Left seat only for ME captains?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16B
I think you're confusing aircraft captain and aircraft commander and the different responsibilities given on different fleets.
The Grimrod 'Captain' is not to override the pilot in points of flight safety, in other words he/she isn't the aircraft captain as we're discussing here. Put an AEO or Nav in the front seats and call them captain and then tell us how many holes in the Scottish countryside you can count.
Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably.
I think you're confusing aircraft captain and aircraft commander and the different responsibilities given on different fleets.
The Grimrod 'Captain' is not to override the pilot in points of flight safety, in other words he/she isn't the aircraft captain as we're discussing here. Put an AEO or Nav in the front seats and call them captain and then tell us how many holes in the Scottish countryside you can count.
Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: here to Eternity...
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GW - good call re P1/capt on the hemp horror. Back end capt only has control during mission phase.
In all this there are valid arguments for/against, but 3 Gp ME pilots do it one way and 2 Gp another. There has to be an operational, mission-based reason for this. Is it that (traditionally) 2 Gp ranged the world flying into little-known airfields using TAPs sketched onto pieces of bark, whilst their oppoes in 3 Gp flew ISK-water-ISK or WAD-more ogg splash-WAD? The edges are more blurred these days but, essentially, this mindset must pervade the experienced pilots on both sides, more or less. Do the two Gps have such differing jobs that the training machine defaults to the best option for each, or could one size fit all? I think this is the heart of the question.
In all this there are valid arguments for/against, but 3 Gp ME pilots do it one way and 2 Gp another. There has to be an operational, mission-based reason for this. Is it that (traditionally) 2 Gp ranged the world flying into little-known airfields using TAPs sketched onto pieces of bark, whilst their oppoes in 3 Gp flew ISK-water-ISK or WAD-more ogg splash-WAD? The edges are more blurred these days but, essentially, this mindset must pervade the experienced pilots on both sides, more or less. Do the two Gps have such differing jobs that the training machine defaults to the best option for each, or could one size fit all? I think this is the heart of the question.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is why does there need to be a one size fits all? Different a/c are operated in different ways! I don’t believe anyone would endorse a policy that everyone has to complete a common OCU syllabus regardless of type, so why this? If the proposal is to avoid the need for a full OCU for Co to Captain conversion like the letter from Gp says then we (as do the K and I’m sure other types also) already have a course for this. The ‘dual-seat qualified’ package will be the same length and cost no matter when it’s taught. Giving brand new low-houred ab-initio pilots total control of a large aircraft is unnecessary practically - and it isn't the safest way to operate all our aircraft.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags, read my post again, CAREFULLY. Then read it again, since I have posted the same point at least twice and it hasn't sunk in.
For the hard of thinking / reading, I will put it in big crayon and simple terms:
WHY DOES "BLOKE IN LHS=CAPTAIN"?
My point about the Nimrod was about seating positons, not captaincy. I am not suggesting that a low-houred copilot can assume 'command' of the aircraft as captain. My point is that a copilot, who is a trainied and qualified pilot entitled to wear RAF wings, and has been trained throughout as pilot-in-command, is perfectly capable of operating a NWS system and taxying an aircraft. He is not, without alot more experience, capable of COMMANDING a large, multi-crew aircraft - nor am I suggesting that he does. If a Grimrod captain can sit in the back, a Herc captain can sit in the LHS. That was my point. Clear yet???
GW,
I think YOU are confusing the term 'Captain' with the term '1st Pilot'. If a copilot can fly as P1, he can do it from the LHS, with the captain in the RHS. The K is easier to fly from the LHS anyway.
A captain at the end of an OCU cse has exactly the same experience of operating the NWS as a copilot would, were he trained to do so on the course. The excuse that 'a co is not experienced enough to do it' doesn't wash. If they are not trained to fly LHS, they WONT be experienced enough. This is hardly a logical excuse for not training copilots in the LHS, is it? Think about what you are saying. "We are not going to train this zero-hour, ab-initio JEFTS student, because he doesn't have enough hours flying aeroplanes". Logical??
I personally think that all P1 legs should be flown from the LHS. I would be quite happy to occupy the RHS and allow a copilot to fly from LHS, IF THEY HAD BEEN TRAINED AND CERTIFIED TO DO SO BY THE OCU. Putting someone in the LHS does not automatically make them the captain, something which many here are finding difficult to grasp.
Multiply that figure by 10, then add a fair bit more, and you'll be getting closer...
16B
For the hard of thinking / reading, I will put it in big crayon and simple terms:
WHY DOES "BLOKE IN LHS=CAPTAIN"?
My point about the Nimrod was about seating positons, not captaincy. I am not suggesting that a low-houred copilot can assume 'command' of the aircraft as captain. My point is that a copilot, who is a trainied and qualified pilot entitled to wear RAF wings, and has been trained throughout as pilot-in-command, is perfectly capable of operating a NWS system and taxying an aircraft. He is not, without alot more experience, capable of COMMANDING a large, multi-crew aircraft - nor am I suggesting that he does. If a Grimrod captain can sit in the back, a Herc captain can sit in the LHS. That was my point. Clear yet???
GW,
I think you're confusing aircraft captain and aircraft commander and the different responsibilities given on different fleets.
A captain at the end of an OCU cse has exactly the same experience of operating the NWS as a copilot would, were he trained to do so on the course. The excuse that 'a co is not experienced enough to do it' doesn't wash. If they are not trained to fly LHS, they WONT be experienced enough. This is hardly a logical excuse for not training copilots in the LHS, is it? Think about what you are saying. "We are not going to train this zero-hour, ab-initio JEFTS student, because he doesn't have enough hours flying aeroplanes". Logical??
I personally think that all P1 legs should be flown from the LHS. I would be quite happy to occupy the RHS and allow a copilot to fly from LHS, IF THEY HAD BEEN TRAINED AND CERTIFIED TO DO SO BY THE OCU. Putting someone in the LHS does not automatically make them the captain, something which many here are finding difficult to grasp.
Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably
16B
Last edited by 16 blades; 22nd Feb 2005 at 18:52.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Regaining Track
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something here... (yes I hear you shout!) :
1. Captaincy/Command has nothing to do with what seat you sit in. There are bigger fish to fry in the experience/trg of copilots prior to command, RAF-wide.
2. If you cannot trust your Copilot with the NWS you shouldn't be letting him fly full stop - remember, ultimately he is there to recover the a/c safely single-pilot should something happen to the capt.
1. Captaincy/Command has nothing to do with what seat you sit in. There are bigger fish to fry in the experience/trg of copilots prior to command, RAF-wide.
2. If you cannot trust your Copilot with the NWS you shouldn't be letting him fly full stop - remember, ultimately he is there to recover the a/c safely single-pilot should something happen to the capt.
16blades, I will ignore the irrelevant and unreasonably abusive tone of you prose...
The simple fact is that current day ab initio ME pilots receive the absolute bare minimum of training to be considered at all competent. By the time they hit their OCU, they have about twice the minimum PIC time of a PPL applicant or about 25% of the PIC time which a civil pilot is required to have by law before being permitted even to start a modular CPL course.... Once upon a time, RAF pilots had very significantly more PIC time than CPL applicants. But then came the never-ending cuts in training.
That such poorly-served chaps/chapesses/chapthings should have to assimilate further SOPs, checklist responses and instrument scans appropriate to the LHS/RHS cross-trained state would be yet another unnecessary addition of complexity to their already steep learning curve. Heck, I found it hard enough when I became a sqn IRE 15 years ago.
Don't get me wrong - as Art Field would probably confirm, I am one of the last people to defend historical precedent. But to load up ill-equipped pilots for no clearly identifiable reason would be folly beyond belief in the contemporary era of minimal standards.
Just give me one sound reason why it is essential, not merely desirable, for the cross-training you would advocate to be delivered.....
The simple fact is that current day ab initio ME pilots receive the absolute bare minimum of training to be considered at all competent. By the time they hit their OCU, they have about twice the minimum PIC time of a PPL applicant or about 25% of the PIC time which a civil pilot is required to have by law before being permitted even to start a modular CPL course.... Once upon a time, RAF pilots had very significantly more PIC time than CPL applicants. But then came the never-ending cuts in training.
That such poorly-served chaps/chapesses/chapthings should have to assimilate further SOPs, checklist responses and instrument scans appropriate to the LHS/RHS cross-trained state would be yet another unnecessary addition of complexity to their already steep learning curve. Heck, I found it hard enough when I became a sqn IRE 15 years ago.
Don't get me wrong - as Art Field would probably confirm, I am one of the last people to defend historical precedent. But to load up ill-equipped pilots for no clearly identifiable reason would be folly beyond belief in the contemporary era of minimal standards.
Just give me one sound reason why it is essential, not merely desirable, for the cross-training you would advocate to be delivered.....
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Feb 2005 at 20:07.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, they did not come any more revolting than Beagle. But to the point and a reinforcement of the question, why?. As Zeibart points out there is literally a world of difference between a home base, home base sortie and a world wide route trip. Even if the quality of training really is better now than in the past and I do not sense that it is, then jumping seats at an early stage of training can only add strain to the students need to feel "comfortable" in the aircraft and thus more ready to do that for which he is there , to assist the captain in the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. If that aim was better achieved by training co's in both seats then so be it but nobody has convinced me yet.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiply that figure by 10, then add a fair bit more, and you'll be getting closer...
16B
Yes, of course you're experienced. I must just be mistaking that experience for dribble.
In normal non-crayon speak, the Captain sits in the LHS because the Captain is the person with overall responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of the aeroplane. Sitting in the RHS he/she cannot always be in control therefore cannot always exercise this duty.
A fairly basic premise. Concentrate and you'll get it, I'm sure.
Get more than your 180hrs and then talk a little more knowledgably
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiply that figure by 10, then add a fair bit more, and you'll be getting closer...
16B
Yes, of course you're experienced. I must just be mistaking that experience for dribble.
In normal non-crayon speak, the Captain sits in the LHS because the Captain is the person with overall responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of the aeroplane. Sitting in the RHS he/she cannot always be in control therefore cannot always exercise this duty.
A fairly basic premise. Concentrate and you'll get it, I'm sure.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who makes tea and coffee and fully accepts the "no stick no vote school of thought" I am slowly coming round to the concept that the NWS is a bit of a red herring. If properly trained, and our J sims afford that then I am sure either guy could happily operate from both seats as either PF or PNF.
My only question is to why we need to do this. If it is to enhance the capability of this two man flight deck aircraft for genuine reasons then I am all for it but if, as i suspect, it's just a cost cutting excercise to get some tw@t promoted then I am looking to my lords and masters to keep my pink and fluffy exterior in one piece
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
My only question is to why we need to do this. If it is to enhance the capability of this two man flight deck aircraft for genuine reasons then I am all for it but if, as i suspect, it's just a cost cutting excercise to get some tw@t promoted then I am looking to my lords and masters to keep my pink and fluffy exterior in one piece
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Beags
"They" couldn't come up with a convincing argument then either, and I see nothing has changed!!
Trumpet Trousers
Sorry C17 entered service after I left the secret Oxonian Air Base, so I wasn't sure whether C17 crews were cross qualified, so erred on the side of caution. Still that adds another one to list of those who can do it!!
Beags
Still works on the Grimrod, E3 and C17, so it must be possible. Then again maybe those fleets get the cream of the 45 (R) output!!
Guy
Unless of course you fly the Grimrod where the Captain (or P1) can be in the RHS and still be Captain.
The wise heads (and I don't mean me) told you then that it was bolleaux and it still is.
Trumpet Trousers
Sorry C17 entered service after I left the secret Oxonian Air Base, so I wasn't sure whether C17 crews were cross qualified, so erred on the side of caution. Still that adds another one to list of those who can do it!!
Beags
That such poorly-served chaps/chapesses/chapthings should have to assimilate further SOPs, checklist responses and instrument scans appropriate to the LHS/RHS cross-trained state would be yet another unnecessary addition of complexity to their already steep learning curve.
Guy
In normal non-crayon speak, the Captain sits in the LHS because the Captain is the person with overall responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of the aeroplane. Sitting in the RHS he/she cannot always be in control therefore cannot always exercise this duty.
Roly,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They" couldn't come up with a convincing argument then either, and I see nothing has changed!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither could you come up with a convincing reason in favour of cross-seat training! Then or now, 'twould seem.
As I said previously, why try to fix something which isn't broken?
Having fun in the snow up there? I cx'd today based on the lies of the weather-guesser; as a rsult there hasn't been a single flake down here.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They" couldn't come up with a convincing argument then either, and I see nothing has changed!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither could you come up with a convincing reason in favour of cross-seat training! Then or now, 'twould seem.
As I said previously, why try to fix something which isn't broken?
Having fun in the snow up there? I cx'd today based on the lies of the weather-guesser; as a rsult there hasn't been a single flake down here.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP,
What works on one aircraft type may not work so well on another. The handling charachteristics of the 'J' with an engine out are pretty different to the Grimrod I would imagine!
Unless of course you fly the Grimrod where the Captain (or P1) can be in the RHS and still be Captain.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GW
Not strictly true
I flew on a sortie with a Sqn Boss who was an AEO
The P1 captain was about to be ratified after the 3 month probation as non-self authorising
The crew bonged a territorial at low level in poor weather and the Navs scrambled to give the flight deck turn away instructions.
The Boss came on intercom and simply said " P1, I'm changing your authorisation - you are to return immediately to ISK"
Stunned silence or what? - I'd never experienced this before
However, this boy obviously knew the rules, it happened, was talked about a lot - never questioned by the Staish or Gp - and then just faded away.
Loved many, Trusted a few, Told my Navs to stay out the pooh!
Not strictly true
I flew on a sortie with a Sqn Boss who was an AEO
The P1 captain was about to be ratified after the 3 month probation as non-self authorising
The crew bonged a territorial at low level in poor weather and the Navs scrambled to give the flight deck turn away instructions.
The Boss came on intercom and simply said " P1, I'm changing your authorisation - you are to return immediately to ISK"
Stunned silence or what? - I'd never experienced this before
However, this boy obviously knew the rules, it happened, was talked about a lot - never questioned by the Staish or Gp - and then just faded away.
Loved many, Trusted a few, Told my Navs to stay out the pooh!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GW
You said that back-end captains, et al, had no influence on things concerning Flight Safety! Like it's a pilot thing only! Bolleaux!
The Capt, (P1), was not controlling the ac due to lack of spacial awareness - he should have known where he was
All the information was available - GPS - CTS steer - Tacan - ATC -VOR - Nav plot - ect etc, - nothing to do with handling or flying ability.
You said that back-end captains, et al, had no influence on things concerning Flight Safety! Like it's a pilot thing only! Bolleaux!
The Capt, (P1), was not controlling the ac due to lack of spacial awareness - he should have known where he was
All the information was available - GPS - CTS steer - Tacan - ATC -VOR - Nav plot - ect etc, - nothing to do with handling or flying ability.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B15
I get what you mean now. I didn't intend it to be taken that the chap in the back had no influence on flight safety. All crew members have that. The issue I have isn't about about who decides what the aircraft should be doing and where it should be going in order to keep it safe, it's about how it's handled in order to do that ie hands on the controls.
My point is that if the brand new pilot gets his x-wind landing/whatever wrong the only way for the experienced pilot to avoid an incident is by having access to the relevant controls. By putting the inexperienced pilot in the LHS on the 'J' this ability is removed and no-one else can have an input.
I get what you mean now. I didn't intend it to be taken that the chap in the back had no influence on flight safety. All crew members have that. The issue I have isn't about about who decides what the aircraft should be doing and where it should be going in order to keep it safe, it's about how it's handled in order to do that ie hands on the controls.
My point is that if the brand new pilot gets his x-wind landing/whatever wrong the only way for the experienced pilot to avoid an incident is by having access to the relevant controls. By putting the inexperienced pilot in the LHS on the 'J' this ability is removed and no-one else can have an input.
GW
Sorry, I may have missed it earlier in the debate, but what are the "relevant controls in the LHS"? If it is nose wheel steering then the situation is the same in the Nimrod (although I do accept that the asymmetric problem is different). If it is NWS when/at what speed do you transfer from flying contrls to NWS? Is the asymmetric effect such that a RHS captain could not fly the approach and then handover to the LHS co once the ac was safely under control on the runway? VMCG and VMCA allowed this situatiuon on the Nimrod.
All questions asked from a position of interest and lack of knowledge (about the J)!
Sorry, I may have missed it earlier in the debate, but what are the "relevant controls in the LHS"? If it is nose wheel steering then the situation is the same in the Nimrod (although I do accept that the asymmetric problem is different). If it is NWS when/at what speed do you transfer from flying contrls to NWS? Is the asymmetric effect such that a RHS captain could not fly the approach and then handover to the LHS co once the ac was safely under control on the runway? VMCG and VMCA allowed this situatiuon on the Nimrod.
All questions asked from a position of interest and lack of knowledge (about the J)!
RP
The aircraft is fully controllable from either seat whilst airborne as the only control not available to both seats is the NWS. Unfortunately, it is a very important one! To give an idea, NWS input is required to maintain directional control whilst still on the runway if an outboard engine fails after V1. In the event of an aborted take-off due outboard engine failure the SOP is to use maximum braking regardless of runway length in order to maximise the effectiveness of NWS to maintain directional control. However, these considerations don't really concern me as training can teach anyone to cope with them.
What does worry me is that it's use is also important if landing in a x-wind, especially if assymetric with the wind from the 'wrong' side. In practise I have had to use NWS following a landing by inexperienced pilots in moderate x-winds with all 4 engines working. Chances are the aircraft could have been controlled in this case using aerodynamic controls alone, but the PF scared himself as well as me and I have to ask - why take this option away? What if we had been assymetric?
There are good arguments not to give overriding control to an inexperienced guy, continuing the proven track record of 35years. I've still to hear a good reason why we should change for something which adds risk.
The aircraft is fully controllable from either seat whilst airborne as the only control not available to both seats is the NWS. Unfortunately, it is a very important one! To give an idea, NWS input is required to maintain directional control whilst still on the runway if an outboard engine fails after V1. In the event of an aborted take-off due outboard engine failure the SOP is to use maximum braking regardless of runway length in order to maximise the effectiveness of NWS to maintain directional control. However, these considerations don't really concern me as training can teach anyone to cope with them.
What does worry me is that it's use is also important if landing in a x-wind, especially if assymetric with the wind from the 'wrong' side. In practise I have had to use NWS following a landing by inexperienced pilots in moderate x-winds with all 4 engines working. Chances are the aircraft could have been controlled in this case using aerodynamic controls alone, but the PF scared himself as well as me and I have to ask - why take this option away? What if we had been assymetric?
There are good arguments not to give overriding control to an inexperienced guy, continuing the proven track record of 35years. I've still to hear a good reason why we should change for something which adds risk.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Regaining Track
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the E3D the rudder is effective down to approx 80 kts.
The NWS would only be needed above this speed in the event of a double assy on T/O (if you don't get the throttles shut very quickly) or just possibly with burst tyre(s).
The capt can therefore land the jet happily from the right and give control to the co in the left prior to 80 kts on the landing roll.
In the event of an abort the abort drill must be conducted from the LHS.
On the OCU Copilots must complete a good 10 (odd) assessed 4hr sims before being put in the LHS of the jet. We then 'trust' them to get it right with the NWS.
The only E3 incidents on the runway have resulted from rejected t/o's above V1 or a failure to reject post-V1 (Elmendorf AFB) - in each case, decisions that were made by Capts on the
US E-3 & NATO fleets (who do have a strict seat policy!!)
We had a discussion in the office on this very subject, incorporating views from ex Maritime, ex Truckie and ex FJ -- the overwhelming consensus was that the dual-seat qualification works well and affords flexibility. Particularly if we need to crew-up two capts together (often the case). As far as we are concerned the seat you sit in is a red-herring.
Incidentally, we try and get RHS AAR quals for our Capts as soon as practiceable to exploit this flexibility.
I accept that it may not suit all fleets and the cultural shift required may produce more pain than makes it worth it, but it has worked for us. The prevailing ethos for us has always been that copilots are captiain u/t - on the OCU you will be expected in the sim phase to flip-flop seats and roles with your stick buddy and act as PIC for half the time. This pays dividends later on allowing the Sqn upgrade training to focus on mission tactics and ops and preparing individuals for command of an 18 man crew. The official 'Capts Cse' is effectively a mini Ground School refresher and assessed sim and fly phase and is thus only approx 1.5 months long. These courses run indepedently of the main OCU courses.
Our system is by no means perfect and we are working hard to provide more effective on-the-sqn development trg to better prepare people for command. We are also suffering with the requirement for our pilots to have a Green rating to be CR (this used to be a condition of captaincy not Copilot CR). We are having to spend more hours of PCT in the air dedicated to copilot procedural IF trg. So, as I said in an earlier post - we have bigger trg 'fishes to fry' than who is allowed to sit in which seat!!!
:-)
The NWS would only be needed above this speed in the event of a double assy on T/O (if you don't get the throttles shut very quickly) or just possibly with burst tyre(s).
The capt can therefore land the jet happily from the right and give control to the co in the left prior to 80 kts on the landing roll.
In the event of an abort the abort drill must be conducted from the LHS.
On the OCU Copilots must complete a good 10 (odd) assessed 4hr sims before being put in the LHS of the jet. We then 'trust' them to get it right with the NWS.
The only E3 incidents on the runway have resulted from rejected t/o's above V1 or a failure to reject post-V1 (Elmendorf AFB) - in each case, decisions that were made by Capts on the
US E-3 & NATO fleets (who do have a strict seat policy!!)
We had a discussion in the office on this very subject, incorporating views from ex Maritime, ex Truckie and ex FJ -- the overwhelming consensus was that the dual-seat qualification works well and affords flexibility. Particularly if we need to crew-up two capts together (often the case). As far as we are concerned the seat you sit in is a red-herring.
Incidentally, we try and get RHS AAR quals for our Capts as soon as practiceable to exploit this flexibility.
I accept that it may not suit all fleets and the cultural shift required may produce more pain than makes it worth it, but it has worked for us. The prevailing ethos for us has always been that copilots are captiain u/t - on the OCU you will be expected in the sim phase to flip-flop seats and roles with your stick buddy and act as PIC for half the time. This pays dividends later on allowing the Sqn upgrade training to focus on mission tactics and ops and preparing individuals for command of an 18 man crew. The official 'Capts Cse' is effectively a mini Ground School refresher and assessed sim and fly phase and is thus only approx 1.5 months long. These courses run indepedently of the main OCU courses.
Our system is by no means perfect and we are working hard to provide more effective on-the-sqn development trg to better prepare people for command. We are also suffering with the requirement for our pilots to have a Green rating to be CR (this used to be a condition of captaincy not Copilot CR). We are having to spend more hours of PCT in the air dedicated to copilot procedural IF trg. So, as I said in an earlier post - we have bigger trg 'fishes to fry' than who is allowed to sit in which seat!!!
:-)