1 or 2 steering tillers?
 

Rather than side track a thread on Rumours and News, I was wondering why some aircraft (mostly US reg.) have only one tiller and that being on the Captain's side?
In an airline I used to fly for many years ago, there were a couple of ex US registered aircraft that only had a single tiller. Though I never had a problem with this, I did find it strange.

Why would a lowly co-pilot need to taxi the a/c, rather than leaving that tricky chore to the captain? After all, taxiing expertise comes automatically with the fourth ring! ;)

Combination of the one-man-band syndrome, and costs...

Edit: Chris Scott, you beat me to it. My knee-jerk response would be to blame manufacturers for charging extra for a 2nd tiller. Arguably you don't need 2 tillers for the safe operation of an aircraft, and everything that isn't needed is a golden opportunity to charge more for an "option".

Aaah but is it cost or just "tradition" that a single tiller is fitted to mostly US or ex US operated aircraft?

It's not only a US tradition. Other airlines have only 1 tiller as well. Maybe US aircraft are more visible because there is a lot of them.

I seem to recall, albeit from brief encounters, that a "very large UK airline" had two tillers on their 767's.

There was a time when guidance systems to navigate into stand were calibrated for LHS, thus making RHS tiller operation essentially obsolete.
More modern systems show both of you the same information, thus enabling either to steer onto stand.
Traditionally the second tiller was a customer option, and moreover the legacy carriers have had them as experience in RHS was substantial, with limits imposed on experience prior to allowing its use from RHS.

Quote from Skyjob:
"Traditionally the second tiller was a customer option, and moreover the legacy carriers have had them as experience in RHS was substantial, with limits imposed on experience prior to allowing its use from RHS."

My impression is that this is a long tradition involving US carriers - large and small - and US airliner manufacturers. No doubt it has spilled out into the third-world carriers as well, and smaller European companies that are inclined to buy the basic product as offered.

In the UK that included Caledonian Airways when they bought their first B707-320Cs in the late 1960s, prior to taking over BUA - which had a very different policy for its co-pilots. But BUA had an all-British fleet of BAC 1-11s and VC10s, not to mention Viscounts and Dart-Heralds - all with 2 tillers, IIRC. The merged company, BCAL, continued to expand its B707 fleet through the 1970s, with a mixture of second-hand 320C models from all over the place. The only ones I can remember coming with two tillers were ex-Qantas a/c, and the R/H tillers were soon removed in the interests of standardisation. For take-off, co-pilots operating as PF had to take control from the captain (without the benefit of rudder-fine steering) as the a/c turned on to the runway at fairly high speed for the Boeing-standard, rolling take-off.

Fast-forwarding to the present, I can't speak for the US, but how many European airlines operating divers types of Airbus have them with only one tiller? Most western airlines have a policy of complete role-reversal for handling and routine cockpit management. Maybe not a bad idea for the US to adopt the same policy, particularly if their skippers are going to continue as in recent days to drop like flies at the controls.

747s have tillers on both sides. Our FOs even use the ones on the right side!

My experience with single tillers has been on two F27s and one 737 many years ago. All the aircraft that I've flown since, BAC1-11s, 767s, 747 classics and 400s all had two tillers.
The only time the Captain took over taxying was when parking at the gate.

Doesn't the U.S. have more commercial pilots than the rest of the western world combined? If numbers are the final decider maybe the other western operators should get rid of their two tiller a/c?


I've seen U.S. based Airbus', 747's, 777's, and 787's with two tillers.

Hardly a mystery. Sometimes a right turn into a crowded taxiway, ramp is required. The airplanes come standard with two tillers. Most USA operators ordered the airplanes with "unnecessary" items like tillers, headrests, removed. Some puffed up individuals attempted to make a safety argument about why it's necessary to eliminate these hazards in the cockpit. Fortunately, those attitudes are fading away.

I was rather amazed to see that Chinese F/Os are allowed to taxi the A380 as per this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xasimN2cXBE

As far as i know the second tiller on a 737 for example is an option that is rather expensive, nearly nobody orders it. I thing KLM does, but i might be wrong.

On the A320, or probably all airbii it seems to be the standard equipment and a single tiller installation is the option. Which ties in with the OEM SOPs from airbus in which the FO does the taxying if he is pilot flying on that sector. Of course, if the guidance system into the parking stand is left hand only calibrated there has to be a transfer of control prior to taxying into that stand.

Working in an airline that works its way out of boeings into airbii we used to have company SOPs in which only the captain was allowed to taxi, except in case of role reversal for training purposes. Now that we adopt the full airbus SOPs (including the darn FMA callouts and those longwinded checklists) all FOs have to go through some taxi training in the simulator and two flights with a trainer before they will be allowed to taxi an aircraft, set take off power themselves and do the whole taxi in.

Presumably if the F/O learned to fly on a Cessna or Warrior he was qualified to set take off power himself. Why not on bigger aircraft? It is not exactly rocket science to push one, two or four throttles forward...

There are safety arguments both for and against allowing RHS co-pilots to taxi the a/c when it's their handling sector. But, if it is considered safe and desirable (essential, actually) to allow them to handle critical flight-phases such as take-off and landing, it is illogical to forbid them to perform the lower-risk task of taxiing, subject to the usual considerations when manoeuvering on or off a crowded parking stand.

Allowing full role-reversal for handling, except following an emergency, is an important aspect of pilot development, and was the norm in respected British airlines even before I was a rookie. I suspect the same applies in the airlines of most Anglophone countries, and probably in the main European airlines, but I stand to be corrected.

To repeat a point I suggested flippantly in my first post, you cannot expect a pilot suddenly to become a taxiing expert on large a/c during the short period of a command course, the non-revenue part of which will be conducted in a simulator. There are already enough pressures to be faced in the line training, particularly if it involves a type change.

Chris

You were probably not on the BCal DC10 which, unless old age is catching up on me, only had one tiller.

I seem to recall the same on the ANZ DC10.

Did any DC10 operator have a 2 tillered version.

On the HS748, we had some with 2 tillers and some with 1.

I used to give all the sectors to the first officer if we had 2 and did them myself if 1.

IIRC there was one more a/c with 2 than with 1.

Chris, To repeat a point I suggested flippantly in my first post, you cannot expect a pilot suddenly to become a taxiing expert on large a/c during the short period of a command course

You must be a victim of CRM indoctrination and propaganda. I wish 411A was still around, he would have stated clearly that

on a serious note, Denti knows what he is talking about (about parking, price of optional tiller - boeing seems more expensive than airbus - and airbus suggested SOP's, if you follow airbus SOP's they let F/O's taxi. I don't want to turn this into an A vs B discussion, but it seemed RH tillers are more common on widebody Boeing than 737, presumably because seniority has taught F/O's to taxi? I'm not discounting that observing is helpful. Yet, some SOP's would rather ask for a tug/tractor than let an F/O taxi...maybe it's a way to outsource the cost of mistakes? Blame it on ground handling instead of training your own employees?)

Quotes from Denti:
(1) "Working in an airline that works its way out of boeings into airbii we used to have company SOPs in which only the captain was allowed to taxi, except in case of role reversal for training purposes."
What would be the training purposes? Unless you mean a command course?

(2) "Now that we adopt the full airbus SOPs [...] all FOs have to go through some taxi training in the simulator and two flights with a trainer before they will be allowed to taxi an aircraft, set take off power themselves and do the whole taxi in."
Would that training not happen automatically during the type-conversion from B737 to A320?

Hi finncapt,
On reflection I think you're right about the BCAL DC-10s having only one tiller. The management and philosophy of the operation were largely carried on from the B707 fleet: very much in line with the manufacturers' SOPs.

Hello deptrai:
Good old 411A! "...what a character!" :} (Quote from Back to the Future by Marty of Biff...) Many of us have flown with - and learned much from - semi-benevolent, paternalistic despots like 411A - mainly in our youth. I infer that you are no keener to share a cockpit with his ilk than I am? Now a few drinks and a leisurely chat in a bar on terra-firma would be another matter...

Am beginning to realise that this one-tiller philosophy is very much a feature of the US manufacturers, presumably with the tacit approval of the legacy US airlines. Except for a few British and other European types, smaller airlines worldwide have traditionally inherited most of their large aircraft second-hand from US manufacturers, if not US airlines. Until Airbus, that is.

Not rocket science, the training focuses on take off aborts in the phase of changing hands since the captain is usually responsible for stops once the take off run has begun.

FOs were hired and trained as captains in waiting, therefore they had to be able to take over if needed and role reversal was a legal way to do that. It used to be more common, nowadays its rarely done, could be that i'm just too lazy though after 15 years on the right side.

In the future it will, currently we still have company SOPs on the airbus which are centered around a silent cockpit concept. There's no FMA callouts and nearly no checklists (just before start, after start, parking and secure) as well as no normal FO taxying. The move to OEM SOPs is just a money saving venture, not because their SOPs are deemed better. And of course those of us who have flown the Airbus for the last 20 years have to be retrained to the new OEM SOPs as well, not only the newly airbus rated ex boeing guys.

F/O's taxying...

I've been in the LHS and the RHS on both single and dual tiller aircraft.

Gimme a dual tiller anyday... Simply because in a single tiller aircraft, the F/O will practically never complete a landing - Control is handed across prior to any taxiway thus the last fine part of braking judgement never occurs - And, the handover is sometimes an awkward moment!

Single tiller prevents F/O's refining their taxi technique, particularly on a longer aircraft in turns. For those Capt's who say 'but I know where I am going'. I have found, over quite a few years that the F/O's do too and mistakes (hey real world right!) occur in similar proportions!

And lastly, when my ticker ticks less than it should, my F/O is gonna get me to medical attention quicker...Gawd bless them....

Tillers should be standard on both sides, if nothing else the FO should be able to take over and taxi in if the Ca's incapacitated.


Not enough authority through the rudders for the tighter turns after all.


Interesting that the 777 and 787 both have dual tillers as standard.

It really annoys me that Boeing chose to option the RHS tiller on B737 aircraft. I'm inclined to assume that it wasn't Boeing's absolute decision to do so, but rather they were commercially persuaded to do so by a particular airline wanting to buy several hundred models of the type, and wanting to shave a few more shekels off the purchase price.

My airline inherted some of these models, and for type commonality has chosen to order all future 737s without RHS tillers, despite all other types in the airline being taxied by both pilots.

I find it insulting to the FOs and also problematic in that if they are seen as not fit to taxi they learn to act that way... They will daydream and let you taxi down the wrong taxiway. That is Human Factors 101.

On the Airbus, it is steer-by-wire, so the tillers are just spring loaded potentiometers/position sensors that input to a computer. I believe Boeings have mechanical linkages to the steering? If so it will be far more expensive to fit an extra tiller on the RHS.

I love it that some folk hate the idea of F/Os taxying ! The same F/Os can land in terrible weather at night, but are not trusted to taxy very slowly along a yellow line with the Captain and ATC watching closely.:ok:

The bit about ATC watching carefully somehow reminds me of the unfortunate write off of the BA 747 in Capetown. I think the FO may even have been steering at the time when they crashed into the building. It can be argued both ways. Taxying a large aircraft is not always as easy as it looks. If you are a long haul pilot at the controls only for a few sectors a month at airports you visit occasionally, maybe a set procedure where the captain steers and the co-pilot has the chart out (or on screen) and is actively monitoring is not such a bad idea. Ar least the roles are clearer and FOs are generally better at concentrating on the chart.

Lederhosen I think you mean Johanessburg not Capetown.

I don't think I can agree with this, everyone should have a chart out, paper or electronic. In my experience Captains and FOs have equal ability in being able to read a chart and have situation awareness.

Not a great idea for the taxiing operator to be looking at charts too. Just the time that errant vehicle or animal to cross.

Same reason for Captains taxiing in some airlines. Captain has final responsibility for safety of aircraft. If he is head down in charts temporarily lost in taxiway maize, while FO clips the wingtip on something.... Or let's the mains go cross country - Who carries the can?

Not everyone operates in environment of 'same nationality' crew with easy communication. (I.e. Good English) This growing communication problem is one of the invisible safety factors increasing in aviation these days.

And finally the even better reason..... Generally - Younger FO's have better eyes for reading tiny print on Jepp plates! :8 :8 :ok:

Thanks for the correction about Joburg Offchocks. My point is that it can be argued both ways about the need for two tillers. Certainly our procedure in terms of captain's incapacitation is for the FO to swap seats, at which point I would agree with Uplinker about them being able to follow a yellow line, although not very smoothly, particularly in the sim.

Quote from lederhosen:
"Certainly our procedure in terms of captain's incapacitation is for the FO to swap seats..."

I wonder what a/c type are you referring to? Unless it is practised regularly (preferably, in a sim), like we did on small a/c in my youth, taking a pilot out of his/her comfort zone in a single-pilot contingency situation is likely to create more problems than it solves (as well as being of doubtful legality). Reversing hands for all tasks is a bit like trying to brush your teeth with your other hand. In my experience, trainers have to pass separate handling checks in both seats every six months.

Fortunately the rudder-fine steering on most modern airliners normally enables the RHS pilot of a single-tiller a/c to vacate the runway after landing, provided a rapid-exit taxiway is available.

Hi goeasy,
You make a good argument for the captain doing all his/her "own" (as someone once described it) taxiing. As for "carrying the can", my advocacy of role-reversal including the co-pilot being able and allowed to taxi the a/c is maintained despite personal experience. But I don't think that a F/O is any more likely to mishandle or miss a turning than the captain, and - as for chart-reading ability - the ability of presbyopic captains to read small print with reading spectacles is regularly tested!

To repeat a point already made by me and others, the strongest argument for allowing copilots to taxi is that of personal development. In training, the importance of planning and execution, as well as the potential and historic implications of a foul-up, are best taught and learned from the early stages of a pilot's career, in my opinion.

This is about cost people....., the RHS tiller is an option just like having two fueling panels and many other equipment where you will find differences.

What is the big deal about letting the F/O taxi the airplane? I've flown on companies that have this procedure for decades and it has never been a problem. What are you "let the F/O taxi and you are asking for trouble crowd" compensating for?

You know that even if you taxi all the time it won't grow anymore right?:}

All good points Chris, but our 737s lack the tiller on the right side, so not an option. Taxying the sim is also a bit different from the aircraft as I am sure a few people will attest, so apart from the copilot being asked what he would do we rarely have them taxi. The company and Boeing determine the SOPs. In most cases stopping on a taxiway and being towed is probably better.

Quite frankly: telling an F/O - who has just landed a jet weighing say 180 tonnes in bad weather at night, or flown it down to 200' aal and then gone around - that s/he is somehow not competant to taxi the same aircraft slowly along the ground, is preposterous.

As is: not allowing an F/O to start the engines and taxi, yet allowing them to be PF for the take-off, and expecting them to control the aircraft correctly and safely to climb away in the event of an engine failure at V1.

Yes; there have been mistakes and accidents, but many Captains have also made mistakes and caused accidents, so that is no reason to ban F/Os from taxiing. Yes, of course, as with any phase of operating an airliner, there should be minimum experience levels imposed; so for example a brand new F/O on their first ever big jet would not be allowed to taxi until they had a certain amount of experience and time on type.

Totally agree!

Again totally agree, my last airline's SOP was for the FO to taxy on his sector right up until turning onto the gate where the Captain took over.

Great on the old aircraft with flight engineers. 3 tillers.

The DC10 has a great field of vision, my first Taxi was on a 742 from the RT seat, the view from that cockpit is much more restrictive. On narrow body aircraft I do not see the necessity.

Which airplane? Certainly NOT on the 747 Classic!

3 tillers? Can't think of any aircraft configured to let the FE steer on the ground. The VC10 had a set of thrust levers for the FE, but they were the pilots responsibility when taxying.

I think he may have meant 3 joysticks :}:} if you know what I mean!!

Our own 73NG fleet is equipped with two tillers but during peak season we use lease-in without the right tiller. Despite briefing it every stretch it's always a sketchy moment after landing when the F/O grabs air instead of a tiller and we need to hand over controls:O:O

lederhosen - Are your FOs regularly checked in the LHS as well as the RHS? When everything around you is going wrong surely it is best to stay in the seat you are most familiar with? Changing seats after a captain has become incapacitated introduces a whole stack of unfamiliarity for the FO, better, I think, for him to fly the approach and landing from the seat he is most familiar with? To be honest never heard of an operator before that required a seat change by the FO if the captain went U/S.


Stop on the runway if you wish or use nosewheel fine steering to slip down a fast turn off, as suggested by Chris, above.