Switching cockpits

[peeush]

Hi,

Please pardon me if the thread is incorrectly placed, though I thought I would get best views on the subject here.

This is about the requirements of switching cockpits as captain of production helicopters/airplanes for customer based operations.

Notwithstanding the requirements of regulatory authorities on the subject, I feel that in addition to basic requirements of safe aircraft handling, dealing with aircraft emergency situations, adapting to the 'new' cockpit for achieving adequate situational awareness needs to be considered.

A safe bet may be avoiding flying more than one cockpit in a 24 hour cycle, assuming that the pilot is cleared as first pilot on all types under discussion.

Understandably other factors like pilot competency, type of operation, multi-crew cockpit would influence the subject, but reasonable assumptions may be made for posting comments that may be supported by opinions of respective regulatory authorities.

Thanks

[airbus_driver319]

What types of aircraft are we talking about?

[peeush]

Both helicopters (3-15 ton class) and airplanes upto 5 tonnes.

[BOAC]

Switching seats is by no means unusual in commercial airline ops. Provided the pilot is either a QHI or checked in both seats on a regular basis I cannot see a problem.

[Zoom-56]

...but my opinion is suspect, since I have never flown commercial carriers. As an anecdote - since this is a flight test forum - flight testers are often multi-qualified and the types may be quite dissimilar. The T-38 is a tandem-seat fast jet with ejection seat. There were handles on both sides next to the thighs, and pulling either would result in ejection. The Phantom, another tandem-seat fast jet, had a face-curtain actuator for the seat. On touchdown, the pilot would deploy a drag chute which was actuated by pulling up on a handle next to the left thigh. While in test training I was flying both regularly, and I was always VERY nervous on touchdown. Before actuating the drag chute after every F-4 landing, I would methodically double-check the entire cockpit to convince myself that I was indeed flying a Phantom and not a T-38. :eek:

[MOSTAFA]

I used to regularly fly/captain 4 different types of helicopter in a day. Lynx/Scout/Squirrel/Gazelle.

[BOAC]

It can be a 'challenge' with some types - the 2-seat (side-by-side) BAC Lightning had 'reversed' controls ie throttles outboard in both seats which made any 'instinctive' control movements eg during tanking or formation potentially exciting................ Then there was the (also 'outboard') intercept radar control stick with its 23 switches, knobs and levers 'Change hands':)

[LOMCEVAK]

If a well disciplined approach is taken to sortie preparation there are no problems. If very current on the types to be flown you may be able to jump straight into the seat. If not so current and/or low overall experience on type you have to sit down with the books and do some careful preparation. You do have to work at multi-typing if you are to do it safely. However, some individuals do find it difficult to maintain currency on more than a couple of types at a time and so pilots need to be aware of their own limitations.

What is often more insidious are subtle differences between individual airframes of a given type. I fly some types whereby some have an ASI in knots and some in mph; that can be a real challenge.

[peeush]

LOMCEVAK,

Thanks for putting the finger on right spot. I should've stated 'Box Conditions' for the statement I was trying to make. Nevertheless, it's satisfying to concur that the multi-cockpit environment needs to be approached with caution rather than a routine matter. Aspects to exercise caution would emerge only through a detailed insight that may prepare the crew for saving precious lives and expensive machine.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If a well disciplined approach is taken to sortie preparation there are no problems. If very current on the types to be flown you may be able to jump straight into the seat. If not so current and/or low overall experience on type you have to sit down with the books and do some careful preparation. You do have to work at multi-typing if you are to do it safely. However, some individuals do find it difficult to maintain currency on more than a couple of types at a time and so pilots need to be aware of their own limitations.

What is often more insidious are subtle differences between individual airframes of a given type. I fly some types whereby some have an ASI in knots and some in mph; that can be a real challenge.

Well said.

More pedestrian than I think most people are considering here, but an example that illustrates this well is the C152 and C150 - ubiquitous single engine training aeroplanes often treated as interchangeable. Except that the older C150 has an ASI in mph (compared to knots), different flap mechanisation and indication, about 60% the climb rate and around 1/3rd the pitch control forces, particularly with full flap. Combine that with a student pilot with 20 hours flying it solo or a 100hr PPL flying 15 hours per year, and you have a recipe for disaster, UNLESS the very good practices described by LOMCEVAK are followed.

The inventors of "cockpit jumping" are arguably the ATA pilots from WW2, and you can if interested buy a set of their ferry pilots notes from the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington. Modern TPs practice what is basically a more sophisticated version of that but credit where it's due to the inventors of the basic principles.

G

[OverRun]

Welcome back

[Genghis the Engineer]

Welcome back

Thank you, it's good to be back, and I'm grateful both for everybody's support, and the sincere apology for what has happened that I received from Internet Brands.

G

[Hotelpresident]

...but my opinion is suspect, since I have never flown commercial carriers. As an anecdote - since this is a flight test forum - flight testers are often multi-qualified and the types may be quite dissimilar. The T-38 is a tandem-seat fast jet with ejection seat. There were handles on both sides next to the thighs, and pulling either would result in ejection. The Phantom, another tandem-seat fast jet, had a face-curtain actuator for the seat. On touchdown, the pilot would deploy a drag chute which was actuated by pulling up on a handle next to the left thigh. While in test training I was flying both regularly, and I was always VERY nervous on touchdown. Before actuating the drag chute after every F-4 landing, I would methodically double-check the entire cockpit to convince myself that I was indeed flying a Phantom and not a T-38. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif
Most of the time if you apply common sense those problems are overcome. Even more what I understand is that you faced a bad cockpit design something overcome in the modern jet (civil & military).

[Trim Stab]

Never underestimate the adaptability of the human brain! I am no test-pilot, but hop between LH and RH seats on helicopters and fixed-wing, and occasionally to weight-shift microlights, with no issues at all. It is little different from riding a bicycle, then driving a car, then riding a horse.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Never underestimate the adaptability of the human brain! I am no test-pilot, but hop between LH and RH seats on helicopters and fixed-wing, and occasionally to weight-shift microlights, with no issues at all. It is little different from riding a bicycle, then driving a car, then riding a horse.

I'm trying to work out if you're playing devil's advocate, or blissfully ignorant.

Like most of the people here I jump types fairly often - this year my logbook shows 6 types so far, covering 3 seating positions and 2 control systems. And no, I don't find this impossible or frightening - but I do have "issues": whether that's left/right switch whilst flying to the required accuracy, flying the right attitudes and speeds, having the right engine restart and spin recovery drills to hand, dealing with different parallax issues in the two seats. And this all assumes I'm *trying* to fly to appropriate levels of accuracy for commercial/instructional/test-flying purposes, which generally I am. Which also, of-course, means I need sufficient spare capacity whilst coping with the changes to handle the other tasks I have in that cockpit, which is likely to be either instructing, or conducting an evaluation task.

Which is why the self-brief and "fingertip information" practices LOMCEVAK described are to me essential. Without those, I can *probably* still operate the aircraft safely, but likely little else, and I'd not put too much money on my ability to handle a genuine emergency either.

G

[Natstrackalpha]

Never underestimate the adaptability of the human brain! I am no test-pilot, but hop between LH and RH seats on helicopters and fixed-wing, and occasionally to weight-shift microlights, with no issues at all. It is little different from riding a bicycle, then driving a car, then riding a horse.

Verily, tis true - especially when one has instructed and then gone left seat as P1. Sometimes during training we put the P2 in the left seat, as per instruction and also during command training. It is different, but eventually becomes the same, if you see what I mean.

[Trim Stab]

'm trying to work out if you're playing devil's advocate, or blissfully ignorant.

No, neither.

The original premise was whether a 24 hour break should be required between switching cockpits. Respectfully, I don't see any justification for this at all.

Adapting to the different control inputs required on different types happens as soon as flight begins.

I agree that lack of familiarity with a different type may lead to a spot of initial finger trouble with instrumentation and switches, but I don't think a 24 hour break would help with this at all.

[Genghis the Engineer]

No, neither.

The original premise was whether a 24 hour break should be required between switching cockpits. Respectfully, I don't see any justification for this at all.

Adapting to the different control inputs required on different types happens as soon as flight begins.

I agree that lack of familiarity with a different type may lead to a spot of initial finger trouble with instrumentation and switches, but I don't think a 24 hour break would help with this at all.

In that I agree - the issue I think is in re-calibrating the pilot between cockpits, and a time interval between them neither helps nor hinders in that regard. But, in my opinion the actions taken by the pilot to familiarise themselves with each cockpit environment and required behaviours, have potential to both help and hinder, and failure to do anything, is potentially courting problems.

G

[gordon field]

With respect to others who fly complex aircraft and fast jets as my experience is limited to GA aircraft I do not think that having a mandatory 24 hour break or other set period is necessary. It all depends upon the complexity of the aircraft, the nature of the task that is about to be performed, the pre-flight planning that has been carried out by both the pilot and observer/engineer

There is a world of difference between a simple check flight in an aircraft that you have flown a few days previously to test one single item that may need rechecking at altitude on a CAVOK day and a complex 3 hour flight test to thoroughly evaluate the integration of a new EFIS, autopilot or FMS system in marginal and deteriorating weather.

Commercial implications can add to pressure that can lead to mistakes. If you have to deliver test results to EASA on test flight on the Monday before the guy goes off on the Friday for his 4 week summer break then this has to be taken into consideration. Then is not the time to rush from one aicraft to another.

Sometimes the pilot is fully up to speed with changing cockpits and from a GA point of view changing between SEP and MEP aircraft produced by Beech, Cessna and Piper let alone the various manufacturers from other countries is a matter of experience, pre-flight preparation and willingness to learn from others.

Flying a Diamond Twin with Diesel engines and Garmin 1000 or a Cirrus without a proper checkout by a pilot who is experienced and current on the type and a thorough knowledge of the systems is foolhardy.

As the number of older B/C/P complex aircraft is significantly reduced it is difficult for budding GA 'test pilots' to obtain experience in flying a genuinely wide variety of different aircraft but please do not over complicate the issue by setting unnecessary rules. The ASIs in most aircraft built in the last 50 years are colour coded and it doesn't really concern me if they are calibrated in mph, kt or kph but read the POH and make a note of the critical speeds and systems before you get airborne.

[Milt]

It's all a matter of training, experience and acceptance of the risks involved.

Having already flown 7 types before being an instructor of instructors and examiner of airman at a Central Flying School I was fortunate enough to graduate from N0 14 Test Pilots' Course in 1955. Then to the Flight Testers at Boscombe Down and the V Bombers and many etc.

We TPs were encouraged to go fly anything with wings ( and some without!) I came to the end of a TPs career with a few over 100 types.

My ability to translate from one type to another very readily was the result of a huge backgound of training and experience and a recognition of the need to be able to concentrate on those vital details for each type which would allow me to get yet another type off the ground and back down again. This often required a memory of the particular flight envelopes and an inate canny ability to be able to FEEL how each aircraft felt to fly.

Eventually I was confident enough to fly 7 different types in one 24 hour period. But the risk was high and V bombers were not cheap. Of course a crew containing a flight test engineer and special navigator helped lower the risks.

Only on one occasion did I stuff it up. Having flown a Mk1 Shackleton having a tail wheel a few times I switched to a MK 3 having a nose wheel. On landing the MK 3 for the first time I mentally switched back to the Mk1. The crew were mightily amused when, with the yoke right back, I yelled over the intercom " Brace yourselves - we are going over on to our nose."

My bar costs became exaggerated!

Never the less there are real risk factors involved for those who are the slightest bit overconfident with their abilities to be able to handle the unexpecteds when rapidly switching types.

[Pilot DAR]

Good post Milt.

I frequently find myself flying different types in a short period, sometimes three a day. Switching classes holds more hazard, as really, to meet the design requirement for a certified aircraft, aircraft within the same class should be pretty similar, and the use of a checklist should get you through safely.

Memorable was my first solo helicopter flight into busy controlled airspace I knew very well as a fixed wing pilot. The old habits revert when you get busy. In my C 150, and most light fixed wings, what's the control under your left thumb? The Mic key. What's the little button resting under your left thumb in a helicopter? The starter. Engaging the starter instead of the transmit is not good. I did not hurt the SW300, but I made it yaw!

I don't take 24 hours between types, but I do stop myself for a moment, and manually reboot my mind - particularly when flying amphibians, switching between flying boats and floatplanes, or tricycle to taildragger. When I fly twins, I pause on the runway, and speak to myself the pretakeoff briefing. If I forget the pretakeoff briefing to myself, or to say aloud to myself wheels down for landing on land, or wheels up for landing on water, I tell myself off!

[John Farley]

Good post DAR too.