Who should fly....

[dynamite dean]

who should fly...

As there have been a few aircraft accidents of late or at least it seems like that I wanted to get an idea of what viewpoints other aviators have of lets say taking over in a life and death situation. Its the Co-pilot's leg however you get one chance at a specific emergency say landing on water tricky or some other catastrophic failure. Who are we flying for the passengers sake in which I believe in most emergencies they would all think that the captain would be expected to take over.

Now I am not the sort chap who would simply redeem control from the first officer at a moments notice eg an engine failure..airbus and Husdon river thing got me thinking what if that was me....

Obviously there are many variables to this post from which im sure I'll see, only this came up in conversation with a very experienced F/O on type actually more total time than me by far so didnt initally see my point that I reckon in a once in a chance emergency to get it right the captain should fly.....let the games begin..

[DanielClarke]

In my opinion, the logical thing to do would be to let the Captain take control.

On the otherhand, shouldn't they both have the expertise to execute the manoevre?

I would like to think that both pilot are capable if I was a passenger :}

Ultimately, experience prevails in situations such as the Hudson River incident.

Hand those controls to the Captain! :p

[Bealzebub]

There is no question about it, the Captain is the commander and will decide on the relevant course of action. That is his(her) legal and absolute responsibility and what the company pays him for. As such the final decision will rest with him as to how he wants the flight conducting. It might well be (and often is) that the First officer will fly the aircraft in the role of PF for emergency situations that arise whilst that role is being executed. It is often desirable and preferable that is the case. It should have been briefed prior to departure who will do what. Obviously if the commander deems it fit to change the roles at a point in time for whatever reason, then that is his decision, his responsibility and of course his right.

Unless there are overriding considerations you should carry on operating in the role and in accordance with both the standard and emergency operating procedures as briefed. Until there is an instruction to change roles, don't!

This business about whose leg it is, is an administrative requirement. The allocation of PF and PNF sectors may well follow a standard format or procedure, but they are subject to the captains authority and final decision at all times.

[411A]

OTOH...
One only needs to look at the somewhat recent B777 thrust rundown with BA to see the value of letting the First Officer carry on...in this way the Commander has the option of keeping a sharp eye out for potential problems...and, for retracting the flaps just a tad to actually stretch the glide...which saved their bacon, rather big time.

IE: Captains...don't just grab the pole in the earliest instance, use your superior knowledge and experience for the benefit of all concerned.

And...why not?;)

[low n' slow]

As a commander I would want to delegate as much as possible in an emergency. Given that both pilots are well trained and that there are no doubts that the F/O will be able to execute the landing, I reccon the commander is better off having a slightly reduced workload so as to have a better look out and a better overall situational awareness.

I think the only time this relationship may be discussed is if the F/O shows lack of confidence or skills in handling the plane during normal circumstances.
I pilot with poor handling abilities will most likely (I have no scientific grounds for this) struggle even more with a crippled plane than with a fully functioning one. If this is the case, then perhaps the total team performance will be greater if the handling is left to the pilot with the best skills and all the rest is taken care of the non handling pilot.

/LnS