Reporter concern reference right seat qualification standards.

Attributes
ACN	240809
Time
Date	199305
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : private pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 300
ASRS Report	240809
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Recently, I was called upon to fly and crew an aircraft from a seat in which my total FAA approved qualified experience was: simulator takeoff and landing (1) during initial training (ridiculous -- you had to be there), then simulator takeoff and landing (1) during recurrent (6 month) training. Proficient, no! Procedural knowledge, minimal. Safe, by FAA standards 'qualified,' by company standards qualified, by my standards unsafe! That's a professional opinion! This occurs on a daily basis throughout our company -- probably industry. A regional air carrier, sure, I am type rated for this aircraft, but all of the intense procedural training was focused and directed for a left seat occupancy. My transition was left seat aircraft type a to left seat type B. Some of our capts have upgraded from the right seat, and that is fine for those folks. My contention, if I am to truly be qualified both pilot seats, I should receive equal training and proficiency for both seats. Of course our company can't afford that, but have FAA approval for a simulator takeoff landing as acceptable training and qualification, regardless of how well the takeoff was, or whether the simulator crashed, ricochetted or otherwise during landing. Professional opinion: qualified, but unsafe! P.south. I didn't do it -- the other captain agreed with me.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CONCERN REF R SEAT QUALIFICATION STANDARDS.

Narrative: RECENTLY, I WAS CALLED UPON TO FLY AND CREW AN ACFT FROM A SEAT IN WHICH MY TOTAL FAA APPROVED QUALIFIED EXPERIENCE WAS: SIMULATOR TKOF AND LNDG (1) DURING INITIAL TRAINING (RIDICULOUS -- YOU HAD TO BE THERE), THEN SIMULATOR TKOF AND LNDG (1) DURING RECURRENT (6 MONTH) TRAINING. PROFICIENT, NO! PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE, MINIMAL. SAFE, BY FAA STANDARDS 'QUALIFIED,' BY COMPANY STANDARDS QUALIFIED, BY MY STANDARDS UNSAFE! THAT'S A PROFESSIONAL OPINION! THIS OCCURS ON A DAILY BASIS THROUGHOUT OUR COMPANY -- PROBABLY INDUSTRY. A REGIONAL ACR, SURE, I AM TYPE RATED FOR THIS ACFT, BUT ALL OF THE INTENSE PROCEDURAL TRAINING WAS FOCUSED AND DIRECTED FOR A L SEAT OCCUPANCY. MY TRANSITION WAS L SEAT ACFT TYPE A TO LEFT SEAT TYPE B. SOME OF OUR CAPTS HAVE UPGRADED FROM THE R SEAT, AND THAT IS FINE FOR THOSE FOLKS. MY CONTENTION, IF I AM TO TRULY BE QUALIFIED BOTH PLT SEATS, I SHOULD RECEIVE EQUAL TRAINING AND PROFICIENCY FOR BOTH SEATS. OF COURSE OUR COMPANY CAN'T AFFORD THAT, BUT HAVE FAA APPROVAL FOR A SIMULATOR TKOF LNDG AS ACCEPTABLE TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION, REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL THE TKOF WAS, OR WHETHER THE SIMULATOR CRASHED, RICOCHETTED OR OTHERWISE DURING LNDG. PROFESSIONAL OPINION: QUALIFIED, BUT UNSAFE! P.S. I DIDN'T DO IT -- THE OTHER CAPT AGREED WITH ME.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.