bubbers44
 

It does not. many aircraft have this provision, a simple handle is the installation.

Many in CX were against the idea of letting FO's taxi when we brought in the change 10 years ago. They were mostly crabby old Captains with long sleeves that hailed from a certain country in Europe!!

Having been doing it for 10 years I can tell you there are no problems at all.

The plus side is that it gives the FO much more responsibility and this helps them in their future command training mind set. With all the crap they are force fed during their command Training its one less thing to have to learn.

Besides, you let them TO and LAND at 150kts where an RTO or ENG Failure might occur so why can't you let them Taxi at 20kts!! The Captain should always be in a position to take over anyway.

In 1976 I was at Seattle and some of our FOs asked about a tiller on the right side for the B737-200 and were told it was way, way too expensive.

Maybe the later models are built with it as an option?

'poor visibility from the 747'


I can't think of a better Aircraft to taxi around in, the elevated seat position gives you an unparallelled view of the taxiways and Airport environment.

I used to work for an airline where the F/O was not allowed to taxi and now work for one where we are allowed to taxi.

From a personal point if view, I feel that it gives me a a greater sense of responsibility when I am P1 for the sector.

It's me who liaises with the dispatcher, it's me who liaises with ATC, it's me who liaises with the ground crew, it's me who is in control of the movement of the aircraft, both in the air and on the ground. It's me who runs the show.

At my previous airline, landing back at base, when the Captain took control as we hit 50kts on the landing roll, my responsibilities were over for the day and it was very easy for my head to already be in the car park.

Like has been mentioned, if we as an F/O are trusted to take off, cruise and land an aircraft, and, let's not forget, do all these things if the Captain were to become incapacitated, why can we not be trusted to taxi the aircraft?

It takes around 4 sectors to teach a F/O even with low hours to taxi a narrow body like the A320. Another few sectors then to start managing the brakes in a proper way but this is another big topic. So it's not a big deal at all, especially because the Captain is always there to share his experience with a new "taxing" F/O, just like in any other phases of flight. It might get tricky sometimes with narrow runways, at night, in poor weather conditions etc.. but these are exceptions. Personally I don't see any problems with the F/O taxing.

Cheers.

So in 3 or 4 years, do you think is will be essential that the F/O taxi when Controller/Pilot Data Link Communications is used for taxi clearance instructions. CPDLC is an enhanced FANS "text messaging" type of comms using the MCDU. Our debate is whether or not it is better for the Captain to "manage" the taxi process by delegating the steering job to the F/O when using CPDLC for taxi.
Anyone use FANS?

Never let the Fo Taxi.

Most of the old captains can't read the taxi charts, so you keep them taxiing and those who can see the chart reads it!

Man Its that simple:ugh::ugh:

Last year I'm fairly certain that "we" decided that the FOs should perform all takeoffs. That was due to a Captain's time being better spent monitoring for RTO, since he was the only one "able" to make that call. :ok:

If taxiing requires so much superior judgement, then the Captain of the ship should have a helmsman.

That, or it's a skill that needs to be learned.

As a Captain who spent most time on a single tiller aircraft, but now on a dual tiller (FO taxies) aircraft - one of the advantages is that I now get to run both PF AND PNF scans and checklists on the ground.

That increases my Situational Awareness and skill level.

I don't mind being chauffeured about when PNF. :ok:

(In my company, however, the Captain ALWAYS parks - which I like as it satisfies my sense of "duty of responsibility" - if the aircraft is going to get dinged, it's probably parking.)

It is obvious that F/O will have an improved sense of a successful flight as PF if he can be given maximum responsibility. Except for low time F/Os, a major difference between Capt & F/O is confidence. There are enough confidence erroders out there without reducing some of their PF opportunity.

Aviation safety is affected by cockpit morale. In a 5 sector day, my F/Os were almost always PF for at least 3. I think many of them will perpetuate this principle rather that the more common practice of alternate legs commencing with Capt. The lifting of confidence and crew management skills was very gratifying to observe.

Crew is a complete package. Capt and operator should encourage maximum reasonable responsibility, including taxi where possible, for our captains-in-waiting.

Any fast-growing airline should treat their FOs as future Captains and so should any Captain who wants his FO to save his life/ass in case he gets a heart attack or simply makes a mistake.

You can't expect somebody who you treat as a passenger in a normal situation to give you 110% support in an emergency.

We fly to a particular airport in Europe where the parking is done with a marshaller which is at some point visible on the right side only (270 degree turn). This effectively forces the Captain to blindly trust the information passed over to him by the FO. A normal procedure is to transfer controls and let the FO park even if the Captain was the PF on the sector. Nobody crashed so far.

We let the F/Os do everything if they're PF except for setting thrust at the start of the take off roll, as the captains only can decide to reject, and park the aircraft if it's docking on a eye line left guidance system.

All the big aircraft I have flown have had dual tillers and always assumed all did until I was amazed when I saw a 737 flightdeck with only one.

Of all companies I flew for , only one let the FO taxi.Flying Airbus this is my 4th job.Only one allowed the FO to taxi.

In fact , we (Capts) come to get used , but I don`t agree.

I use to say that in some airports , and in airports you have never been before , it`s more dificult to taxi than flying around.

The obstacles are closer too.So, sum a widebody , a Capt. looking inside to checking the taxi route , and a poorly done turn ou a lost F/O , and you have a leg off the taxiway or is taking the wrong taxiway.

It`s funny that everybody wants to do and decide by the Capt. Everybody discuss what the Capt. should do.Everybody has a word to say.The only thing that nobody wants to take or discuss is the responsability after a mishap.

This discussion is silly, I compare the skils to taxi an aircraft as similar to operating any other heavy machinery. It is routine to many AMT's/LAME's but performed with much less frequency. Are we more qualified to Taxi an aircraft? Hell if I was PIC I would be glad to let JR. take it to the gate... Or is this an issue of having the FO submit ACARS while the ground captain plays with the controls?

A-3TWENTY: yes true, thats why you have absolute discretion to decide when and if the First Officer gets to do the driving ( both on the ground and in the Air )

If you think that it is marginal ( crosswind, contaminated, mechanical failure, congested busy ramp, One Engine taxi etc etc etc... ) then you'd better take over.:ok: That's what you are paid to decide.