Just curious if any airlines out there allow their first officers to taxi aircraft that are equipped with a tiller on both sides of the flight deck. I'm specifically referring to jet transport aircraft, not turboprop/pistons. This is a random thought that popped into my head today, and I thought "who better to ask than the Airliners community?"

There are several that allow FOs to taxi. When I flew for a large well known SE Asian carrier, headquarters located in a well known city-state, our SOP was when it was the FO as the PF, he did all the preflight, start, taxi and taxi in. However, he could not park the aircraft. The rationale was most optic guidance systems were set up for the LHS.

Current carrier is the FO does not taxi.....

Quoting NW747-400 (Thread starter): Just curious if any airlines out there allow their first officers to taxi aircraft that are equipped with a tiller on both sides of the flight deck. I'm specifically referring to jet transport aircraft, not turboprop/pistons. This is a random thought that popped into my head today, and I thought "who better to ask than the Airliners community?"

Don't know if they still do it but I saw a video of KLM MD-11 who had the f/o sit in the capt seat during pushback, start, and taxi to the runway where they then would switch seats with the capt. Don't know if thats a regular practice though.

BA allows the First Officers to taxi the airplane, when they are pilot flying.
However, this does have a downside when, as happened recently at a Caribbean airport, the First Officer taxied the airplane for an intersection departure (mistake one), then the Captain did not notice (mistake two) and then during the takeoff roll, the Captain noticed not much runway remaining (mistake three)...and the airplane became airbourne just shortly before the runway end.

BA uses the non-sensical 'role reversal' method of operation, and this time, it nearly led to a serious accident.

The BA Captain now has time to ponder his mistakes...as he now resides firmly in the right hand seat...as a co-pilot.
Just where he belongs.

Airline I work for it's only captains. On the jets the F/O tiller is not installed, and on the Hawkers some airplanes have them removed entirely and others the tiller is still there but it has been disconnected (you can grab and turn it all you want but nothing will happen).



CanadianNorth

I don't know of any in the US that allow FOs to taxi.

The KLM way sounds beyond dangerous to me. At a time when workload (and accident rate) are high, they are diverting attention from the task at hand to switch seats? Sorry, but swiveling a little tiller around isn't that important to me.

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 1): There are several that allow FOs to taxi. When I flew for a large well known SE Asian carrier, headquarters located in a well known city-state, our SOP was when it was the FO as the PF, he did all the preflight, start, taxi and taxi in. However, he could not park the aircraft. The rationale was most optic guidance systems were set up for the LHS.

This sounds like the airline from my country.. A 5-star airline that provides high quality of service and based in my lovely little city state!

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 5): The KLM way sounds beyond dangerous to me. At a time when workload (and accident rate) are high, they are diverting attention from the task at hand to switch seats? Sorry, but swiveling a little tiller around isn't that important to me.

I thought most KLM planes had dual tiller as an option. I am not sure exactly what the tiller on an MD11 looks like, but it appears that there are two:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Nitin Sarin - AirTeamImages


Here are some of their boeing models with dual tillers.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Patrick Schwarzschulz

View Large View Medium

Photo © Nick de Jonge Photography

How does F/O learn this skill?
Is it done in simulator or ground practice with empty plane?

Quoting 411A (Reply 3): BA uses the non-sensical 'role reversal' method of operation, and this time, it nearly led to a serious accident.

I wouldn't call this a role reversal as the captain is still final authority of the flight; the first officer is still second in command while manipulating the controls. The same situation could just as easily happened with the captain at the controls and the FO not paying attention.

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 8): How does F/O learn this skill? Is it done in simulator or ground practice with empty plane?

All pilots learn to taxi the same way regardless of rank. You learn to taxi as a flight student in a small aircraft. When it comes to taxiing a specific jet aircraft, the pilot learns to taxi that specific airplane during qualification training.

Quoting 411A (Reply 3): However, this does have a downside when, as happened recently at a Caribbean airport, the First Officer taxied the airplane for an intersection departure (mistake one), then the Captain did not notice (mistake two) and then during the takeoff roll, the Captain noticed not much runway remaining (mistake three)...and the airplane became airbourne just shortly before the runway end.

I personally wouldnt point a finger at this captain alone, but blame both pilots equally. Lack of proper briefing and situational awareness were loss by both pilots. There have been many reports of captains taxiing to the wrong runway, taxiway, lined up at incorrect intersections, taken off on closed or wrong runways, landed on wrong runways, landed on closed runways and even landed on taxiways. I've seen a few of these incidents personally.

Just my humble tuppence.

Quoting NW747-400 (Reply 9): When it comes to taxiing a specific jet aircraft, the pilot learns to taxi that specific airplane during qualification training.

i.e. in the simulator, and in the aircraft as well if the airline does actual training flights.

-Mir

411A doesn't like BA much  

Most UK carriers will have the pilot flying do all the PF tasks as per the manufacturer SOP - start-up, taxi, etc. Doesn't happen if the aeroplane isn't appropriately equipped of course. I know a good number of other European airlines do the same.

My personal opinion is that not allowing the FO to taxi is just silly. If an FO can operate an aircraft in the sky (s)he can operate it on the ground too. Many of the newer docking systems will work when viewed from either seat as well so even parking isn't automatically an issue.

S.

Quoting SB (Reply 12): 411A doesn't like BA much

Nope.
Most folks at BA have their beaks well above ground effect, as their incidents over the past few years clearly indicate.
Still...they aren't as bad as Air Chance (AirFrance) in the hull loss department.

Our mentality is that every F/O is a future captain. As Pilot Flying, they do everything except make announcements to the cabin and obviously sign documents. Wouldn't it be silly if a 10 year+ veteran of the airline did his/her command course and had no clue how to taxi properly.

If a plane is fitted with dual tillers but the F/O is not allowed to taxi, it says a lot about the confidence of the airline towards both those F/Os and their own training standards in my opinion. Better not let them land the planes either, after all there is much more potential for an accident then than just taxying around.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 14): As Pilot Flying, they do everything except make announcements to the cabin

Does this mean that if the captain is PF, he will still make the PA announcements, or does that then fall to the FO?

-Mir

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 8): How does F/O learn this skill?

When he makes the move to the left seat in the sim and IOE.

Quoting SB (Reply 12): My personal opinion is that not allowing the FO to taxi is just silly.

You're certainly have a right to your opinion but I don't see it as a huge issue.See my reply below

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 14): Wouldn't it be silly if a 10 year+ veteran of the airline did his/her command course and had no clue how to taxi properly.

If they "don't have a clue how to taxi" I would be very concerned about their ability. There are some things that are for the capt only that f/os just have to wait to do. Considering the major emphsis on runway incursions nowadays "roll reversing" at this critical phase of the flight is not necessary. Of the places I usually fly I have seen very few lead in guidance that would be usuable from the right seat. I've never heard of an upgrading f/o say that taxiing was one of the harder parts of the upgrade. If you think about it (at least for us) monitored approaches, CATIII approaches and any adverse condition, such as breaking action or gusty winds, are ALWAYS the capt.'s , no roll reversing to "let the f/o learn".

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 16): such as breaking action

Sorry, I usually check better than this...."BRAKING ACTION"

Quoting 411A (Reply 13): Most folks at BA have their beaks well above ground effect, as their incidents over the past few years clearly indicate.

What on earth are you dribbling about?
LHR 777 brilliant airmanship.
JNB 747 brilliant airmanship.
Perhaps you know about something else?

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 2): Don't know if they still do it but I saw a video of KLM MD-11 who had the f/o sit in the capt seat during pushback, start, and taxi to the runway where they then would switch seats with the capt. Don't know if thats a regular practice though.

I know which youtube video your referring to. It's actually a KLM MD11 operated by a ALM captain and FO with a KLM SO. They had a contract for quite some time between ALM and KLM to have mixed flight crew on the AMS-Netherlands Antilles routes.

What you see in the video is the SO being monitoring pilot (or pilot NON flying) taxiing out (NON standard practice as he is a Cruise Relief Pilot ONLY) and the FO actually taxiing. Then the Captain swaps seats with the SO just before take off.

At KLM when a tiller is available and the FO is handling the controls he does everything.

rgds

Airbuster

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 18): What on earth are you dribbling about? LHR 777 brilliant airmanship. JNB 747 brilliant airmanship. Perhaps you know about something else?

Very well said.



Regardless of who taxis the Aircraft the Captain is responsible. It is ridiculous to maintain this is 'role reversal'



There's no reason why an FO should not be able to taxi when it is his or her leg, apart from the final parking spot in some locations where it is only set up to be done from the left hand seat.



411a has many grudges to bear, a resentment of BA and their fine Pilots is just one of them !  

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 18): Perhaps you know about something else?

Two, recently, one I witnessed personally.

Caribbean airport, a BA777 lined up for takeoff at the wrong interesction, and just got airbourne at the end.
The Captain is now a First Officer.

Capetown, a BA747 enroute LHR lined up for takeoff at the interesection when told to taxi to the end of the runway, for takeoff.
After the crew were told off by the tower, said BA747 exited the runway and taxied to the end, as originally instructed.
This one I witnessed personally.

These are very basic mistakes that a truly professional FD crew should avoid....at all costs.
BA ops are no better, nor especially worse than any other large European air carrier, with the possible exception of Air France.

Quoting 411A (Reply 21): Caribbean airport, a BA777 lined up for takeoff at the wrong interesction, and just got airbourne at the end. The Captain is now a First Officer.

There is no doubt this was an extremely serious incident but you cant arbitrarily say this was due to their policy of allowing the FO to taxi the Aircraft when it is his or her leg. The Captain needs to stay aware of his position at all times regardless of who is in control whether on the ground or airborne.




In this case, he did have doubts about his position but took off anyway. They were very lucky in being able to get airborne and it was an extremely serious mistake.



However, both Pilots reported the event immediately and, although the Captain is back in the right seat that is only temporary. He will be restored to Captain after his 'punishment'



As to JNB, I find it hard to believe.




We never hear about any mistakes with your operation 411a. Are you and the other Pilots there faultless ?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22): Are you and the other Pilots there faultless ?

Yes, as regards to intersection departures (when the entire runway length is available)...we don't do any.
As I'm the ops director, I set the policy.

Quoting 411A (Reply 23): Yes, as regards to intersection departures (when the entire runway length is available)...we don't do any. As I'm the ops director, I set the policy.

Well, that pretty much settles that, as they say  

Quoting 411A (Reply 23): Yes, as regards to intersection departures (when the entire runway length is available)...we don't do any. As I'm the ops director, I set the policy.

That might be great for your airline but that doesn't mean it is necessarily correct!

The blanket prohibition of intersection takeoffs maynot be in anyone's best interest. For example, today I departed BRU on 25R and we did an intersection departure at B3. The UAL infront of us was given a 20 minute delay for a full length. They re-thought the idea and did a B3 departure. Good choice to me.

To condenm BA for your two examples is perhaps a little extreme. Those are just two examples out of how many departures per day for BA? I would blame the Captain for not being a little bit more on the ball!

Quoting 411A (Reply 21): Two, recently, one I witnessed personally.

So, two incidents ("incidents over tha past few years"), one of which is known about because the drivers stuck their hands up and the other because you "witnessed personally". So that makes BA dodgy. Right.
But your outfit is perfect 'cause everyone does what you say. No one would ever make a mistake at your outfit because you told them not to! And you've got thousands of pilots whimpering at your feet. How many planes you got?

Quoting charliecossie (Reply 26): How many planes you got?

Makes no difference how many airplanes...the company sets the policy, the pilots either comply or...get terminated.
My decision entirely.
No recourse, either.

***For example, today I departed BRU on 25R and we did an intersection departure at B3. The UAL infront of us was given a 20 minute delay for a full length. They re-thought the idea and did a B3 departure. Good choice to me.***

It wasn't such a good choice for a Kalitta B747 not long ago...they departed from B3 as well...and overran the runway end during a rejected takeoff, and busted the airplane into three pieces.
Intersection departures...NEVER an especially good idea with a heavy jet airplane.
Smaller (commuter) jets/turbopropeller types, maybe OK, depending.
Heavy jets?
Sorry, BAD idea.

I have found that many younger pilots have a very minimal understanding of jet aircraft runway performance.
Too bad for them.

[Edited 2010-11-18 13:40:22]

Quoting 411A (Reply 27): Intersection departures...NEVER an especially good idea with a heavy jet airplane.

How did you conclude that this was never a good idea? While there is no such thing as too much runway, there is also a point where any additional is of no practical value. As you say, it is your call at your company, I am just curious what lead you to this.

Quoting 411A (Reply 27): t wasn't such a good choice for a Kalitta B747 not long ago...they departed from B3 as well

There is much more to this accident than just an intersection departure. If you are familiar with the facts surrounding this, then you know that additional runway length would not have made any difference.

Quoting 411A (Reply 27): Heavy jets? Sorry, BAD idea.

We can do intersection t/os if the data is in the perf. computer. MD-11

Quoting 411A (Reply 27): It wasn't such a good choice for a Kalitta B747 not long ago...they departed from B3 as well...and overran the runway end during a rejected takeoff, and busted the airplane into three pieces. Intersection departures...NEVER an especially good idea with a heavy jet airplane. Smaller (commuter) jets/turbopropeller types, maybe OK, depending. Heavy jets? Sorry, BAD idea.

I disagree. The accident you are referring to had nothing to do with an intersection takeoff. It had to do with rejecting the takeoff above V!. Never a good idea. And the crew proved it again. In addition, the crew departed on runway 20 not 25R.

So, I am still at a loss as to why it's not a good idea.

Quoting 411A (Reply 27): I have found that many younger pilots have a very minimal understanding of jet aircraft runway performance. Too bad for them.

Sadly, I am not a "younger pilot" and I do have a very good understanding of jet aircraft performance. I have never had a reservation about an intersection departure. If the numbers say we're good, then that's fine with me. I suppose the next thing will be how bad reduced thrust or assumed temp takeoffs are.

As for "too bad for them", great CRM. Doesn't your job include passing along experiences to younger pilots so they don't make the same mistakes we have made and seen? Just a dismissial like that doesn't accomplish a whole lot. But, it sure does say a lot!!!!!

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 30): Doesn't your job include passing along experiences to younger pilots

Don't argue with this guy it ain't worth it.

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 30): Doesn't your job include passing along experiences to younger pilots so they don't make the same mistakes we have made and seen?

It most certainly does, and many (most) listen....and learn.
For those that don't...they don't last long in our company.
Nor, in a couple of other large airlines that I have worked for, over the years.

***I suppose the next thing will be how bad reduced thrust or assumed temp takeoffs are.***

You would suppose wrongly.
One of the primary reasons that we reject intersection departures is so that we can use the maximum engine derate possible.

[Edited 2010-11-18 17:58:57]

Quoting 411A (Reply 23): Quoting Max Q (Reply 22): Are you and the other Pilots there faultless ? Yes, as regards to intersection departures (when the entire runway length is available)...we don't do any. As I'm the ops director, I set the policy.

As usual you cherry pick your answers 411a




My question referred to whether you ever make mistakes in your Airline of what, one L1011 ?




You endlessly disparage other Airlines and their Pilots with a preference to criticize the more reputable, well known operators with far, far larger operations than the one you are involved in.




This is when you are not berating your First Officers for their lack of capability and poor attitude.



With the example you set I am not surprised.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 33): As usual you cherry pick your answers 411a

If you don't like my answers, don't ask the question.
A simple concept to understand.

Quoting 411A (Reply 34): If you don't like my answers, don't ask the question. A simple concept to understand.

It seems I hit a nerve.




In any case you do not give answers, just self aggrandising stories boosting yourself at other Pilots expense .

[Edited 2010-11-19 00:09:08]

Quoting 411A (Reply 34): If you don't like my answers, don't ask the question. A simple concept to understand.

Hmmmm, funny I asked a question and never got an answer. Obviously, it's not as simple as you think! Again, your comments about the EBBR accident were off base and have nothing to do with an intersection takeoff but do clearly demonstrate what happens if you reject above V1. So, how does that fit in with your blanket condenmation of all pilots other than yourself?????

As the old saying goes "the length of runway behind you is of no use when an engine fails on take off " so people would argue that one should always use the full length. However if you use derated power when using the full length, surely you are slowing you acceleration down and so delaying the point at which you reach V1 . Therefore you have wasted the runway behind you.

I spent 33 years as a F/E and every airline I flew for allowed the flying pilot to taxy the aircraft. No matter which one was taxying every one kept a keen interest on where we were going and where we were. If I could not trust a co-pilot's training to taxy the aircraft whilst accepting they could land and take the thing off I would have lost my hair sooner than I did

littlevc10

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 30): So, I am still at a loss as to why it's not a good idea.

Simply because, should you have an overrun, for whatever reason, the board of inquiry will undoubtedly ask...'excuse me Captain, but just why did you not use the full length of the runway for takeoff, as it certainly was available?'

There would likely be no reasonable answer.
None.
You, as the not-so-bright Captain would likely be (and most certainly should be) shown the door and told to not let it slap you on the backside on the way out.

Again, if you don't like my answer, don't ask the question.

Far too many pilots presume that it is perfectly acceptable to cut corners on safety, yet they would cry a river of tears should they have an incident or accident, and then try to blame someone else for their foolish mistakes.

Several European carriers let the co-pilot taxi the plane when PF.

Who's taxiing the aircraft does not seem to make much of a difference for runway incursions, the trick is situation awareness or the lack thereof...

And if the parking stand docking system can only be used by the left seat, what's the problem? Giving the control of the aircraft back to the captain for the last turn to the parking position is no big deal.

It's simply company policy, and crew are trained accordingly, which means that they should be as safe and efficient as required regardless of the method used.

Quoting 411A (Reply 38): Again, if you don't like my answer, don't ask the question.

It's not that I don't like the answer. It's just that I think you are wrong!

If you were correct and Boeing, Airbus and of course Lockheed, if they were still in business, agreed they would have never provided intersection performance. The regulatory agencies would have prohibited the practice and runways would be built with a taxiway at the beginning and the end. Because everyone knows that if you don't use the entire length of the runway to stop you are incompetent.

Get real! There are no technical reasons why an intersection departure can not be used safely. You mean to tell me you would insist on the full length of 13L at KJFK rather than taking an intersection?

Quoting 411A (Reply 38): Simply because, should you have an overrun, for whatever reason, the board of inquiry will undoubtedly ask...'excuse me Captain, but just why did you not use the full length of the runway for takeoff, as it certainly was available?'

I disagree. Again, if you have adequate performance you are completely legal in departing from any intersection. Show me one instance where your justification has been used/cited in an accident report.

Quoting 411A (Reply 38): You, as the not-so-bright Captain would likely be (and most certainly should be) shown the door and told to not let it slap you on the backside on the way out.

Really????? Would love to see you in action in the cockpit. I can see the briefing now..."everything on this side is mine and don't touch anything on your side without asking first"!!! Great CRM!!!!

Maybe 411's Tribucket is so knackered it needs every yard available to claw it's way into the air.

Quoting 411A (Reply 38): .'excuse me Captain, but just why did you not use the full length of the runway for takeoff, as it certainly was available?'

My answer would be, "after evaluating the calculated performance numbers and the prevailing conditions, it was my and my crew's opinion that the intersection takeoff did not comprise the overall safety of the flight"

Quoting 411A (Reply 38): There would likely be no reasonable answer. None.

If the excess runway available was sufficient so that the intersection departure provided the same derate and V-speeds, how is that answer not reasonable?

I am just trying to see the thinking behind the statement that intersection departures are somehow less safe for heavy aircraft. The carrier I work for prohibits them at certain airports, but it is for noise purposes.

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 40): It's not that I don't like the answer. It's just that I think you are wrong!

Then we have a difference of opinion, nothing more nor less.
At three airlines where I worked, one of them now the largest in SE Asia, and one at one time the largest in the middle east, prohibited intersection departures, unless part of the runway was closed.
Their company policy at the time.
Our company policy today.

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 40): Would love to see you in action in the cockpit

You would be welcome anytime.
Who knows...perhaps you might actually learn something new.

Quoting 411A (Reply 43):

At some carriers operating in the hub and spoke system being on time every time is an important factor in making the system work. If we can accept an intersection departure performance wise and therewith reduce completly or partially our delay then that would be a good enough reason to do so.

You seem to forget 411A that the relevant authorities also approve the manner of calculating take off performance.

If the book / TL tables say you can do it and it's a somewhat normal day then why not? I wouldn't recommend it on a slippery/contaminated/slushy rwy etc but 90% of the time, yes.

Regarding your philosophy I assume you also select autobrakes max on every landing?

Don't get me wrong, in BRU i would take full length over B3 anytime since the taxi time is the same for both but if at B3 I can depart before other traffic and save standing in line for 5 min then I would take it.

Modern heavy transport aircraft on a normal day with a 3000m+ runway can easily take an intersection departure AND derate thrust.

rgds

AB

Quoting 411A (Reply 43): At three airlines where I worked, one of them now the largest in SE Asia,

I worked for the same one and there is no prohibition on intersection departures. That philosophy, if it ever existed in writing is long gone. For a reason!!!

Quoting 411A (Reply 43): You would be welcome anytime. Who knows...perhaps you might actually learn something new.

I dare say the same is true in reverse!!!

Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 45): I dare say the same is true in reverse!!!

Quite likely not.

Quoting 411A (Reply 46): Quite likely not.

Why am I not surprised????? Oh, I forgot you know everything....... AMF!!!

Quoting 411A (Reply 32): You would suppose wrongly. One of the primary reasons that we reject intersection departures is so that we can use the maximum engine derate possible.

This isn't quite making sense to me when taking into consideration your other answers. You say you use all available runway to use maximum engine derate, yet you also say that, in the event of an overrun, you would have no excuse if you didn't use the full available runway.

If you derate to the max, your V1 speed, position and rotation point would be rather similar to an intersection departure with more thrust. What am I missing.

Quoting 411A (Reply 46): Quoting Vmcavmcg (Reply 45): I dare say the same is true in reverse!!! Quite likely not.

Do you have any idea, whatsoever, how you come across in this thread?

Interesting that in your bashing of flight crew you not once mention any incidents from closer to home, such as landing on a taxiway or overflying MSP while having an argument / browsing porn / whatever.

Give your responses just a little more balance, and a little less "I am" and people might start to provide you with some of the respect you seem to crave and demand, yet obvously lack.

EDIT: anyway, to more directly answer the OP's question, Virgin Atlantic certainly allowed their A340 FOs to taxi back in 2000 and probably still do. I witnessed at least one occasion when the Captain instructed the taxying FO to stamp hard on the toe brakes when informed by the purser that some passengers were ignoring instructions to sit down...

[Edited 2010-11-19 09:32:43]

Quoting Woof (Reply 48): If you derate to the max, your V1 speed, position and rotation point would be rather similar to an intersection departure with more thrust. What am I missing.

What you are 'missing' is the perceived performance advantages that an intersection departure might provide.
'Murphy's Law' says...'what can go wrong, will go wrong, at the most unfortunate time'.
Engine thrust derates are a proven dollar cost savings for airlines, in conformity with runway and CAA requirements.
Intersection departures are not.
IE: Start from the end is far safer.
OR...would you discard known safety advantages, just to save a few minutes taxi time to the end of the runway?
You might...we DO NOT.

And then we come to more British Airways 'doublespeak', obtained from a very reliable source within BA....

*** British Airways Flight Operations Department Notice ***
There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles.
This
notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. The titles P1,
P2, and Co-Pilot will now cease to have any meaning, within the BA
operations manuals. They are to be replaced by
Handling Pilot,
Non-handling Pilot,
Handling Landing Pilot,
Non-Handling Landing Pilot,
Handling Non-Landing Pilot, and
Non Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
The Landing Pilot, is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the
take-off and landing except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling
Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, hands the handling to
the Landing Pilot at eighty knots. The Non-Landing (Non-Handling,
since the Landing Pilot is handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the
Handling Pilot until after Before Descent Checklist completion, when the
Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing
Pilot who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot.
The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude"
call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go-around", in which
case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, continues Handling and the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of
"land" or "go-around", as appropriate.
In view of the recent confusion over these rules, it was deemed necessary
to restate them clearly.
--

No wonder they have a few incidents...far too much 'theory', far too little common sense.

Still, I have to say...as I have flown with several BA First Officers, seconded to another airline...they do have a good command of sensible procedures, as mandated by their 'new' assigned contractural position/airline.
IE: Do as we say, or go back to LHR.
We don't especially care.

PS:
ALL did as they were told.