Pod Scrape at LHR
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly many new FOs are sold into positions of corporate slavery these days. Lured from their impoverished homelands by the promise of a good job in London as a cleaner or childminder, they find the reality is having to fly for a living at their masters beck and call to repay the costs. I happen to know Da Dog was bought at an auction outside Costa Coffee at LGW for £2000. His owner was ripped off I reckon.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His owner was ripped off I reckon
The co-pilot is the co-pilot and serves his/her captain as the captain requires. The crew is not a cuddly communist committee; it is a team with a leader. Crew resource management, the buzzword for what was once known as crew co-ordination, ensures that the team works in a co-operative manner and that the right level of assistance is provided to the team leader to assist with decision making.
Things have moved on from the days when the 'boy' was expected merely to operate the radios and sort out the paperwork whilst 'sir' flew. Co-pilots have even been known to be allowed the occasional landing nowadays.
But there is only one captain of an aircraft, srjumbo, and he/she is supported by his/her crew.
Things have moved on from the days when the 'boy' was expected merely to operate the radios and sort out the paperwork whilst 'sir' flew. Co-pilots have even been known to be allowed the occasional landing nowadays.
But there is only one captain of an aircraft, srjumbo, and he/she is supported by his/her crew.
Last edited by BEagle; 13th Nov 2005 at 07:55.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue there Beags but surely you meant to say there's only one commander". I know of many situations where there are two 'captains' sitting up front. As for using the term 'co-pilot', how quaint. I know that my 'co-pilot' is actually a first officer and that for half the time were together, he or she is 'in-command' but under my supervision. I think that I then become the 'co-pilot'.
Personally, I much prefer the more modern terminology of 'pilot flying' and 'pilot not flying' or 'handling pilot' and 'non-handling pilot'. But don't let me take away from you the courtesy of being called "sir" when the need arises. I'm sure some of the ex-RAF types miss all that protocol that todays yoof lack an appreciation for.
Yes, we all know where the buck stops and no one is under any illusion that it is some sort of democracy on the flight deck, more like a benign dictatorship. I feel sorry for those 'captains' that are uncomfortable with anything other than a subservient 'co-pilot' though. On the modern airliner flight deck there is only one commander but at least two pilots. A captain in command and a n other pilot of any rank is second in command. As far as I'm concerned a co-pilot is just PNF or NHP.
Sorry if I've ruffled some feathers with such insubordination. What is the world coming to?
Personally, I much prefer the more modern terminology of 'pilot flying' and 'pilot not flying' or 'handling pilot' and 'non-handling pilot'. But don't let me take away from you the courtesy of being called "sir" when the need arises. I'm sure some of the ex-RAF types miss all that protocol that todays yoof lack an appreciation for.
Yes, we all know where the buck stops and no one is under any illusion that it is some sort of democracy on the flight deck, more like a benign dictatorship. I feel sorry for those 'captains' that are uncomfortable with anything other than a subservient 'co-pilot' though. On the modern airliner flight deck there is only one commander but at least two pilots. A captain in command and a n other pilot of any rank is second in command. As far as I'm concerned a co-pilot is just PNF or NHP.
Sorry if I've ruffled some feathers with such insubordination. What is the world coming to?
The prefix co- implies that the person is equally a qualified pilot. But is not the captain or, if you prefer, commander.
The PF/PNF, handling-non-landing, CM1/CM2 rubbish just fudges the issue.
'First officer' is a far more subservient term and doesn't even indicate that the person is a qualified pilot.
'Second pilot' once meant 'another pilot' - but was viewed as 'second class' pilot. Wrongly.
The PF/PNF, handling-non-landing, CM1/CM2 rubbish just fudges the issue.
'First officer' is a far more subservient term and doesn't even indicate that the person is a qualified pilot.
'Second pilot' once meant 'another pilot' - but was viewed as 'second class' pilot. Wrongly.
Arewenearlythereyet...I believe you meant to say the "pound" stops here.
The term 'Copilot' can mean the same as 'Co-Captain', if both pilots each have 10-20 years flying multi-turbine "cross-country".
As for the assumption that a high level of piloting/handling skill means that no major mistakes are possible, this is only a comment about what can happen even to those who appear to be among the best, whether with rather limited experience or much more.
Two NASA astronaut trainees died many years ago flying a T-38 (advanced jet trainer) on an ILS approach into St. Louis International Airport (STL). As far as I know, it had an operating localizer and glideslope, but have no idea whether the localizer and glideslope or flight director(s) were operating properly, or whether a reasonable intercept altitude was provided by approach control, or a crappy "slam-dunk", which happens to all of us. Very closely-spaced parallel runways present various traps to those unfamiliar or in a hurry.
The fact that the tragedy involved two astronaut trainees should be something that we never forget-even after many years of flying much more stable transport aircraft.
A highly-experienced airline Line Check Airman (who gave final "sign-off" at end of IOE for new transport category jet Captains and FOs), with about 12,000 hours, almost scraped a wingtip near equipment beside a taxiway, at night, while he operated on a normal trip. He told me about it. He also admitted to getting a bit ahead of himself, at least once, tuning in the wrong VOR frequency.
So the very best pilots with the best situational awareness and handling skills can not make an expensive mistake? Do they always have absolutely perfect judgement in every situation?
As for widebodies....no, not various Seattle-based Flight Attendants... this might be incidental, but you might find the website (don't know the name) about the MD-11's documented anomalies and aft cg interesting.
All mistakes on those clearly must involve inferior pilot handling and decision-making. Yeah, right.
The term 'Copilot' can mean the same as 'Co-Captain', if both pilots each have 10-20 years flying multi-turbine "cross-country".
As for the assumption that a high level of piloting/handling skill means that no major mistakes are possible, this is only a comment about what can happen even to those who appear to be among the best, whether with rather limited experience or much more.
Two NASA astronaut trainees died many years ago flying a T-38 (advanced jet trainer) on an ILS approach into St. Louis International Airport (STL). As far as I know, it had an operating localizer and glideslope, but have no idea whether the localizer and glideslope or flight director(s) were operating properly, or whether a reasonable intercept altitude was provided by approach control, or a crappy "slam-dunk", which happens to all of us. Very closely-spaced parallel runways present various traps to those unfamiliar or in a hurry.
The fact that the tragedy involved two astronaut trainees should be something that we never forget-even after many years of flying much more stable transport aircraft.
A highly-experienced airline Line Check Airman (who gave final "sign-off" at end of IOE for new transport category jet Captains and FOs), with about 12,000 hours, almost scraped a wingtip near equipment beside a taxiway, at night, while he operated on a normal trip. He told me about it. He also admitted to getting a bit ahead of himself, at least once, tuning in the wrong VOR frequency.
So the very best pilots with the best situational awareness and handling skills can not make an expensive mistake? Do they always have absolutely perfect judgement in every situation?
As for widebodies....no, not various Seattle-based Flight Attendants... this might be incidental, but you might find the website (don't know the name) about the MD-11's documented anomalies and aft cg interesting.
All mistakes on those clearly must involve inferior pilot handling and decision-making. Yeah, right.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 14th Nov 2005 at 06:01.
