[Peetwo]

However back to the Jetstar tailstrike incident and the Oz Aviation coverage of this would seem to confirm that it was a cadet who was the PF of this flight:

ATSB releases Jetstar tail strike report
September 5, 2017 By australianaviation.com.au 3 Comments

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has released its report into a tail strike incident involving a Jetstar Airbus A320 taking off from …

 Although a little ambiguous, it could be interpreted that the cadet pilot was in fact conducting the flight as a CTL First Officer:

..It was the cadet pilot’s first flight as the pilot flying. Alongside him in the flightdeck was a training captain in the left seat and a safety pilot in the jump seat...

  
P9: ..Why could the PIC not put a steadying hand on the side-stick to prevent the over pitch – we’ve all done it – the nose rears up and the steadying hand acting as a buffer to prevent enthusiasm turning to disaster. You would not consider doing this with a qualified, clear to line operations FO, but with a ‘cadet’ – you’d be watching like a hawk on a mouse. (Oh, it was an Airbus, then things are different; no matter)...

Absolutely spot on "K" - Shirley the CASA approved Jetstar T&C system for 'cadets' has a more robust simulator CTL to facilitate the line training fallibilities and limitations of the A320 vs the Boeing equivalent...   

Follow up -

Extracts from the ATSB report:

..The flight was scheduled as a training flight with the cadet pilot conducting his fifth sector of line training and the first sector of the current shift. There was also an FO in the jump seat acting as a safety pilot. The four previous sectors had been flown with the cadet pilot as pilot monitoring (PM). This was the first flight for the cadet pilot as PF...

---

&..

Due to the higher than normal rotation rate and the noise heard by the cabin crew, the captain elected to stop the climb and return to Melbourne. The first officer swapped seats with the cadet pilot and the aircraft landed uneventfully on runway 27.

---

Findings

From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the tail strike during takeoff involving Airbus A320 VH-VGF at Melbourne Airport, Victoria on 11 May 2016. These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual.

Contributing factor

The cadet pilot applied a larger than normal sidestick pitch input to initiate rotation. This resulted in a high rotation rate during the take-off and the aircraft’s tail contacted the runway.

Other factor

The potential tail strike was not adequately communicated to Melbourne air traffic control. This delayed checking the runway for aircraft debris.

Besides the seemingly glossed over T&C issues mentioned previously, I also question why the ATSB did not probe the safety issue with the Training Captain, apparently in the middle of conducting a Abnormal operation, made a command decision to stand down the cadet pilot and fly the aircraft single pilot until the Safety Officer FO had swapped seats with the cadet??

 Maybe I am missing something?? - But Shirley it would've been more advisable for the cadet to remain in the RH seat and conduct the rest of the flight as PM, a role that he had successfully carried out on five previous sectors...        


MTF...P2