Pilot qualification to operate in either pilot’s seat (EASA)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wow, you really must have missed out on the CRM course where they taught proper communication.....
I see it from a different point of view:
Yes, you cannot have two "Commanders".
I was referring to two "Captain´s" in the cockpit (read this as "Two company approved and qualified Captains"), of which only one can be PIC.
Think about this:
An operation where both crew members just fulfill the requirements.
A young Captain holding an ATPL, and a young Copilot with his CPL/ATPL-Theory.
Why would you put a young copilot into the PIC seat?
The aircraft manual (at least on the types i fly; not sure about other helicopters) specify which seat is the "PIC-seat" (e.g. on Bell 412, the aircraft is designed to be flown by one Pilot in the RHS).
Therefor-from a safety point of view-it makes all sense to put the Copilot into the left hand seat, and let the Captain fly from the right-agreed?
Then, at a later point-when the copilot has gained experience, knows the area and company procedures, and has seen dozens, if not hundreds of proper approaches, he will also have gained enough hours to be ready for his upgrade training.
This is where either an instructor will fly with him in the right seat (no "seat issue" there), or a Captain with approval to conduct Line training (Line Training Captain).
Why should a pilot who is not a training Captain or an instructor fly in a "Copilot seat"?
As someone who has held both Ops and Training postholder positions on the N Sea, I totally agree with what Apate has stated so far.
As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the OGP guidelines that restrict which seat the Commander or P2 has to occupy. Whilst auditors may have opinions, unless it is in regulation or published guidelines then they are not enforceable.
The fact that the UK CAA are happy that operators manage who sits in which seat also speaks volumes.
As someone who started their career in the '80s, having gone through a command upgrade and change of seat, I am firmly of the opinion that this is not a sensible process. When swapping seats for the first time it feels like you are flying in a totally new aircraft, as everything is different. It is like some sort of twisted initiation process!
To pick up on Apate's other point in favour of flexible seating, maintaining offshore landing recency can be a major challenge, especially night recency. To be able to choose which pilot will likely have to complete the landing is a major benefit.
Having seen both ways of operating, I know which one I favour - by a country mile.
As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the OGP guidelines that restrict which seat the Commander or P2 has to occupy. Whilst auditors may have opinions, unless it is in regulation or published guidelines then they are not enforceable.
The fact that the UK CAA are happy that operators manage who sits in which seat also speaks volumes.
As someone who started their career in the '80s, having gone through a command upgrade and change of seat, I am firmly of the opinion that this is not a sensible process. When swapping seats for the first time it feels like you are flying in a totally new aircraft, as everything is different. It is like some sort of twisted initiation process!
To pick up on Apate's other point in favour of flexible seating, maintaining offshore landing recency can be a major challenge, especially night recency. To be able to choose which pilot will likely have to complete the landing is a major benefit.
Having seen both ways of operating, I know which one I favour - by a country mile.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I understand your scenario-but how do you deal with that in real life?
Do a weather briefing, then decide who is taking which seat?
What if the wind changes during the flight?
There was an old document many years ago, stating that take offs and landings should be carried out by the Captains only, who would fly from the RHS (in most helicopter, that is the "PIC" - seat).
Reason behind that was the attention span and reaction time in an incident/accident situation.
The seconds it might take you to look for a switch that is not where you are used to because you are not sitting on your usual seat was sometimes leading to catastrophic scenarios..... Or let's talk about flights in bad weather at night, where some switches have to be moved "blind"...
There are pros and cons-but it helps looking at how the airlines are doing it....
They don't have Copilots fly in the "Captains seat" for a reason... And to me, that makes sense (like I said, with the exemptions I mentioned before..)..
Do a weather briefing, then decide who is taking which seat?
What if the wind changes during the flight?
There was an old document many years ago, stating that take offs and landings should be carried out by the Captains only, who would fly from the RHS (in most helicopter, that is the "PIC" - seat).
Reason behind that was the attention span and reaction time in an incident/accident situation.
The seconds it might take you to look for a switch that is not where you are used to because you are not sitting on your usual seat was sometimes leading to catastrophic scenarios..... Or let's talk about flights in bad weather at night, where some switches have to be moved "blind"...
There are pros and cons-but it helps looking at how the airlines are doing it....
They don't have Copilots fly in the "Captains seat" for a reason... And to me, that makes sense (like I said, with the exemptions I mentioned before..)..
Hueyracer, you don’t have to wonder how it would all work without the crushing weight of EASA busywork. In Canada and other regulatory jurisdictions there are no separate checks for left or right side, no restriction on what side you sit, no restriction of switching PF-PH on final because it is going to work out better that way, from either seat. Flew EMS & Offshore for 30 years like that, question never came up until we encountered Europeans, which adapted without problems. Dual controls, dual instruments, how hard can it be? Sounds to me like some rigid-minded airline background bureaucrats wrote their antiquated and irrelevant notions into your EASA rules. Thread drift, the OP just wants to know how to comply, but then justifying the regs is a weak case.
Hueyracer, you don’t have to wonder how it would all work without the crushing weight of EASA busywork. In Canada and other regulatory jurisdictions there are no separate checks for left or right side, no restriction on what side you sit, no restriction of switching PF-PH on final because it is going to work out better that way, from either seat. Flew EMS & Offshore for 30 years like that, question never came up until we encountered Europeans, which adapted without problems. Dual controls, dual instruments, how hard can it be? Sounds to me like some rigid-minded airline background bureaucrats wrote their antiquated and irrelevant notions into your EASA rules. Thread drift, the OP just wants to know how to comply, but then justifying the regs is a weak case.
I agree with Variable load this is making a mountain out of a molehill.
The whole purpose of the OPC - be it JAR-OPS or EASA - is to establish the competence of pilot in role. The testing of handling competence in either seat should be undertaken in the most practical way. Normally (the exception when PICUS is being conducted), only captains are tested in both seats. That way a reasonable ratio of captains to co-pilots can be achieved to allow efficient flight and duty time allocation. The regulations were formulated to make this as easy as possible.
On two-crew helicopters, the roles of pilot flying and pilot monitoring are shared. These roles should be assigned to establish a fair sharing of flying and the safety of the operation. Where this is important - for example to a heliport where the landing surface is approached into wind and from the side with the best-field-of view - the roles might be swapped in flight at an appropriate time to allow a safe transition.
When not in training - be that type training, role training, line training or PICUS - command is allocated in accordance with procedures set out by the operator. In the absence of any specific instructions (for example for monitored approaches), the role of pilot flying or pilot monitoring is normally decided by the crew members on the day.
The days of the commander hogging the flying or making cross cockpit approaches should be well behind us.
Jim
The whole purpose of the OPC - be it JAR-OPS or EASA - is to establish the competence of pilot in role. The testing of handling competence in either seat should be undertaken in the most practical way. Normally (the exception when PICUS is being conducted), only captains are tested in both seats. That way a reasonable ratio of captains to co-pilots can be achieved to allow efficient flight and duty time allocation. The regulations were formulated to make this as easy as possible.
On two-crew helicopters, the roles of pilot flying and pilot monitoring are shared. These roles should be assigned to establish a fair sharing of flying and the safety of the operation. Where this is important - for example to a heliport where the landing surface is approached into wind and from the side with the best-field-of view - the roles might be swapped in flight at an appropriate time to allow a safe transition.
When not in training - be that type training, role training, line training or PICUS - command is allocated in accordance with procedures set out by the operator. In the absence of any specific instructions (for example for monitored approaches), the role of pilot flying or pilot monitoring is normally decided by the crew members on the day.
The days of the commander hogging the flying or making cross cockpit approaches should be well behind us.
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, that elicited quite the discussion. I'm not sure if that is a good or a bad thing!
Thank you very much for the replies everyone. My apologies for rather selfishly swinging it back to my original query:
Is it fair to say that if a pilot, for whatever reason, can expect to be flying as commander from either seat station during the course of their duties, then they must swap seats every other OPC? It isn't sufficient to simply do an element of training from both seats.
And on the occasions that they do their OPC in "the other seat" (normally the left) it cannot be a combined OPC/LPC.
Is that about the measure of it?
Thank you very much for the replies everyone. My apologies for rather selfishly swinging it back to my original query:
Is it fair to say that if a pilot, for whatever reason, can expect to be flying as commander from either seat station during the course of their duties, then they must swap seats every other OPC? It isn't sufficient to simply do an element of training from both seats.
And on the occasions that they do their OPC in "the other seat" (normally the left) it cannot be a combined OPC/LPC.
Is that about the measure of it?
