F/O 's job got lesser meaning !
Guest
Posts: n/a
have been reading this thread for a while and would like to put a few words in and hope that i won't get shot down.
was in the right seat for 2618.3 hours in a DHC/6-200 Twin otter, back seat Hercules for 1044.9 hours, right seat Herc for 1224.2 hours, then right seat B737-200/300/400 for 1902.5 hours and now left seat B737-200/300/400/500 for 4512.0 and won't bore you with the 1119.0 hours in singles and light twins.
(not bragging at all, but simply have seen many ask others "how many hours do you have?" not that the hours and intelligent use of it's experience always match)
i really don't think i have been overly arrogant, but I HAVE ALWAYS VIEWED MYSELF AS THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON ON THE AIRCRAFT.
as an engineer i preflighted the aircraft as if the entire flight depended on me. i provided the foundation upon which the flight crew build the rest of the flight. if i gave them a faulty foundation, the entire structure could come crashing down. i also was in a good position to monitor both pilots and was the human instrument comparator. learned a lot by watching how different people worked together in different ways in different situations. could see myself as Captain Kirk or Picard in the back seat of the Starship. "Make it so, Mr. Sulu"
up in the right seat, i then realized i was there to back up the Captain and the engineer! and now that i had access to the flight controls could do even more to help the final outcome.
then to the right seat of the Boing-boing.
(i remember my first rotation in the real airplane! after some much time in the Heavy controlled Herc, when i pulled back on the yoke of the B737-200 i scared the **** out of that poor captain!)
then eventually after ****ing up the logbook so many times, they decided it was better to put me in the left seat and here i sit.
i have saved others' bacon a few times and others have saved my bacon a few times. i have dropped the ball a few times and have caught it for others a few.
i have had people in the left seat with much less experience than myself and have had people in the right seat with much more experience than myself. i've had cabin crew that knew more about the current situation than i did. i've had passengers tell me things i needed to know. i've had ATC and ground crew and tug drivers give me the save.
i've had "Hitler"'s in the left and "Hitler"'s in the right and in the cabin and passenger seats and on ATC.
i've had "inflatable seat warmers" in the left and in the right and cabin and above and below.
we all seem to play the various parts from time to time.
my present view now is that in many ways the right seat is the hardest job on the aircraft. usually they are young enough to be alert while the captain has been too long at the high cabin altitudes and yet he or she has to defer to his/her impaired authority.
and yet, when all are tarred and feathered after a long day, the last thing i want to do is let the first officer botch up a landing or takeoff and me take the flame for it in the office.
as a first officer, when the captain would ask me which legs i wanted to fly, i would say, "ALL OF THEM!"
and now when i ask the first officers, (and this is when weather or airport are not restrictive) most say, "It's up to you." "yes, i know that, but i am asking you if you have any preferences."
most still come back with "it's up to you."
some ask me what my preference is. it is still, "ALL OF THEM!" and until you get in the left seat, you will never imagine the surprize that comes when you have given the F/O the flight and it goes bad FAST! there is a fine line between being the nagging captain, and then the one that has to take it in the last second after letting the F/O learn for him/herself that his method will not work.
for just one example; it is amazing how differently F/O's flare! there a a few who wait until the last second and he/she ends up doing better than i ever could. but there are also those who wait until the last second and do it worse than i have done in a long long time. as the captain, it is like being in Las Vegas in a high stakes gamble.
and i only use the "he/she" in that order since i have flown with the fairer sex much less than with the males.
my hats off to anyone; male or female who do their job well and work together as a team regardless of their position in flight or on the ground.
at times it is hard work to to ANY job GOOD!
so in summary;
OUR JOB, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, IS AS IMPORTANT AS WE THINK IT IS!
and at the same time,
i view the F/O, cabin crew, passengers, ATC and the tug drivers AS EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS I AM in doing their job.
tillers and starting engines come and go.
as to the title of the thread-
your job as a first officer depends more upon YOUR view of it than that hypoxic captain's opinion or the desk-driver's opinion that make the little rules that vary over the years.
cheers to all.
a bad day flying is better than the best day fishing!
and i have so many hours of "raw data" and hand flying the aircraft that i have concluded that the equipment is put in the aircraft for a good reason. so i use it as much as possible. and have discovered that i can still hand fly and raw data when the need arises.
and have discovered that it takes more brain power to operate the auto-**** properly in the rapidly changing ca-ca that we are given in these busy weather and traffic-filled skies that we must go through.
was in the right seat for 2618.3 hours in a DHC/6-200 Twin otter, back seat Hercules for 1044.9 hours, right seat Herc for 1224.2 hours, then right seat B737-200/300/400 for 1902.5 hours and now left seat B737-200/300/400/500 for 4512.0 and won't bore you with the 1119.0 hours in singles and light twins.
(not bragging at all, but simply have seen many ask others "how many hours do you have?" not that the hours and intelligent use of it's experience always match)
i really don't think i have been overly arrogant, but I HAVE ALWAYS VIEWED MYSELF AS THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON ON THE AIRCRAFT.
as an engineer i preflighted the aircraft as if the entire flight depended on me. i provided the foundation upon which the flight crew build the rest of the flight. if i gave them a faulty foundation, the entire structure could come crashing down. i also was in a good position to monitor both pilots and was the human instrument comparator. learned a lot by watching how different people worked together in different ways in different situations. could see myself as Captain Kirk or Picard in the back seat of the Starship. "Make it so, Mr. Sulu"
up in the right seat, i then realized i was there to back up the Captain and the engineer! and now that i had access to the flight controls could do even more to help the final outcome.
then to the right seat of the Boing-boing.
(i remember my first rotation in the real airplane! after some much time in the Heavy controlled Herc, when i pulled back on the yoke of the B737-200 i scared the **** out of that poor captain!)
then eventually after ****ing up the logbook so many times, they decided it was better to put me in the left seat and here i sit.
i have saved others' bacon a few times and others have saved my bacon a few times. i have dropped the ball a few times and have caught it for others a few.
i have had people in the left seat with much less experience than myself and have had people in the right seat with much more experience than myself. i've had cabin crew that knew more about the current situation than i did. i've had passengers tell me things i needed to know. i've had ATC and ground crew and tug drivers give me the save.
i've had "Hitler"'s in the left and "Hitler"'s in the right and in the cabin and passenger seats and on ATC.
i've had "inflatable seat warmers" in the left and in the right and cabin and above and below.
we all seem to play the various parts from time to time.
my present view now is that in many ways the right seat is the hardest job on the aircraft. usually they are young enough to be alert while the captain has been too long at the high cabin altitudes and yet he or she has to defer to his/her impaired authority.
and yet, when all are tarred and feathered after a long day, the last thing i want to do is let the first officer botch up a landing or takeoff and me take the flame for it in the office.
as a first officer, when the captain would ask me which legs i wanted to fly, i would say, "ALL OF THEM!"
and now when i ask the first officers, (and this is when weather or airport are not restrictive) most say, "It's up to you." "yes, i know that, but i am asking you if you have any preferences."
most still come back with "it's up to you."
some ask me what my preference is. it is still, "ALL OF THEM!" and until you get in the left seat, you will never imagine the surprize that comes when you have given the F/O the flight and it goes bad FAST! there is a fine line between being the nagging captain, and then the one that has to take it in the last second after letting the F/O learn for him/herself that his method will not work.
for just one example; it is amazing how differently F/O's flare! there a a few who wait until the last second and he/she ends up doing better than i ever could. but there are also those who wait until the last second and do it worse than i have done in a long long time. as the captain, it is like being in Las Vegas in a high stakes gamble.
and i only use the "he/she" in that order since i have flown with the fairer sex much less than with the males.
my hats off to anyone; male or female who do their job well and work together as a team regardless of their position in flight or on the ground.
at times it is hard work to to ANY job GOOD!
so in summary;
OUR JOB, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, IS AS IMPORTANT AS WE THINK IT IS!
and at the same time,
i view the F/O, cabin crew, passengers, ATC and the tug drivers AS EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS I AM in doing their job.
tillers and starting engines come and go.
as to the title of the thread-
your job as a first officer depends more upon YOUR view of it than that hypoxic captain's opinion or the desk-driver's opinion that make the little rules that vary over the years.
cheers to all.
a bad day flying is better than the best day fishing!
and i have so many hours of "raw data" and hand flying the aircraft that i have concluded that the equipment is put in the aircraft for a good reason. so i use it as much as possible. and have discovered that i can still hand fly and raw data when the need arises.
and have discovered that it takes more brain power to operate the auto-**** properly in the rapidly changing ca-ca that we are given in these busy weather and traffic-filled skies that we must go through.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nice post Stator !
What do you think of not letting your F/O fly any non-precision approach ?
As ruled by the company that is !
I think it is a take-away-experience-thing.
I remember in my F/O days i sure liked to maintain all experience-fly-levels.
Lets focus on that i.s.o. the starting / taxi / TO thrust setting.
(How does your companies prescribe the flying for F/O's on non-ils-approaches)
In my company F/O's are simply allowed and it is up to us to let them.
Cheers !
What do you think of not letting your F/O fly any non-precision approach ?
As ruled by the company that is !
I think it is a take-away-experience-thing.
I remember in my F/O days i sure liked to maintain all experience-fly-levels.
Lets focus on that i.s.o. the starting / taxi / TO thrust setting.
(How does your companies prescribe the flying for F/O's on non-ils-approaches)
In my company F/O's are simply allowed and it is up to us to let them.
Cheers !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here, here Stator vane.
I'd like to be in your RHS, even though I'm in the LHS at the monent.
I'm an inexperienced capt on the -8 at the moment, and fly with CAP 509's, and self-improvers all an equal basis, I f**k up, they F**k up but as we have 2 bodies(at least) up front we HELP each other out (diplomatically). Having just come from the RHS I have to admit it is a lot harder to offer the right course of action to a Capt. (that is, before bitching betty does!! Whoop, Whoop, Pull up, etc)
Personnally I inform FO's with whom I haven't flown with before, that I expect them to pull me up if I f**k otherwise we'll just be flying the SLF to the scene of the accident!
I'd like to be in your RHS, even though I'm in the LHS at the monent.
I'm an inexperienced capt on the -8 at the moment, and fly with CAP 509's, and self-improvers all an equal basis, I f**k up, they F**k up but as we have 2 bodies(at least) up front we HELP each other out (diplomatically). Having just come from the RHS I have to admit it is a lot harder to offer the right course of action to a Capt. (that is, before bitching betty does!! Whoop, Whoop, Pull up, etc)
Personnally I inform FO's with whom I haven't flown with before, that I expect them to pull me up if I f**k otherwise we'll just be flying the SLF to the scene of the accident!
Guest
Posts: n/a
after pulling out my company's FOM out of my bag and killing the grey haired spiders that were hanging on by their weak little legs,
i find that the latest set of revisions that i put in say;
"captain is PF when: takeoff rwy is less than 400m"
pretty G...damn short runway in my estimation!
"
perating at airports categorized 'C' or short field"
":category 2/3a approach"
low visibility approach recommended procedures:
non precision approach. the PF shall be F/O. use of auto pilot is recommended till leaving the MDA or RWY in sight.
precision approach: both pilots are allowed. the use of F/D and A/P is recommended. when RVR or vis below 800M auto approach is compulsory.
Cat 2 is always captain.
and as of jan 20th, 2000 the captain will handle thrust levers during takeoff.
this last bit did confuse me a bit. here we are at takeoff. F/O has flight controls including the rudders. the captain has the thrust levers. i have seen enough engines that acted like they were in different time zones and felt quite clumsy hoping that F/O would be quick on the rudders. and after a few times of sitting there waiting for the F/O to set takeoff thrust and the F/O (who read the book before i did) waiting for me to set takeoff thrust, we soon learned to play the game a new way.
(and though not proper to tell you which airline we are with, our 737's have a slightly red tint to them and are english owned/ belgian certified.)
before that last change, i did see enough F/O's stand the thrust levers up and hit TOGA before either engine woke up, and then the circus began as the rudders went from stop to stop as he tried to stay on the pavement. so that is why the change came, perhaps.
some had no concept of "stabilized" which officially isn't a call out though should be at least noticed before clicking the TOBBY button!
i have been with four different companies and have seen at least 8 different sets of SOP's.
and while on the subject of call-outs-
had a captain once nail me for non-standard call outs! as in, "do not make those non standard call outs!" so in same flight in descent, as he passed 10,000 feet still at 320 knots, (in the US where 250 below 10,000 is the rule) ATC asked what our winds were as we passed 9000. Captain then woke up to the need to slow down. on the radio i said they were on our tail at about 100 knots but were decreasing rapidly! on ATC's response we could hear the entire tower staff laughing their heads off.
as to your "as ruled by company"
well, when push comes to shove, the only company that really counts is the one flying through the clouds with you at the time.
as to starting, no company i have been with made it official for F/O's to start engines. personally, as captain i have always done the switches and levers but both should be focused on the event. though i have "read about" F/O's getting a clearance on occassion during the start.
as to taxi, i have never seen the 737 (or a Herc) with a tiller on the right, though i have seen some captains that seem to relish slamming the aircraft left and right with extreme glee while taxing. cabin crew just love that while they are doing their demos.
and don't quote me but i have "seen on it on the TV" F/O's making an autoland!
as to F/O's doing a non-precision approach, it will depend on the approach and the F/O.
besides, i've been told that when one gets into the big iron, the only time an F/O flies and lands the airplane is in the simulator.
and to close this one,
i was in korea taxing in a 737 on a ferry flight with a gorgeous cabin crew in the jumpseat. it was a low-over cast wet dismal looking day but nothing cold or no thunderstorms.
and i THOUGHT to myself, "she must be impressed to see this weather and see us flying through it. but there's nothing to it."
suddenly ATC asked if we could use the next intersection for takeoff. since we were empty, "YES." so we were turning and then he said "a 747 on short final, expedite takeoff" so i continued the turn at about 10 knots and at about 45 degrees from runway heading stood the thrust levers up to get them stabilized. the left engine came up with an erection while the right one stayed in the hangar. we then started a slide to the inside of the turn. i couldn't believe what was happening. nothing worked! and it was like a slow motion horror movie. that intersection put us in the middle of all the rubber in the normal touchdown zone which had not been cleaned since the korean war. idle thrust, brakes, opposite nose wheel steering! i've seen ice and snow with better traction! and i then thought, "if i'm going out into the grass at least i will have my speed brakes up just for show."
it slowly corrected but as i found later, we only missed the edge of the runway by inches and had the right gear just miss two lights.
at the time, i did not know if i would have been able to feel if i had hit a light and didn't want to risk a continuing the takeoff with the possibility of having hit a light and not knowing it, so i taxied clear of the runway for an inspection.
don't know what happened to that 747 but i was humbled to the point of never THINKING AGAIN that flying is easy. much less ever SAYING it out loud.
behind all the confusing rules and their changes is usually a good reason or if nothing else it is an attempt to prevent another mistake from biting someone else.
i find that the latest set of revisions that i put in say;
"captain is PF when: takeoff rwy is less than 400m"
pretty G...damn short runway in my estimation!
"
perating at airports categorized 'C' or short field"":category 2/3a approach"
low visibility approach recommended procedures:
non precision approach. the PF shall be F/O. use of auto pilot is recommended till leaving the MDA or RWY in sight.
precision approach: both pilots are allowed. the use of F/D and A/P is recommended. when RVR or vis below 800M auto approach is compulsory.
Cat 2 is always captain.
and as of jan 20th, 2000 the captain will handle thrust levers during takeoff.
this last bit did confuse me a bit. here we are at takeoff. F/O has flight controls including the rudders. the captain has the thrust levers. i have seen enough engines that acted like they were in different time zones and felt quite clumsy hoping that F/O would be quick on the rudders. and after a few times of sitting there waiting for the F/O to set takeoff thrust and the F/O (who read the book before i did) waiting for me to set takeoff thrust, we soon learned to play the game a new way.
(and though not proper to tell you which airline we are with, our 737's have a slightly red tint to them and are english owned/ belgian certified.)
before that last change, i did see enough F/O's stand the thrust levers up and hit TOGA before either engine woke up, and then the circus began as the rudders went from stop to stop as he tried to stay on the pavement. so that is why the change came, perhaps.
some had no concept of "stabilized" which officially isn't a call out though should be at least noticed before clicking the TOBBY button!
i have been with four different companies and have seen at least 8 different sets of SOP's.
and while on the subject of call-outs-
had a captain once nail me for non-standard call outs! as in, "do not make those non standard call outs!" so in same flight in descent, as he passed 10,000 feet still at 320 knots, (in the US where 250 below 10,000 is the rule) ATC asked what our winds were as we passed 9000. Captain then woke up to the need to slow down. on the radio i said they were on our tail at about 100 knots but were decreasing rapidly! on ATC's response we could hear the entire tower staff laughing their heads off.
as to your "as ruled by company"
well, when push comes to shove, the only company that really counts is the one flying through the clouds with you at the time.
as to starting, no company i have been with made it official for F/O's to start engines. personally, as captain i have always done the switches and levers but both should be focused on the event. though i have "read about" F/O's getting a clearance on occassion during the start.
as to taxi, i have never seen the 737 (or a Herc) with a tiller on the right, though i have seen some captains that seem to relish slamming the aircraft left and right with extreme glee while taxing. cabin crew just love that while they are doing their demos.
and don't quote me but i have "seen on it on the TV" F/O's making an autoland!
as to F/O's doing a non-precision approach, it will depend on the approach and the F/O.
besides, i've been told that when one gets into the big iron, the only time an F/O flies and lands the airplane is in the simulator.
and to close this one,
i was in korea taxing in a 737 on a ferry flight with a gorgeous cabin crew in the jumpseat. it was a low-over cast wet dismal looking day but nothing cold or no thunderstorms.
and i THOUGHT to myself, "she must be impressed to see this weather and see us flying through it. but there's nothing to it."
suddenly ATC asked if we could use the next intersection for takeoff. since we were empty, "YES." so we were turning and then he said "a 747 on short final, expedite takeoff" so i continued the turn at about 10 knots and at about 45 degrees from runway heading stood the thrust levers up to get them stabilized. the left engine came up with an erection while the right one stayed in the hangar. we then started a slide to the inside of the turn. i couldn't believe what was happening. nothing worked! and it was like a slow motion horror movie. that intersection put us in the middle of all the rubber in the normal touchdown zone which had not been cleaned since the korean war. idle thrust, brakes, opposite nose wheel steering! i've seen ice and snow with better traction! and i then thought, "if i'm going out into the grass at least i will have my speed brakes up just for show."
it slowly corrected but as i found later, we only missed the edge of the runway by inches and had the right gear just miss two lights.
at the time, i did not know if i would have been able to feel if i had hit a light and didn't want to risk a continuing the takeoff with the possibility of having hit a light and not knowing it, so i taxied clear of the runway for an inspection.
don't know what happened to that 747 but i was humbled to the point of never THINKING AGAIN that flying is easy. much less ever SAYING it out loud.
behind all the confusing rules and their changes is usually a good reason or if nothing else it is an attempt to prevent another mistake from biting someone else.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a self-confessed item of SLF, I should like to venture into this fray.
I have been travelling for many years and have been fortunate to jump seat a few times. My nephew is currently F/O in BAe JetStream 41 and I have jump seated with him so, obviously, I am highly qualified!
Had an inexperienced or nervous PAX asked me about F/O type rating and abilities (prior to this thread) I should have replied, "The F/O can do anything that the Cpt can. They will, perforce, have less experience and will need guidance on occasions but you need have no worries. You have two pilots up front."
It now appears that, in the USA and possibly elsewhere, this is not the case. Considering how people are trained in commerce, the focus is the person learning by doing. I agree that starting and taxi are not crucial but I am surprised to read the list of restrictions.
Of course, 'command' is a very different thing, so I am not sure that it makes sense for the individual to have to learn MORE aspects of aircraftmanship at the same time as everything else on the Command Course.
I recall an occasion that I was sitting-in for the approach and land at STN on a 737 (3 or 400 cannot recall now) and the F/O was handling. It was a blustery, rainy night and the F/O was certainly earning his money. I was, shall we say interested?, to hear on the headphones they had kindly lent me of the wind shear just before threshold.
I was presuming that he was really going to have to 'plant it' on the ground as the wind was very skittish. It was one of the most glourious landings I have experienced! As we turned off and the Cpt took over for the taxi (tiller location) he said, "Well done." to the F/O and I thought that was the way it OUGHT to be done.
Now, it may well be that the conditions only looked hairy to my inexperienced eye but I have always imagined that the Cpt only takes it back when the circumstances have got truly awesome. As has been said, the Cpt may have a number of critical events to consider and information to digest - so let the F/O do the driving and that will improve their skills, whilst allowing maximum time for evaluating the situation.
My thanks to you all for a most interesting thread and Stator Vane - could you be my personal pilot please?
I have been travelling for many years and have been fortunate to jump seat a few times. My nephew is currently F/O in BAe JetStream 41 and I have jump seated with him so, obviously, I am highly qualified!
Had an inexperienced or nervous PAX asked me about F/O type rating and abilities (prior to this thread) I should have replied, "The F/O can do anything that the Cpt can. They will, perforce, have less experience and will need guidance on occasions but you need have no worries. You have two pilots up front."
It now appears that, in the USA and possibly elsewhere, this is not the case. Considering how people are trained in commerce, the focus is the person learning by doing. I agree that starting and taxi are not crucial but I am surprised to read the list of restrictions.
Of course, 'command' is a very different thing, so I am not sure that it makes sense for the individual to have to learn MORE aspects of aircraftmanship at the same time as everything else on the Command Course.
I recall an occasion that I was sitting-in for the approach and land at STN on a 737 (3 or 400 cannot recall now) and the F/O was handling. It was a blustery, rainy night and the F/O was certainly earning his money. I was, shall we say interested?, to hear on the headphones they had kindly lent me of the wind shear just before threshold.
I was presuming that he was really going to have to 'plant it' on the ground as the wind was very skittish. It was one of the most glourious landings I have experienced! As we turned off and the Cpt took over for the taxi (tiller location) he said, "Well done." to the F/O and I thought that was the way it OUGHT to be done.
Now, it may well be that the conditions only looked hairy to my inexperienced eye but I have always imagined that the Cpt only takes it back when the circumstances have got truly awesome. As has been said, the Cpt may have a number of critical events to consider and information to digest - so let the F/O do the driving and that will improve their skills, whilst allowing maximum time for evaluating the situation.
My thanks to you all for a most interesting thread and Stator Vane - could you be my personal pilot please?
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is no reason why the F/O on a modern jet with the right amount of training before going on-line shouldn't be able to handle the a/c for a blustery approach and landing. There will always be cases where the Captain feels that the he should take over because the F/O is new and inexperienced and may be 'tunnelling' but it is not that common in a company where the standard of training is high.
What has suprised me is the way a few so called Captains here have stated that they would take over flying the a/c in an non-normal situation and wouldn't trust their F/O because they don't have the same amount of experience. Surely if an F/O has reached the standard to pass the type rating, and jumped through the hoops of line training they can at least handle the a/c for basic flying skills. In my company, the PF flies the a/c and the PNF actions the drills even if the PF is the F/O. If the after completing all the drills the Captain feels that he or she should take over the PF function then that is their perogative but the majority would have the confidence to let the F/O 'aviate' while they manage the 'navigation' and 'communication'.
A good Captain should be able to manage the situation and supervise the F/O. If a Captain feels that he or she has to take over the handling of the a/c in a non-notmal situation then there is obviously something wrong in that airlines training standards and the Captains management abilities.
The same applies to normal flying in my company (UK IT) except for the most extreme situations. If the F/O is PF then the F/O flies and manages the leg under supervision of the Captain. A good Captain will let the F/O (captain in training) make small errors as long as there is no danger. After all, there is a lot to be learnt from making mistakes that aren't life threatening.
For CAT II and III approaches or any low vis ops the F/O flies the approach from top of descent and in the case of an autoland the Captain only takes control after touchdown. These are called 'MONITORED' approaches and the Captain is MONITORING the approach. If there is a decision height involved the F/O calls "DECIDE" at that point and the Captain either calls "LAND" and becomes PF or "GO-AROUND" and the F/O flies the missed approach. The F/O always flies the approach to descision height. All low visibility approaches are monitored approaches.
The company has a high standard of training and knows that their Captains are more than capable of letting an F/O fly the a/c while they manage/monitor the bigger picture. Only in RVR below 400m is the Captain reqired to be the PF for take off. Our a/c only have a tiller on the left so F/O's don't taxi the a/c and the SOP's dictate that the Captain takes over on any aborted take off, probably due to the tiller being on that side and if there is an engine fire the a/c will have to be manouvered so that the burning engine is downwind. Either pilot may call "STOP" for any serious malfunction up to 80kts and either pilot may call stop for any fire warning, engine failure or blocked runway up to V1. For those crusty old PPruner Captains that are horrified by the thought of this, we regularly practice this in the sim, including incapacitation of the Captains so that the F/O has to actually control the a/c to a stop!
Obviously in some companies the standard of training of their F/O's is not up to scratch and some Captains trust no-one and consider themselves superhuman and more able to 'manage' a non normal whilst overloading themselves with basic stick and rudder input. As for companies not letting their F/O's fly non precision approaches, perhaps they should take a look at their training departments.
What has suprised me is the way a few so called Captains here have stated that they would take over flying the a/c in an non-normal situation and wouldn't trust their F/O because they don't have the same amount of experience. Surely if an F/O has reached the standard to pass the type rating, and jumped through the hoops of line training they can at least handle the a/c for basic flying skills. In my company, the PF flies the a/c and the PNF actions the drills even if the PF is the F/O. If the after completing all the drills the Captain feels that he or she should take over the PF function then that is their perogative but the majority would have the confidence to let the F/O 'aviate' while they manage the 'navigation' and 'communication'.
A good Captain should be able to manage the situation and supervise the F/O. If a Captain feels that he or she has to take over the handling of the a/c in a non-notmal situation then there is obviously something wrong in that airlines training standards and the Captains management abilities.
The same applies to normal flying in my company (UK IT) except for the most extreme situations. If the F/O is PF then the F/O flies and manages the leg under supervision of the Captain. A good Captain will let the F/O (captain in training) make small errors as long as there is no danger. After all, there is a lot to be learnt from making mistakes that aren't life threatening.
For CAT II and III approaches or any low vis ops the F/O flies the approach from top of descent and in the case of an autoland the Captain only takes control after touchdown. These are called 'MONITORED' approaches and the Captain is MONITORING the approach. If there is a decision height involved the F/O calls "DECIDE" at that point and the Captain either calls "LAND" and becomes PF or "GO-AROUND" and the F/O flies the missed approach. The F/O always flies the approach to descision height. All low visibility approaches are monitored approaches.
The company has a high standard of training and knows that their Captains are more than capable of letting an F/O fly the a/c while they manage/monitor the bigger picture. Only in RVR below 400m is the Captain reqired to be the PF for take off. Our a/c only have a tiller on the left so F/O's don't taxi the a/c and the SOP's dictate that the Captain takes over on any aborted take off, probably due to the tiller being on that side and if there is an engine fire the a/c will have to be manouvered so that the burning engine is downwind. Either pilot may call "STOP" for any serious malfunction up to 80kts and either pilot may call stop for any fire warning, engine failure or blocked runway up to V1. For those crusty old PPruner Captains that are horrified by the thought of this, we regularly practice this in the sim, including incapacitation of the Captains so that the F/O has to actually control the a/c to a stop!
Obviously in some companies the standard of training of their F/O's is not up to scratch and some Captains trust no-one and consider themselves superhuman and more able to 'manage' a non normal whilst overloading themselves with basic stick and rudder input. As for companies not letting their F/O's fly non precision approaches, perhaps they should take a look at their training departments.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Never experienced the bit about non-precision approaches, but the engine start and taxiing were always capt duties except when the FE started the engines in a 3-man crew...was for the sake of standardization, remember the most important job of the f.o.s to be the ultimate safety-device in the cockpit..if you ever feel that responsibility is removed then get a job at another airline....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Source: Senior(mid thirties)10000hr Captain at large UK charter airline.
Quote " The trouble is that nowadays you cant trust the companies F/Os to do anything more complicated than making the tea. At least when the company employed "real" pilots and not these "products" that come out of the schools now you could at least expect them to be able to fly and be confident that if an emergency occured they had been through the mill already and not just mollycodled along".
Could this be the reason?
Quote " The trouble is that nowadays you cant trust the companies F/Os to do anything more complicated than making the tea. At least when the company employed "real" pilots and not these "products" that come out of the schools now you could at least expect them to be able to fly and be confident that if an emergency occured they had been through the mill already and not just mollycodled along".
Could this be the reason?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I feel sorry for you sir. As I said earlier, our F.O.'s do the lot, except taxy (single tiller), and the Capt carrys out low-vis autolands, from a monitored approach. Never seen the 400m restriction, our pilots, both seats are qualified to take-off in 125m RVR.
But then, perhaps we have the best First Officers, coupled with the best training department.
But then, perhaps we have the best First Officers, coupled with the best training department.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 449
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Copilots (on most fleets) push the START button and do some timing and the PICs move the levers and do some other timing. Maybe an old time thing as they used to say "if someone fries the engines during starting, let it better be the PIC as he is responsible anyway".
We have left tillers only and the captains taxi. Which is a good idea as it allows the copilots who still have hearing to tell them what the taxi clearance was.......:-)
I can't see any big philosophical issues behind these things. I don't think copilots get shortchanged by not being allowed to taxi (of course our captains can hand the a/c over to the copi for taxiing, e.g. to retrieve something from their flight case, as long as there are no large turns involved.
PNF sets the T/O power setting but the PIC is the one to retard for abort. As he is the one to decide that seems a reasonable way of shortening the reaction time.
When airborne, copilots are allowed to do anything but Cat 2/3 landings but they're in control on Cat 2 approaches down to minimums and would fly the Cat 2 go-around.
Precision approaches - as many as they like!
Non-normal landings: training is given for anything but all-engine out and the decision who handles it is up to the respective captain. With many electrical faults there is no big choice because the copilot finds himself in shadow land with no EFIS to look at.
Captains also do the emergency descents (I agree that that is probably a question of tradition without a theoretical back-up).
Airplanes flown: Dash 8-100/300/400, CRJ, F70
We have left tillers only and the captains taxi. Which is a good idea as it allows the copilots who still have hearing to tell them what the taxi clearance was.......:-)
I can't see any big philosophical issues behind these things. I don't think copilots get shortchanged by not being allowed to taxi (of course our captains can hand the a/c over to the copi for taxiing, e.g. to retrieve something from their flight case, as long as there are no large turns involved.
PNF sets the T/O power setting but the PIC is the one to retard for abort. As he is the one to decide that seems a reasonable way of shortening the reaction time.
When airborne, copilots are allowed to do anything but Cat 2/3 landings but they're in control on Cat 2 approaches down to minimums and would fly the Cat 2 go-around.
Precision approaches - as many as they like!
Non-normal landings: training is given for anything but all-engine out and the decision who handles it is up to the respective captain. With many electrical faults there is no big choice because the copilot finds himself in shadow land with no EFIS to look at.
Captains also do the emergency descents (I agree that that is probably a question of tradition without a theoretical back-up).
Airplanes flown: Dash 8-100/300/400, CRJ, F70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rejected take-offs. Travelling at 130kts, the aircraft is covering some 220 feet (67metres) per second. F.O.handling. "Excuse me captain, we seem to have a fire on number one engine. Would you like to confirm, take control, and carry out a reject?" Perhaps I'm set in my ways, but I prefer "Stop, stop, stop" at the same time closing the thrust levers, selecting reverse etc. I agree, it all comes down to training, but it is safer to train them properly, then let them get on with it. Besides, at my age, ALL the F.O.'s have faster reactions than me!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The procedure is a bit diferent, I changed airlines not to long ago and went from having the okay to abort to Capt holds the thrust levers.
Proc: Capt sets T/o thrust says You have ctl F/O replyes my ctls keeps heels on the floor while the capt stands by on the brakes. In case of abort the F/O just lets go of the controls and informs atc no verbal commands during the decel!
In my previous company the F/O did all and we left the decision as to who managed a failure to the Capt. this was combined with CRM training on the topic so that the crew could asses the non normal and the Capt could take the optimum decision for the situation. I enjoyed this way of operating because it puts the choice with the most informed person the Capt on the spot!!!
[This message has been edited by Haas_320 (edited 01 June 2001).]
Proc: Capt sets T/o thrust says You have ctl F/O replyes my ctls keeps heels on the floor while the capt stands by on the brakes. In case of abort the F/O just lets go of the controls and informs atc no verbal commands during the decel!
In my previous company the F/O did all and we left the decision as to who managed a failure to the Capt. this was combined with CRM training on the topic so that the crew could asses the non normal and the Capt could take the optimum decision for the situation. I enjoyed this way of operating because it puts the choice with the most informed person the Capt on the spot!!!
[This message has been edited by Haas_320 (edited 01 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crossair is much worse than Martinair.
They have the philosophy that the Copilot has to watch the Captain for the first 3 years in order to learn.
Remark: Average time to command at CRX 3 years.!!
Most Captains at Crossair make their first take-off during command upgrade, they normally do also the roll-out and braking for the first time during upgrade trng.
For the first 3 1/2 years = Hand over after clean-up (3000 feet)!! No Copilot is allowed to make take-off`s until he is a SFO (SFO at CRX = negative for upgrade). Mostly handover is done with autopilot engaged.
Approx . 50% of CRX MD-80 F/O s can not operate the airplane safely in case of Captain`s incapcitation.
Management says a Copilot with 200 hours total time is not safe in operating the aircraft on ground and during initial climb- out. (Captain takes over on touch-down.)
Well you management boneheads, in this case select them properly, send them to the Saab fleet first and give them the training and experience and finally treat and pay them well!
By the way the guy who crashed the Saab 340 in ZRH in January 2000 was a 8500 hour captain.
We are waiting for the next BOOOMM!
They have the philosophy that the Copilot has to watch the Captain for the first 3 years in order to learn.
Remark: Average time to command at CRX 3 years.!!
Most Captains at Crossair make their first take-off during command upgrade, they normally do also the roll-out and braking for the first time during upgrade trng.
For the first 3 1/2 years = Hand over after clean-up (3000 feet)!! No Copilot is allowed to make take-off`s until he is a SFO (SFO at CRX = negative for upgrade). Mostly handover is done with autopilot engaged.
Approx . 50% of CRX MD-80 F/O s can not operate the airplane safely in case of Captain`s incapcitation.
Management says a Copilot with 200 hours total time is not safe in operating the aircraft on ground and during initial climb- out. (Captain takes over on touch-down.)
Well you management boneheads, in this case select them properly, send them to the Saab fleet first and give them the training and experience and finally treat and pay them well!
By the way the guy who crashed the Saab 340 in ZRH in January 2000 was a 8500 hour captain.
We are waiting for the next BOOOMM!
Guest
Posts: n/a
About Crossair - Jesus H that's scary !!!
Herod, excellent point that's worth echoing. Alpine Flyer, how on earth does that process shorten the reaction time?? If the PIC is handling for the take off, his eyes will be outside keeping straight, if the F/O notices a problem, he has to confirm in his mind that it is actually something worth mentioning, (as opposed to something such as a guage indication that may be slightly different to the norm, but still within limits) he then has to relay his concern to the PIC who then runs through the same sort of decision process as the F/O, before deciding whether or not to reject the take off.
There is absolutely no way that this procedure shortens reaction time.
Herod, excellent point that's worth echoing. Alpine Flyer, how on earth does that process shorten the reaction time?? If the PIC is handling for the take off, his eyes will be outside keeping straight, if the F/O notices a problem, he has to confirm in his mind that it is actually something worth mentioning, (as opposed to something such as a guage indication that may be slightly different to the norm, but still within limits) he then has to relay his concern to the PIC who then runs through the same sort of decision process as the F/O, before deciding whether or not to reject the take off.
There is absolutely no way that this procedure shortens reaction time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What an interesting subject! Our US operation allows only the Captain to start engines on the older jets (but can delegate shutting one down when taxiing in to the gate), but when I was on a larger two-engine (and a Boeing) type as FO, the FO turned the start switch and the Captain raised the fuel control levers. Don't know about the other fleets here.
On le/dem Airbus, I believe that the copilots can taxi around at times, using their tiller. On our older planes, I'll now and then ask the FO to steer on a straight taxiway using the rudder pedals which steer 17 degrees from center, so I can finish my coffee or find my sunglasses under the Hi Chart (7&8). When the "flying pilot" pushes the throttles up tp the EPR bugs, the Captain's hands guard the throttles until the right hand goes to the gear lever etc, then the FO has them, if his/her leg. I offer all FOs at least half or all of the spoke legs (for laymen, much more variety flying away from hubs)-we had lots of greedy Captains when I was FO, even if legs alternated between us.
During Captain training over two years ago (and during annual recurrent...), when an annunciator light came on, we always gave the FO (all with several thousands of hours when hired these days, at least if all civilian hours) the plane while the Captain read/did the checklist, but the Captain has the FO verifying the CSD to be disconnected, fuel control, fire handle to be pulled etc.
Once a Captain put his CRM philosophy in a nutshell-he said "if I need to be more conservative, we'll do it that way, but if you want to be more conservative, let's do it your way". That indicated to me before the first checklist was even begun, that he trusted his FO's advice, or was willing to respect it. No other Captain had ever said it in so few words.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 02 June 2001).]
On le/dem Airbus, I believe that the copilots can taxi around at times, using their tiller. On our older planes, I'll now and then ask the FO to steer on a straight taxiway using the rudder pedals which steer 17 degrees from center, so I can finish my coffee or find my sunglasses under the Hi Chart (7&8). When the "flying pilot" pushes the throttles up tp the EPR bugs, the Captain's hands guard the throttles until the right hand goes to the gear lever etc, then the FO has them, if his/her leg. I offer all FOs at least half or all of the spoke legs (for laymen, much more variety flying away from hubs)-we had lots of greedy Captains when I was FO, even if legs alternated between us.
During Captain training over two years ago (and during annual recurrent...), when an annunciator light came on, we always gave the FO (all with several thousands of hours when hired these days, at least if all civilian hours) the plane while the Captain read/did the checklist, but the Captain has the FO verifying the CSD to be disconnected, fuel control, fire handle to be pulled etc.
Once a Captain put his CRM philosophy in a nutshell-he said "if I need to be more conservative, we'll do it that way, but if you want to be more conservative, let's do it your way". That indicated to me before the first checklist was even begun, that he trusted his FO's advice, or was willing to respect it. No other Captain had ever said it in so few words.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 02 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting...Our American company allows the F/O's to do whatever they need to do as PF. So that means setting the powerlevers at take off and doing the non precision approaches, which rarely happens.
It's a different story on the ground. The F/O's are not allowed to taxi nor are they allowed to start up the engines.
The F/O's are trained to the same standard as the Captains, they are type-rated in the aircraft.
It's a different story on the ground. The F/O's are not allowed to taxi nor are they allowed to start up the engines.
The F/O's are trained to the same standard as the Captains, they are type-rated in the aircraft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
First, on a general principle, do people react well to being given responsibility and being involved in their work?
If they are competent, the answer must be, 'yes'. So, employ competent people and give them the reigns.
A lot of airlines now ensure that the FO does almost nothing on the ground other than reading the checklist responses, and only flies if the weather is nice. I believe that this leads to a culture of uninvolved complacency. It can only have a negative effect on cockpit gradient (though perhaps some airline bosses still like a good steep cockpit gradient to ensure the FO doesn't interfere with things too much! It certainly seems that way...)
On a more specific point, we try to do everything unusual in 'slow time', knowing that this increases the likelihod of getting it right. There is one situation in which this cannot be - the decision to reject close to V1. As highlighted above, this decision must be made immediately and correctly. We would all agree that the consequences of getting this wrong can be catastrophic.
So, imagine this sequence of events:
V1 minus 10Kts, Captain flying, FO monitoring. FO sees EGT and FF go haywire on engine, and calls 'Engine failure'. Captain feels nothing unusual at this stage (he probably wouldn't), so does the most naural thing in the world and looks for confirmation (now V1 minus five). Captain looks at gauges and takes a natural amount of time to assimilate information - doesn't like what he sees, and decides to stop. Decision taken at V1. Rejection actions taken at V1 plus five.
Assume his is an airline which derates to the imit, and there is NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO STOP.
If, though, the FO had said 'STOP', there would have been no difficulty stopping well before the end of EDA.
The ensuing court case would be very interesting indeed.
Let's keep this one going, and on-topic.
If they are competent, the answer must be, 'yes'. So, employ competent people and give them the reigns.
A lot of airlines now ensure that the FO does almost nothing on the ground other than reading the checklist responses, and only flies if the weather is nice. I believe that this leads to a culture of uninvolved complacency. It can only have a negative effect on cockpit gradient (though perhaps some airline bosses still like a good steep cockpit gradient to ensure the FO doesn't interfere with things too much! It certainly seems that way...)
On a more specific point, we try to do everything unusual in 'slow time', knowing that this increases the likelihod of getting it right. There is one situation in which this cannot be - the decision to reject close to V1. As highlighted above, this decision must be made immediately and correctly. We would all agree that the consequences of getting this wrong can be catastrophic.
So, imagine this sequence of events:
V1 minus 10Kts, Captain flying, FO monitoring. FO sees EGT and FF go haywire on engine, and calls 'Engine failure'. Captain feels nothing unusual at this stage (he probably wouldn't), so does the most naural thing in the world and looks for confirmation (now V1 minus five). Captain looks at gauges and takes a natural amount of time to assimilate information - doesn't like what he sees, and decides to stop. Decision taken at V1. Rejection actions taken at V1 plus five.
Assume his is an airline which derates to the imit, and there is NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO STOP.
If, though, the FO had said 'STOP', there would have been no difficulty stopping well before the end of EDA.
The ensuing court case would be very interesting indeed.
Let's keep this one going, and on-topic.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pielander: At most, if not all regional and larger airlines, the Captain and First Officer alternate legs, and in the US, waiting for a national/major airline Captain's seat base on seniority (which is the determining factor, unless an FO wants to stay in that seat longer-or works for American-no chance to delay for long there) takes 5-10 years at times, or even several more in very slow economic times. Captains often let FOs fly to the many spoke airports, and not just the few hubs, giving them much more variety and some extra short runways, and an occaisional non-precision approach, which is much more challenging than a "precision" ILS approach. Few of the smaller jets at the majors here have autoland, and most pilots hand-fly landings even on those with some exceptions, i.e. to check a 757's (later 737s or MD-88...?) autoland systems at times. As said earlier, the largest US companies hire pilots with either 2,000+ tactical/trainer jet hours etc, or if civilian hours, 5,000-10,000+ hours with usually 1-4+ type ratings.
No beginners at the larger US operations (maybe lacking in extensive abstract theory, but are compensated by real-world experience, often in crowded airspace in or around all weather) and the regionals often find applicants with 1500-2500 hours etc, except under certain court-ordered "political quota factors".
But at some of the smallest charter companies on the smaller twins , some jerk Captains have been known to fly most of the legs-an FO many years ago had flown little on King Airs, except level during cruise, while based at West Memphis Airport. He received extra training before his Bandeirante (twin-turboprop) checkride, at his first regional airline job.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 03 June 2001).]
No beginners at the larger US operations (maybe lacking in extensive abstract theory, but are compensated by real-world experience, often in crowded airspace in or around all weather) and the regionals often find applicants with 1500-2500 hours etc, except under certain court-ordered "political quota factors".
But at some of the smallest charter companies on the smaller twins , some jerk Captains have been known to fly most of the legs-an FO many years ago had flown little on King Airs, except level during cruise, while based at West Memphis Airport. He received extra training before his Bandeirante (twin-turboprop) checkride, at his first regional airline job.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 03 June 2001).]