hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,949
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Interesting picture on the combination of the crew's experience, and recency. Same overall flight times, but the FO was the experienced guy in the type, by spades. But had crap for recency in the 30 day lookback. Of course, why was he a [de facto] perma FO? Schedules preference, or aptitude problems? We will never know as outsiders to that employment group.
In any event, the CA was the green one in the airplane, though not green for this earth. more importantly , he had much better recency than the more experienced guy. Alas, the combination was not enough to save the flight.
It's not heavily publicized, but crew aircraft communities in the military commonly ensure senior co-pilots are placed against our direct entry captain equivalents (aetc FAIP) or struggle bus *paper-upgrade Aircraft commanders (*yes, the military is not immune to personal corruption/political expedience) to act as seeing eye dogs. Likewise, to the degree leadership can identify left-sigma swimmers, efforts are routinely made to never place them together. This of course is a much harder ask on civilian sEniOriTY driven jobs. Digressing.
The academic answer is that both people are qualified to be there, but that's a naive understanding of crew airplane aviation. I'm too seasoned/lucky-to-be-alive in this occupation to debate that line item anymore, so to each their own/agree-to-disagree.
All that said, it may still be moot after all, if the combined aggregate experience and recency overlap of both crew members didn't amount to a hill of beans on the question of lack of icing experience. That very well could be the case here, again making the CA/FO experience/recency "swiss cheese" hole matching, a moot affair.
and t'is why I still rather fly with my favorite Captain/have the extra gas. I keed I keed (not really).