737 pilot undergoing command training during line flying. -
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 pilot undergoing command training during line flying. -
The Boeing 737 FCTM makes it clear that the captain not only makes the decision to reject the take off but carries out the procedure as well.
While that applies to the normal crew complement of captain and first officer, it would be informative to know various airline policy when the check captain is operating from the RH seat and training a new captain who occupies the left seat. This assumes the new captain has completed all the required simulator training in the left seat and is now undergoing command line training in the air on revenue flights.
While the pilot in command (in this case the check captain) makes the decision to reject a take off the situation is less clear when someone is undergoing command training on line in the left seat.
Who then becomes responsible for handling the rejected take off procedure? The pilot under training for command? Or the authorised check captain occupying the RH seat? What are the legal issues, if any? All this assumes the pilot under training for his command in the left seat is certified as having a command endorsement on the type gained in the appropriate credited full flight simulator before commencing line training.
While that applies to the normal crew complement of captain and first officer, it would be informative to know various airline policy when the check captain is operating from the RH seat and training a new captain who occupies the left seat. This assumes the new captain has completed all the required simulator training in the left seat and is now undergoing command line training in the air on revenue flights.
While the pilot in command (in this case the check captain) makes the decision to reject a take off the situation is less clear when someone is undergoing command training on line in the left seat.
Who then becomes responsible for handling the rejected take off procedure? The pilot under training for command? Or the authorised check captain occupying the RH seat? What are the legal issues, if any? All this assumes the pilot under training for his command in the left seat is certified as having a command endorsement on the type gained in the appropriate credited full flight simulator before commencing line training.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Tee Emm,
In my airline: The rejected procedure should be conducted with the tasks being performed normally as if the Captain is in LHS and FO (Check Capt) in the RHS.
In addition to the Capt in the LHS, the Check Captain may also call "stop" before V1. He will expect a "normal reject" and if necessary, take over control.
In my airline: The rejected procedure should be conducted with the tasks being performed normally as if the Captain is in LHS and FO (Check Capt) in the RHS.
In addition to the Capt in the LHS, the Check Captain may also call "stop" before V1. He will expect a "normal reject" and if necessary, take over control.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is of course what happens if there is a disagreement and a subsequent overrun.
There can be four Captains on our flight deck (including the DFO and Chief Pilot in the back) but neither they nor the LIFUS pilot in the left hand seat can command a reject. The commander who signs the tech log can delegate authority but not responsibility. Boeing define the high speed reject as a “critical phase of flight” and whilst anyone can identify the problem only one can make the reject command decision.
This is not a question of whether the LHS command trainee is competent but he is line flying under supervision. There can only be one command decision maker. As soon as the trainee passes his line check he has that sole responsibility once he has signed the tech log (with the exact same crew complement).
There can be four Captains on our flight deck (including the DFO and Chief Pilot in the back) but neither they nor the LIFUS pilot in the left hand seat can command a reject. The commander who signs the tech log can delegate authority but not responsibility. Boeing define the high speed reject as a “critical phase of flight” and whilst anyone can identify the problem only one can make the reject command decision.
This is not a question of whether the LHS command trainee is competent but he is line flying under supervision. There can only be one command decision maker. As soon as the trainee passes his line check he has that sole responsibility once he has signed the tech log (with the exact same crew complement).
No idea about legal issues, apart from the fact that safety is a shared responsibility. In line training I train ab initio’s with emphasis on ”SIC” (second in command) so they realise they have to act when they suspect the PIC is ”incapacitated” and jeopordizes safety.
When it comes to a reject, the difference is procedural training: when an FO joins the fleet he is trained to be able to reject a takeoff from about 100kts in a pilot incapacitation scenario. A new captain is left hand seat trained to execute high speed rejects. The training captains are trained to initiate and execute high speed rejects in both left hand and right hand seat training.
As far as responsibility goes: the fact that you are responsible for the actions of others is nothing new. If you don’t agree, you shouldn’t be in training position I guess...
When it comes to a reject, the difference is procedural training: when an FO joins the fleet he is trained to be able to reject a takeoff from about 100kts in a pilot incapacitation scenario. A new captain is left hand seat trained to execute high speed rejects. The training captains are trained to initiate and execute high speed rejects in both left hand and right hand seat training.
As far as responsibility goes: the fact that you are responsible for the actions of others is nothing new. If you don’t agree, you shouldn’t be in training position I guess...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brace, no need to get nasty. The legal position is that accountability (responsibility) cannot be shared, fact. All the manufacturers manuals share this view. If on one of your Line Flying UnderSupervision flights your second in command disagrees with you on whether to ditch in the North Atlantic, depressurise at 25,000’ etc who makes the final decision on your flaming aircraft. I made it clear that if he had been released, signed for the tech log and I was in the RHS that was his call. A few airlines allow non PIC reject decisions (EasyJet tried it and reversed it in short order). In this case you would have something to respond with. If you want to see the startle effect operate AP disconnect in the sim at V1 -10, most will stop. If a new LHS had a nose wheel disintegration, huge bang engine surge he rejects goes off the end and people die YOU will be held accountable by the lawyers (ask one, I did years ago).
If you have been considered adequate for command then it is assumed your decision making skills are on or as well.
Also all relevant scenarios have been practiced in the simulator.
During line training the LHS makes the decision.
Caveat Emptor.
Also all relevant scenarios have been practiced in the simulator.
During line training the LHS makes the decision.
Caveat Emptor.
All I’m saying is people are trained to behave according to certain rules. In my company briefings are adapted in training to make this clear. An FO is not allowed to initiate the reject at high speed, a captain in LIFUS and a training captain are. It is briefed up front and clear. During upgrade LIFUS, the upgrade simulator training program is not finished.
It all comes down to training programs and company specific procedures.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B2N2 - US air law is no different to the rest of the world. Boeing FCOM RTO could not be clearer “PIC is SOLELY responsible for the reject decision” Caveat Emptor. If you can find another document that advises a LIFUS pilot has priority over the Instructor who signs the tech log please post it.
In my outfit the PIC in the left seat has his hand on the thrust levers and makes the decision. If he's being trained in that seat he would still be expected to make the call and do the actions, except that the RHS trainer could also override his decision. Telling him/her that it's NOT his decision would be gross negative training.
If you think about it, it's actually both pilots decision to go flying: I would expect an FO to reject before V1 if a reject scenario presents itself and the captain does nothing.
If you think about it, it's actually both pilots decision to go flying: I would expect an FO to reject before V1 if a reject scenario presents itself and the captain does nothing.
The 1st line of the rejected take off manoeuvre in my (Boeing) QRH says verbatim, “the captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject the takeoff”.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing 737 FCTM makes it clear that the captain not only makes the decision to reject the take off but carries out the procedure as well.
While that applies to the normal crew complement of captain and first officer, it would be informative to know various airline policy when the check captain is operating from the RH seat and training a new captain who occupies the left seat. This assumes the new captain has completed all the required simulator training in the left seat and is now undergoing command line training in the air on revenue flights.
While the pilot in command (in this case the check captain) makes the decision to reject a take off the situation is less clear when someone is undergoing command training on line in the left seat.
Who then becomes responsible for handling the rejected take off procedure? The pilot under training for command? Or the authorised check captain occupying the RH seat? What are the legal issues, if any? All this assumes the pilot under training for his command in the left seat is certified as having a command endorsement on the type gained in the appropriate credited full flight simulator before commencing line training.
While that applies to the normal crew complement of captain and first officer, it would be informative to know various airline policy when the check captain is operating from the RH seat and training a new captain who occupies the left seat. This assumes the new captain has completed all the required simulator training in the left seat and is now undergoing command line training in the air on revenue flights.
While the pilot in command (in this case the check captain) makes the decision to reject a take off the situation is less clear when someone is undergoing command training on line in the left seat.
Who then becomes responsible for handling the rejected take off procedure? The pilot under training for command? Or the authorised check captain occupying the RH seat? What are the legal issues, if any? All this assumes the pilot under training for his command in the left seat is certified as having a command endorsement on the type gained in the appropriate credited full flight simulator before commencing line training.
according to EASA ORO.FC.205 the command course shall include at least the following elements:
(...omissis...)
- the operator proficiency check, operating as commander
(...omissis...)
considering the above, the LHS pilot reaching the approved LIFUS phase of training is now fully qualified to operate as Pilot In Command under the supervision of the LTC/TRI/TRE. Said pilot has hence the Authority to act as a Commander and the Trainer has the Authority to override the decisions as it remains the responsible of the flight.
Considering the RTO manouver, as it is a time critical decision, both pilots will hence be entitled to decide and the manouver will be conducted to its completion. Should the need of an Emergency Evacuation arise, the Trainee Captain will state the decision (yes/no) and the Trainer will confirm it prior to the execution.
Should the Trainee Captain decide on an RTO that was unnecessary leading to an incident and/or accident, the legality is ensured by the above regulation that empowers the trainee of the necessary skills to command a RTO, as they have been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Operator and the Authority during the completion of the OPC. Subsequently all the necessary contributing factors and investigations will obviously be put in place.
The actions to be taken with a fire warning 20 knots before v1 are pretty clear. If they’re not taken as they’re laid out in the RTO manoeuvre ( as in your example) then we’re in uncharted waters and I guess you’re going to have to go with your instinct at the the time and deal with with the wash up later. My point is there is no time for a consultation and team meeting at that point. The decision to stop/go is therefore delegated to 1 person and 1 person only for that reason. That’s why I disagree with your statement that it’s a “joint decision” to go flying.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my outfit the PIC in the left seat has his hand on the thrust levers and makes the decision. If he's being trained in that seat he would still be expected to make the call and do the actions, except that the RHS trainer could also override his decision. Telling him/her that it's NOT his decision would be gross negative training.
If you think about it, it's actually both pilots decision to go flying: I would expect an FO to reject before V1 if a reject scenario presents itself and the captain does nothing.
If you think about it, it's actually both pilots decision to go flying: I would expect an FO to reject before V1 if a reject scenario presents itself and the captain does nothing.
So master warning on the takeoff run well below V1, Capt says nothing and does nothing, an impairment can be suspected by the FO and decides what to do. Hence the importance from the Captain of clearly stating aloud "STOP OR GO" (Or whatever You use in your airlines) at least to make sure that the folk is still with us.
The way we do it (not to say it’s better or worse than any other way), is that all the physical handling exercises, such as max xwinds, RTOs, EFATOs, etc. have all been trained, practiced and signed off for competency before the line training starts. The aspiring commander is expected to act like one and the command check is a formality where all they need to do is demonstrate a safe and commercially aware operation - the decision that they should get four stripes has already been taken. The line training is really to emphasise and bring out the soft skills in a real environment with lots of people to manage.
The aircraft we’re talking about here I guess are certified for 2-crew minimum (or more if you need an Eng and/or Nav). Everyones’ licences are endorsed for multi-crew operation for commercial ops: you can’t go one down and therefore input from both sides of the cockpit is not only desirable, it is necessary in order to comply with regulation. There will always be a possibility that someone in either seat makes an error or omission and it is beholden on the other crew member(s) to point this out and/or do something about it if required - this can happen at any time, not just in training.
When you sit in the LHS (or RHS as a trainer) you have to give a certain level of trust that important things will be done right, but be prepared to intervene if they are not. If you go down the road of not allowing others to take part in critical decision making, one day you will find you make mistakes too, but nobody else is empowered to help. If we are taking about certified multi-crew aircraft, the captain has responsibility but so do the other crew. If there was an opportunity for another crew member to give input that would have saved the day, but they didn’t, they would be under investigation almost as much as the captain because it is their professional responsibility to do so.
The aircraft we’re talking about here I guess are certified for 2-crew minimum (or more if you need an Eng and/or Nav). Everyones’ licences are endorsed for multi-crew operation for commercial ops: you can’t go one down and therefore input from both sides of the cockpit is not only desirable, it is necessary in order to comply with regulation. There will always be a possibility that someone in either seat makes an error or omission and it is beholden on the other crew member(s) to point this out and/or do something about it if required - this can happen at any time, not just in training.
When you sit in the LHS (or RHS as a trainer) you have to give a certain level of trust that important things will be done right, but be prepared to intervene if they are not. If you go down the road of not allowing others to take part in critical decision making, one day you will find you make mistakes too, but nobody else is empowered to help. If we are taking about certified multi-crew aircraft, the captain has responsibility but so do the other crew. If there was an opportunity for another crew member to give input that would have saved the day, but they didn’t, they would be under investigation almost as much as the captain because it is their professional responsibility to do so.
if you get a fire warning 20kts before V1 and the captain does nothing - the FO will just let him go flying
Exactly my point. If there is a lever that both pilots can reach that will stop the aircraft then you both need to be on board with the idea of going flying regardless of who has the authority or what the manuals say.
10 knots before V1 they get the fire warning and CONTINUE. Fire kept burning throughout their short flight & destroyed the engine. Photos are insane. Italian investigation was like “meh they survived so happy days.” Had managed to leak five tonnes of fuel through a damaged fuel line during taxi out which caught fire during take off.
Captain said in a TV interview years later they would have overrun if they had tried to stop so that takeoff was definitely carried out in accordance with correct performance procedures and relevant legalities. /sarcasm off
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
according to EASA ORO.FC.205 the command course shall include at least the following elements:
(...omissis...)
- the operator proficiency check, operating as commander
(...omissis...)
considering the above, the LHS pilot reaching the approved LIFUS phase of training is now fully qualified to operate as Pilot In Command under the supervision of the LTC/TRI/TRE. Said pilot has hence the Authority to act as a Commander and the Trainer has the Authority to override the decisions as it remains the responsible of the flight.
Considering the RTO manouver, as it is a time critical decision, both pilots will hence be entitled to decide and the manouver will be conducted to its completion. Should the need of an Emergency Evacuation arise, the Trainee Captain will state the decision (yes/no) and the Trainer will confirm it prior to the execution.
Should the Trainee Captain decide on an RTO that was unnecessary leading to an incident and/or accident, the legality is ensured by the above regulation that empowers the trainee of the necessary skills to command a RTO, as they have been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Operator and the Authority during the completion of the OPC. Subsequently all the necessary contributing factors and investigations will obviously be put in place.
according to EASA ORO.FC.205 the command course shall include at least the following elements:
(...omissis...)
- the operator proficiency check, operating as commander
(...omissis...)
considering the above, the LHS pilot reaching the approved LIFUS phase of training is now fully qualified to operate as Pilot In Command under the supervision of the LTC/TRI/TRE. Said pilot has hence the Authority to act as a Commander and the Trainer has the Authority to override the decisions as it remains the responsible of the flight.
Considering the RTO manouver, as it is a time critical decision, both pilots will hence be entitled to decide and the manouver will be conducted to its completion. Should the need of an Emergency Evacuation arise, the Trainee Captain will state the decision (yes/no) and the Trainer will confirm it prior to the execution.
Should the Trainee Captain decide on an RTO that was unnecessary leading to an incident and/or accident, the legality is ensured by the above regulation that empowers the trainee of the necessary skills to command a RTO, as they have been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Operator and the Authority during the completion of the OPC. Subsequently all the necessary contributing factors and investigations will obviously be put in place.
Very Interesting,
- Fully Accepting he/she has completed an OPC operating as Commander (with no legal Jeopardy)
- Is this statement "Should the Trainee Captain decide on an RTO that was unnecessary leading to an incident and/or accident, the legality is ensured by the above regulation that empowers the trainee of the necessary skills to command a RTO, as they have been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Operator and the Authority during the completion of the OPC. Subsequently all the necessary contributing factors and investigations will obviously be put in place".your company extrapolation of 205 or is the Boeing FCOM superseded directly with these exact words somewhere else?
- How does this relate to two line Captains flying together in your company (can RHS non tech log signing skipper command the reject )?
Thanks
Last edited by RMC; 15th Apr 2024 at 14:42.