Left seat only for ME captains?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: France
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
_____That's easy enough to answer..
It was bolleaux.
A complete waste of money as well._____
BEagle whilst I bow to your obvious superior knowledge and command of the English language, after all I was only a A1 QFI/IRE/Trapper, the Maritime OCU using the Old Grey Lady always trained both pilots to fly from the LHS, as it did initially with the Nimrod. The thought in the kipper fleet was that equal shares was to the benefit of both pilots and the norm was to alternate take offs and landings and co-pilots were certainly not looked upon as an inferior species.
I fear from what I read that some members of the Transport fleets consider themselves to be superior to others, are we getting back to the "white gloves BOAC" from my youth.
Please don't come back with "back seat Captains", as I did what all Maritime skippers did, when in a tactical situation the Nav is the boss he has ALL the information (but don't start me on AEOs thats different!!)
_____That's easy enough to answer..
It was bolleaux.
A complete waste of money as well._____
BEagle whilst I bow to your obvious superior knowledge and command of the English language, after all I was only a A1 QFI/IRE/Trapper, the Maritime OCU using the Old Grey Lady always trained both pilots to fly from the LHS, as it did initially with the Nimrod. The thought in the kipper fleet was that equal shares was to the benefit of both pilots and the norm was to alternate take offs and landings and co-pilots were certainly not looked upon as an inferior species.
I fear from what I read that some members of the Transport fleets consider themselves to be superior to others, are we getting back to the "white gloves BOAC" from my youth.
Please don't come back with "back seat Captains", as I did what all Maritime skippers did, when in a tactical situation the Nav is the boss he has ALL the information (but don't start me on AEOs thats different!!)
An unnecessary luxury these days, sorry.
No-one in any fleet is any more superor to those in others; however, when the budget is limited and pre-OCU training even more so (e.g. no BFTS courses for ME pilots...), cross-training both pilots to operate from the LHS unless there is a proven need is a waste of time and money.
I will readily admit that it makes sense to cross-train co-pilots to first pilot standard and thus to operate competently from brakes-off to brakes-on; if that means using the LHS because that's where the nosewheel steering is, then fine. But there is no actual need to do so in many a/c (e.g. VC10) as the co-pilots can do everything from the RHS which can be done from the LHS - except see the weather radar.
No-one in any fleet is any more superor to those in others; however, when the budget is limited and pre-OCU training even more so (e.g. no BFTS courses for ME pilots...), cross-training both pilots to operate from the LHS unless there is a proven need is a waste of time and money.
I will readily admit that it makes sense to cross-train co-pilots to first pilot standard and thus to operate competently from brakes-off to brakes-on; if that means using the LHS because that's where the nosewheel steering is, then fine. But there is no actual need to do so in many a/c (e.g. VC10) as the co-pilots can do everything from the RHS which can be done from the LHS - except see the weather radar.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonkenna wrote:
Do the airlines have all pilots qualified in both seats? I don't know... but just a thought. And if not, why not.
Do the airlines have all pilots qualified in both seats? I don't know... but just a thought. And if not, why not.
That is not to say that the civilian experience reads across to the military environment. If there is a need for the RAF to have pilots qualified in both seats, the costs can be justified, and there are no control or command issues, then there is no intrinsic reason why a junior co can't be qualified in either seat.
Champagne anyone...?
Exactly. As BEags says, where is the need to train Cos to operate in the LHS of the Herc? There is none. The "need" is being driven by a potential cost saving whim of someone further up the food chain.
Yes, we know it's easy to taxy on assy power and starting the engines isn't exactly rocket science, especially on ours. I would suggest 16B though that your comments on use of NWS and rudder etc come from a few years of experience and having a feel for the aircraft? I agree, it is not hard. With experience. I just do not see that can be any benefit gained from training abo copilots to operate the aircraft from the LHS when they have so little experience of operating a large cargo/pax aircraft. Whilst I would be the last person in the world to "big up" (good lord...) the Herc as a difficult aircraft to fly I just see no merit in a such a policy. It's just money saving rubbish. In the same vein why do we bother fitting 4 serviceable engines to the aircraft? We know it'll fly on 2 so think of the savings?!?!?!
I'm not in the business of rubbishing copilots and think that the standard of folk we have today is somewhat better than the window-lickers of yesteryear. If we have to save money (always from our core business though - aircrew training - probably to fund another wing of Abbey Wood....
) then can we not look at it rationally rather than the current "oh it'll be ok"? Counter arguments such as "when did we last ever land on 2 in anger?" hold no water: if that's the line of attack then lets bin the BTR along with ditching drills and wet liferaft drills. I'm sure we could lose a few more too. Think of the savings there! We really could start training for mediocrity properly then 
How about his way around it? New pilots are posted in for a 5 year tour. They are told that at any point in that 5 years they can be selected to move across to the LHS as a Captain (and start claiming the hours towards their ATPL, which seems to be the only driving force these days....). Selection for Captain is based on ability and effort.
As it stands at present copilots can just cruise along for 2.5 years doing the bare minimum once a year to get a good annual cat ride. The rest of the time they have no real incentive to work hard or "improve" themselves. If, however, they knew that they could get across to the LHS in, say, a year or even 6 months if they put the effort in then suddenly things change. If they're in competition against their mates for captaincy places every 6 months say (like "competition" for the Tac Cse) then there is suddenly massive incentive for them to put the effort in. Such a system would also allow for experienced operators from other types to quickly transition to the LHS once they had a few months experience of AT ops. There would be no reason why those displaying the potential for the LHS could not start doing the odd sim from the LHS to get a feel for it prior to actually moving across proper.
LHS training could be done in a couple of dedicated sims on Sqn. No captaincy training mind, as this (or the potential for this) would need to be demonstrated for selection to the LHS. Purely a couple of handling Sims, a local training sortie, a training route and then a check. At least by this stage you know that your "stude" in the LHS has enough time on type to have a feel for the aircraft and has already demonstrated his abilities as a copilot.
There are probably holes in the above idea but I suspect they are only big enough to fit a butty box through, unlike the 12 ship you could fly through the holes in the plan being suggested from on high....
Yes, we know it's easy to taxy on assy power and starting the engines isn't exactly rocket science, especially on ours. I would suggest 16B though that your comments on use of NWS and rudder etc come from a few years of experience and having a feel for the aircraft? I agree, it is not hard. With experience. I just do not see that can be any benefit gained from training abo copilots to operate the aircraft from the LHS when they have so little experience of operating a large cargo/pax aircraft. Whilst I would be the last person in the world to "big up" (good lord...) the Herc as a difficult aircraft to fly I just see no merit in a such a policy. It's just money saving rubbish. In the same vein why do we bother fitting 4 serviceable engines to the aircraft? We know it'll fly on 2 so think of the savings?!?!?!
I'm not in the business of rubbishing copilots and think that the standard of folk we have today is somewhat better than the window-lickers of yesteryear. If we have to save money (always from our core business though - aircrew training - probably to fund another wing of Abbey Wood....
) then can we not look at it rationally rather than the current "oh it'll be ok"? Counter arguments such as "when did we last ever land on 2 in anger?" hold no water: if that's the line of attack then lets bin the BTR along with ditching drills and wet liferaft drills. I'm sure we could lose a few more too. Think of the savings there! We really could start training for mediocrity properly then How about his way around it? New pilots are posted in for a 5 year tour. They are told that at any point in that 5 years they can be selected to move across to the LHS as a Captain (and start claiming the hours towards their ATPL, which seems to be the only driving force these days....). Selection for Captain is based on ability and effort.
As it stands at present copilots can just cruise along for 2.5 years doing the bare minimum once a year to get a good annual cat ride. The rest of the time they have no real incentive to work hard or "improve" themselves. If, however, they knew that they could get across to the LHS in, say, a year or even 6 months if they put the effort in then suddenly things change. If they're in competition against their mates for captaincy places every 6 months say (like "competition" for the Tac Cse) then there is suddenly massive incentive for them to put the effort in. Such a system would also allow for experienced operators from other types to quickly transition to the LHS once they had a few months experience of AT ops. There would be no reason why those displaying the potential for the LHS could not start doing the odd sim from the LHS to get a feel for it prior to actually moving across proper.
LHS training could be done in a couple of dedicated sims on Sqn. No captaincy training mind, as this (or the potential for this) would need to be demonstrated for selection to the LHS. Purely a couple of handling Sims, a local training sortie, a training route and then a check. At least by this stage you know that your "stude" in the LHS has enough time on type to have a feel for the aircraft and has already demonstrated his abilities as a copilot.
There are probably holes in the above idea but I suspect they are only big enough to fit a butty box through, unlike the 12 ship you could fly through the holes in the plan being suggested from on high....
Shack beat me to the punch re LHS or RHS. As both a Shackleton Co-pilot and Captain I was expected to fly the aircraft from either seat (but usually from the LHS - and how I remember the 2 hour change over routine, jumping from one seat into the other!). That also meant that we were expected to be able fly and if necessary fight the aircraft on any task or operation, Capt or Co, no matter the height or weather conditions. Bombing (practice depth charge runs) was normally done at 100ft from the LHS, and god help you from the wrath of the rest of the crew if you failed to get '50-50 Zero line' on cat checks and the rest. Assymetric really did mean something on the old lady, but if it was 'the co's turn' for landing he would be expected to deal with it.
Bouy 15 - Interesting, it was C8 on MOTU when we first went off as Captain (the same point as Nimrod OCU L8 presumably) and all pilots qualified from MOTU as 1st pilot!
However, surely there is one thing missing from this thread. This a military environment, which in turn leads to a threat that your average A320 driver will not have to expect. We operate into potentially hazardous places. It only takes one man with an AK47 - or even an old musket with a lucky shot - to potentially disable the person in the LHS. If you fly an aircraft where it is essential (as many contributors seem to hint) that the aircraft is landed from the LHS then both should be capable of doing it - and if necessary being able to change seats in the air. War (and even peace these days) is messy, and that is our job in the military - not building up hours for ATPLs ( but it does help).
Bouy 15 - Interesting, it was C8 on MOTU when we first went off as Captain (the same point as Nimrod OCU L8 presumably) and all pilots qualified from MOTU as 1st pilot!
However, surely there is one thing missing from this thread. This a military environment, which in turn leads to a threat that your average A320 driver will not have to expect. We operate into potentially hazardous places. It only takes one man with an AK47 - or even an old musket with a lucky shot - to potentially disable the person in the LHS. If you fly an aircraft where it is essential (as many contributors seem to hint) that the aircraft is landed from the LHS then both should be capable of doing it - and if necessary being able to change seats in the air. War (and even peace these days) is messy, and that is our job in the military - not building up hours for ATPLs ( but it does help).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting if someone could post the so called logic behind this crazy scheme, it does not point to an obvious cash saving.
Shak, I'll not trade ticks with you though I would probably win, but I must defend Beags if only on his command of the English language, he is too damn clever by far. I also do agree with him on this however in relation to the AT/Tanker fleet. We had the privilege of wellcoming ex Kipper fleet pilots to BZ and while some were excellent value, not all could get out of the RHS and all benefitted from a time in that seat.
It may be non PC to say so but many years of flying and checking co-pilots have convinced me that the ones who winge most about being a co-pilot are often those who have an over optimistic opinion of their ability, the good guys get on with it and use the opportunity to learn as much as they can, both the good and the bad, from the LHS occupant.
PS, I know what you mean about AEO's, they are good at eating though.
Shak, I'll not trade ticks with you though I would probably win, but I must defend Beags if only on his command of the English language, he is too damn clever by far. I also do agree with him on this however in relation to the AT/Tanker fleet. We had the privilege of wellcoming ex Kipper fleet pilots to BZ and while some were excellent value, not all could get out of the RHS and all benefitted from a time in that seat.
It may be non PC to say so but many years of flying and checking co-pilots have convinced me that the ones who winge most about being a co-pilot are often those who have an over optimistic opinion of their ability, the good guys get on with it and use the opportunity to learn as much as they can, both the good and the bad, from the LHS occupant.
PS, I know what you mean about AEO's, they are good at eating though.
Last edited by Art Field; 20th Feb 2005 at 14:39.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with 16 Blades in as much as Herc Co-pilots are often treated as U/T Pilots, and have been for years, rather than U/T Captains. All Co-pilots are potential Captains and some Captains should do more to bring them on.
I disagree that Co-pilots need to fly in LHS. Where is the advantage. Training as Captains, in all aspects of captaincy, can be done when they are in the RHS.
Spanish Air Force had an interesting training method seen during GW1 - 1 Captain, 2 Co-pilots, no Nav. Each day they moved round one seat so on day 2, 2 Co-pilot in front, Captain at Nav station.
Canadian Air Force used to have a policy of junior and senior Co-pilots. On becoming a senior, short course then allowed to fly LHS with some restrictions, may also have been allowed MCT with two Co-pilots but memory is faiding.
The disadvantage, and the only one I can see, in Co-pilots flying LHS is during an abort. They can be trained in the sim to a competent standard but the responsibility for the aircraft lies with the Captain. He, as a training captain, has the right to brief that he will take control during an abort from the RHS. Been there, done it!!!!!! By the time you realise that it is time to take control it can get very very hairy.
I disagree that Co-pilots need to fly in LHS. Where is the advantage. Training as Captains, in all aspects of captaincy, can be done when they are in the RHS.
Spanish Air Force had an interesting training method seen during GW1 - 1 Captain, 2 Co-pilots, no Nav. Each day they moved round one seat so on day 2, 2 Co-pilot in front, Captain at Nav station.
Canadian Air Force used to have a policy of junior and senior Co-pilots. On becoming a senior, short course then allowed to fly LHS with some restrictions, may also have been allowed MCT with two Co-pilots but memory is faiding.
The disadvantage, and the only one I can see, in Co-pilots flying LHS is during an abort. They can be trained in the sim to a competent standard but the responsibility for the aircraft lies with the Captain. He, as a training captain, has the right to brief that he will take control during an abort from the RHS. Been there, done it!!!!!! By the time you realise that it is time to take control it can get very very hairy.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Counter arguments such as "when did we last ever land on 2 in anger?" hold no water: if that's the line of attack then lets bin the BTR along with ditching drills and wet liferaft drills.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopTrump, right up until HUPRA was used in anger. Made a ‘999 Special’ telly prog about it too. Anyway, back to topic.
NWS is required on the 'J' if assymetric, even after V1 (don't ask me how it got certified, but it did) never mind the x-wind landing stuff. Giving control of such an aircraft to someone with only 180hrsTT when the Captain can’t override them is not a sensible move!
Co's, RHS 'til experienced enough - however long or short a time that may take - LHS after that no problem. No reason, not even for cost saving, to make it earlier.
It's not co-pilot bashing. It's keeping the aircraft as safe as practical.
NWS is required on the 'J' if assymetric, even after V1 (don't ask me how it got certified, but it did) never mind the x-wind landing stuff. Giving control of such an aircraft to someone with only 180hrsTT when the Captain can’t override them is not a sensible move!
Co's, RHS 'til experienced enough - however long or short a time that may take - LHS after that no problem. No reason, not even for cost saving, to make it earlier.
It's not co-pilot bashing. It's keeping the aircraft as safe as practical.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: here to Eternity...
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here's what I believe is the sketch. It's been suggested that all co's become qualified in RH and LHS from the OCU. They seat swap during their tour and come up to captaincy needing only a short convex due their expertise. Theoretical advantages:
1. Gives co's credit for being capable pilots (contentious, possibly!) and enhances their credibility and confidence.
2. Double-co OCUs need run only half as frequently to meet co IPS figures. No stude capt, because they're on the short course. Half the OCUs = half the costs (simplistic, I know).
3. Less time in training world (possible disadvantage in today's micro fg hours climate - for some fleets) = more time in operational environment = better professional/career potential.
So, take aim. In your own time - carry on. Any CAA wallers know if 'capt in LHS only' could become air law in the future?
Z
1. Gives co's credit for being capable pilots (contentious, possibly!) and enhances their credibility and confidence.
2. Double-co OCUs need run only half as frequently to meet co IPS figures. No stude capt, because they're on the short course. Half the OCUs = half the costs (simplistic, I know).
3. Less time in training world (possible disadvantage in today's micro fg hours climate - for some fleets) = more time in operational environment = better professional/career potential.
So, take aim. In your own time - carry on. Any CAA wallers know if 'capt in LHS only' could become air law in the future?
Z
"OK, here's what I believe is the sketch. It's been suggested that all co's become qualified in RH and LHS from the OCU. They seat swap during their tour and come up to captaincy needing only a short convex due their expertise. Theoretical advantages:
1. Gives co's credit for being capable pilots (contentious, possibly!) and enhances their credibility and confidence.
Why do they need to swap seats to achieve that objective? That can be achieved from the RHS quite easily. As any airline can prove....
2. Double-co OCUs need run only half as frequently to meet co IPS figures. No stude capt, because they're on the short course. Half the OCUs = half the costs (simplistic, I know).
Implies that people are being rushed through to meet some pointless training target rather than to meet fleet manning requirements. Hence it's bolleaux!
3. Less time in training world (possible disadvantage in today's micro fg hours climate - for some fleets) = more time in operational environment = better professional/career potential.
If they are still alive to enjoy a career at the end of such a foolish experiment! When they are being so cruelly short-changed by missing out the BFTS stage of their training, the last thing such woefully inexperienced pilots need is even less training 'within the disciplined environment of a formal training organisation'. A phrase, it should be noted, used by an AOC after previous inadequate C-130 osmotic training practices led directly to a fatal accident....
So, take aim. In your own time - carry on. Any CAA wallers know if 'capt in LHS only' could become air law in the future?"
It is already the law in Germany that, with the exception of Flight Instructors, all PIC flying shall be flown from the certificated Commander's seat. Ipso facto, that means the LHS in a multi-pilot aeroplane. However, whether that would apply to military flying is unlikely.
As I asked before, who on earth is driving this daft idea?
1. Gives co's credit for being capable pilots (contentious, possibly!) and enhances their credibility and confidence.
Why do they need to swap seats to achieve that objective? That can be achieved from the RHS quite easily. As any airline can prove....
2. Double-co OCUs need run only half as frequently to meet co IPS figures. No stude capt, because they're on the short course. Half the OCUs = half the costs (simplistic, I know).
Implies that people are being rushed through to meet some pointless training target rather than to meet fleet manning requirements. Hence it's bolleaux!
3. Less time in training world (possible disadvantage in today's micro fg hours climate - for some fleets) = more time in operational environment = better professional/career potential.
If they are still alive to enjoy a career at the end of such a foolish experiment! When they are being so cruelly short-changed by missing out the BFTS stage of their training, the last thing such woefully inexperienced pilots need is even less training 'within the disciplined environment of a formal training organisation'. A phrase, it should be noted, used by an AOC after previous inadequate C-130 osmotic training practices led directly to a fatal accident....
So, take aim. In your own time - carry on. Any CAA wallers know if 'capt in LHS only' could become air law in the future?"
It is already the law in Germany that, with the exception of Flight Instructors, all PIC flying shall be flown from the certificated Commander's seat. Ipso facto, that means the LHS in a multi-pilot aeroplane. However, whether that would apply to military flying is unlikely.
As I asked before, who on earth is driving this daft idea?
Last edited by BEagle; 21st Feb 2005 at 21:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeibart, thanks for that. I agree with all that Beags says. In addition the concept that " more time in operational environment" is a substitute for formal training is one that any OCU instructor will view with horror if, like me, they have had to frequently detrain co's/ut captains from techniques put forward by self qualified, unappointed "experts".
Beags
Are you being deliberately provocative or did you actually spend too long in 2/38 Gp?
As the E3 and Nimrod fleets have proven over many years what you say here is utter:
There was an earlier post regarding the RHS Capt not being able to see the Eng's panel (sorry can't find it quickly to quote). More bolleaux, try it in the cramped confines of the Mighty Bunter. If it can be done there, it can be done in the spacious luxury of the 10 or TriMotor!
There are significant benefits to cross training, not least for career progression (for those that want it). Look around that station somewhere near you in Oxon and you will see a plethora of Nav bosses and flt cdrs. Even OC Ops and the Staish are Navs. Why? Because 2 Gp is still hide bound by the "co-pilots aren't fit for promotion" mentality. That disadvantages co pilots wrt navs, hence fewer pilots getting promoted (if they want it) and therefore a tendency to leave at 38 to the airlines. Then you get 2 Gp as a self perpetuating Nav empire. Take a look at the Gp HQ and play "spot the pilot".
Tonks the reason the airlines don't do it is because of money (but then this idea is apprently be promoted as a cost saving measure!! Counter intuitive?) How about the reason the airlines don't do it is because the average first officer is less well trained than the average co-pilot? (Provocative I know and I am NOT trying to be disrespectful of airline first officers). But military training (short though it now is) concentrates on building airmanship and captaincy and trains all to a first pilot standard (look at the Jetstream/King Air course. It is well removed from what we did). 2 Gp are the ones stuck in the past. No-one has yet come up with a good reason for not training both pilots in both seats (other than perhaps the double asymmetric max cross wind case for the C130)! None for the jet fleets.
Are you being deliberately provocative or did you actually spend too long in 2/38 Gp?
If they are still alive to enjoy a career at the end of such a foolish experiment!
bolleaux!
There are significant benefits to cross training, not least for career progression (for those that want it). Look around that station somewhere near you in Oxon and you will see a plethora of Nav bosses and flt cdrs. Even OC Ops and the Staish are Navs. Why? Because 2 Gp is still hide bound by the "co-pilots aren't fit for promotion" mentality. That disadvantages co pilots wrt navs, hence fewer pilots getting promoted (if they want it) and therefore a tendency to leave at 38 to the airlines. Then you get 2 Gp as a self perpetuating Nav empire. Take a look at the Gp HQ and play "spot the pilot".
Tonks the reason the airlines don't do it is because of money (but then this idea is apprently be promoted as a cost saving measure!! Counter intuitive?) How about the reason the airlines don't do it is because the average first officer is less well trained than the average co-pilot? (Provocative I know and I am NOT trying to be disrespectful of airline first officers). But military training (short though it now is) concentrates on building airmanship and captaincy and trains all to a first pilot standard (look at the Jetstream/King Air course. It is well removed from what we did). 2 Gp are the ones stuck in the past. No-one has yet come up with a good reason for not training both pilots in both seats (other than perhaps the double asymmetric max cross wind case for the C130)! None for the jet fleets.
Roly old chum, this was always a favourite topic of yours when we knew each other in a previous existence. The wise heads (and I don't mean me) told you then that it was bolleaux and it still is. As even some of your ex-Nimrod colleagues have also stated.
If you look at the Accident Report following the Hercules which was lost in Scotland, you will find some strong views from the AOC of the time about 'on the job osmotic training' - the sort of thing which ArtField and I rail about. "Let's spread the training to the squadrons so that some Golden Child can get a career-enhancing instructional tick" seems to be a popular, and highly dangerous trend. Proper, independently commanded training organisations with a formal, disciplined framework is the ONLY safe way of doing things - not training conducted by on-squadron self-appointed, unqualified 'experts' who happen to be the boss's blue-eyed boys...
On the Vickers FunBus, we didn't train co-pilots, we trained First pilots. That they sat in the RHS is of utterly no consequence - the good ones did well and many have since been promoted.
The reason that most of the squirearchy at the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome is of a single-winged flavour is that their pilot peers have mostly legged it to the airlines due to dissatisfaction with the way things have gone. Whereas navigators have nosuch option - without it costing them £40K-ish to re-train.
If you look at the Accident Report following the Hercules which was lost in Scotland, you will find some strong views from the AOC of the time about 'on the job osmotic training' - the sort of thing which ArtField and I rail about. "Let's spread the training to the squadrons so that some Golden Child can get a career-enhancing instructional tick" seems to be a popular, and highly dangerous trend. Proper, independently commanded training organisations with a formal, disciplined framework is the ONLY safe way of doing things - not training conducted by on-squadron self-appointed, unqualified 'experts' who happen to be the boss's blue-eyed boys...
On the Vickers FunBus, we didn't train co-pilots, we trained First pilots. That they sat in the RHS is of utterly no consequence - the good ones did well and many have since been promoted.
The reason that most of the squirearchy at the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome is of a single-winged flavour is that their pilot peers have mostly legged it to the airlines due to dissatisfaction with the way things have gone. Whereas navigators have nosuch option - without it costing them £40K-ish to re-train.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets try and get away from this 'Captain must sit in THIS seat' mentality. Captaincy has liitle to do with handling skills - sad to say it, but there are copliots who would run rings around most captains in this respect.
The only thing keeping co's out of the LHS right now is the prejudice and 'seat protectionism' of the old school brigade.
What arguments have been advanced against this idea? lets see:
The 'Captain must have overriding control' argument is nonesense. Half of all Nimrod sorties are captained by Navs or AEOs, who have NO physical control of the aircraft. Whatever your views on non-pilot captains, there aren't large, Nimrod-shaped smoking holes populating the Scottish countryside, so it cant be the huge danger that BEags et al suggest.
16B
The only thing keeping co's out of the LHS right now is the prejudice and 'seat protectionism' of the old school brigade.
What arguments have been advanced against this idea? lets see:
Giving control of such an aircraft to someone with only 180hrsTT when the Captain can’t override them is not a sensible move!
16B
Beags
Never said anything about OTJT (and I would still contend that there was a lot of bolleaux spoken about just why it cannot be done, particularly in our old role). I quite agree that OTJT is not a good idea (just as I think FIs were unnecessary when there is a perfectly good 'Q' course out there).
Nobody is asking for OTJT here, or have I missed something? The more enlightened OCUs train(ed) properly so that all pilots coming from the OCU were trained and capable of operating in both seats. That meant that there was no unnecessary (and expensive) LHS conversion course. I still contend that this produces a more capable pilot and ultimately experienced pilot.
You cannot say that just because it has always been done this way one view point is right and the other wrong, any more than I have right to do so!! There is still no serious explanation as to why it would not work on the 10, or the C17, or theTri*, or Sentinel when it comes in!!
Never said anything about OTJT (and I would still contend that there was a lot of bolleaux spoken about just why it cannot be done, particularly in our old role). I quite agree that OTJT is not a good idea (just as I think FIs were unnecessary when there is a perfectly good 'Q' course out there).
Nobody is asking for OTJT here, or have I missed something? The more enlightened OCUs train(ed) properly so that all pilots coming from the OCU were trained and capable of operating in both seats. That meant that there was no unnecessary (and expensive) LHS conversion course. I still contend that this produces a more capable pilot and ultimately experienced pilot.
You cannot say that just because it has always been done this way one view point is right and the other wrong, any more than I have right to do so!! There is still no serious explanation as to why it would not work on the 10, or the C17, or theTri*, or Sentinel when it comes in!!
Beags
Never said anything about OTJT (and I would still contend that there was a lot of bolleaux spoken about just why it cannot be done, particularly in our old role). I quite agree that OTJT is not a good idea (just as I think FIs were unnecessary when there is a perfectly good 'Q' course out there).
Nobody is asking for OTJT here, or have I missed something? The more enlightened OCUs train(ed) properly so that all pilots coming from the OCU were trained and capable of operating in both seats. That meant that there was no unnecessary (and expensive) LHS conversion course. I still contend that this produces a more capable pilot and ultimately experienced pilot.
You cannot say that just because it has always been done this way one view point is right and the other wrong, any more than I have right to do so!! There is still no serious explanation as to why it would not work on the 10, or the C17, or theTri*, or Sentinel when it comes in!!
Never said anything about OTJT (and I would still contend that there was a lot of bolleaux spoken about just why it cannot be done, particularly in our old role). I quite agree that OTJT is not a good idea (just as I think FIs were unnecessary when there is a perfectly good 'Q' course out there).
Nobody is asking for OTJT here, or have I missed something? The more enlightened OCUs train(ed) properly so that all pilots coming from the OCU were trained and capable of operating in both seats. That meant that there was no unnecessary (and expensive) LHS conversion course. I still contend that this produces a more capable pilot and ultimately experienced pilot.
You cannot say that just because it has always been done this way one view point is right and the other wrong, any more than I have right to do so!! There is still no serious explanation as to why it would not work on the 10, or the C17, or theTri*, or Sentinel when it comes in!!
"....there aren't large, Nimrod-shaped smoking holes populating the Scottish countryside, so it cant be the huge danger that BEags et al suggest."
But is that by (non) accident or by design?
And an ex-Nimrod chum of mine, now with ba, told me of the time when, after they went around for the second time at 200 ft at Kinloss, the navigator 'Captain' suggested that they went a bit lower on the next approach. The 1st Pilot got out of his seat, went down into the back of the thing and said to the idiot "OK - all yours then!".... Needless to say, they diverted. The press-on-itis I witnessed an AEO 'Captain' trying to inflict on 'his' crew at ASI was also something which no sensible pilot captain would ever try. The sort of "We're hairy and operational and don't need your soft truckie fatigue rules" nonsense which does cause accidents!
I will agree with Roly on only one point - the 'non-Q'FI. Totally unnecessary.
The OTJT comments came up through the idiotic idea that by being allowed to sit in the LHS, Herc co-pilots would somehow magically 'learn' captaincy through osmosis in operational environments and thus need a shorter co-capt course.
One other point, yet to be discussed, is that if it was decided that all VC10 co-pilots, for example, should henceforth be trained to operate from either seats, then what about all the exisiting pilots? Should they also be re-trained? Just who would foot the bill for that? How would it be a cost saving measure?
When I did my co-capt course, I was told by the QFI at the time that under no circumstances should 'new' captains be allowed back into the RHS until they had at least 6 months under the belt getting used to the new environment. And that was for experienced pilots - not some barely trained current generation Teutor/King Air graduate.
Don't fix what isn't broken! It doesn't affect me directly now in any case as, like the wise Art Field, I'm no longer in the mob - except that I would hate to be the one to say "I told you so!" at some future date.
But is that by (non) accident or by design?
And an ex-Nimrod chum of mine, now with ba, told me of the time when, after they went around for the second time at 200 ft at Kinloss, the navigator 'Captain' suggested that they went a bit lower on the next approach. The 1st Pilot got out of his seat, went down into the back of the thing and said to the idiot "OK - all yours then!".... Needless to say, they diverted. The press-on-itis I witnessed an AEO 'Captain' trying to inflict on 'his' crew at ASI was also something which no sensible pilot captain would ever try. The sort of "We're hairy and operational and don't need your soft truckie fatigue rules" nonsense which does cause accidents!
I will agree with Roly on only one point - the 'non-Q'FI. Totally unnecessary.
The OTJT comments came up through the idiotic idea that by being allowed to sit in the LHS, Herc co-pilots would somehow magically 'learn' captaincy through osmosis in operational environments and thus need a shorter co-capt course.
One other point, yet to be discussed, is that if it was decided that all VC10 co-pilots, for example, should henceforth be trained to operate from either seats, then what about all the exisiting pilots? Should they also be re-trained? Just who would foot the bill for that? How would it be a cost saving measure?
When I did my co-capt course, I was told by the QFI at the time that under no circumstances should 'new' captains be allowed back into the RHS until they had at least 6 months under the belt getting used to the new environment. And that was for experienced pilots - not some barely trained current generation Teutor/King Air graduate.
Don't fix what isn't broken! It doesn't affect me directly now in any case as, like the wise Art Field, I'm no longer in the mob - except that I would hate to be the one to say "I told you so!" at some future date.
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Feb 2005 at 11:47.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why it would not work on the 10, or the C17, or theTri*,
