Re: Career First Officers

Donald Talleur (dtalleur_at_uiuc.edu)
Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:47:02 -0600

There may be a difference in medical requirements for the F.O. for
starters. Also in some cases (perhaps many) the schedules that a senior
F.O. can bid may be far better than what they'd get if they were to upgrade
to a Captain. The lifestyle of a worker may be suited to one or the other
positions. Not everyone desires the command responsibilities of the left
seat either. To assume that every crew member aspires to become a Captain
is naive (although probably true in many cases). As for wanting career
F.O.s , the crew members are supposed to work as a team. I'd think every
Captain would want a highly experienced team member to support him on the
flgiht deck. As long as the F.O. remembers who is "in charge" having that
highly experienced F.O. can only be an asset. This assumes many ideal
circumstances both in intercrew personal relations and other areas as well.

Just my thought on it!

Don Talleur

At 01:53 PM 1/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Listmembers,
>
>The current discussion about go-around procedures prompts me to ask the
>list for
>thoughts and opinions on a matter which I've been interested in for awhile:
>
>I am aware of one accident and one incident where the first officer was a
>'career FO', i.e. someone who will never sit in the left seat. In the
case of
>the accident, it was a CFIT where the FO realized something was wrong in time
>to prevent the accident, but the Capt disregarded his concerns.
>
>Some questions:
>
>1. Why do we have career FOs? (e.g. poor selection, pilot prefers to be an
>FO,
> poor leadership skills, etc.)
>
>2. Does your airline/military organization have career FOs?
>
>3. Do you think that career FOs are 'a bad thing', i.e. should have
> up or out progression?
>
>Ian Mack
>Human Factors Engineer
>DCIEM
>
>
>
>