1 or 2 steering tillers?

[Offchocks]

Rather than side track a thread on Rumours and News, I was wondering why some aircraft (mostly US reg.) have only one tiller and that being on the Captain's side?
In an airline I used to fly for many years ago, there were a couple of ex US registered aircraft that only had a single tiller. Though I never had a problem with this, I did find it strange.

[Chris Scott]

Why would a lowly co-pilot need to taxi the a/c, rather than leaving that tricky chore to the captain? After all, taxiing expertise comes automatically with the fourth ring! ;)

Combination of the one-man-band syndrome, and costs...

[deptrai]

Edit: Chris Scott, you beat me to it. My knee-jerk response would be to blame manufacturers for charging extra for a 2nd tiller. Arguably you don't need 2 tillers for the safe operation of an aircraft, and everything that isn't needed is a golden opportunity to charge more for an "option".

[Offchocks]

Aaah but is it cost or just "tradition" that a single tiller is fitted to mostly US or ex US operated aircraft?

[deptrai]

It's not only a US tradition. Other airlines have only 1 tiller as well. Maybe US aircraft are more visible because there is a lot of them.

[Krystal n chips]

I seem to recall, albeit from brief encounters, that a "very large UK airline" had two tillers on their 767's.

[Skyjob]

There was a time when guidance systems to navigate into stand were calibrated for LHS, thus making RHS tiller operation essentially obsolete.
More modern systems show both of you the same information, thus enabling either to steer onto stand.
Traditionally the second tiller was a customer option, and moreover the legacy carriers have had them as experience in RHS was substantial, with limits imposed on experience prior to allowing its use from RHS.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Skyjob:
"Traditionally the second tiller was a customer option, and moreover the legacy carriers have had them as experience in RHS was substantial, with limits imposed on experience prior to allowing its use from RHS."

My impression is that this is a long tradition involving US carriers - large and small - and US airliner manufacturers. No doubt it has spilled out into the third-world carriers as well, and smaller European companies that are inclined to buy the basic product as offered.

In the UK that included Caledonian Airways when they bought their first B707-320Cs in the late 1960s, prior to taking over BUA - which had a very different policy for its co-pilots. But BUA had an all-British fleet of BAC 1-11s and VC10s, not to mention Viscounts and Dart-Heralds - all with 2 tillers, IIRC. The merged company, BCAL, continued to expand its B707 fleet through the 1970s, with a mixture of second-hand 320C models from all over the place. The only ones I can remember coming with two tillers were ex-Qantas a/c, and the R/H tillers were soon removed in the interests of standardisation. For take-off, co-pilots operating as PF had to take control from the captain (without the benefit of rudder-fine steering) as the a/c turned on to the runway at fairly high speed for the Boeing-standard, rolling take-off.

Fast-forwarding to the present, I can't speak for the US, but how many European airlines operating divers types of Airbus have them with only one tiller? Most western airlines have a policy of complete role-reversal for handling and routine cockpit management. Maybe not a bad idea for the US to adopt the same policy, particularly if their skippers are going to continue as in recent days to drop like flies at the controls.

[Intruder]

747s have tillers on both sides. Our FOs even use the ones on the right side!

[Offchocks]

My experience with single tillers has been on two F27s and one 737 many years ago. All the aircraft that I've flown since, BAC1-11s, 767s, 747 classics and 400s all had two tillers.
The only time the Captain took over taxying was when parking at the gate.

[misd-agin]

Doesn't the U.S. have more commercial pilots than the rest of the western world combined? If numbers are the final decider maybe the other western operators should get rid of their two tiller a/c?


I've seen U.S. based Airbus', 747's, 777's, and 787's with two tillers.

[B4MJ]

Hardly a mystery. Sometimes a right turn into a crowded taxiway, ramp is required. The airplanes come standard with two tillers. Most USA operators ordered the airplanes with "unnecessary" items like tillers, headrests, removed. Some puffed up individuals attempted to make a safety argument about why it's necessary to eliminate these hazards in the cockpit. Fortunately, those attitudes are fading away.

[Proline21]

I was rather amazed to see that Chinese F/Os are allowed to taxi the A380 as per this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xasimN2cXBE

[Denti]

As far as i know the second tiller on a 737 for example is an option that is rather expensive, nearly nobody orders it. I thing KLM does, but i might be wrong.

On the A320, or probably all airbii it seems to be the standard equipment and a single tiller installation is the option. Which ties in with the OEM SOPs from airbus in which the FO does the taxying if he is pilot flying on that sector. Of course, if the guidance system into the parking stand is left hand only calibrated there has to be a transfer of control prior to taxying into that stand.

Working in an airline that works its way out of boeings into airbii we used to have company SOPs in which only the captain was allowed to taxi, except in case of role reversal for training purposes. Now that we adopt the full airbus SOPs (including the darn FMA callouts and those longwinded checklists) all FOs have to go through some taxi training in the simulator and two flights with a trainer before they will be allowed to taxi an aircraft, set take off power themselves and do the whole taxi in.

[Centaurus]

set take off power themselves

Presumably if the F/O learned to fly on a Cessna or Warrior he was qualified to set take off power himself. Why not on bigger aircraft? It is not exactly rocket science to push one, two or four throttles forward...

[Chris Scott]

There are safety arguments both for and against allowing RHS co-pilots to taxi the a/c when it's their handling sector. But, if it is considered safe and desirable (essential, actually) to allow them to handle critical flight-phases such as take-off and landing, it is illogical to forbid them to perform the lower-risk task of taxiing, subject to the usual considerations when manoeuvering on or off a crowded parking stand.

Allowing full role-reversal for handling, except following an emergency, is an important aspect of pilot development, and was the norm in respected British airlines even before I was a rookie. I suspect the same applies in the airlines of most Anglophone countries, and probably in the main European airlines, but I stand to be corrected.

To repeat a point I suggested flippantly in my first post, you cannot expect a pilot suddenly to become a taxiing expert on large a/c during the short period of a command course, the non-revenue part of which will be conducted in a simulator. There are already enough pressures to be faced in the line training, particularly if it involves a type change.

[finncapt]

Chris

You were probably not on the BCal DC10 which, unless old age is catching up on me, only had one tiller.

I seem to recall the same on the ANZ DC10.

Did any DC10 operator have a 2 tillered version.

On the HS748, we had some with 2 tillers and some with 1.

I used to give all the sectors to the first officer if we had 2 and did them myself if 1.

IIRC there was one more a/c with 2 than with 1.

[deptrai]

Chris, To repeat a point I suggested flippantly in my first post, you cannot expect a pilot suddenly to become a taxiing expert on large a/c during the short period of a command course

You must be a victim of CRM indoctrination and propaganda. I wish 411A was still around, he would have stated clearly that

ANY Captain who allows a First Officer to taxi the aeroplane (when a nose steering tiller is located on the RH side) is just asking for trouble.

Co-pilots are there to do as they are TOLD...period.
Not taxi the aircraft.

on a serious note, Denti knows what he is talking about (about parking, price of optional tiller - boeing seems more expensive than airbus - and airbus suggested SOP's, if you follow airbus SOP's they let F/O's taxi. I don't want to turn this into an A vs B discussion, but it seemed RH tillers are more common on widebody Boeing than 737, presumably because seniority has taught F/O's to taxi? I'm not discounting that observing is helpful. Yet, some SOP's would rather ask for a tug/tractor than let an F/O taxi...maybe it's a way to outsource the cost of mistakes? Blame it on ground handling instead of training your own employees?)

[Chris Scott]

Quotes from Denti:
(1) "Working in an airline that works its way out of boeings into airbii we used to have company SOPs in which only the captain was allowed to taxi, except in case of role reversal for training purposes."
What would be the training purposes? Unless you mean a command course?

(2) "Now that we adopt the full airbus SOPs [...] all FOs have to go through some taxi training in the simulator and two flights with a trainer before they will be allowed to taxi an aircraft, set take off power themselves and do the whole taxi in."
Would that training not happen automatically during the type-conversion from B737 to A320?

Hi finncapt,
On reflection I think you're right about the BCAL DC-10s having only one tiller. The management and philosophy of the operation were largely carried on from the B707 fleet: very much in line with the manufacturers' SOPs.

Hello deptrai:
Good old 411A! "...what a character!" :} (Quote from Back to the Future by Marty of Biff...) Many of us have flown with - and learned much from - semi-benevolent, paternalistic despots like 411A - mainly in our youth. I infer that you are no keener to share a cockpit with his ilk than I am? Now a few drinks and a leisurely chat in a bar on terra-firma would be another matter...

Am beginning to realise that this one-tiller philosophy is very much a feature of the US manufacturers, presumably with the tacit approval of the legacy US airlines. Except for a few British and other European types, smaller airlines worldwide have traditionally inherited most of their large aircraft second-hand from US manufacturers, if not US airlines. Until Airbus, that is.

[Denti]

Presumably if the F/O learned to fly on a Cessna or Warrior he was qualified to set take off power himself. Why not on bigger aircraft? It is not exactly rocket science to push one, two or four throttles forward...

Not rocket science, the training focuses on take off aborts in the phase of changing hands since the captain is usually responsible for stops once the take off run has begun.

"Working in an airline that works its way out of boeings into airbii we used to have company SOPs in which only the captain was allowed to taxi, except in case of role reversal for training purposes."
What would be the training purposes? Unless you mean a command course?

FOs were hired and trained as captains in waiting, therefore they had to be able to take over if needed and role reversal was a legal way to do that. It used to be more common, nowadays its rarely done, could be that i'm just too lazy though after 15 years on the right side.

"Now that we adopt the full airbus SOPs [...] all FOs have to go through some taxi training in the simulator and two flights with a trainer before they will be allowed to taxi an aircraft, set take off power themselves and do the whole taxi in."
Would that training not happen automatically during the type-conversion from B737 to A320?

In the future it will, currently we still have company SOPs on the airbus which are centered around a silent cockpit concept. There's no FMA callouts and nearly no checklists (just before start, after start, parking and secure) as well as no normal FO taxying. The move to OEM SOPs is just a money saving venture, not because their SOPs are deemed better. And of course those of us who have flown the Airbus for the last 20 years have to be retrained to the new OEM SOPs as well, not only the newly airbus rated ex boeing guys.

[Cough]

F/O's taxying...

I've been in the LHS and the RHS on both single and dual tiller aircraft.

Gimme a dual tiller anyday... Simply because in a single tiller aircraft, the F/O will practically never complete a landing - Control is handed across prior to any taxiway thus the last fine part of braking judgement never occurs - And, the handover is sometimes an awkward moment!

Single tiller prevents F/O's refining their taxi technique, particularly on a longer aircraft in turns. For those Capt's who say 'but I know where I am going'. I have found, over quite a few years that the F/O's do too and mistakes (hey real world right!) occur in similar proportions!

And lastly, when my ticker ticks less than it should, my F/O is gonna get me to medical attention quicker...Gawd bless them....

[stilton]

Tillers should be standard on both sides, if nothing else the FO should be able to take over and taxi in if the Ca's incapacitated.


Not enough authority through the rudders for the tighter turns after all.


Interesting that the 777 and 787 both have dual tillers as standard.

[Derfred]

It really annoys me that Boeing chose to option the RHS tiller on B737 aircraft. I'm inclined to assume that it wasn't Boeing's absolute decision to do so, but rather they were commercially persuaded to do so by a particular airline wanting to buy several hundred models of the type, and wanting to shave a few more shekels off the purchase price.

My airline inherted some of these models, and for type commonality has chosen to order all future 737s without RHS tillers, despite all other types in the airline being taxied by both pilots.

I find it insulting to the FOs and also problematic in that if they are seen as not fit to taxi they learn to act that way... They will daydream and let you taxi down the wrong taxiway. That is Human Factors 101.

[Uplinker]

On the Airbus, it is steer-by-wire, so the tillers are just spring loaded potentiometers/position sensors that input to a computer. I believe Boeings have mechanical linkages to the steering? If so it will be far more expensive to fit an extra tiller on the RHS.

I love it that some folk hate the idea of F/Os taxying ! The same F/Os can land in terrible weather at night, but are not trusted to taxy very slowly along a yellow line with the Captain and ATC watching closely.:ok:

[lederhosen]

The bit about ATC watching carefully somehow reminds me of the unfortunate write off of the BA 747 in Capetown. I think the FO may even have been steering at the time when they crashed into the building. It can be argued both ways. Taxying a large aircraft is not always as easy as it looks. If you are a long haul pilot at the controls only for a few sectors a month at airports you visit occasionally, maybe a set procedure where the captain steers and the co-pilot has the chart out (or on screen) and is actively monitoring is not such a bad idea. Ar least the roles are clearer and FOs are generally better at concentrating on the chart.

[Offchocks]

Lederhosen I think you mean Johanessburg not Capetown.

maybe a set procedure where the captain steers and the co-pilot has the chart out (or on screen) and is actively monitoring is not such a bad idea. Ar least the roles are clearer and FOs are generally better at concentrating on the chart.

I don't think I can agree with this, everyone should have a chart out, paper or electronic. In my experience Captains and FOs have equal ability in being able to read a chart and have situation awareness.

[goeasy]

Not a great idea for the taxiing operator to be looking at charts too. Just the time that errant vehicle or animal to cross.

Same reason for Captains taxiing in some airlines. Captain has final responsibility for safety of aircraft. If he is head down in charts temporarily lost in taxiway maize, while FO clips the wingtip on something.... Or let's the mains go cross country - Who carries the can?

Not everyone operates in environment of 'same nationality' crew with easy communication. (I.e. Good English) This growing communication problem is one of the invisible safety factors increasing in aviation these days.

And finally the even better reason..... Generally - Younger FO's have better eyes for reading tiny print on Jepp plates! :8 :8 :ok:

[lederhosen]

Thanks for the correction about Joburg Offchocks. My point is that it can be argued both ways about the need for two tillers. Certainly our procedure in terms of captain's incapacitation is for the FO to swap seats, at which point I would agree with Uplinker about them being able to follow a yellow line, although not very smoothly, particularly in the sim.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from lederhosen:
"Certainly our procedure in terms of captain's incapacitation is for the FO to swap seats..."

I wonder what a/c type are you referring to? Unless it is practised regularly (preferably, in a sim), like we did on small a/c in my youth, taking a pilot out of his/her comfort zone in a single-pilot contingency situation is likely to create more problems than it solves (as well as being of doubtful legality). Reversing hands for all tasks is a bit like trying to brush your teeth with your other hand. In my experience, trainers have to pass separate handling checks in both seats every six months.

Fortunately the rudder-fine steering on most modern airliners normally enables the RHS pilot of a single-tiller a/c to vacate the runway after landing, provided a rapid-exit taxiway is available.

Hi goeasy,
You make a good argument for the captain doing all his/her "own" (as someone once described it) taxiing. As for "carrying the can", my advocacy of role-reversal including the co-pilot being able and allowed to taxi the a/c is maintained despite personal experience. But I don't think that a F/O is any more likely to mishandle or miss a turning than the captain, and - as for chart-reading ability - the ability of presbyopic captains to read small print with reading spectacles is regularly tested!

To repeat a point already made by me and others, the strongest argument for allowing copilots to taxi is that of personal development. In training, the importance of planning and execution, as well as the potential and historic implications of a foul-up, are best taught and learned from the early stages of a pilot's career, in my opinion.

[The Dominican]

This is about cost people....., the RHS tiller is an option just like having two fueling panels and many other equipment where you will find differences.

What is the big deal about letting the F/O taxi the airplane? I've flown on companies that have this procedure for decades and it has never been a problem. What are you "let the F/O taxi and you are asking for trouble crowd" compensating for?

You know that even if you taxi all the time it won't grow anymore right?:}

[lederhosen]

All good points Chris, but our 737s lack the tiller on the right side, so not an option. Taxying the sim is also a bit different from the aircraft as I am sure a few people will attest, so apart from the copilot being asked what he would do we rarely have them taxi. The company and Boeing determine the SOPs. In most cases stopping on a taxiway and being towed is probably better.

[Uplinker]

Quite frankly: telling an F/O - who has just landed a jet weighing say 180 tonnes in bad weather at night, or flown it down to 200' aal and then gone around - that s/he is somehow not competant to taxi the same aircraft slowly along the ground, is preposterous.

As is: not allowing an F/O to start the engines and taxi, yet allowing them to be PF for the take-off, and expecting them to control the aircraft correctly and safely to climb away in the event of an engine failure at V1.

Yes; there have been mistakes and accidents, but many Captains have also made mistakes and caused accidents, so that is no reason to ban F/Os from taxiing. Yes, of course, as with any phase of operating an airliner, there should be minimum experience levels imposed; so for example a brand new F/O on their first ever big jet would not be allowed to taxi until they had a certain amount of experience and time on type.

[Offchocks]

In most cases stopping on a taxiway and being towed is probably better.
Totally agree!

Quite frankly: telling an F/O - who has just landed a jet weighing say 180 tonnes in bad weather at night, or flown it down to 200' aal and then gone around - that s/he is somehow not competant to taxi the same aircraft slowly along the ground, is preposterous.

Again totally agree, my last airline's SOP was for the FO to taxy on his sector right up until turning onto the gate where the Captain took over.

[bugged on the right]

Great on the old aircraft with flight engineers. 3 tillers.

[grounded27]

Chris

You were probably not on the BCal DC10 which, unless old age is catching up on me, only had one tiller.

I seem to recall the same on the ANZ DC10.

Did any DC10 operator have a 2 tillered version.

On the HS748, we had some with 2 tillers and some with 1.

I used to give all the sectors to the first officer if we had 2 and did them myself if 1.

IIRC there was one more a/c with 2 than with 1.


The DC10 has a great field of vision, my first Taxi was on a 742 from the RT seat, the view from that cockpit is much more restrictive. On narrow body aircraft I do not see the necessity.

[Intruder]

Great on the old aircraft with flight engineers. 3 tillers.
Which airplane? Certainly NOT on the 747 Classic!

[Dan Winterland]

3 tillers? Can't think of any aircraft configured to let the FE steer on the ground. The VC10 had a set of thrust levers for the FE, but they were the pilots responsibility when taxying.

[ACMS]

I think he may have meant 3 joysticks :}:} if you know what I mean!!

[Track]

Our own 73NG fleet is equipped with two tillers but during peak season we use lease-in without the right tiller. Despite briefing it every stretch it's always a sketchy moment after landing when the F/O grabs air instead of a tiller and we need to hand over controls:O:O

[parabellum]

Certainly our procedure in terms of captain's incapacitation is for the FO to swap seats, lederhosen - Are your FOs regularly checked in the LHS as well as the RHS? When everything around you is going wrong surely it is best to stay in the seat you are most familiar with? Changing seats after a captain has become incapacitated introduces a whole stack of unfamiliarity for the FO, better, I think, for him to fly the approach and landing from the seat he is most familiar with? To be honest never heard of an operator before that required a seat change by the FO if the captain went U/S.


Stop on the runway if you wish or use nosewheel fine steering to slip down a fast turn off, as suggested by Chris, above.

[deptrai]

I would assume that the SOP's lederhosen is referring to explicitly allow FO's to use the LH tiller if that could save some time for emergency services to attend to an incapacitated captain (switching seats after landing. No one suggested landing from an unfamiliar seat). Regardless of SOPs, if the captain is incapacitated, it's an emergency and the FO as PIC may do whatever it takes. If there's a fast turn off, fine, use the pedals, if you stop on the runway and there are airstairs nearby, fine, but if it's an airport where using the tiller would help, for gods sake let the PIC make that decision. I think the FO on United Flight 1637 switched seats to use the tiller to get help for an incapacitated captain and I wouldn't ever second-guess someone who does. It's a decision that needs to be taken depending on circumstances, you can't create general rules for every emergency.

[lederhosen]

Just for clarification I was talking about switching seats on the ground. If you only have one tiller the co-pilots need to be aware of this option. Stopping on the runway or on a taxiway may well be better. It depends on the circumstances. With American in Syracuse the co-pilot intended to stop on a taxiway. But the responders did not have steps so he carried on to a gate. Thanks to Deptrai who has meanwhile covered some things I would otherwise have mentioned.

[goeasy]

Just to clarify from my previous post... I am perfectly happy for the FO to taxi, but I will not be distracted from watching proceedings, and not doing checklists or engine starts/shutdowns etc.

The argument about landing vs taxiing is irrelevant, as during landing the Captain is focused on the flying, and ready to take over, whereas during taxi, SOPs may have him doing other duties.

How many airlines have the same wind/xwind limits for Both crew?

The day the laws change to say an FO landing or taxiing is totally and solely responsible for any incident, (not the Captain) then life becomes much simpler!

[deptrai]

it would be interesting to see some hard numbers. In airlines where FOs taxi, are there more taxiing incidents?

I'm making a bold assumption, if FOs are properly trained, that's not the case. I'd stipulate that taxiing an aircraft isn't more difficult to learn than driving a car/bus/truck/motorbike: after observing taxiing for a reasonable amount of time, you may need 40-60 hours of practice under competent supervision to become somewhat proficient (that's what it usually takes to pass a drivers licence test in some countries) and while that doesn't make you an expert, it will allow you to grow your skill set and experience.

The responsibility question is real though (CYA...), yet, would you rather be a passenger with a captain who was first introduced to taxiing on his command upgrade course (how many hours of taxiing?), or someone who has years of experience? In summary, I don't think RH tillers are such a bad idea.

[Derfred]

If anyone was taking bets my money would be on less taxiing incidents in airlines that let the F/O taxi.

[FlyingStone]

I find some ideas here quite ironic. So on 2-tiller aircraft you would not let a FO practice his taxiing skills in normal operations, yet he has the full capacity to do so in case of captain incapacitation, despite that the last time he tried to taxi was in the sim during his conversion course?

[Chris Scott]

Have to agree with Flying Stone. The concept of a co-pilot landing the a/c single-handed from the RHS, stopping the a/c safely, applying the parking brake, and then adrenalin-hopping over to the LHS to taxi a large, long a/c for the first time ever at fairly high speed to the ramp area to save the pre-ordered steps-truck and ambulance a gallon of petrol strikes me as totally bonkers...

Far wiser to stay put, run the after-landing checklist carefully, and prepare the a/c for the arrival of the steps and paramedics. That would include starting the APU if available, shutting down the appropriate engine(s), and liaising with the emergency services by R/T and the senior cabin-crew member verbally.

[Bobermo]

Chris Scott, me and my company I work for, totally agree with you. It actually was an item in my last recurrent session!

[Check Airman]

How many airlines have the same wind/xwind limits for Both crew?

I don't know where you fly, but on the western edge of the Atlantic, FO's and CA's have the same limits.

A new FO (less than 100hrs on type) is usually restricted in terms of takeoff and landing visibility, runway contamination, crosswind etc.

At the completion of 100hrs, both crewmembers have the same limits. I expect that you'll find a few oddball companies that restrict their FO's, but they're the exception.

I find the no taxi thing to be odd as well. The FO is competent to depart with 500RVR, land in a 30+kt crosswind after a CAT 1 approach to minimums, yet getting to the gate at 15kt is beyond his experience...:ugh:

[stilton]

There was no need for the FO to swap seats on that United flight.


The 787 comes with a tiller on both sides as standard, just like the 777.

[parabellum]

Just for clarification I was talking about switching seats on the groundThanks lederhosen, that is what I was hoping, just a bit concerned about the concept of changing seats whilst still in the air!

My experience; 757,767,747 FO taxis for his/her sector, Capt does final bit on stand if equipment requires it. On the 747 some times necessary to drop a gentle hint when it was obvious the FO thought the nose wheel was a lot further back than it is and was a bit late turning in.

[Linktrained]

The Avro YORK had a tail wheel and was steered on the ground by the use of the brakes, with a bit of extra throttle from No 1 or No 4 as required.

The A/P, driven by No 1, tended to pump the elevator about 40 times per minute... when it worked. The A/P controls were by the Captain's left hand. So durng long flights the two pilots had to swap seats- at cruising level, remembering NOT to use the flying controls as a hand grip. The two pilots might be on duty for 20 + hours, each hand flying for an hour at a time , some 8 hours each, on two sectors. NO FTL.

ALL T/Os and Landings were done from the Left seat - the four throttles were easier to reach and control from the left seat. ( A bit of a stretch from the right seat for those with shorter left arm.)

I had done my " LEGAL SIX " T/O and landings with the Chief Pilot. and was the least experienced F/O in the Company. I asked the Training Captain with whom I was flying "why me." He said that it because I used a sextant and could serve as a back-up for our Straight Navigator on flights across the Atlantic. The rest of the crew (N/O, R/O & G/E) told me that "If the Captain became ill- they would have to rely on ME ! "

LT

[Linktrained]

My SEVENTH York T/O and landing LHS were seven months later, after 100+ sectors, having sat, patiently in the York's RHS. We were all glad that I had not forgotten what to do ! ( Training at Austers and then Hamble, had ALL been flying from the LHS ,and with a tailwheel ( except for Tiger Moths, of course. )

The York was not pressurised and had no radar. Flying in rain could mean wet knees, until a blanket was found. Cbs could not always be avoided. I learned to ease up on any precision of my hand flying.
" Stay reasonably straight and reasonably level.."
Someone had tried to do something else with a bad outcome.
( It might have been a Skyways Dove.)

LT

[Piltdown Man]

I must fly with different F/Os in different types of aircraft because I haven't yet met an F/O who couldn't taxi an aircraft. So please would somebody tell me the names of the airline's where the F/Os are incapable of taxing an aircraft (when fitted with a tiller). I'd also like a list of the companies where they employ captains who think F/Os aren't up to the job of taxiing. These below average average companies must be avoided at all costs.

PM

[grounded27]

From a MX aspect, the first aircraft I taxied was a 742 from the RT seat. It was just as easy as towing the aircraft. I suppose watching the aircraft movement on the ground was an asset. I would suggest for a pilot to pay more attention to the position of the aircraft being operated under tow, during push back or other operations to gain a feel for where you are in respect to where the aircraft actually is on the ground. The seat is not a big deal (rt or lt). Break riding you can learn your nose gear position by simply watching taxi lines for your specific aircraft. Not really a big deal at all.

[juliet]

So I've been flying high performance large turbo props and jets for about 17 years now. About half that time was in the military and half with an airline. I'm an FO because most airlines operate a seniority system, it will probably be another 10 years before I get a command.

Are there really pilots on here that think that with my experience I'm not up to taxiing? Did I read right that someone was suggesting you need 40-60 hours of supervision before being competent to taxi?

I'm constantly amazed at the shear arrogance of some people in this industry. Who are these guys that think that because they are the captain only they can make a good decision and the FO shouldn't be trusted? How did I lose my ability to make decisions, and even taxi, when I moved from being a captain in the military to an FO in an airline? In my airline there are guys who have held widebody commands or been highly experienced military pilots, and because of our seniority system they are second officers who aren't allowed to sit in a window seat till they are above 20k.

Some people really need to get a grip.

[rcsa]

LT - When my Dad was a kid in the lat 40's, he had a pair of Dinky Avro York planes; and when i was a kid, I used to hold them out of the window of our old Morris Oxford and marvel at how the wing provided lift right up to the stall - my first lessons in aerodynamics, in fact!

So there's something rather special to read your reminiscences about flying the real thing. Thanks for sharing.

R
Zimbabwe

[Linktrained]

RCSA,

Thank you for your comment.

I mentioned "Precision" in #54...

In smoother conditions the Captain might leave me hand-flying and walk to the toilet. Some of our toilets were near the tail of the York (others just aft of the F/D). We carried 40 passengers in "4 across rearward seating" ie. 10 rows. The York responded to this alteration of C of G by increasing the indicated airspeed speed by 1 or 2 kts, if I maintained my correct cruising level. When the Captain returned, the speed soon reverted to the 160 - 165 kts that it had been.

RVSM and wider cabins with 6 or more seats across and security makes this effect harder to observe. ( Captains weigh a smaller percentage of an aircraft's A.U.W. !)

LT

[Uplinker]

@juliet,

Well said.

[Linktrained]

Juliet
Seniority CAN be difficult.
When FTL came into force, two Captains and one F/O were required for our longer duties. Many Captains had joined from their previous employer at the same time and with similar backgrounds. They had all been S/F/Os who "had come with the aircraft" This was resolved so the Captain whose name was first in the alphabet would be IN COMMAND on the flight away from base, and the other was IN COMMAND for the return flight. (As the only F/O, I just had to remember whose word was LAW !)


As a 400 hour new CPL I had had to Check and Certify that my Employer and Chief Pilot was fit to fly IN COMMAND of the Rapide, which he owned, and for which I held the Type Rating. (Just how long the job would have lasted if I HAD FAILED him ... Is a matter for conjecture.)

LT

[Uplinker]

The problem juliet refers to, I think, is that of small men with big egos.

Frankly, I amazed they allow us to drive to work.......

[juliet]

Seniority is a whole other issue that will be argued till the end of time. Fact is its what most of us live with.

Seniority means that a captain is a captain not because of their superior ability, but because they joined a day before someone else. Most are excellent and acknowledge the abilities of their crew, using them to enhance their decision making. And of course we all understand that ultimately it's the captain that has the final say and takes ultimate responsibility. As an FO I'm more than happy with that. All I ever ask is don't treat me like a child, I'm a fellow professional who is more than capable of ALL the roles and responsibilities required in getting an airliner from A-B. Even taxiing.

Sorry for the thread drift!!

[wanabee777]

About 15 years ago, one of our Captains hit the boom of an ARFF firetruck with the right wingtip of a practically brand new 777 while taxiing to the gate on his fini flight.

The firetruck drivers had positioned their vehicles at specially pre-painted markings on both the sides of the taxiway leading into the ramp so that they could shoot a stream of water in a high arc over top the aircraft as a salute to the retiring Captain as he taxied to the gate.

The trouble was, the markings were painted to accommodate MD-11's, L-1011's and B-767's and no one had remembered to readjust them for the longer wingspans of our newly acquired 777's.

The poor Captain had flown his whole career and never so much had ever scratched an airplane and here he was now stopped short of the gate waiting to get the collision sorted out with his family and friends on board for his retirement flight.

Later, the company and FAA tried to blame the F/O for the mishap but ALPA rightly put up the defense that there was no possible way for the copilot to see the right wingtip's impending collision with the firetruck.

From that time on, I was more than happy with our company's policy that Captains did all the taxiing.

[juliet]

Going to be scary when you get a command then...

[wanabee777]

Yep. Pretty scary.

[Stone_cold]

Juliet - Guess you want to do the RTO also ???

Capable maybe , responsible - NO .

This is surely a thread going nowhere , calling out Captains . It's the companys' train set . If they allow you to taxi , fly a sector or do paper work , apply Nike . Just do it !

If it's allowed , then I am sure most Captains comply , but it is their choice also . You are not entitled just because you think you may be competent or have been a 5* general in your previous life .

In your military life , did your superior rank indicate that you were the most suitable for the job ? Did your underlings comply with orders simply because that it how it works , even if they disagreed or were competent to command your platoon , division or aircraft ?

[juliet]

The military is completely different and quite irrelevant in that there is no seniority as such when it comes to flying. I've been in command with more senior officers in my crew, happens all the time.

Do I want to do the RTO? Interestingly in a previous life FOs were allowed to call abort, and shockingly it never caused a problem. In my airline I can't, and that's fine. Am I capable of it though? Yes I am, I haven't lost that decision making ability.

All I've been saying, in response to some comments on here, is that the attitudes of some in aviation are pretty crappy, and invariably based on a view that their ability is based on something other than their seniority number.

[Skornogr4phy]

I appreciate that it's the captain's neck on the line so if he wants to do the taxiing (lvps or anything non standard) then I take no offence in that. I do however feel that I am fully capable of taxiing an aircraft and that is mostly for his own reassurance.

[Amadis of Gaul]

The problem juliet refers to, I think, is that of small men with big egos.



Shorties can be special, no doubt. I suppose, being shoved into a locker a few times too many would do that.

[Commuter0815]

I worked for a lot of airlines(not by choice, lot's seem just to die over the last decade) and different a/c types.

Some had 1 tiller, others 2.

On this with steering both sides the FO could drive on his sector. But to be honest, this was one company and all the others sticked with "the captain drives".
I find this fair enough as the captain(and not the FO) is responsible for the safe operation of the flight and even more for safe taxi procedures. If something goes wrong, even initiated by the FO, they always go for the guy in the left seat.
Best example - in my current company we do as well lots of flights into Africa, had already a few "wing touches" on narrow parking areas while under control of a marshaller. He waived them right into the obstacle and of course they made the captain the black sheep - even changed procedures so captains would be even responsible for damage caused to the aircraft while under marshallers guidance. In this case I prefer to drive the thing into the wall by myself rather then let the FO do it :E.

The same goes for a Rejected TO. I see(like most companies) no problem why a FO could not call out a malfunction, but making a STOP or GO decision should be(and is nearly everywhere) the captains decision. To many "opinions" during such a critical phase can cause confusion and lead to errors where you do not want to have them.

The FO has a very important role on a flight deck by supporting the captain and giving ideas. Sometimes as well to bring the captain again on the right track if he took the wrong turn or missed something.

But Go/No Go decisions are very tricky and need a lot of experience.

The only eception from above said things and the copilot may actually rightfully reject are jammed flight controls on his sector. No way that the PNF would figure that out and here it is absolutely the FO's call to reject.

[FlyingStone]

I find this fair enough as the captain(and not the FO) is responsible for the safe operation of the flight and even more for safe taxi procedures. If something goes wrong, even initiated by the FO, they always go for the guy in the left seat.

I agree that captain is overall responsible for safety, but I consider takeoff (including V1-cut scenario) and landing much more dangerous than taxiing an aircraft at 10-15 konts and making some turns. If FO lands so hard that the landing gear collapses, they will come after you as well - but I guess you still let them land?

Best example - in my current company we do as well lots of flights into Africa, had already a few "wing touches" on narrow parking areas while under control of a marshaller. He waived them right into the obstacle and of course they made the captain the black sheep - even changed procedures so captains would be even responsible for damage caused to the aircraft while under marshallers guidance. In this case I prefer to drive the thing into the wall by myself rather then let the FO do it .

Well, it is captain's decision when to delegate PF duties to FO. I can understand if you wouldn't let an FO taxi the aircraft on a narrow apron in Africa at night (just as you would probably take controls in case of any major flight controls problem for landing), but why not let them learn on a not-so-busy airport with large empty apron and wide taxiways at broad daylight?

One way of looking at this is - if they know how to do your job (e.g. taxi the aircraft, start the engines, etc.), they can be much better at noticing something is going wrong during this part.

The same goes for a Rejected TO. I see(like most companies) no problem why a FO could not call out a malfunction, but making a STOP or GO decision should be(and is nearly everywhere) the captains decision. To many "opinions" during such a critical phase can cause confusion and lead to errors where you do not want to have them.

In most companies where FO can taxi the aircraft, callout "STOP" during takeoff roll automatically transfers the control of the aircraft to the guy in the left seat anyway.

[MaydayMaydayMayday]

In most companies where FO can taxi the aircraft, callout "STOP" during takeoff roll automatically transfers the control of the aircraft to the guy in the left seat anyway.

Do you mean immediately, or once the aircraft is stopped? Just curious!

[Uplinker]

@Flying Stone, I agree with all of that.

I am a little uncomfortable when (other) people imply that the F/O has little or no responsibility for the safe operation of a flight. Of course they have. Sure if it comes to court, the F/O might not be the one in the dock, (although they probably will be), but if through their negligence or actions, an accident occured, that F/O is going to feel extremely responsible, whether legally so or not.

[Linktrained]

The training for a F/O on Hermes in Britavia was done with the PF in LHS which had the only nose wheel steering control, electrically selected, but hydraulically powered. The Chief Pilot sat in the RHS. The F/E set up the power I requested.

As F/O LHS I was required to have my right hand just forward of the throttles so that if I needed to close the them before V1 the F/E would have a tactile confirmation of this, in case he had failed to hear my command.

My " Legal Six" T/Os and Landings took 1 hour and 5 minutes at Blackbushe, which was not busy.

A couple of days later, together with another equally well trained (and also new) F/O we three flew together to Singapore and return ( 71 .50 in 10 sectors.) I did some other flights with other crews to Nairobi etc. to do some 120 hours in that first November.

ALL T/O and landings were done by the pilot who was sitting in the LHS, who might be a Captain or F/O.

Years later later a similar system of seating was usual on Caledonian Airways DC7c and Britannia fleets, right from the start of that Company. Both aircraft types had a SINGLE nose wheel steering. The flying part of the T/R was much more comprehensive and took longer too!


( One perhaps unusual technique required on the Zambian Oil Lift, required the Britannia to be REVERSE TAXiED to an unloading bay.
THE PILOTS MUST HAVE BOTH FEET ON THE FLOOR ,,,,,
TO STOP GOING BACKWARDS ASK THE F/E TO CANCEL REVERSE AND GIVE ME FORWARD THRUST.!)

LT

[CallmeJB]

I'm not a fan of watching the Captain stumble through the before takeoff checklist/line-up checks while I taxi from the right seat. And don't get me started on the after landing flow.

I'd rather just give him back control of the airplane and take care of all those things, thank you very much. Lest we get to the runway without TA/RA, or get to the stand with the weather radar still on.

[Spooky 2]

Now there is pilot who gets it:)

[Denti]

I'm not a fan of watching the Captain stumble through the before takeoff checklist/line-up checks while I taxi from the right seat. And don't get me started on the after landing flow.

I'd rather just give him back control of the airplane and take care of all those things, thank you very much. Lest we get to the runway without TA/RA, or get to the stand with the weather radar still on.

While i'm not very passionate about the whole FO taxi thing, if the above is the case for more than the first two or three weeks it shows clearly incompetence on the captains in question. Give them a re-training session, if they dont get it and they still miss steps after that, show them the door, the lower seniority guys will enjoy that a lot :ok:

[Uplinker]

I'm not a fan of watching the Captain stumble through the before takeoff checklist/line-up checks while I taxi from the right seat. And don't get me started on the after landing flow.

I'd rather just give him back control of the airplane and take care of all those things, thank you very much. Lest we get to the runway without TA/RA, or get to the stand with the weather radar still on.

No excuse in my book. They are so clever, they should be capable of learning a few simple flows. And reading a checklist is child's play.

If they can't do that then are they really competent to fly as LHS?

[Skornogr4phy]

Plus if they did these things on the ground every day (as we do in my company), they do just fine. I taxi to the stand (captain always parks), and the captain does everything else. Sure he might miss the weather radar... but I've done that too. That's why we have checklists. If we were perfect every time, then there would be no need for checklists.

[Mikehotel152]

In an airline flying a fleet of 320+ 737-800 aeroplanes into little and large airports across Europe, the average FO probably has <2000 hours flight time (turnover and command at 3000 hours being the norm).

I can perfectly understand why such an airline specified all its aeroplanes with only 1 tiller!

ps: the same airline limits 2 stripers to 15knots crosswind.

[FlyingStone]

In an airline flying a fleet of 320+ 737-800 aeroplanes into little and large airports across Europe, the average FO probably has <2000 hours flight time (turnover and command at 3000 hours being the norm).

I can perfectly understand why such an airline specified all its aeroplanes with only 1 tiller!

More than likely only because guys from Seattle charge big bucks to fit it on 737. Same reason why they don't have fail operational aircraft, even though it's an option since 2003 I believe.

[Uplinker]

........... the average FO probably has <2000 hours flight time (turnover and command at 3000 hours being the norm).

I can perfectly understand why such an airline specified all its aeroplanes with only 1 tiller!

Oh please, not this again. Why does the assumption keep being made that an F/O is somehow not competant to taxi an aircraft? If a pilot has passed all the tests to get into the right seat of a jet in the first place, why would they not be capable of taxiing the thing? Would you let those same pilots drive themselves to work - on the motorway just metres away from other cars at 70 mph? Of course you would. Would you let those pilots park their own cars in the carpark? Of course you would. Would you let those pilots have control of the aircraft to take off, land, go around? etc., etc. Of course you would. So why not taxi????

But a big jet is not the same as a Cessna 152 you say. Correct, but by law pilots must be fully trained to fly an aircraft before being signed off and permitted to operate it, so as long as they are properly trained and pass a suitable competency test, they will be perfectly capable of taxiing anything - as long as they have a tiller, obviously.

[Mikehotel152]

Uplinker,

The rhs tiller is a cost option. It's not specified because it's not necessary and in the current era of low-cost aviation anything unnecessary is ommitted.

Taxi training cannot be done in the sim, so the only option is to do it on the line in some form of formal rostered training. As it's not essential and training requires resources, it won't be done.

Taxying a large aircraft with 200 souls on board around a complicated airport, at night, in rain or low visbility is not comparable with driving a little 2m wide car on public roads.

Following on from the above, your fury at the attitude of those who understand an airline's policy of only allowing the PIC to taxi the aircraft is interesting.

Personally, I fully understand it, and although I know there are many low hour FOs who would do a great job, I also know from experience that there are a fair few who would not be up to the task - and I personally wouldn't want to risk my livelihood to massage their egos.

[Denti]

The second tiller is an option on the 737, it is standard on the airbus (320/330 for us). We do fly both types and are currently changing to OEM procedures on the bus which includes (among a plethora of silly, unnecessary checklists and callouts) FOs taxiing the aircraft. On the boeing FOs cannot taxi the aircraft (except on fairly straight taxiways) as there is no second tiller.

Surprisingly, taxi training is done in the SIM for both CPTs and FOs and followed by one supervision sector for every captain and FO. Yes, most simulators are not really all that good at simulating, but new ones are much better, which is a blessing as taxi training is a requirement anyway for low vis operation.

All in all my airline thinks it quite normal to let FOs taxi the aircraft, even new hires that come from our flight school with around 80 hours of real aircraft experience and of course flying to the exact same limits as anybody else.

If FOs (and for that matter quite a few captains) are not up to the task, simply report them. I think it much unsafer to let them fly the same aircraft, take off and land them in all conditions if they are not even up to the task of taxiing said aircraft at a very slow speed (30kts is max for us) instead of trundling down the runway at up to 175kts.

Granted, personally i couldn't care less about taxiing the aircraft myself, im lazy like and rather just tell the captain where to go (commanding him on the ground...) and let him do all the work.

[Mikehotel152]

Well, Denti, I don't know who you fly for but it's not unusual in the industry for new hires straight out of flight school to have lower vis and wind limits. I don't know which super-cadets your company employs but anyone who can come straight out of flight school and safely land a medium jet on a rainy night with 26 kts across the runway gets my vote! Is it safer for the Captain to land in certain conditions? Undoubtedly. And that's what the airlines (and passengers) would expect.

As for taxying: Certainly, it's quite easy to get from the stand at LGW to the hold. Try the same at Dublin or park up at any one of a dozen tiny airports across Europe and you'll realise that it's not a great idea to hand the job to a pilot whose last taxying was in a 'full motion' sim. Again, what's safer? Hmmm.

[FlyingStone]

Mikehotel152, how do captains get to learn the taxiing - they obviously haven't taxied an aircraft with 200 people on board before? I guess during their sim sessions and line training under supervision. Why do you think the same can't be done for FOs? Sure, cadet straight out of flight school with no "big" airplane experience needs more practice and couple of more pointers, but it is still successfully done at many Airbus operators without major incidents.

And as always, both airlines and captains can impose limits on when an FO can taxi, e.g. no LVO, no narrow or slippery taxiways, etc. If you can put limits for FO as PF (wind, visibility, ceiling), so they still get to fly and gain experience, don't you think the same would apply to taxiing the aircraft?

[FlightDetent]

Under LVO, in an aircraft that came with dual tillers as a standard spec, is it better:

a) to have the PIC steer and excercise his reponsibility in a "reduced chances" environment
b) let the F/O manhandle the pedals, whilst PIC has the chart, flashlight, and radio?

Same surroundings, different rostering scenario. CM1: qualified PIC, CM2: legal CMDR. Who's now the best one to taxi?

FD.

[Denti]

The SOP in my company is that the PIC has to be the PF in LVO (RVR of 400m or less for take off, less than 550m for landing), therefore he has to taxi.

The second case (CM2 as legal commander) is undesired, but happens from time to time of course. In that case the PIC has to do all the usual PIC duties, the CM2 does all the stuff an FO does. In LVO it will the PIC taxiing and the CM2 assisting. However, the hierarchy gradient is wrong and there is an increased risk of CRM problems and therefore incidents, which is the reason why it is not a normal and desired crewing solution.

[FlightDetent]

SOP same here and the place before. LVO >> CM1 = PF.

Yet, you blew my cover, as I was actually trolling somewhat. Most of the arguments in the discussion above would not stand the test of those questions.

F/O taxiing, or not, is in my view a task-sharing issue. So it is best SOP'd. For any SOPs set to be effective they need to be simple enough so that the crew do not throw them out of the window at the first sign of trouble or time pressure. Because that's exactly when they'd save the day.

Irrespective of who does what, the far more important issue is for the pilots to know each other's task-plan.

[oicur12.again]

Spot on Juliet.

Taxying is secret captains business according to some.

5000 hours PIC wide body in 3 airlines with 300 hour fo's starting engines and taxying and NEVER had a problem. None.

[lalbak]

Seems like everyone is forgetting that unlike flying, you can always simply stop taxiing and take a minute to double check, look outside, confirm with ATC, etc.
Taxiing is not rocket science and it's most certainly not as scary or dangerous as some make it out to be.
Sure the captain has the final responsibility, but with an attitude like "it's my career on the line" I fail to understand how some people on here even feel comfortable with allowing their FO to operate their own seat belt, god forbid he should do it wrong and fall out of his seat, while being under my authority and me being responsible for the crew and all.
Taxiing is part of operating the aircraft, both pilots are type rated on the aircraft, therefore both should be capable of operating the aircraft. Taxiing is not dangerous, it's not scary, it can be tricky but you have your brakes and CRM for that.

[Offchocks]

Taxiing is not dangerous, it's not scary, it can be tricky but you have your brakes and CRM for that.

I couldn't agree more and if the Captain is not totally happy with a situation whilst the FO is taxying, it does not take much to make a suggestion or say "I have control".

[Uplinker]

@Mikehotel152; I hear your economic arguments. I totally accept that for some companies and aircraft types (e.g. Boeing) the lack of F/O taxiing is simply cost based, and I have no issue with that (except sadness that offering ever cheaper tickets to passengers prevails over properly equipped fleets and proper pilot training).

However, when anybody says that a qualified F/O is not capable of, or not safe to taxi an aircraft, then my hackles rise. If an F/O is not capable of taxiing a modern jet safely and correctly, then they should be sat on the jump seat, not signed off in the RHS.

Apart from anything else; saying that F/Os cannot or should not taxi is a tacit admission that F/Os are not really fully trained or competant at the time they get into the RHS for the first time. Taking this line of thought further suggests that undertrained F/Os are being allowed to "fly" aircraft because if anything goes wrong in the air, "well they won't hit anything straight away and the LHS can take over" !!. This is where I do have a problem. A number of horrific crashes involving servicable aircraft being stalled until they crashed by incompetant pilots* tells me that cost cutting in our industry has gone way too far, and that dangerously undertrained 'pilots' are flying some of the world's fleet.


*I don't necessarily blame those pilots for their incompetance: In my opinion lack of proper and thorough training is becoming a serious problem in our industry.

[anotheruser]

Either taxiing is so difficult that it requires years of experience, then how do you learn it in just a few weeks of command course? Or taxiing is so easy that you can learn it within just a few weeks of command course, then why can't you do it from the very beginning?

[Linktrained]

WHY NOT ?

In #75 I mentioned that ALL T/Rs were done from the LHS (which had the only nose wheel steering). NO simulators were available even for preliminary training. Few of us had had had previous nose wheel steering experience, THEN.

One Hermes F/O during the ground school, mentioned that he had never driven a car but so far as I heard, this did not upset his flying training.

( The "Legal Six" were the six T/Os and Landings then required for a F/O on passenger flights, and put the type in Group 2 on a licence.)

Group 1 had night and engine failures added ( requiring a total of FIVE landings!) And of course this would be necessary for an upgrade.

LT.