What was your worst nightmare in the Sim?

[ifylofd]

I am a TRI/TRE and have spent many sessions using old and new scenarios for TQ's and IR checks.
What I would like to ask all is what is your recollection of the nastiest and/or most difficult situation you have been presented with for either a revalidation or an initial command check. The old repetoir is geting a bit repetitive and I am seeking ideas for some scenarios that people have experienced on checks. I am referring to 'people management issues' as opposed to mechanical or SOP related dramas. Anything that is worthy of mention from anyone who has experienced the ultimate command check and walked away and asked themselves, " how bizzare was that?"

All suggestions considered!

TIA

[Jim Henson]

i had a bunch of meerkats get loose in cargo 5 hold. very amusing at the time I thought. not sure if this is any help what your after?

[Fly3]

Someone like you who thinks that they have to go to ridiculous senarios just to show how clever they are. Keep it real and let the boys do their job.

[MelbPilot85]

Got to agree with Fly3, do you really want to be known as the idiot checkie who comes up with ridiculous scenarios? The guys who seem to be most respected are the ones who conduct thorough but fair checks.

[L337]

"an initial command check"

In the sim ofc.

Airborne from LHR to MAN.... wheels up then, silence from ATC. Nothing. Nada. not a word all flight.

Lots to think about, very quickly.

[Old Smokey]

My worst simulator nightmare is to do a check ride with an examiner who is prone to introducing bizarre and ridiculous scenarios.:*

As a pilot under check, I've suffered under (thankfully only a few) such goons. As an Instructor / Examiner, and particularly with a trainee approaching final Command check-out, I've found no trouble in increasing the complexity and difficulty level a little, and, with a level of difficulty a little beyond what could be reasonably expected in the real world handled satisfactorily, given them the "thumbs up".:ok:

With the trainee having met a fair and reasonable standard at a slightly increased level of difficulty, I'm happy to call it a day. Some trainees have asked for a little more practice with the thermostat wound up, and I've carefully agreed to their request, being ever cautious not to approach the point where an already proven good standard with the trainee's confidence in good order, can now be totally shattered if the level of difficulty is taken ridiculously far.

I could recount the worst (ridiculous) multiple failure scenario thrown at me by one of the "goons", but I won't, someone might use it against the innocent.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[Yarpy]

First line sector of command assesment training from Manchester to Heathrow in a B737. Twenty nine minute sector. Just before descent a duct overheat light came on. The QRH said 'Retard the throttle and observe the light go out . . . Trouble was the light stayed on! So, Pan Pan Pan and a single engined approach (with one engine in idle) to RW 27R at Heathrow. The rest of the day spent sorting out the paperwork followed by an 'early' stack.
**** happens and the detail could not have been scripted better for an early introduction to the hassle of command.

[Centaurus]

My worst simulator nightmare is to do a check ride with an examiner who is prone to introducing bizarre and ridiculous scenarios.
I have a cold contempt for those simulator check persons described above. These are the fools that give honest simulator instructors the horrors as we try to repair the damage they inflict on unsuspecting pilots who have the extraordinary misfortune to run into these bastards. Worse still are the management people who appoint these creatures as "check" pilots knowing full well their rottweiller reputation.

As we grow older we remember with affection those simulator instructors who taught with quiet humour and left you with your dignity intact. We remember with contempt those that enjoyed a reputation as a career buster and the unbridled power that came with their appointment. They exist in every airline.

[A37575]

I am seeking ideas for some scenarios that people have experienced on checks. I am referring to 'people management issues' as opposed to mechanical or SOP related dramas.

I suggest you should leave "people management issues" to those expert in the field such as psychologists. Few pilots object to straight forward mechanical problems thrown at them in the simulator as long as double jeopardy (multiple un-related failures) are not permitted.

[Tee Emm]

Given that modern flight simulators are high fidelity extraordinary expensive machines, then training accent should be on in-flight handling in order to give crews every opportunity a couple of times a year to hone their manipulative skills. Social decision making or people management issues are best left to classroom discussion so that valuable simulator time is not wasted flogging around on autopilot while playing actors and actresses in the cockpit discussing how to deal with a mythical drunk in the cabin who has had a heart attack.

[SIDSTAR]

My best instructors/examiners always were thorough but fair. You didn't get away lightly but you always knew that you would be treated fairly like any professional should.

One of them once said to me that every sim check should be a learning experience (including for the examiner). The one thing that he didn't want the students to learn was that the TRE was a pr*ck.

Any idiot can find ridiculous scenarios to throw at any pilot and we all have a breaking point. What does that prove? Only that the TRE is such a pr*ck. I don't want those kind anywhere near good professional pilots doing their best in a very trying environment.

Smokey and Centaurus have it absolutely right. It's nice to know that there are still lots of good professionals around. Keep it up guys!

[Piltdown Man]

One where nothing went wrong! It was the most stressful two hours of my life!

PM

[aw8565]

As an almost complete outsider with an opinion, surely realism would be the key point to focus on rather than a weird and wonderful interesting situation.

Sticking my neck out, and based on my experience on the ground, I would say the people management issues are fairly straight cut (and therefore perhaps not quite so challenging?) If the safety of the aircraft and passenges does not appear to be compromised, say a drunk pax who is perhaps a bit loud but otherwise behaving themselves, then they can be met by police on arrival at the scheduled arrival point. If safety is compromised or you think it may become that way, divert.

I'm guess I'm trying to say that no matter what the actual problem is, when related to the persons on board you will know whether its in the best interest to carry on or divert.

I'm not trying to simplify the guys' and gals' decisions, just trying to give an insight from a ground persons point of view that often sorts out the 'police/paramedics/animal control on arrival' bit. (The animal control one was thought to be a small dog in the hold. It was subsequently found to be a large spider. Unfortunately, after the hold was fumigated, the body of said spider was not found.)

How about a stark naked pax that refuses to come out of the toilet.... that would be based on fact too by the way....

[Capt Chambo]

The best Sim. sessions for me have been where I have walked out afterwards thinking I have learnt something new today, or I have cleared up something that I had forgotten.
The worst sim. sessions have been those where the sim. instructor has felt that they have had to run through their full repetoire of failures in an attempt to try and show how clever they are. I also used to dislike the instructors who felt they had to load you up until you broke and only then could they re-build you.
Sometimes the most informative/thought provoking sessions have been the ones where the RTO was carried out at a benign speed, not V1-5Kts at MTOW. Where the pressurisation problem was controllable, and didn't need the O2 masks on followed by the high dive. Where the engine could and should be re-started after a flame out! What do you do now it's re-lit? Continue knowing it failed once, or return in case it fails again? Plenty of scope for CRM there!
The simulator is a training aid not a trapping tool.

[411A]

Worst scenario?

Ah well, it springs to mind instantly.
Giving a check in an L10 sim long ago, the new (to the company) pilot says...Well, in Germany, when we go around, we push (the throttle...way up) then we pull, (the pole....way back) and he does so, whereupon the sim jacks extend fully with the cab at a 45 degree angle, and it stops.
Dead stop...no more motion.
Then the power goes off.
We exit down the rope, just as the Halon goes off.

This ain't nice, and I don't recommend it to anybody.

Now, as for reasonable flows during the exercises, keep it completely reasonable and proper, and positively don't introduce too may 'failures' all at once.
Unreasonable excess failures, quite frankly, prove nothing, and does NOT induce a learning environment.

[rubik101]

iffy loft D
My 'nightmare' scenario would be doing a sim ride with you.
Since when is a ride in the sim meant to be a nightmare?
If you think the scenarios are inadequate/boring/silly bring it up with your traning manager and see what he says about the present system's inadequacies.
If you want to frighten pilots on checks/upgrades, show them a Hammer Horror movie or get a different job.

[Tee Emm]

Most embarrassing scene to observe as an instructor? Asking a highly experienced captain to switch off his flight director, autopilot and autothrottle and demonstrate his manipulative "skills" at flying a raw data one engine inoperative ILS and go-around. Two go-arounds later due to well outside instrument rating tolerances he requested the use of the autopilot which was given in the end. Later he was asked to pin-point his approximate position in terms of radio aid fixing only and he was unable to do so without much muttering, cursing and saying "Is this really necessary when I have a MAP mode available?"

[VORDME2]

raw data(no FD,autothrottle,flight path descent)flying should be done on a regular basis ,not only 2 time a year in the simu.I practise it as much as possible when flying in non congested area.+doing visual approach when possible(in this case LH B767).Then you will keep your flying skill high.I puch also my F/O to do it,but apparently most of the capt don't like that way of flying...

[flyer75]

fo knows i like raw data ,manual flight,no A/t...so asks me nicely if he can do so on our short 35 minutes flight..t/o till landing...shhhh cruise was at 29000 ft for 3 minutes..but he loved it and i was glad he did:)
If u dont like flying...join Airbus;-):E
OHH and to amswer another thread ..on this flight i didnt have time to take a power nap:E

[flyboyike]

It seems to me people become check airmen for one of two reasons:

1. They truly care about their coworkers and truly want to make sure everybody operates in the safest and most efficient manner.

2. They get off on any and all versions of power, real or imagined.

Fortunately, most checkies at my airline are very much the former, but there are a few (a few sim instructors as well) who fit the latter profile way too well.

[sudden Winds]

not long ago I presented my students a multiple non-critical failure scenario. They had an engine failure and then they lost a hyd system in a 735. Weather wasn´t a big problem, all I wanted to see was that the way they dealt with both anomalies. They first got the plane under control, then declared the emergency, were given vectors while they did their chklists and then they went ahead and tried a restart, which woulda given them the hyd syst back. Exactly what I expected from them. The engine didn´t relight, (:= ) so they then proceeded to carry out the loss of syst b (think it was) chklist...they then compared the "deferred items" landing checklist for both situations and used the loss of syst b one, which included all of the items for the other one. They made a successful landing, had to use their brains, learned something and had a good time...
If I am going to present crazy scenarios it´s only after having completed that day´s schedule and it´s not to be evaluated. Once we´re clear on that......show time !!!!
Regards,
SW.

[Loose rivets]

Any idiot can find ridiculous scenarios to throw at any pilot and we all have a breaking point.



Just a word from a dinosaur.

Y'know, it doesn't hurt to be pushed to breaking point occasionally. But when I was pushed, I resorted to the "oh bo11ox" routine, and just flew the airplane with what I'd got left. Basic instruments, and basic airmanship.

The whole point is that it must not break you.

Hopefully there will be very few of you that are left with almost nothing on a proverbial ‘dark and stormy', but being ready to be the only wide-body captain on basic instruments in the world one night, will do nothing but good for your confidence. So, when the screens go black and all hell lets loose in the sim, don't resent it...compartmentalize, and throw out everything that you couldn't possibly tend to in the real world. Then be ready to stick to your guns.

[flyer75]

next time try engine 1 fail and hydraulic A inop..followed by a go around...hydraulic A NNC states impossible to raise Landing gear...TRuE or FAlse?:E :8

[sudden Winds]

I fly the 737 Classics, which has a landing gear transfer unit. If engine 1 fails (n2 decreases below 56%) that allows the gear to be raised by hyd syst B ´s engine driven pump, so gear goes up anyway....
and if mem serves the 737 jurassic has 2 engine driven pumps in the the system A, so gear retracts normally if either engine quits.

The trick in the engine failure plus loss of a hyd system scenario is that if the failure was actually a damage or an overheat/fire condition, you would have to pull the fire switch, which disables the hyd low pressure light. After a few seconds I give you a low press in the remaining pump for that system..you get master caution, hydraulics, and when u look up all u see is an elec pump low press light, but the engine driven pump ´s light is off...if you don´t look at the hyd press gauge and you aren´t thinking you´ll ask for the wrong checklist, and you´ll realize you´ve lost a system when you try to engage that side's a/p, or lower gear or flaps...which is too late usually...airport going below minimums, low fuel etc...most people fall victim of this one, but you brief them on what to do and keep going...

[aw8565]

Its reading about what you guys do in the sims that actually makes me a little relieved I'll never have to experience any of it!

[blue up]

Multi multi birdstrike just after V1.
Captain U/S due to being smacked by a seagull. Right engine flamed out. Left engine pegged at max EGT, fire warning and surging. (Are you gonna shut it down???)
"For F***s sake!! Get that other engine going!!!" "ANY WAY YOU CAN!!!"
Suddenly the QRH is not much use.


Got me to have a rethink on cross-bleed starts.

Situational Awareness. How would you start an engine in a BIG hurry? How far can you glide from clean speed at 1000 feet on T/O if both motors failed? 260/80 and a tailwind landing or tight circuit? Will the gear go down? (757 gear lever in the off position to ensure the gear doesn't hang up?)
Amazing how small the "big picture" can shrink in the 6 minutes of flight from roll to landing. It taught me that I really am a bit poor in the S.A. area.

Never happen? TOM flight out of Manchester a few days ago.