Left seat only for ME captains?

[USasBRIEFED]

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]

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

[StopStart]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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! 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]

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]

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]

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 )

Tonks

[sonicstomp]

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]

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]

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]

Do the airlines have all pilots qualified in both seats

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

[Stanley Eevil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That's easy enough to answer..

It was bolleaux.

A complete waste of money as well.