CASA proposing flight test requirement for ATPL issue.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas I believe put their new recruits into the copilots seat for their 737 command endorsement training in the simulator. Usually two pilots do their training at the same time, swapping seats after the coffee break as each has his turn at flying from the copilot position (RH seat).
Because an engine failure below V1 is always conducted by the aircraft (simulator) captain who occupies the left seat, it means that when the pilot in the RH seat is doing the take off and an engine failure occurs before V1, he must immediately hand over control to his mate in the left seat who does the abort. In other words the pilot undergoing training for a command endorsement does not make the decision to reject. Work that one out!
In normal endorsements, a candidate undergoing simulator training for a command endorsement (as distinct from a copilot endorsement) would do his handling from the left seat. That would be logical you would think. In this case he gets an engine failure below V1, makes the big decision to reject and does his thing and aborts because he is already in the "captains' chair.
But when undergoing his command (captain) endorsement training in the simulator in the RH seat there is this apparent split-second shuffling of responsibilities (CASA approved, of course) where the decision to stop switches from the bloke in the RH seat to the mate in the left hand seat.
This is where it gets confusing.
If it is accepted that the decision to reject below V1 is entirely the captain's handling responsibility in the left hand seat, then in simulator training for a command endorsement that is conducted in the copilot seat, it seems illogical to suddenly switch roles for a rejected take off where the bloke under training in the RH seat for a command endorsement immediately hands over control to the bloke in the left seat saying "All yours - your decision-handing over - your problem, Mate"
Confusing to the un-initiated? You bet. One would have thought that all command endorsements should be done with the candidate sitting in the command (left) seat. I may be wrong, but understand this RH seat command endorsement is an Australian thing. Although I think Cathay does it as well. Perhaps someone could explain the reason for the policy. Pilots going to Boeing in USA or Airbus in France seeking a command endorsement are trained in the left seat. Seems logical?
Because an engine failure below V1 is always conducted by the aircraft (simulator) captain who occupies the left seat, it means that when the pilot in the RH seat is doing the take off and an engine failure occurs before V1, he must immediately hand over control to his mate in the left seat who does the abort. In other words the pilot undergoing training for a command endorsement does not make the decision to reject. Work that one out!
In normal endorsements, a candidate undergoing simulator training for a command endorsement (as distinct from a copilot endorsement) would do his handling from the left seat. That would be logical you would think. In this case he gets an engine failure below V1, makes the big decision to reject and does his thing and aborts because he is already in the "captains' chair.
But when undergoing his command (captain) endorsement training in the simulator in the RH seat there is this apparent split-second shuffling of responsibilities (CASA approved, of course) where the decision to stop switches from the bloke in the RH seat to the mate in the left hand seat.
This is where it gets confusing.
If it is accepted that the decision to reject below V1 is entirely the captain's handling responsibility in the left hand seat, then in simulator training for a command endorsement that is conducted in the copilot seat, it seems illogical to suddenly switch roles for a rejected take off where the bloke under training in the RH seat for a command endorsement immediately hands over control to the bloke in the left seat saying "All yours - your decision-handing over - your problem, Mate"
Confusing to the un-initiated? You bet. One would have thought that all command endorsements should be done with the candidate sitting in the command (left) seat. I may be wrong, but understand this RH seat command endorsement is an Australian thing. Although I think Cathay does it as well. Perhaps someone could explain the reason for the policy. Pilots going to Boeing in USA or Airbus in France seeking a command endorsement are trained in the left seat. Seems logical?
Last edited by A37575; 8th Dec 2012 at 23:23.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that an Aussie type rating is "LHS or RHS" valid only?
However, once CASR Part 61 takes effect on the 4th of December it seems they intend to not have co-pilot qualifications any more. Makes sense to me. The worst case scenario would be a co-pilot having to take over if the captain is incapacitated. Seems to me you'd want the guy in the other seat to be equally well trained and qualified to fly it!
