I asked before, who on earth is driving this daft idea?

Art Field

22nd Feb 2005, 09:02

Zeibart, thanks for that. I agree with all that Beags says. In addition the concept that " more time in operational environment" is a substitute for formal training is one that any OCU instructor will view with horror if, like me, they have had to frequently detrain co's/ut captains from techniques put forward by self qualified, unappointed "experts".

Roland Pulfrew

22nd Feb 2005, 09:08

Beags

Are you being deliberately provocative or did you actually spend too long in 2/38 Gp?

If they are still alive to enjoy a career at the end of such a foolish experiment!

As the E3 and Nimrod fleets have proven over many years what you say here is utter:

bolleaux!

There was an earlier post regarding the RHS Capt not being able to see the Eng's panel (sorry can't find it quickly to quote). More bolleaux, try it in the cramped confines of the Mighty Bunter. If it can be done there, it can be done in the spacious luxury of the 10 or TriMotor!

There are significant benefits to cross training, not least for career progression (for those that want it). Look around that station somewhere near you in Oxon and you will see a plethora of Nav bosses and flt cdrs. Even OC Ops and the Staish are Navs. Why? Because 2 Gp is still hide bound by the "co-pilots aren't fit for promotion" mentality. That disadvantages co pilots wrt navs, hence fewer pilots getting promoted (if they want it) and therefore a tendency to leave at 38 to the airlines. Then you get 2 Gp as a self perpetuating Nav empire. Take a look at the Gp HQ and play "spot the pilot".

Tonks the reason the airlines don't do it is because of money (but then this idea is apprently be promoted as a cost saving measure!! Counter intuitive?) How about the reason the airlines don't do it is because the average first officer is less well trained than the average co-pilot? (Provocative I know and I am NOT trying to be disrespectful of airline first officers). But military training (short though it now is) concentrates on building airmanship and captaincy and trains all to a first pilot standard (look at the Jetstream/King Air course. It is well removed from what we did). 2 Gp are the ones stuck in the past. No-one has yet come up with a good reason for not training both pilots in both seats (other than perhaps the double asymmetric max cross wind case for the C130)! None for the jet fleets.

BEagle

22nd Feb 2005, 10:14

Roly old chum, this was always a favourite topic of yours when we knew each other in a previous existence. The wise heads (and I don't mean me) told you then that it was bolleaux and it still is. As even some of your ex-Nimrod colleagues have also stated.

If you look at the Accident Report following the Hercules which was lost in Scotland, you will find some strong views from the AOC of the time about 'on the job osmotic training' - the sort of thing which ArtField and I rail about. "Let's spread the training to the squadrons so that some Golden Child can get a career-enhancing instructional tick" seems to be a popular, and highly dangerous trend. Proper, independently commanded training organisations with a formal, disciplined framework is the ONLY safe way of doing things - not training conducted by on-squadron self-appointed, unqualified 'experts' who happen to be the boss's blue-eyed boys...

On the Vickers FunBus, we didn't train co-pilots, we trained First pilots. That they sat in the RHS is of utterly no consequence - the good ones did well and many have since been promoted.

The reason that most of the squirearchy at the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome is of a single-winged flavour is that their pilot peers have mostly legged it to the airlines due to dissatisfaction with the way things have gone. Whereas navigators have nosuch option - without it costing them £40K-ish to re-train.

16 blades

22nd Feb 2005, 10:45

Lets try and get away from this 'Captain must sit in THIS seat' mentality. Captaincy has liitle to do with handling skills - sad to say it, but there are copliots who would run rings around most captains in this respect.

The only thing keeping co's out of the LHS right now is the prejudice and 'seat protectionism' of the old school brigade.

What arguments have been advanced against this idea? lets see:

Giving control of such an aircraft to someone with only 180hrsTT when the Captain can’t override them is not a sensible move!

The 'Captain must have overriding control' argument is nonesense. Half of all Nimrod sorties are captained by Navs or AEOs, who have NO physical control of the aircraft. Whatever your views on non-pilot captains, there aren't large, Nimrod-shaped smoking holes populating the Scottish countryside, so it cant be the huge danger that BEags et al suggest.

16B

Roland Pulfrew

22nd Feb 2005, 10:57

Beags

Never said anything about OTJT (and I would still contend that there was a lot of bolleaux spoken about just why it cannot be done, particularly in our old role). I quite agree that OTJT is not a good idea (just as I think FIs were unnecessary when there is a perfectly good 'Q' course out there).

Nobody is asking for OTJT here, or have I missed something? The more enlightened OCUs train(ed) properly so that all pilots coming from the OCU were trained and capable of operating in both seats. That meant that there was no unnecessary (and expensive) LHS conversion course. I still contend that this produces a more capable pilot and ultimately experienced pilot.

You cannot say that just because it has always been done this way one view point is right and the other wrong, any more than I have right to do so!! There is still no serious explanation as to why it would not work on the 10, or the C17, or theTri*, or Sentinel when it comes in!!

Roland Pulfrew

22nd Feb 2005, 10:57

BEagle

22nd Feb 2005, 11:36

"....there aren't large, Nimrod-shaped smoking holes populating the Scottish countryside, so it cant be the huge danger that BEags et al suggest."

But is that by (non) accident or by design?

And an ex-Nimrod chum of mine, now with ba, told me of the time when, after they went around for the second time at 200 ft at Kinloss, the navigator 'Captain' suggested that they went a bit lower on the next approach. The 1st Pilot got out of his seat, went down into the back of the thing and said to the idiot "OK - all yours then!".... Needless to say, they diverted. The press-on-itis I witnessed an AEO 'Captain' trying to inflict on 'his' crew at ASI was also something which no sensible pilot captain would ever try. The sort of "We're hairy and operational and don't need your soft truckie fatigue rules" nonsense which does cause accidents!

I will agree with Roly on only one point - the 'non-Q'FI. Totally unnecessary.

The OTJT comments came up through the idiotic idea that by being allowed to sit in the LHS, Herc co-pilots would somehow magically 'learn' captaincy through osmosis in operational environments and thus need a shorter co-capt course.

One other point, yet to be discussed, is that if it was decided that all VC10 co-pilots, for example, should henceforth be trained to operate from either seats, then what about all the exisiting pilots? Should they also be re-trained? Just who would foot the bill for that? How would it be a cost saving measure?

When I did my co-capt course, I was told by the QFI at the time that under no circumstances should 'new' captains be allowed back into the RHS until they had at least 6 months under the belt getting used to the new environment. And that was for experienced pilots - not some barely trained current generation Teutor/King Air graduate.

Don't fix what isn't broken! It doesn't affect me directly now in any case as, like the wise Art Field, I'm no longer in the mob - except that I would hate to be the one to say "I told you so!" at some future date.

Trumpet_trousers

22nd Feb 2005, 11:43

why it would not work on the 10, or the C17, or theTri*,

..erm...it would seem that YOU haven't been looking around the 'Oxonian aerodrome' too closely yourself....C17 pilots are trained from the outset to operate from either seat... ;)

Guy Willesley

22nd Feb 2005, 12:47

16B

I think you're confusing aircraft captain and aircraft commander and the different responsibilities given on different fleets.

The Grimrod 'Captain' is not to override the pilot in points of flight safety, in other words he/she isn't the aircraft captain as we're discussing here. Put an AEO or Nav in the front seats and call them captain and then tell us how many holes in the Scottish countryside you can count.

Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably. :p

Zeibart

22nd Feb 2005, 13:50

GW - good call re P1/capt on the hemp horror. Back end capt only has control during mission phase.

In all this there are valid arguments for/against, but 3 Gp ME pilots do it one way and 2 Gp another. There has to be an operational, mission-based reason for this. Is it that (traditionally) 2 Gp ranged the world flying into little-known airfields using TAPs sketched onto pieces of bark, whilst their oppoes in 3 Gp flew ISK-water-ISK or WAD-more ogg splash-WAD? The edges are more blurred these days but, essentially, this mindset must pervade the experienced pilots on both sides, more or less. Do the two Gps have such differing jobs that the training machine defaults to the best option for each, or could one size fit all? I think this is the heart of the question.

Guy Willesley

22nd Feb 2005, 14:46

The question is why does there need to be a one size fits all? Different a/c are operated in different ways! I don’t believe anyone would endorse a policy that everyone has to complete a common OCU syllabus regardless of type, so why this? If the proposal is to avoid the need for a full OCU for Co to Captain conversion like the letter from Gp says then we (as do the K and I’m sure other types also) already have a course for this. The ‘dual-seat qualified’ package will be the same length and cost no matter when it’s taught. Giving brand new low-houred ab-initio pilots total control of a large aircraft is unnecessary practically - and it isn't the safest way to operate all our aircraft.

16 blades

22nd Feb 2005, 18:39

BEags, read my post again, CAREFULLY. Then read it again, since I have posted the same point at least twice and it hasn't sunk in.

For the hard of thinking / reading, I will put it in big crayon and simple terms:

WHY DOES "BLOKE IN LHS=CAPTAIN"?

My point about the Nimrod was about seating positons, not captaincy. I am not suggesting that a low-houred copilot can assume 'command' of the aircraft as captain. My point is that a copilot, who is a trainied and qualified pilot entitled to wear RAF wings, and has been trained throughout as pilot-in-command, is perfectly capable of operating a NWS system and taxying an aircraft. He is not, without alot more experience, capable of COMMANDING a large, multi-crew aircraft - nor am I suggesting that he does. If a Grimrod captain can sit in the back, a Herc captain can sit in the LHS. That was my point. Clear yet???

GW,
I think you're confusing aircraft captain and aircraft commander and the different responsibilities given on different fleets.
I think YOU are confusing the term 'Captain' with the term '1st Pilot'. If a copilot can fly as P1, he can do it from the LHS, with the captain in the RHS. The K is easier to fly from the LHS anyway.

A captain at the end of an OCU cse has exactly the same experience of operating the NWS as a copilot would, were he trained to do so on the course. The excuse that 'a co is not experienced enough to do it' doesn't wash. If they are not trained to fly LHS, they WONT be experienced enough. This is hardly a logical excuse for not training copilots in the LHS, is it? Think about what you are saying. "We are not going to train this zero-hour, ab-initio JEFTS student, because he doesn't have enough hours flying aeroplanes". Logical??

I personally think that all P1 legs should be flown from the LHS. I would be quite happy to occupy the RHS and allow a copilot to fly from LHS, IF THEY HAD BEEN TRAINED AND CERTIFIED TO DO SO BY THE OCU. Putting someone in the LHS does not automatically make them the captain, something which many here are finding difficult to grasp.

Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably
Multiply that figure by 10, then add a fair bit more, and you'll be getting closer...

16B

sonicstomp

22nd Feb 2005, 19:17

Am I missing something here... (yes I hear you shout!) :

1. Captaincy/Command has nothing to do with what seat you sit in. There are bigger fish to fry in the experience/trg of copilots prior to command, RAF-wide.

2. If you cannot trust your Copilot with the NWS you shouldn't be letting him fly full stop - remember, ultimately he is there to recover the a/c safely single-pilot should something happen to the capt.

BEagle

22nd Feb 2005, 19:43

16blades, I will ignore the irrelevant and unreasonably abusive tone of you prose...

The simple fact is that current day ab initio ME pilots receive the absolute bare minimum of training to be considered at all competent. By the time they hit their OCU, they have about twice the minimum PIC time of a PPL applicant or about 25% of the PIC time which a civil pilot is required to have by law before being permitted even to start a modular CPL course.... Once upon a time, RAF pilots had very significantly more PIC time than CPL applicants. But then came the never-ending cuts in training.

That such poorly-served chaps/chapesses/chapthings should have to assimilate further SOPs, checklist responses and instrument scans appropriate to the LHS/RHS cross-trained state would be yet another unnecessary addition of complexity to their already steep learning curve. Heck, I found it hard enough when I became a sqn IRE 15 years ago.

Don't get me wrong - as Art Field would probably confirm, I am one of the last people to defend historical precedent. But to load up ill-equipped pilots for no clearly identifiable reason would be folly beyond belief in the contemporary era of minimal standards.

Just give me one sound reason why it is essential, not merely desirable, for the cross-training you would advocate to be delivered.....

Art Field

22nd Feb 2005, 20:22

Yes, they did not come any more revolting than Beagle. But to the point and a reinforcement of the question, why?. As Zeibart points out there is literally a world of difference between a home base, home base sortie and a world wide route trip. Even if the quality of training really is better now than in the past and I do not sense that it is, then jumping seats at an early stage of training can only add strain to the students need to feel "comfortable" in the aircraft and thus more ready to do that for which he is there , to assist the captain in the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. If that aim was better achieved by training co's in both seats then so be it but nobody has convinced me yet.

Guy Willesley

22nd Feb 2005, 21:03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiply that figure by 10, then add a fair bit more, and you'll be getting closer...

16B

Yes, of course you're experienced. I must just be mistaking that experience for dribble. :hmm:

In normal non-crayon speak, the Captain sits in the LHS because the Captain is the person with overall responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of the aeroplane. Sitting in the RHS he/she cannot always be in control therefore cannot always exercise this duty.

A fairly basic premise. Concentrate and you'll get it, I'm sure.

Always_broken_in_wilts

22nd Feb 2005, 21:13

As someone who makes tea and coffee and fully accepts the "no stick no vote school of thought" I am slowly coming round to the concept that the NWS is a bit of a red herring. If properly trained, and our J sims afford that then I am sure either guy could happily operate from both seats as either PF or PNF.

My only question is to why we need to do this. If it is to enhance the capability of this two man flight deck aircraft for genuine reasons then I am all for it but if, as i suspect, it's just a cost cutting excercise to get some tw@t promoted then I am looking to my lords and masters to keep my pink and fluffy exterior in one piece:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Roland Pulfrew

23rd Feb 2005, 12:42

Beags

The wise heads (and I don't mean me) told you then that it was bolleaux and it still is.

"They" couldn't come up with a convincing argument then either, and I see nothing has changed!!;)

Trumpet Trousers

Sorry C17 entered service after I left the secret Oxonian Air Base, so I wasn't sure whether C17 crews were cross qualified, so erred on the side of caution. Still that adds another one to list of those who can do it!!:ok:

Beags

That such poorly-served chaps/chapesses/chapthings should have to assimilate further SOPs, checklist responses and instrument scans appropriate to the LHS/RHS cross-trained state would be yet another unnecessary addition of complexity to their already steep learning curve.

Still works on the Grimrod, E3 and C17, so it must be possible. Then again maybe those fleets get the cream of the 45 (R) output!! ;)

Guy
In normal non-crayon speak, the Captain sits in the LHS because the Captain is the person with overall responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of the aeroplane. Sitting in the RHS he/she cannot always be in control therefore cannot always exercise this duty.

Unless of course you fly the Grimrod where the Captain (or P1) can be in the RHS and still be Captain.

BEagle

23rd Feb 2005, 12:53

Roly,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They" couldn't come up with a convincing argument then either, and I see nothing has changed!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither could you come up with a convincing reason in favour of cross-seat training! Then or now, 'twould seem.

As I said previously, why try to fix something which isn't broken?

Having fun in the snow up there? I cx'd today based on the lies of the weather-guesser; as a rsult there hasn't been a single flake down here.

Guy Willesley

23rd Feb 2005, 12:56

RP,

Unless of course you fly the Grimrod where the Captain (or P1) can be in the RHS and still be Captain.

What works on one aircraft type may not work so well on another. The handling charachteristics of the 'J' with an engine out are pretty different to the Grimrod I would imagine!

buoy15

23rd Feb 2005, 13:14

GW

Not strictly true

I flew on a sortie with a Sqn Boss who was an AEO

The P1 captain was about to be ratified after the 3 month probation as non-self authorising

The crew bonged a territorial at low level in poor weather and the Navs scrambled to give the flight deck turn away instructions.

The Boss came on intercom and simply said " P1, I'm changing your authorisation - you are to return immediately to ISK"

Stunned silence or what? - I'd never experienced this before

However, this boy obviously knew the rules, it happened, was talked about a lot - never questioned by the Staish or Gp - and then just faded away.

Loved many, Trusted a few, Told my Navs to stay out the pooh!

Guy Willesley

23rd Feb 2005, 14:11

Buoy15, I must be missing something. What’s this to do with controlling the aircraft (as in handling rather than administrative)?

Nice story though!

buoy15

23rd Feb 2005, 15:58

GW

You said that back-end captains, et al, had no influence on things concerning Flight Safety! Like it's a pilot thing only! Bolleaux!

The Capt, (P1), was not controlling the ac due to lack of spacial awareness - he should have known where he was

All the information was available - GPS - CTS steer - Tacan - ATC -VOR - Nav plot - ect etc, - nothing to do with handling or flying ability.

Guy Willesley

23rd Feb 2005, 16:12

B15

I get what you mean now. I didn't intend it to be taken that the chap in the back had no influence on flight safety. All crew members have that. The issue I have isn't about about who decides what the aircraft should be doing and where it should be going in order to keep it safe, it's about how it's handled in order to do that ie hands on the controls.

My point is that if the brand new pilot gets his x-wind landing/whatever wrong the only way for the experienced pilot to avoid an incident is by having access to the relevant controls. By putting the inexperienced pilot in the LHS on the 'J' this ability is removed and no-one else can have an input.

StopStart

23rd Feb 2005, 16:13

Notwithstanding the whys and the wherefors and the d'ya-mind-if-I-don'ts I still have one question.
Why?
Seriously.
Why?

Answers on a quark please.

Roland Pulfrew

23rd Feb 2005, 16:54

GW

Sorry, I may have missed it earlier in the debate, but what are the "relevant controls in the LHS"? If it is nose wheel steering then the situation is the same in the Nimrod (although I do accept that the asymmetric problem is different). If it is NWS when/at what speed do you transfer from flying contrls to NWS? Is the asymmetric effect such that a RHS captain could not fly the approach and then handover to the LHS co once the ac was safely under control on the runway? VMCG and VMCA allowed this situatiuon on the Nimrod.

All questions asked from a position of interest and lack of knowledge (about the J)!

propulike

23rd Feb 2005, 17:54

RP

The aircraft is fully controllable from either seat whilst airborne as the only control not available to both seats is the NWS. Unfortunately, it is a very important one! To give an idea, NWS input is required to maintain directional control whilst still on the runway if an outboard engine fails after V1. In the event of an aborted take-off due outboard engine failure the SOP is to use maximum braking regardless of runway length in order to maximise the effectiveness of NWS to maintain directional control. However, these considerations don't really concern me as training can teach anyone to cope with them.

What does worry me is that it's use is also important if landing in a x-wind, especially if assymetric with the wind from the 'wrong' side. In practise I have had to use NWS following a landing by inexperienced pilots in moderate x-winds with all 4 engines working. Chances are the aircraft could have been controlled in this case using aerodynamic controls alone, but the PF scared himself as well as me and I have to ask - why take this option away? What if we had been assymetric?

There are good arguments not to give overriding control to an inexperienced guy, continuing the proven track record of 35years. I've still to hear a good reason why we should change for something which adds risk.

sonicstomp

23rd Feb 2005, 18:00

On the E3D the rudder is effective down to approx 80 kts.

The NWS would only be needed above this speed in the event of a double assy on T/O (if you don't get the throttles shut very quickly) or just possibly with burst tyre(s).

The capt can therefore land the jet happily from the right and give control to the co in the left prior to 80 kts on the landing roll.

In the event of an abort the abort drill must be conducted from the LHS.

On the OCU Copilots must complete a good 10 (odd) assessed 4hr sims before being put in the LHS of the jet. We then 'trust' them to get it right with the NWS.

The only E3 incidents on the runway have resulted from rejected t/o's above V1 or a failure to reject post-V1 (Elmendorf AFB) - in each case, decisions that were made by Capts on the
US E-3 & NATO fleets (who do have a strict seat policy!!)

We had a discussion in the office on this very subject, incorporating views from ex Maritime, ex Truckie and ex FJ -- the overwhelming consensus was that the dual-seat qualification works well and affords flexibility. Particularly if we need to crew-up two capts together (often the case). As far as we are concerned the seat you sit in is a red-herring.

Incidentally, we try and get RHS AAR quals for our Capts as soon as practiceable to exploit this flexibility.

I accept that it may not suit all fleets and the cultural shift required may produce more pain than makes it worth it, but it has worked for us. The prevailing ethos for us has always been that copilots are captiain u/t - on the OCU you will be expected in the sim phase to flip-flop seats and roles with your stick buddy and act as PIC for half the time. This pays dividends later on allowing the Sqn upgrade training to focus on mission tactics and ops and preparing individuals for command of an 18 man crew. The official 'Capts Cse' is effectively a mini Ground School refresher and assessed sim and fly phase and is thus only approx 1.5 months long. These courses run indepedently of the main OCU courses.

Our system is by no means perfect and we are working hard to provide more effective on-the-sqn development trg to better prepare people for command. We are also suffering with the requirement for our pilots to have a Green rating to be CR (this used to be a condition of captaincy not Copilot CR). We are having to spend more hours of PCT in the air dedicated to copilot procedural IF trg. So, as I said in an earlier post - we have bigger trg 'fishes to fry' than who is allowed to sit in which seat!!!

:-)

Guy Willesley

23rd Feb 2005, 19:04

propulike, well put.

The overriding consideration - operating as safely as practicable - is being overlooked for no apparent reason. There isn't even a cost benefit for seat swapping on the J at OCU level. Our current co to capt convex course is 2 weeks long even though the Co hasn't regularly been operating from the LHS. As for qualifying captains to use the RHS, it's one sim and one check-fly in the local circuit

16 blades

23rd Feb 2005, 19:55

BEags,

I apologise for my tone. Yes, it was abusive, but this betrays my frustration on this particular issue. We, the AT fleet, have treated (and trained) copilots like idiots for a long, long time. If you treat people like idiots, they will act like idiots. Let's try treating them like what they are - adults, who also happen to be qualified RAF pilots, not students.

Many have asked 'Why are we doing this?', but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should NOT do this. I appreciate the J has problems when asymmetric - since I have no experience of operating the J, I cannot comment further. But there is no good reason why we shouldn't do it on the K. There is a good reason why we should - it would be of great benefit to copilots, removing the need to go through a second full OCU course. Most aspects of captaincy are learned on-the-job as a co, anyway. Apart from handling aspects, which didnt take long, I learned very little that was new to me on my second OCU cse.

the cultural shift required may produce more pain than makes it worth it

I suspect THIS is the main reason for objections, IMHO.

16B

hoey5o

24th Feb 2005, 09:05

Chaps, not familiar with Herc/VC10 technical stuff but just about all modern airliners are configured for the captain to sit in the left seat only.
Configured, in this case meaning, in the event of system failure as much stuff as possible will continue to function on the left side.
With an electrical failure for example, the aircraft can only be flown from the left side. You will find standby instruments are always on the left side. Bias is incorporated into the left side, for example the left side ptt switch pretty much always overides the right.
When serious non normal situations occur the company will expect the captain to be able to take over if required. My previous aircraft was very electrical and many inputs from the left were designed to override the right side. Trim switches is yet another example.

In the airline world the captain always sits in the left seat, period.

It may also stem from airlaw and the right hand traffic rule etc

Roland Pulfrew

24th Feb 2005, 09:18

Hoey

Thanks for the comment. Fortunately we in the military (British at any rate) don't have to worry about electric jets. We still have proper aircraft that require a pilot input!! ;) ;) None of that modern electric stuff for (the majority of) us.

We are all aware that in the airline world the captain sits in the LHS, but fortunately many in the military world are not quite as hidebound.:)

Not too convinced about the air law bit, sounds a bit like a red herring to me.

oldfella

24th Feb 2005, 09:39

I am a big believer in Co-pilots being treated as u/t Captains and not as u/t pilots but this can be done when they are in the right hand seat.

There is a proven safe track record on the Herc with Captains in LHS and Co-pilots in RHS. The only control in question is the NWS if the Co-pilot flies LHS. During normal operation there isn't a problem. Get it slightly wrong during x-winds, and more importantly, assymetric especially during an abort, and it can all go wrong fairly quickly.

We may not lose an aircraft but may easily leave the runway and damage one. At the subsequent inquiry along comes the Captain saying that had he been in the LHS he may have prevented the accident but in the RHS was unable to do so. He is the Captain and still responsible!

BEagle

24th Feb 2005, 10:16

"I am a big believer in Co-pilots being treated as u/t Captains and not as u/t pilots but this can be done when they are in the right hand seat."

Absolutely. And that's precisely what we always did in the VC10/VC10K world.

Guy Willesley

24th Feb 2005, 14:19

ermmm,
Fortunately we in the military (British at any rate) don't have worry about electric jets. Actually, following major electrical failures the RH screens of the 'J' would go dark (along with both the HUDs). Standby instruments are on the LHS only if all power was lost. Have to be pretty dire though! Daresay C-17 and the new Nimrod will be similar.

The only bit that concerns me however is the thought of x-wind landings when I can't get to that wheel....

P-T-Gamekeeper

24th Feb 2005, 14:28

Roly, Beags et al.

Just read your earlier posts regarding non-Q FI's.

I think you are a little off the mark here. To get a guy to be a QFI, he needs to be away from the front line for at least 3 years, to give his pound of flesh to CFS. With FI's, you get current knowledge from your experienced operators, to pass on to the next generation.

We cannot afford to lose all our instructors for this length of time. They get plenty of instructional teaching from the AIC, Sqn FI's and Staneval. They are not (usually) allowed to conduct OCU trg - still a QFI domain - but are the best people to impart their CURRENT experience during recurrent trg / pre-det trg.

Also, having a Q qual does not make one gods gift. I know many co's with far greater instructional ability than some of the CFS love-children i have met.

In an ideal world, we would have enough time / trg capacity to allow everyone a full CFS cse, with an immediate return to the front line. In the same way, it would be fantastic to have the the ability to train everybody Tac, NVG, strips etc.

The reality is, however, that we are constrained by time and manpower. As with the main topic of this thread, we must make best use of our resources, and FI's are this.