Latest Orange Hair-brained scheme
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unacceptable reduction in safety margin
There has been plenty said on this subject already, including some ill informed statements/opinions by some inexperienced, (or non-) aviators who have difficulty spelling.
The fact of the matter is that it is quite simply an unsafe practice to make a policy change such as this. It has got nothing to do with Ego, but the real danger comes from two areas. Firstly, unfamiliarity with the RHS job, this covers ergonomics, visual perspective, physical distraction of switch/control operation et al.
If that was not bad enough however there is the CRM aspect. Many ppruners will recall the landing incident at LGW many years ago when an airliner landed on the taxiway by mistake. Only the quick thinking ATCer saved the day by instructing another a/c to taxy onto the grass to avoid an accident. On the flightdeck of the error jet? Not one, not two, but three Captains! Yes it was a check flight for a new Training Captain in the RHS.
This incident typifies the potential problem of more than Captain on the flightdeck. There are strange communication dynamics which can occur and have an adverse effect on good CRM. Those of us with some experience of this in the past can testify to the detrimental effect this can have on the safety of the flight. We do not imagine it, believe me it is real and for an airline management to make this decision as a sticking plaster measure to mask their own failings in under-recruiting sufficient pilots is reprehensible.
Gotta say though, they do appear to have a long track record of cocking it up in the allocation of pilot resources department, after all, did they not base 50 F/Os in Berlin when the base opened a couple of years ago when they only had two a/c there? Such gross incompetence is breathtaking and if it continued long enough then eventually one could foresee desperate measures being taken which impinge on Flight Safety, erm like..... "Why don't we get the skippers to fly in the righthand seat until we get enough F/Os online?"
One of the reasons that there are not enough Co-Pilots is the fact that the TRSS scheme produces no company loyalty, nor any financial restraint in the form of a training bond. The TRSS guys can walk at any time and guess what? They are doing. Perhaps some of the TRSS F/Os could comment here?
The fact of the matter is that it is quite simply an unsafe practice to make a policy change such as this. It has got nothing to do with Ego, but the real danger comes from two areas. Firstly, unfamiliarity with the RHS job, this covers ergonomics, visual perspective, physical distraction of switch/control operation et al.
If that was not bad enough however there is the CRM aspect. Many ppruners will recall the landing incident at LGW many years ago when an airliner landed on the taxiway by mistake. Only the quick thinking ATCer saved the day by instructing another a/c to taxy onto the grass to avoid an accident. On the flightdeck of the error jet? Not one, not two, but three Captains! Yes it was a check flight for a new Training Captain in the RHS.
This incident typifies the potential problem of more than Captain on the flightdeck. There are strange communication dynamics which can occur and have an adverse effect on good CRM. Those of us with some experience of this in the past can testify to the detrimental effect this can have on the safety of the flight. We do not imagine it, believe me it is real and for an airline management to make this decision as a sticking plaster measure to mask their own failings in under-recruiting sufficient pilots is reprehensible.
Gotta say though, they do appear to have a long track record of cocking it up in the allocation of pilot resources department, after all, did they not base 50 F/Os in Berlin when the base opened a couple of years ago when they only had two a/c there? Such gross incompetence is breathtaking and if it continued long enough then eventually one could foresee desperate measures being taken which impinge on Flight Safety, erm like..... "Why don't we get the skippers to fly in the righthand seat until we get enough F/Os online?"
One of the reasons that there are not enough Co-Pilots is the fact that the TRSS scheme produces no company loyalty, nor any financial restraint in the form of a training bond. The TRSS guys can walk at any time and guess what? They are doing. Perhaps some of the TRSS F/Os could comment here?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A25R
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite apart from the familiarity aspect of the operation this would allow standby call outs for either seat, great. Where is the compensation from the company for this, once again increased flexibility forced upon the pilots ? I'll bet balpa are right on top of it !
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In our outfit only instructors are allowed to fly from the right seat.I've been an instructor now for two years and I must say I find it more difficult then I thought.Especially since we have seat related emergency and abnormal procedures, mixed with Capt/Fo related stuff.Confused?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In having to adopt a policy of seat swapping a company is showing that it has not dealt well with the problem of recruitment and retention of crew but that is the way of the world at the moment. The actual mechanics of operating from the RHS when you are well used to the LHS can become straightforward with proper sim training and a meaningful number of line training flights. Most people find the hardest task adjusting the seat properly when the levers have all moved! My main concern would be the CRM aspect of two captains flying together. In an ideal world it should present no problems as one (the more senior) is designated as the commander and away you go with lots of experience on hand to deal with anything that comes your way. In the vast majority of cases this will be what happens but there are always going to be times where having two "bosses" working together scuppers this. It probably won't be on a big issue as the SOP's should take care of that but a situation which requires a decision from someone to query the actions of their equal. It's one thing to ask of your F.O "Why did you do that?" or even for the F.O. to seek clarification of his Captains intent, it may be harder to challenge another captain as perhaps you would not wish to cause a loss of face. Operating from the RHS has never been an issue on line training flights as you are there in a training capacity and it is expected you will have more than the usual input into the actions of the person in the LHS.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tyneside
Age: 53
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thread and it would appear that the lack of FO's is creating a problem. If the reality is that FO's are leaving in significant numbers, then surely there should be some incentives introduced to make them stay.
I for one believe a possible answer could be in bonding FO's for a period following the company paying for the type rating training. The FO would then be less likely to leave the company if they were going to have to pay out a substantial sum of money to "buy" their freedom from a contract.
Additionally, this scenario would give low hours guys like me the opportunity to get a foot in the door without having to pay through the nose for a type rating.
The company would in effect be buying my loyalty. And I'm sure that loyalty would prove to be a lot more cost effective in the long run than paying a captain to do the job of an FO.
I suspect the problems described on this particular thread are due to a lack of forward planning by the bean counters who are only looking at the profit margins in the short term. Perhaps a sound ten to twenty year business plan would alleviate situations such as this developing in the future.
I for one believe a possible answer could be in bonding FO's for a period following the company paying for the type rating training. The FO would then be less likely to leave the company if they were going to have to pay out a substantial sum of money to "buy" their freedom from a contract.
Additionally, this scenario would give low hours guys like me the opportunity to get a foot in the door without having to pay through the nose for a type rating.
The company would in effect be buying my loyalty. And I'm sure that loyalty would prove to be a lot more cost effective in the long run than paying a captain to do the job of an FO.
I suspect the problems described on this particular thread are due to a lack of forward planning by the bean counters who are only looking at the profit margins in the short term. Perhaps a sound ten to twenty year business plan would alleviate situations such as this developing in the future.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: England
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TRSS guys can walk at any time and guess what? They are doing. Perhaps some of the TRSS F/Os could comment here?
1. Walk
2. Get the Airbus rating, consolidate, walk.
Since it costs us nothing to do so (we paid eJ a fortune on joining), it can be an easy decision. About half of my course have gone already.
Stu
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree totally with ATree and Damienmk if easy are short of FOs it must be a problem with the system, so change it. If Easyland HR are looking for newly qualified fATPLs for FO positions give me a ring i would happily take a 5 year bond for a 737 rating. Real world economics prevents me from buying mine up front.
Aldegrove base, jet FO, decent salary couldn't ask for more.
Aldegrove base, jet FO, decent salary couldn't ask for more.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what about the captains who have 0 experience in the RHS of that type ? Aren't there many direct entry capts who joined from other types?
I doubt 20 mins in the sim is sufficient for them irrespective of good intentions / abilty.
also, just curious could you refuse to do it? could the company INSIST that you cross qualify ?
I doubt 20 mins in the sim is sufficient for them irrespective of good intentions / abilty.
also, just curious could you refuse to do it? could the company INSIST that you cross qualify ?
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be an EU type thing...If you guys would address the root of the problem...i.e. a 250 hr tt pilot in the right seat of a "big jet" then maybe you would get somewhere with this argument...as it is, how many schoolboys know how to reassemble an engine part blindfolded, or would want to?
The EU standard of the license is not realistic...hire real pilots for the RHS and promote them in seniority...otherwise, don't moan about ex-pats coming over to fly the LHS, and all you "Captains" quit your winging about having to fly in the "other" seat...
SAFETY here is not the issue guys...250 PPL's posing as airline pilots is...DI3G
Hey Everyone...ck Dawn Radier\'s profile...what paper do you work for "friend"?
The EU standard of the license is not realistic...hire real pilots for the RHS and promote them in seniority...otherwise, don't moan about ex-pats coming over to fly the LHS, and all you "Captains" quit your winging about having to fly in the "other" seat...
SAFETY here is not the issue guys...250 PPL's posing as airline pilots is...DI3G
Hey Everyone...ck Dawn Radier\'s profile...what paper do you work for "friend"?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DownIn3Green
Do not agrre with you at all! Me, young guy after about 300 tth flying the F-4 as "PIC" Not an "EU-Thing", got my training in the US Airforce!
Nowadays, a "little" older, finding out that some of the 250 tth yougsters do a good job for their experience! But it is not quite common!
And considering safety aspects: I would not call it "winging"!
Do not agrre with you at all! Me, young guy after about 300 tth flying the F-4 as "PIC" Not an "EU-Thing", got my training in the US Airforce!
Nowadays, a "little" older, finding out that some of the 250 tth yougsters do a good job for their experience! But it is not quite common!
And considering safety aspects: I would not call it "winging"!
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imm...man
Sorry, can't spell that without looking back...
You are an exception..in the EU, they are sponsoring pilots right out of in abitio tng into the RHS of a commercial airliner...
Great for the new pilots, however I earned my bones by getting hired (after 10 yrs AF but not a pilot..ATC) with 2240 hrs (remember the old GI Bill?) into the RHS of a BE-99/BE-1900.
I gained a further 2800 hrs in the back seat of a B-727 before moving to the RHS...after my airline went t1ts-up I typed myself in the 727 and 737 and sought work overseas, where I had a wonderful career...
And I repeat, in the twilight of my career, I thouroughly enjoy sitting in the RHS and letting someone else do the driving...
To clairify, at my airline, this situation normally occurs when the rostered F/O calls in sick or is stuck in traffic or whatever...it is not a normal practice...
However I can assure you that when this does happen I am usually senior to the rostered Captain, and HE/SHE are the A/C, not I....
I still feel it is not a safety issue, if the RHS "Captain" has been around the block enough times, and if you don't believe me, ask 411...DI3G
PS...where have you been, 411A?...
Sorry, can't spell that without looking back...
You are an exception..in the EU, they are sponsoring pilots right out of in abitio tng into the RHS of a commercial airliner...
Great for the new pilots, however I earned my bones by getting hired (after 10 yrs AF but not a pilot..ATC) with 2240 hrs (remember the old GI Bill?) into the RHS of a BE-99/BE-1900.
I gained a further 2800 hrs in the back seat of a B-727 before moving to the RHS...after my airline went t1ts-up I typed myself in the 727 and 737 and sought work overseas, where I had a wonderful career...
And I repeat, in the twilight of my career, I thouroughly enjoy sitting in the RHS and letting someone else do the driving...
To clairify, at my airline, this situation normally occurs when the rostered F/O calls in sick or is stuck in traffic or whatever...it is not a normal practice...
However I can assure you that when this does happen I am usually senior to the rostered Captain, and HE/SHE are the A/C, not I....
I still feel it is not a safety issue, if the RHS "Captain" has been around the block enough times, and if you don't believe me, ask 411...DI3G
PS...where have you been, 411A?...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that gets me more, is the fact that I have spent the last 5 years waiting to get away from those nightmare Captains who have their own ideas about SOPs, etc and then when you get promoted you are faced with flying with them again...
The rules will be different this time round though...
The rules will be different this time round though...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have several reservations about this idea.
Firstly, as this is a significant change to Ts and Cs where is BALPA's involvement? Capts are clearly going to find themselves called out from SBY far more frequently than before, ie yet more disruption, and to do a job that they are not necessarily trained in or familiar with on a first-hand basis. I find it hard to believe that such a major change can go through without BALPA's involvement in the discussion stage. What is BALPA there for if not to act as a buffer for things like this? Mind you, given BALPA's willingness to sell, or to allow our Ts and Cs to drift away down the orange river perhaps it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
Re trained in or familiar with (above) - Many of our Capts are direct entry and have never sat in this company's RHS. Some may have come from another type (maybe several jobs ago) and have never sat in the RHS on current type, ever. So what suddenly qualifies them to do so?
Recency qualifications. The book says "A pilot cannot act as FO unless he has operated as pilot flying for 3 TOs and landings... in the preceding 90 days". This can only happen (due to the PF requirement) in the sim, unless there is an additional interim check on line with an LTC (which would really bollix the training dept) and is good only for 3 mths. What happens on the next 3 mths? Is this going to be changed? If so by what justification can a restrictive clause like this - which must be there for a reason - be arbitarily scrapped? Has it's raison d'etre somehow changed - apart from sound safety led concerns like convenience to the recruiting/crewing dept? Has someone done a formal risk asessment? If so may we see the data? Has the CAA approved it?
Book also says, re LVPs, "Both Operating pilots must hold a... Cert of Approval". Well as far as I am concerned I am only trained to act in one seat for LVPs. If I can operate in one seat with no recurrent training why is it so important that I am trained to such a high standard in the other? By that logic we should scrap all recurrent LVP training - just bin it! Are the Directors going to stand in front of a court of enquiry and say truthfully that both pilots were fully trained to the required level when one of them might never have carried out a CatIII approach before from the RHS? Or will having a Capt in RHS rule out a Cat III approaches?
And with sim time already so tight on recurrent training what is going to be sacrificed for the token app, GA, SE app and landing? (which doesn't contain the 3 appchs and landings required by the Ops manual for RHS qualification) Something has to slip...Trouble is, if its us that slips (up) its us that will get busted for it...
Whats next? Does this work the other way too, so that line Capts will get rostered for training trips if there is a shortage of LTCs? On the same pay? From the RHS perhaps - after all, we appear to be qualified to operate from there...? Or serve the tea when the No 3 has a cold? Or load the baggage...
No, I'm not preaching demarcation, but just how far can our Ts and Cs be stretched without, apparently, any discussion? Anyway, the safety issue seems to leave a lot of questions unanswered. I would hope that some discussion might take place before this is "rolled out" - is that the correct management w@nkspeak? and we get presented with yet another fait accompli.
Hmm. I hae me doots!
Why, oh why can't the damn beancounters see that just a little effort to make lives easier and less stressful would result in the almost total end to FO wastage due to disillusion with inhumane working practices, and all the associated costs of recruiting and training to replace that wastage, which must cost Millions per annum, would stop. This really is British managerial short-termism taken to the n th degree.
Firstly, as this is a significant change to Ts and Cs where is BALPA's involvement? Capts are clearly going to find themselves called out from SBY far more frequently than before, ie yet more disruption, and to do a job that they are not necessarily trained in or familiar with on a first-hand basis. I find it hard to believe that such a major change can go through without BALPA's involvement in the discussion stage. What is BALPA there for if not to act as a buffer for things like this? Mind you, given BALPA's willingness to sell, or to allow our Ts and Cs to drift away down the orange river perhaps it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
Re trained in or familiar with (above) - Many of our Capts are direct entry and have never sat in this company's RHS. Some may have come from another type (maybe several jobs ago) and have never sat in the RHS on current type, ever. So what suddenly qualifies them to do so?
Recency qualifications. The book says "A pilot cannot act as FO unless he has operated as pilot flying for 3 TOs and landings... in the preceding 90 days". This can only happen (due to the PF requirement) in the sim, unless there is an additional interim check on line with an LTC (which would really bollix the training dept) and is good only for 3 mths. What happens on the next 3 mths? Is this going to be changed? If so by what justification can a restrictive clause like this - which must be there for a reason - be arbitarily scrapped? Has it's raison d'etre somehow changed - apart from sound safety led concerns like convenience to the recruiting/crewing dept? Has someone done a formal risk asessment? If so may we see the data? Has the CAA approved it?
Book also says, re LVPs, "Both Operating pilots must hold a... Cert of Approval". Well as far as I am concerned I am only trained to act in one seat for LVPs. If I can operate in one seat with no recurrent training why is it so important that I am trained to such a high standard in the other? By that logic we should scrap all recurrent LVP training - just bin it! Are the Directors going to stand in front of a court of enquiry and say truthfully that both pilots were fully trained to the required level when one of them might never have carried out a CatIII approach before from the RHS? Or will having a Capt in RHS rule out a Cat III approaches?
And with sim time already so tight on recurrent training what is going to be sacrificed for the token app, GA, SE app and landing? (which doesn't contain the 3 appchs and landings required by the Ops manual for RHS qualification) Something has to slip...Trouble is, if its us that slips (up) its us that will get busted for it...
Whats next? Does this work the other way too, so that line Capts will get rostered for training trips if there is a shortage of LTCs? On the same pay? From the RHS perhaps - after all, we appear to be qualified to operate from there...? Or serve the tea when the No 3 has a cold? Or load the baggage...
No, I'm not preaching demarcation, but just how far can our Ts and Cs be stretched without, apparently, any discussion? Anyway, the safety issue seems to leave a lot of questions unanswered. I would hope that some discussion might take place before this is "rolled out" - is that the correct management w@nkspeak? and we get presented with yet another fait accompli.
Hmm. I hae me doots!
Why, oh why can't the damn beancounters see that just a little effort to make lives easier and less stressful would result in the almost total end to FO wastage due to disillusion with inhumane working practices, and all the associated costs of recruiting and training to replace that wastage, which must cost Millions per annum, would stop. This really is British managerial short-termism taken to the n th degree.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 22nd Aug 2005 at 18:12.
Once upon a time my Company might have called me on a standby to say 'xxxx has gone sick - could you fly in the right hand seat to help us out' - no problem as the CAA in its infinite wisdom (sic) allows me to do that as PNF with a couple of circuits in the sim every six months and a LVP once every three years. However, every winter I find myself rostered to fly on an ever increasing basis in the rhs, not to help the Company out at short notice but to keep down costs and allow less pilots to be employed; I'm referred to as a Captain in the summer and a pilot in the winter - spot the subtle difference ?. OK in reality when we double up, skippers tend to swap seats for return sector so no big deal there BUT the CAA and indeed BALPA seem to accept the status quo on this one - I don't think this should be the way we operate, some agree some don't - do you ?????
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer some of the above:
Balpa were neither consulted nor informed.
There appears to be no contractual breach here. If you know of one, let Balpa know and something will be done (but you clearly are not a member so............)
3 TOs in 90 can be in either seat.
CAA have to approve it.
SIM LVO trg is to be given (I'm now told!).
Why vent your spleen on this forum?? Use the company Intranet then maybe the people who dreamt up this idea will give you an answer.
Balpa were neither consulted nor informed.
There appears to be no contractual breach here. If you know of one, let Balpa know and something will be done (but you clearly are not a member so............)
3 TOs in 90 can be in either seat.
CAA have to approve it.
SIM LVO trg is to be given (I'm now told!).
Why vent your spleen on this forum?? Use the company Intranet then maybe the people who dreamt up this idea will give you an answer.
I am amazed this is such a major issue with some people. I have until recently been working for an organisation with in excess of 150 pilots and we regularly flew two captains together. As far as I am aware it was never raised as a problem.
Yes, I would agree that there is the potential for CRM issues but that was dealt with as part of routine CRM training. Base checks for captains were done in alternate seats each time so we were fully assessed for handling competence in each seat once a year.
I would agree that for cost reasons this is not ideal but if you have a 50/50 split, captains verses non captains, one could have a situation with a higher number of captains sick or unavailable for a period and you then end up with co-pilots as useful as the pope's testicles. We used to have about a 60/40 split and it used to work fine.
Yes, I would agree that there is the potential for CRM issues but that was dealt with as part of routine CRM training. Base checks for captains were done in alternate seats each time so we were fully assessed for handling competence in each seat once a year.
I would agree that for cost reasons this is not ideal but if you have a 50/50 split, captains verses non captains, one could have a situation with a higher number of captains sick or unavailable for a period and you then end up with co-pilots as useful as the pope's testicles. We used to have about a 60/40 split and it used to work fine.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps One, you say there is no contractual difficulty here. I wonder...
If a contract says, "You are employed as Captain..." then I doubt it would take much of a lawyer to prove that if you were asked to operate as a First Officer then this is outside the remit of your contract, cos when acting as FO you clearly aren't the Captain, just as it would be if you were asked to load baggage, serve the tea or work in reservations. But as I said, I'm not promoting demarcation arguments here, just safety.
But why wasn't BALPA involved? Is the company able to do anything they like without consultation? If so I really wonder if it is worth shelling out the vast sums membership costs when all it seems to give is a qualified level of legal protection in case of dispute or accident. A loss of income policy would be much cheaper.
If a contract says, "You are employed as Captain..." then I doubt it would take much of a lawyer to prove that if you were asked to operate as a First Officer then this is outside the remit of your contract, cos when acting as FO you clearly aren't the Captain, just as it would be if you were asked to load baggage, serve the tea or work in reservations. But as I said, I'm not promoting demarcation arguments here, just safety.
But why wasn't BALPA involved? Is the company able to do anything they like without consultation? If so I really wonder if it is worth shelling out the vast sums membership costs when all it seems to give is a qualified level of legal protection in case of dispute or accident. A loss of income policy would be much cheaper.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually said no apparent contractual breach - not difficulty.
Does your contract say that you are employed soley as a Captain??
If it does, no problem.
If it doesn't, what are you on about?
Amazing how the company does something - so it's Balpa's fault, but folk like you wouldn't dream of joining forces to stop stuff like this happening would you???
Wait, don't tell me.........you're one of those who would join up instantly if Balpa fixed everything on the planet and there was nothing left to do. Why not join the battle rather than running away hoping someone else will win it for you?
So, if that line is in your contract, you have nothing to worry about!! Let us all know how you get on.
Bottom line:
If it's illegal or a contractual breach/change, Balpa can stop it, but if you just don't like it and your not a member.......take a hike and fight your own battles!
Does your contract say that you are employed soley as a Captain??
If it does, no problem.
If it doesn't, what are you on about?
Amazing how the company does something - so it's Balpa's fault, but folk like you wouldn't dream of joining forces to stop stuff like this happening would you???
Wait, don't tell me.........you're one of those who would join up instantly if Balpa fixed everything on the planet and there was nothing left to do. Why not join the battle rather than running away hoping someone else will win it for you?
So, if that line is in your contract, you have nothing to worry about!! Let us all know how you get on.
Bottom line:
If it's illegal or a contractual breach/change, Balpa can stop it, but if you just don't like it and your not a member.......take a hike and fight your own battles!