Left seat only for ME captains?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
propulike, well put.
The overriding consideration - operating as safely as practicable - is being overlooked for no apparent reason. There isn't even a cost benefit for seat swapping on the J at OCU level. Our current co to capt convex course is 2 weeks long even though the Co hasn't regularly been operating from the LHS. As for qualifying captains to use the RHS, it's one sim and one check-fly in the local circuit
The overriding consideration - operating as safely as practicable - is being overlooked for no apparent reason. There isn't even a cost benefit for seat swapping on the J at OCU level. Our current co to capt convex course is 2 weeks long even though the Co hasn't regularly been operating from the LHS. As for qualifying captains to use the RHS, it's one sim and one check-fly in the local circuit
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags,
I apologise for my tone. Yes, it was abusive, but this betrays my frustration on this particular issue. We, the AT fleet, have treated (and trained) copilots like idiots for a long, long time. If you treat people like idiots, they will act like idiots. Let's try treating them like what they are - adults, who also happen to be qualified RAF pilots, not students.
Many have asked 'Why are we doing this?', but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should NOT do this. I appreciate the J has problems when asymmetric - since I have no experience of operating the J, I cannot comment further. But there is no good reason why we shouldn't do it on the K. There is a good reason why we should - it would be of great benefit to copilots, removing the need to go through a second full OCU course. Most aspects of captaincy are learned on-the-job as a co, anyway. Apart from handling aspects, which didnt take long, I learned very little that was new to me on my second OCU cse.
I suspect THIS is the main reason for objections, IMHO.
16B
I apologise for my tone. Yes, it was abusive, but this betrays my frustration on this particular issue. We, the AT fleet, have treated (and trained) copilots like idiots for a long, long time. If you treat people like idiots, they will act like idiots. Let's try treating them like what they are - adults, who also happen to be qualified RAF pilots, not students.
Many have asked 'Why are we doing this?', but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should NOT do this. I appreciate the J has problems when asymmetric - since I have no experience of operating the J, I cannot comment further. But there is no good reason why we shouldn't do it on the K. There is a good reason why we should - it would be of great benefit to copilots, removing the need to go through a second full OCU course. Most aspects of captaincy are learned on-the-job as a co, anyway. Apart from handling aspects, which didnt take long, I learned very little that was new to me on my second OCU cse.
the cultural shift required may produce more pain than makes it worth it
16B
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, not familiar with Herc/VC10 technical stuff but just about all modern airliners are configured for the captain to sit in the left seat only.
Configured, in this case meaning, in the event of system failure as much stuff as possible will continue to function on the left side.
With an electrical failure for example, the aircraft can only be flown from the left side. You will find standby instruments are always on the left side. Bias is incorporated into the left side, for example the left side ptt switch pretty much always overides the right.
When serious non normal situations occur the company will expect the captain to be able to take over if required. My previous aircraft was very electrical and many inputs from the left were designed to override the right side. Trim switches is yet another example.
In the airline world the captain always sits in the left seat, period.
It may also stem from airlaw and the right hand traffic rule etc
Configured, in this case meaning, in the event of system failure as much stuff as possible will continue to function on the left side.
With an electrical failure for example, the aircraft can only be flown from the left side. You will find standby instruments are always on the left side. Bias is incorporated into the left side, for example the left side ptt switch pretty much always overides the right.
When serious non normal situations occur the company will expect the captain to be able to take over if required. My previous aircraft was very electrical and many inputs from the left were designed to override the right side. Trim switches is yet another example.
In the airline world the captain always sits in the left seat, period.
It may also stem from airlaw and the right hand traffic rule etc
Hoey
Thanks for the comment. Fortunately we in the military (British at any rate) don't have to worry about electric jets. We still have proper aircraft that require a pilot input!!
None of that modern electric stuff for (the majority of) us.
We are all aware that in the airline world the captain sits in the LHS, but fortunately many in the military world are not quite as hidebound.
Not too convinced about the air law bit, sounds a bit like a red herring to me.
Thanks for the comment. Fortunately we in the military (British at any rate) don't have to worry about electric jets. We still have proper aircraft that require a pilot input!!
None of that modern electric stuff for (the majority of) us.We are all aware that in the airline world the captain sits in the LHS, but fortunately many in the military world are not quite as hidebound.
Not too convinced about the air law bit, sounds a bit like a red herring to me.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 24th Feb 2005 at 14:59.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a big believer in Co-pilots being treated as u/t Captains and not as u/t pilots but this can be done when they are in the right hand seat.
There is a proven safe track record on the Herc with Captains in LHS and Co-pilots in RHS. The only control in question is the NWS if the Co-pilot flies LHS. During normal operation there isn't a problem. Get it slightly wrong during x-winds, and more importantly, assymetric especially during an abort, and it can all go wrong fairly quickly.
We may not lose an aircraft but may easily leave the runway and damage one. At the subsequent inquiry along comes the Captain saying that had he been in the LHS he may have prevented the accident but in the RHS was unable to do so. He is the Captain and still responsible!
There is a proven safe track record on the Herc with Captains in LHS and Co-pilots in RHS. The only control in question is the NWS if the Co-pilot flies LHS. During normal operation there isn't a problem. Get it slightly wrong during x-winds, and more importantly, assymetric especially during an abort, and it can all go wrong fairly quickly.
We may not lose an aircraft but may easily leave the runway and damage one. At the subsequent inquiry along comes the Captain saying that had he been in the LHS he may have prevented the accident but in the RHS was unable to do so. He is the Captain and still responsible!
"I am a big believer in Co-pilots being treated as u/t Captains and not as u/t pilots but this can be done when they are in the right hand seat."
Absolutely. And that's precisely what we always did in the VC10/VC10K world.
Absolutely. And that's precisely what we always did in the VC10/VC10K world.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ermmm,
Actually, following major electrical failures the RH screens of the 'J' would go dark (along with both the HUDs). Standby instruments are on the LHS only if all power was lost. Have to be pretty dire though! Daresay C-17 and the new Nimrod will be similar.
The only bit that concerns me however is the thought of x-wind landings when I can't get to that wheel....
Fortunately we in the military (British at any rate) don't have worry about electric jets.
The only bit that concerns me however is the thought of x-wind landings when I can't get to that wheel....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roly, Beags et al.
Just read your earlier posts regarding non-Q FI's.
I think you are a little off the mark here. To get a guy to be a QFI, he needs to be away from the front line for at least 3 years, to give his pound of flesh to CFS. With FI's, you get current knowledge from your experienced operators, to pass on to the next generation.
We cannot afford to lose all our instructors for this length of time. They get plenty of instructional teaching from the AIC, Sqn FI's and Staneval. They are not (usually) allowed to conduct OCU trg - still a QFI domain - but are the best people to impart their CURRENT experience during recurrent trg / pre-det trg.
Also, having a Q qual does not make one gods gift. I know many co's with far greater instructional ability than some of the CFS love-children i have met.
In an ideal world, we would have enough time / trg capacity to allow everyone a full CFS cse, with an immediate return to the front line. In the same way, it would be fantastic to have the the ability to train everybody Tac, NVG, strips etc.
The reality is, however, that we are constrained by time and manpower. As with the main topic of this thread, we must make best use of our resources, and FI's are this.
Just read your earlier posts regarding non-Q FI's.
I think you are a little off the mark here. To get a guy to be a QFI, he needs to be away from the front line for at least 3 years, to give his pound of flesh to CFS. With FI's, you get current knowledge from your experienced operators, to pass on to the next generation.
We cannot afford to lose all our instructors for this length of time. They get plenty of instructional teaching from the AIC, Sqn FI's and Staneval. They are not (usually) allowed to conduct OCU trg - still a QFI domain - but are the best people to impart their CURRENT experience during recurrent trg / pre-det trg.
Also, having a Q qual does not make one gods gift. I know many co's with far greater instructional ability than some of the CFS love-children i have met.
In an ideal world, we would have enough time / trg capacity to allow everyone a full CFS cse, with an immediate return to the front line. In the same way, it would be fantastic to have the the ability to train everybody Tac, NVG, strips etc.
The reality is, however, that we are constrained by time and manpower. As with the main topic of this thread, we must make best use of our resources, and FI's are this.
P-T-G
Sadly that is the bit that Beags and I were on about; FIs were doing "OCU" training. I agree that FIs on the Sqn may have some role to play AARI, IRE etc but NOT on the OCU where IMHO instruction should be given by someone with a Q tick. (I am not actually convinced that you need FIs at all as the throughput of pilots to CFS is quite large. There ought to be more than enough captains with a Q qual to not need FIs at all).
Still the source of many QFI quals is likely to dry up in the not too distant future. Then all front line OCUs are going to struggle to fill many 'Q'FI slots at all.
They are not (usually) allowed to conduct OCU trg - still a QFI domain
Still the source of many QFI quals is likely to dry up in the not too distant future. Then all front line OCUs are going to struggle to fill many 'Q'FI slots at all.
I agree with you 100% on this one, Roly old bean! Even I was an IRE before I went to the Scampton brain surgery!
And the loss of valuable training for young and not-so-young QFIs at an elementary level should the UASs die would be a tragedy. As would the loss of the opportunity to meet (and perhaps even recruit) some very good quality students...
All of which will have escaped the brain of the bean counters who kow the price of everything and the value, bith tangible and intangible, of nothing.
And the loss of valuable training for young and not-so-young QFIs at an elementary level should the UASs die would be a tragedy. As would the loss of the opportunity to meet (and perhaps even recruit) some very good quality students...
All of which will have escaped the brain of the bean counters who kow the price of everything and the value, bith tangible and intangible, of nothing.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It might sound a bit odd to those on the outside looking in, but ultimately very, very few cos don't go on to be P1s. What's more if you don't get that P1 slot there's no way you'd leave the stn with a CFS rec. In essence I don't see a problem with cos operating in either seat.
