One Way Command
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: at home
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Way Command
Our company has a policy (we operate B737s) wherin due to a shortage of Co-pilots they have Captains operating on a "One Way Command" basis.
How this works is that both seats in the cockpit are occupied by Captains. The guy in the left seat is the PIC as well as Pilot Flying for that leg/sector. Then they swap seats and roles for the next leg.
Ive been in the left seat for the last 3000 hrs, and am not particularly happy with this as in the right seat my hands seem to be all over the place and I'm just not COMFORTABLE. The last time I operated controls from the right was over 4 years ago. A lot of other Captains also feel the same way. ESP as we do this say- once a month or so.
So I am wondering :
1. Is this even legal?
2. More Importantly- how in your opinion does this kind of operation affect flight safety?
Cheers
How this works is that both seats in the cockpit are occupied by Captains. The guy in the left seat is the PIC as well as Pilot Flying for that leg/sector. Then they swap seats and roles for the next leg.
Ive been in the left seat for the last 3000 hrs, and am not particularly happy with this as in the right seat my hands seem to be all over the place and I'm just not COMFORTABLE. The last time I operated controls from the right was over 4 years ago. A lot of other Captains also feel the same way. ESP as we do this say- once a month or so.
So I am wondering :
1. Is this even legal?
2. More Importantly- how in your opinion does this kind of operation affect flight safety?
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On the nose
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it's legal.
IMHO no way can it be considered safe. There are all sorts of problems with CRM issues with Captains not liking to be seen to pull another up on their modus operandi at one extreme, or with nitpicking at the other, with negative authority gradients, with lack of familiarity with the RH seat, etc. etc.
I believe the CAA turns a blind eye to it happening to cover a temporary shortage of FO's, but it should not be planned or accepted as a long-term proposition without some planning for rectification.
IMHO no way can it be considered safe. There are all sorts of problems with CRM issues with Captains not liking to be seen to pull another up on their modus operandi at one extreme, or with nitpicking at the other, with negative authority gradients, with lack of familiarity with the RH seat, etc. etc.
I believe the CAA turns a blind eye to it happening to cover a temporary shortage of FO's, but it should not be planned or accepted as a long-term proposition without some planning for rectification.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Andrha Pradesh : India
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a daily occurrence in my outfit, has been for many many years.
Not only is it completely legal, but is ROSTERED !
Some like it , some don't , there can be some CRM issues, but mainly depends on the characters involved.
Personally I like the oppurtunity to see how other Captains run the ship. Can be quite enlightening !!
Singasong.
Not only is it completely legal, but is ROSTERED !
Some like it , some don't , there can be some CRM issues, but mainly depends on the characters involved.
Personally I like the oppurtunity to see how other Captains run the ship. Can be quite enlightening !!
Singasong.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For my opinion it's unsafe and illegal, if the CPT who occupies the RH seat is neither trained or checked for that.
What about SOP? In my company the go/nogo decision rests solely with the commander. He is trained for that. In a critical situation human being tend to fall in their trained habits. For a RTO there is a good chance that both will fumble with throttles and brakes.
What about SOP for CAT II/III ? In my company those appchs are done by the commander and the FOs head stays down on instruments until role out or even goaround. Would a CPT in the RH seat really do the tasks a FO is trained for? I don't think so.
I can't proof it by numbers but I have the impresion that statistics clearly say that accidents/incidents with a NONSTANDARD CREW (also Checkflights) are much more likely to occur.
No, thanks guys.
What about SOP? In my company the go/nogo decision rests solely with the commander. He is trained for that. In a critical situation human being tend to fall in their trained habits. For a RTO there is a good chance that both will fumble with throttles and brakes.
What about SOP for CAT II/III ? In my company those appchs are done by the commander and the FOs head stays down on instruments until role out or even goaround. Would a CPT in the RH seat really do the tasks a FO is trained for? I don't think so.
I can't proof it by numbers but I have the impresion that statistics clearly say that accidents/incidents with a NONSTANDARD CREW (also Checkflights) are much more likely to occur.
No, thanks guys.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Andrha Pradesh : India
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is certainly NOT illegal.............
Check out Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.968
However, if the required training has not been completed........
Then that is another matter, and our collegue should refuse the duty !
singasong.
Check out Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.968
However, if the required training has not been completed........
Then that is another matter, and our collegue should refuse the duty !
singasong.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here and there but mostly lgw
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure i see the problem guys.
A capt flying on the right seat has to be right seat checked at opc/lpc. flying is not allowed on the line (normal ops) just radio and panel management, which on a 737 is not rocket science.
As for crm, lets not hide behind it. good crm is not a fixed entity, you create it on the day. me thinks its a bruised ego in some cases or resentment about doing a lca on a fri night in the right seat, and having to suffer someone elses techniques.
This is where your professionalism we hear so much about on these forums should come into play and create a good atmosphere that is conducive to and allows good crm to develop.
its only a safety isue if you cant deal with it. skills wise its not a challenge so there must be another hurdle creating any problems.see above.
I've been doing co capt in various firs for years and only here in the uk do I hear the dislike of it being hidden behind crm and safety. sure its a pain but you are a professional. deal with it on the day and try and get a policy change in the long term
A capt flying on the right seat has to be right seat checked at opc/lpc. flying is not allowed on the line (normal ops) just radio and panel management, which on a 737 is not rocket science.
As for crm, lets not hide behind it. good crm is not a fixed entity, you create it on the day. me thinks its a bruised ego in some cases or resentment about doing a lca on a fri night in the right seat, and having to suffer someone elses techniques.
This is where your professionalism we hear so much about on these forums should come into play and create a good atmosphere that is conducive to and allows good crm to develop.
its only a safety isue if you cant deal with it. skills wise its not a challenge so there must be another hurdle creating any problems.see above.
I've been doing co capt in various firs for years and only here in the uk do I hear the dislike of it being hidden behind crm and safety. sure its a pain but you are a professional. deal with it on the day and try and get a policy change in the long term
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is fun, always difficult reading between the lines. FWW if you have not been checked out for four years in the RHS and operate under JAR then it would be illegal.
Also JAR 1.940
One Pilot must be designated as the commander.
Also JAR 1.940
One Pilot must be designated as the commander.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: sky
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi to all,
It is quite common at the company i work for , and i don`t see any problem about it.
Regarding the law ,there most be a capt so the senior one is the one(no big deal being the #2 because you are also a capt).
Regarding operation of the aircraft while on rhs one must be a training capt to fly if not fly it on lhs(2 mature capts can work that out just fine).
Best of luck to you all
It is quite common at the company i work for , and i don`t see any problem about it.
Regarding the law ,there most be a capt so the senior one is the one(no big deal being the #2 because you are also a capt).
Regarding operation of the aircraft while on rhs one must be a training capt to fly if not fly it on lhs(2 mature capts can work that out just fine).
Best of luck to you all
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's illegal for a CPT who is not trained AND checked to fly in the RH seat. And it's subject to anual check as well....
regards
regards
Last edited by catchup; 26th Aug 2004 at 06:10.
We are doing it a lot at my oufit at the moment due too many Captains and not quite enough FO's (long story but a union deal limited the scope for demotions due over staffing). I find it no problem at all and never have done, it's almost always a nice easy day out and a chance to chat with guys you don't see that much.
I would politely suggest that you should feel comfortable, you are an experienced, professional airline Captain. If you don't feel you can handle being PNF and P2 in the right seat of an aircraft you have 3000hrs in command on then something is a little amiss. Get on with it and be thankfull the company doesn't solve the problem by demoting you or some of your more junior colleagues.
in the right seat my hands seem to be all over the place and I'm just not COMFORTABLE.
I agree with Max Angle’s professional approach, but be aware of possible problems; I have posted this reply in an earlier thread:
My experience of two captains flying together comes from two different sectors of the industry, both indicated hazards. First, in a non-public transport operation, pilots flew as Capt / Co-Capt with command rotating on each leg. With a small group of pilots the procedures were standardized (if not always written down) and personal interaction was both strong and balanced. However many slips and mistakes were made, most were quickly caught and corrected, but complacency and failure to behave as a NFP led to a few interesting events.
My second experience is from investigating incidents and accidents. I have seen evidence that two Captains on the flight deck significantly increase the risk of an incident. Even worst three captains, whether or not the jump seat pilot was in official or unofficial capacity (a caution here for check flights and LOSA, but of course everyone is flying ‘by the book’ on these sectors).
The evidence indicated that a RHS Captain NFP was not a good monitor, this also applied to a lesser extent to training captains during instructional or check flights. A Captain monitoring another Captain intervened much later than would have occurred with a recently qualified First Officer. Some pilots did not intervene at all. The reason for this appeared to be the assumption by the NFP that the handing pilot knew what he was doing, or at least as long as the monitoring pilot knew what was happening from his perspective he assumed that he did not have to alert the Commander.
With two Captains, their joint ability to detect threats and hazards appeared lower than with a normal crew; thus during an event they were at higher risk before recovery action was commenced. I wonder if this is similar to group risk theory; where a decision taken by a group of people tends to be more risky than when taken by an individual. Although CRM encourages group participation, the responsibility for any decision still rests with the commander. With a level authority gradient of two Captains they may operate more as a group, whereas a more balanced authority gradient with a captain and first officer maintains greater respect for the commander and his decisions.
Another aspect of incidents and accidents with two captains was that the RHS monitoring captain was not always familiar with the duties of that role, particularly in the use of standard procedures and the physical actions from the right seat.
My experience of two captains flying together comes from two different sectors of the industry, both indicated hazards. First, in a non-public transport operation, pilots flew as Capt / Co-Capt with command rotating on each leg. With a small group of pilots the procedures were standardized (if not always written down) and personal interaction was both strong and balanced. However many slips and mistakes were made, most were quickly caught and corrected, but complacency and failure to behave as a NFP led to a few interesting events.
My second experience is from investigating incidents and accidents. I have seen evidence that two Captains on the flight deck significantly increase the risk of an incident. Even worst three captains, whether or not the jump seat pilot was in official or unofficial capacity (a caution here for check flights and LOSA, but of course everyone is flying ‘by the book’ on these sectors).
The evidence indicated that a RHS Captain NFP was not a good monitor, this also applied to a lesser extent to training captains during instructional or check flights. A Captain monitoring another Captain intervened much later than would have occurred with a recently qualified First Officer. Some pilots did not intervene at all. The reason for this appeared to be the assumption by the NFP that the handing pilot knew what he was doing, or at least as long as the monitoring pilot knew what was happening from his perspective he assumed that he did not have to alert the Commander.
With two Captains, their joint ability to detect threats and hazards appeared lower than with a normal crew; thus during an event they were at higher risk before recovery action was commenced. I wonder if this is similar to group risk theory; where a decision taken by a group of people tends to be more risky than when taken by an individual. Although CRM encourages group participation, the responsibility for any decision still rests with the commander. With a level authority gradient of two Captains they may operate more as a group, whereas a more balanced authority gradient with a captain and first officer maintains greater respect for the commander and his decisions.
Another aspect of incidents and accidents with two captains was that the RHS monitoring captain was not always familiar with the duties of that role, particularly in the use of standard procedures and the physical actions from the right seat.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@alf
<I have seen evidence that two Captains on the flight deck significantly increase the risk of an incident>
I fully agree
regards
I can\'t proof it by numbers but I have the impression that statistics clearly say that accidents/incidents with a NONSTANDARD CREW (also Checkflights) are much more likely to occur.
I fully agree
regards
I can\'t proof it by numbers but I have the impression that statistics clearly say that accidents/incidents with a NONSTANDARD CREW (also Checkflights) are much more likely to occur.
Last edited by catchup; 27th Aug 2004 at 04:01.
Whatever happens,.. happens!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 19' N, 82' W
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At our Firm we give every Captain a right seat check on every recurrent (2 x p. yr) Precisely because the opportunity exists that two Captains may operate a flight for various reasons.
My personal experience is that there is a little more fumbling but the higher combined experience level of two qualified Captains more then make up for that. Additionally, I find that the handling Pilot will be very much sticking to the SOP's because s/he knows that a Captain in the right seat may not be as reluctant to speak out against possible deviations then an F/O would be.
Further, I welcome the opportunity to see how other Captains run their ship, it can be a learning experience either way!
When we were operating 727's, I prided myself, as did many of my fellow Pilots, to be as sharp on the panel as any F/E, eventhough I never held that position.
My personal experience is that there is a little more fumbling but the higher combined experience level of two qualified Captains more then make up for that. Additionally, I find that the handling Pilot will be very much sticking to the SOP's because s/he knows that a Captain in the right seat may not be as reluctant to speak out against possible deviations then an F/O would be.
Further, I welcome the opportunity to see how other Captains run their ship, it can be a learning experience either way!
When we were operating 727's, I prided myself, as did many of my fellow Pilots, to be as sharp on the panel as any F/E, eventhough I never held that position.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@flufdriver
O.K., if the check (training?) includes scenarios like engine failure(s), aborted T/O, CATIII, than it's legal to do that. Anyhow, I've encounterd a situation with a check CPT at the controls in the RH seat which I don't need again.
regards
regards
