Jet Airways "Supernumerary" Landed Jet--not reported
 

Tempest in a teapot or a real danger let one with such experience "occupy the right seat for the landing"? Link

Every pilot starts as a supernumerary
 

Every pilot strats his/her career from a small a/c.
The Supernumerary would have already flown the larger A/C in a 6 axis simulator and also done a few landings on the actual A/C during a company familiarization flt(Without PAX on board)
On completion of the required hours of Supernumerary flying(which might already have been the case)He would have been in fact officially doing what is alleged to have been done.That is fly from the right seat with a company training Capt on the left seat..and a safety pilot(An experienced first officer)riding on the supernumerary seat.The training sylabus requires the safety pilot only on the first few flts....thereafter if the Capt is to become incapacitated in flt, this same "Supernumerary" till a few flying hours ago is expected to land the a/c safely.So one has to keep in perspective the profesional spirit with which line Capts let rookie first officers fly and build up hands on experience.
While it appears that this particular training was not authorized..hence the punative action.
people need to realize that it is definatly not like the case of the Aeroflot pilot who let his son fly an Airbus 310 ,and could not prevent it from crashing and killing all on board.(due to only one auto pilot chanel disengaged)

(From the linked livemint article - my bolding)

.. so it seems this was a supernumerary flight before endorsement training.

The Trainee who was allowed to land the 737 had nothing but 200 odd hours on a C-152/172. He did not undergo any training on a 737 simulator and does not posses any kind of Jet or Turbo Prop experience.

Whats really absurd is that even after knowing about this incident the Chiefs of flight safety and Operations did not report this incident to the DGCA. Especially under the current circumstances when the DGCA has been scrutinizing every airlines even for the smallest of small incidents.

Frankly… over the years, I’ve had supies more knowledgeable and motivated than some F/O’s and captains I’ve flown with. I would love to read the F/O’s report. It’s probably an essay on a parallel with the Times of India.

The F/O who was in the in the jump seat could handle the R/T and read the checklist without hindrance. The supy, who was presumably in the right seat could manage the gear and flaps and sit back and enjoy the ride.

Supies from every carrier read the check list, complete the paperwork and manage the R/T too. I'm sure when the F/O was a supy, he did the same from the jump seat too.

So, where’s the danger or the drama than the captain possibly becoming incapacitated at 50’ above the ground?

At the end of the day, was it proper judgment on behalf of the captain to allow the supy occupy the right seat? No.

Was there enough of a dangerous situation looming that caused the F/O to rat the captain out? Who knows.

I’m sure that F/O will be welcomed with open arms by the captains he flies with:suspect::E:yuk:. I can only hope, for his sake, the F/O is up on all his SOPs:=.


flyjet787 says Here's the exerpt from the livemint.com (WSJ)

The supy was only occupying the right seat and not acting as the flying pilot.

An opinion from an expert:rolleyes:... probably from an airline, which shall remain nameless, subidised by the government.

Misleads the readers the supy was flying the jet.

JNS!

It really does not matter if he was PM or PF.

The chap was not type rated and occupied an operating seat during a revenue flight, further he was in that seat during landing.....

I'm amazed that you can defend such action on a public forum.

It was an illegal act that was unsafe, there is a reason your supposed to have TWO type rated, line qualified pilots at the controls of a MPA.

Usually something like that should lead to an incident report to the relevant authority and a case of "reckless and careless" endangering the passengers which in turn would lead to a pulled license. And rightly so. Yes, the supernumary had some limited flying experience in slow and lightweight aircraft, that doesn't really train him to operate in a jet even as PM without quite a bit of additional training (jet conversion course, type rating, base training). However, one has to wonder why the FO vacated his seat when being asked by the captain and thus allow this farce to play out.

I agree! I just can't get over how people are defending the action... Making out it was not a big deal!

Also the fact the company covered up this information when it came to light, shows they are not following their SMS system... A key requirement of holding an AOC and passing an IOSA audit to be a member of IATA.

PT6A... I'm not defending the captain the F/O, nor the supy. I forgot to ask as to whether or not the captain was a trainer.

In any case, however, the supy should not occupy any seat while the aircraft is off block, until such time that person has successfully completed their traininging and checks I/A/W the company's FTOM.

Without question, the first officer should have refused to give up his seat. If the discussion between he and his captain became heated, he could have pulled the CVR CB once on station and requested a download of the conversation, and let the facts and voice transcription speak for themselves.

It's worked in the past too. Better than he said, she said.

Actually,the problem is much bigger than it appears.Not only should the supernumerary not be in the seat below 100 but..Jet airways doesnt train its regular co-pilots(ie already signed off) how to land the plane or even fly an approach outside the LNAV/VNAV profile with AP engaged.So even with a regular co-pilot(newish say < 500 hrs),the problem of Captain incapacitation is a very moot point.They train them in SOP's,how to load the FMC,fly the magenta line and handle the RT and that is all!So any unsuspecting expat Captain is de facto a trainer but he doesnt know it...And if you willingly accept your new unpaid position as line trainer andlet these signed-off co-pilots fly and they get into trouble(ie high,fast,unstable) YOU will be called in to Mumbai for a chat and called unsafe.Ironic isnt it?Their use of FDM is unscrupulous without any acknowledgment on their part that the root problem is that THEY havent trained them properly to begin with!!:ugh:Furthermore,I never saw a co-pilot able to handle the V1 cut scenario properly and safely in the simulator.And anything more complex than the V1 cut,you can totally forget about.But they all passed.Go figure.;)

The only thing that keeps Jet flying safely is the Captain's heartbeat,the magenta line,George and the reliability of Boeing's products.The passengers are all blissfully unaware.

Says it all really...

4.2.2 Seat Occupancy

Flight deck crewmembers are to occupy their assigned duty stations from the time the aircraft first starts to move at the beginning of its flight until it is established in the level cruise, and from the time it begins its descent on approaching the destination until the aircraft is stationary on its allocated parking stand at the end of the flight. All operating flight crewmembers must occupy their normal seat positions and there must be two fully type rated pilots at the controls, one of whom must be the Commander.
All flight crew seats must be correctly adjusted to the optimum vision and full reach for operation of all controls. A positive check must be made that each seat locking mechanism is fully and correctly locked, both before take-off and before landing.
In level cruise, any one flight crewmember may, with the permission of the Commander; leave his assigned station for an agreed purpose and period.

Sounds like you got the "T" shirt Caulfield.

A number of these chappies and chappettes, from time to time and from round the world need to remdined:

The purpose of the runway is not for a CFIT event.

Land within 500' of the T/D zone... this side, not the far end of the runway.

I don't like to see the cenerline from either side window during landing.

In all fairness to the newbies they don't have the opportunity to build their consistency. The more they fly the better they'll get. Hand flying is the key without the automatics. Overtime it improves situational awareness and they will lose the monica "Children of the Magenta Line".:ok:

Newly released captains, can't give any legs to F/Os until they themselves have 1,000 hours in the left seat. Can you imagine what life is like for these poor kids at the smaller bases?:{

That said, PT6A, in your opinion, do you feel all parties, the Skipper, the F/O, and Supy should be dismissed?

Not to split hairs with you PT6A, but is your citation from the Jet Airways Company Operations Manual?

If the document you have cited is as such, or copied is from the 9W COM, it is therfore an approved document from the DGCA, which becomes tantamount a DGCA Regulation. COMs are company specific, and can't be applied to any other carrier.

JNS,

I would go further than what you suggest...

Someone in the flight safety department should be for the high jump, the most serious part of this "incident" is the fact it was hidden and not reported.

That is a VERY bad culture within the airline.

As for the pilots, they should have some sort of punishment that is for sure... As to what that should be I will leave to the regulator.

Again, the most serious part of this incident is the company hiding it.. proving they dont have a "safety culture" or a "just culture"

TEM
 

It is absolutely bizarre that people are trying to justify this act. It is absolutely unethical and a VIOLATION of all legalities and procedures to allow anyone not qualified to be in the seat when not authorized.

This shows the level of tolerance that pilots have to regulations. Pilots are willing to 'bend' rules when it suits them. I do not think they understand the implications of an incident/accident in such a situation. There were days when this practice prevailed. But those days are long gone (10-15 years ago) wherein better 'professionalism' started entering the flight deck. When this happened in the past people quickly changed seats back or made callouts that were appropriate to the seat. Why dis people do it? Simply becuase they could and got away with it. Those days are long gone and now a days the modern DFDR and CVR are able to record all that happens irrespective of seat position. Do we require such deterrants to stop this kind of action or are we going to be responsible enough to know that this is unacceptable? This is not an error but a VIOLATION and should have been dealt accordingly. 3 months off the roster is definitely not enough deterrent for a people that bend rules. The message from management is not loud enough for the crime.

PT6A, is it of your opinion that opinion is not limited solely to 9W?

Of course JNS, this incident is about 9W... But I would feel the same about any airline that acted in this way.

The actual incident well... Is naughty but not the end of the world... What is a much larger problem is the way in which the company safety department hid it from the regulator.

This is clear evidence their Operations Manual and documented safety process are not being followed... (These prosesses are the foundation upon which an AOC is issued) This is an area for great concern.

My sentiemnts too PT6A.

This question could be asked of most SMS systems...

But, do you think aviation in India is "mature" enough for a self regulating system?

What is a known fact is that their regulator is not able to conduct proper oversight of the airlines due to lack of funding and corruption.

To make matters worse the FOI's in India are employees of the various airlines, it must be a real conflict to be wearing two hats!

It seems the head of Indian DGCA is better than those before him... But it has a long way to go!

There needs to be a huge change in attitude from top to bottom, that is what this incident highlights.. not a simple breach of SOP's allowing someone to sit in that seat (Not to say that is not bad enough) But to just deal with that Captain... Is doing nothing more than avoiding the problem.