1 or 2 steering tillers?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an airline flying a fleet of 320+ 737-800 aeroplanes into little and large airports across Europe, the average FO probably has <2000 hours flight time (turnover and command at 3000 hours being the norm).
I can perfectly understand why such an airline specified all its aeroplanes with only 1 tiller!
I can perfectly understand why such an airline specified all its aeroplanes with only 1 tiller!
........... the average FO probably has <2000 hours flight time (turnover and command at 3000 hours being the norm).
I can perfectly understand why such an airline specified all its aeroplanes with only 1 tiller!
I can perfectly understand why such an airline specified all its aeroplanes with only 1 tiller!
But a big jet is not the same as a Cessna 152 you say. Correct, but by law pilots must be fully trained to fly an aircraft before being signed off and permitted to operate it, so as long as they are properly trained and pass a suitable competency test, they will be perfectly capable of taxiing anything - as long as they have a tiller, obviously.
Uplinker,
The rhs tiller is a cost option. It's not specified because it's not necessary and in the current era of low-cost aviation anything unnecessary is ommitted.
Taxi training cannot be done in the sim, so the only option is to do it on the line in some form of formal rostered training. As it's not essential and training requires resources, it won't be done.
Taxying a large aircraft with 200 souls on board around a complicated airport, at night, in rain or low visbility is not comparable with driving a little 2m wide car on public roads.
Following on from the above, your fury at the attitude of those who understand an airline's policy of only allowing the PIC to taxi the aircraft is interesting.
Personally, I fully understand it, and although I know there are many low hour FOs who would do a great job, I also know from experience that there are a fair few who would not be up to the task - and I personally wouldn't want to risk my livelihood to massage their egos.
The rhs tiller is a cost option. It's not specified because it's not necessary and in the current era of low-cost aviation anything unnecessary is ommitted.
Taxi training cannot be done in the sim, so the only option is to do it on the line in some form of formal rostered training. As it's not essential and training requires resources, it won't be done.
Taxying a large aircraft with 200 souls on board around a complicated airport, at night, in rain or low visbility is not comparable with driving a little 2m wide car on public roads.
Following on from the above, your fury at the attitude of those who understand an airline's policy of only allowing the PIC to taxi the aircraft is interesting.
Personally, I fully understand it, and although I know there are many low hour FOs who would do a great job, I also know from experience that there are a fair few who would not be up to the task - and I personally wouldn't want to risk my livelihood to massage their egos.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second tiller is an option on the 737, it is standard on the airbus (320/330 for us). We do fly both types and are currently changing to OEM procedures on the bus which includes (among a plethora of silly, unnecessary checklists and callouts) FOs taxiing the aircraft. On the boeing FOs cannot taxi the aircraft (except on fairly straight taxiways) as there is no second tiller.
Surprisingly, taxi training is done in the SIM for both CPTs and FOs and followed by one supervision sector for every captain and FO. Yes, most simulators are not really all that good at simulating, but new ones are much better, which is a blessing as taxi training is a requirement anyway for low vis operation.
All in all my airline thinks it quite normal to let FOs taxi the aircraft, even new hires that come from our flight school with around 80 hours of real aircraft experience and of course flying to the exact same limits as anybody else.
If FOs (and for that matter quite a few captains) are not up to the task, simply report them. I think it much unsafer to let them fly the same aircraft, take off and land them in all conditions if they are not even up to the task of taxiing said aircraft at a very slow speed (30kts is max for us) instead of trundling down the runway at up to 175kts.
Granted, personally i couldn't care less about taxiing the aircraft myself, im lazy like and rather just tell the captain where to go (commanding him on the ground...) and let him do all the work.
Surprisingly, taxi training is done in the SIM for both CPTs and FOs and followed by one supervision sector for every captain and FO. Yes, most simulators are not really all that good at simulating, but new ones are much better, which is a blessing as taxi training is a requirement anyway for low vis operation.
All in all my airline thinks it quite normal to let FOs taxi the aircraft, even new hires that come from our flight school with around 80 hours of real aircraft experience and of course flying to the exact same limits as anybody else.
If FOs (and for that matter quite a few captains) are not up to the task, simply report them. I think it much unsafer to let them fly the same aircraft, take off and land them in all conditions if they are not even up to the task of taxiing said aircraft at a very slow speed (30kts is max for us) instead of trundling down the runway at up to 175kts.
Granted, personally i couldn't care less about taxiing the aircraft myself, im lazy like and rather just tell the captain where to go (commanding him on the ground...) and let him do all the work.
Well, Denti, I don't know who you fly for but it's not unusual in the industry for new hires straight out of flight school to have lower vis and wind limits. I don't know which super-cadets your company employs but anyone who can come straight out of flight school and safely land a medium jet on a rainy night with 26 kts across the runway gets my vote! Is it safer for the Captain to land in certain conditions? Undoubtedly. And that's what the airlines (and passengers) would expect.
As for taxying: Certainly, it's quite easy to get from the stand at LGW to the hold. Try the same at Dublin or park up at any one of a dozen tiny airports across Europe and you'll realise that it's not a great idea to hand the job to a pilot whose last taxying was in a 'full motion' sim. Again, what's safer? Hmmm.
As for taxying: Certainly, it's quite easy to get from the stand at LGW to the hold. Try the same at Dublin or park up at any one of a dozen tiny airports across Europe and you'll realise that it's not a great idea to hand the job to a pilot whose last taxying was in a 'full motion' sim. Again, what's safer? Hmmm.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikehotel152, how do captains get to learn the taxiing - they obviously haven't taxied an aircraft with 200 people on board before? I guess during their sim sessions and line training under supervision. Why do you think the same can't be done for FOs? Sure, cadet straight out of flight school with no "big" airplane experience needs more practice and couple of more pointers, but it is still successfully done at many Airbus operators without major incidents.
And as always, both airlines and captains can impose limits on when an FO can taxi, e.g. no LVO, no narrow or slippery taxiways, etc. If you can put limits for FO as PF (wind, visibility, ceiling), so they still get to fly and gain experience, don't you think the same would apply to taxiing the aircraft?
And as always, both airlines and captains can impose limits on when an FO can taxi, e.g. no LVO, no narrow or slippery taxiways, etc. If you can put limits for FO as PF (wind, visibility, ceiling), so they still get to fly and gain experience, don't you think the same would apply to taxiing the aircraft?
Only half a speed-brake
A question here, or two
Under LVO, in an aircraft that came with dual tillers as a standard spec, is it better:
a) to have the PIC steer and excercise his reponsibility in a "reduced chances" environment
b) let the F/O manhandle the pedals, whilst PIC has the chart, flashlight, and radio?
Same surroundings, different rostering scenario. CM1: qualified PIC, CM2: legal CMDR. Who's now the best one to taxi?
FD.
a) to have the PIC steer and excercise his reponsibility in a "reduced chances" environment
b) let the F/O manhandle the pedals, whilst PIC has the chart, flashlight, and radio?
Same surroundings, different rostering scenario. CM1: qualified PIC, CM2: legal CMDR. Who's now the best one to taxi?
FD.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SOP in my company is that the PIC has to be the PF in LVO (RVR of 400m or less for take off, less than 550m for landing), therefore he has to taxi.
The second case (CM2 as legal commander) is undesired, but happens from time to time of course. In that case the PIC has to do all the usual PIC duties, the CM2 does all the stuff an FO does. In LVO it will the PIC taxiing and the CM2 assisting. However, the hierarchy gradient is wrong and there is an increased risk of CRM problems and therefore incidents, which is the reason why it is not a normal and desired crewing solution.
The second case (CM2 as legal commander) is undesired, but happens from time to time of course. In that case the PIC has to do all the usual PIC duties, the CM2 does all the stuff an FO does. In LVO it will the PIC taxiing and the CM2 assisting. However, the hierarchy gradient is wrong and there is an increased risk of CRM problems and therefore incidents, which is the reason why it is not a normal and desired crewing solution.
Only half a speed-brake
SOP same here and the place before. LVO >> CM1 = PF.
Yet, you blew my cover, as I was actually trolling somewhat. Most of the arguments in the discussion above would not stand the test of those questions.
F/O taxiing, or not, is in my view a task-sharing issue. So it is best SOP'd. For any SOPs set to be effective they need to be simple enough so that the crew do not throw them out of the window at the first sign of trouble or time pressure. Because that's exactly when they'd save the day.
Irrespective of who does what, the far more important issue is for the pilots to know each other's task-plan.
Yet, you blew my cover, as I was actually trolling somewhat. Most of the arguments in the discussion above would not stand the test of those questions.
F/O taxiing, or not, is in my view a task-sharing issue. So it is best SOP'd. For any SOPs set to be effective they need to be simple enough so that the crew do not throw them out of the window at the first sign of trouble or time pressure. Because that's exactly when they'd save the day.
Irrespective of who does what, the far more important issue is for the pilots to know each other's task-plan.
Spot on Juliet.
Taxying is secret captains business according to some.
5000 hours PIC wide body in 3 airlines with 300 hour fo's starting engines and taxying and NEVER had a problem. None.
Taxying is secret captains business according to some.
5000 hours PIC wide body in 3 airlines with 300 hour fo's starting engines and taxying and NEVER had a problem. None.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like everyone is forgetting that unlike flying, you can always simply stop taxiing and take a minute to double check, look outside, confirm with ATC, etc.
Taxiing is not rocket science and it's most certainly not as scary or dangerous as some make it out to be.
Sure the captain has the final responsibility, but with an attitude like "it's my career on the line" I fail to understand how some people on here even feel comfortable with allowing their FO to operate their own seat belt, god forbid he should do it wrong and fall out of his seat, while being under my authority and me being responsible for the crew and all.
Taxiing is part of operating the aircraft, both pilots are type rated on the aircraft, therefore both should be capable of operating the aircraft. Taxiing is not dangerous, it's not scary, it can be tricky but you have your brakes and CRM for that.
Taxiing is not rocket science and it's most certainly not as scary or dangerous as some make it out to be.
Sure the captain has the final responsibility, but with an attitude like "it's my career on the line" I fail to understand how some people on here even feel comfortable with allowing their FO to operate their own seat belt, god forbid he should do it wrong and fall out of his seat, while being under my authority and me being responsible for the crew and all.
Taxiing is part of operating the aircraft, both pilots are type rated on the aircraft, therefore both should be capable of operating the aircraft. Taxiing is not dangerous, it's not scary, it can be tricky but you have your brakes and CRM for that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxiing is not dangerous, it's not scary, it can be tricky but you have your brakes and CRM for that.
@Mikehotel152; I hear your economic arguments. I totally accept that for some companies and aircraft types (e.g. Boeing) the lack of F/O taxiing is simply cost based, and I have no issue with that (except sadness that offering ever cheaper tickets to passengers prevails over properly equipped fleets and proper pilot training).
However, when anybody says that a qualified F/O is not capable of, or not safe to taxi an aircraft, then my hackles rise. If an F/O is not capable of taxiing a modern jet safely and correctly, then they should be sat on the jump seat, not signed off in the RHS.
Apart from anything else; saying that F/Os cannot or should not taxi is a tacit admission that F/Os are not really fully trained or competant at the time they get into the RHS for the first time. Taking this line of thought further suggests that undertrained F/Os are being allowed to "fly" aircraft because if anything goes wrong in the air, "well they won't hit anything straight away and the LHS can take over" !!. This is where I do have a problem. A number of horrific crashes involving servicable aircraft being stalled until they crashed by incompetant pilots* tells me that cost cutting in our industry has gone way too far, and that dangerously undertrained 'pilots' are flying some of the world's fleet.
*I don't necessarily blame those pilots for their incompetance: In my opinion lack of proper and thorough training is becoming a serious problem in our industry.
However, when anybody says that a qualified F/O is not capable of, or not safe to taxi an aircraft, then my hackles rise. If an F/O is not capable of taxiing a modern jet safely and correctly, then they should be sat on the jump seat, not signed off in the RHS.
Apart from anything else; saying that F/Os cannot or should not taxi is a tacit admission that F/Os are not really fully trained or competant at the time they get into the RHS for the first time. Taking this line of thought further suggests that undertrained F/Os are being allowed to "fly" aircraft because if anything goes wrong in the air, "well they won't hit anything straight away and the LHS can take over" !!. This is where I do have a problem. A number of horrific crashes involving servicable aircraft being stalled until they crashed by incompetant pilots* tells me that cost cutting in our industry has gone way too far, and that dangerously undertrained 'pilots' are flying some of the world's fleet.
*I don't necessarily blame those pilots for their incompetance: In my opinion lack of proper and thorough training is becoming a serious problem in our industry.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 48
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either taxiing is so difficult that it requires years of experience, then how do you learn it in just a few weeks of command course? Or taxiing is so easy that you can learn it within just a few weeks of command course, then why can't you do it from the very beginning?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHY NOT ?
In #75 I mentioned that ALL T/Rs were done from the LHS (which had the only nose wheel steering). NO simulators were available even for preliminary training. Few of us had had had previous nose wheel steering experience, THEN.
One Hermes F/O during the ground school, mentioned that he had never driven a car but so far as I heard, this did not upset his flying training.
( The "Legal Six" were the six T/Os and Landings then required for a F/O on passenger flights, and put the type in Group 2 on a licence.)
Group 1 had night and engine failures added ( requiring a total of FIVE landings!) And of course this would be necessary for an upgrade.
LT.
In #75 I mentioned that ALL T/Rs were done from the LHS (which had the only nose wheel steering). NO simulators were available even for preliminary training. Few of us had had had previous nose wheel steering experience, THEN.
One Hermes F/O during the ground school, mentioned that he had never driven a car but so far as I heard, this did not upset his flying training.
( The "Legal Six" were the six T/Os and Landings then required for a F/O on passenger flights, and put the type in Group 2 on a licence.)
Group 1 had night and engine failures added ( requiring a total of FIVE landings!) And of course this would be necessary for an upgrade.
LT.
Last edited by Linktrained; 4th Jan 2016 at 23:59. Reason: bits
