Sim Check: Tolerances?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sim Check: Tolerances?
Hi,
Can anybody give any information on how accurately European operator can require to fly say B737NG without any automation during sim check/interview test? I am interesting:
Take off: speed +-, heading +-, altitude overshoot on leveling +-
Level flight: heading +-, speed +-, altitude +-
Approach: Flaps speeds +-, Vref+5 +-, ILS dots +-
Anything else important?
Can anybody give any information on how accurately European operator can require to fly say B737NG without any automation during sim check/interview test? I am interesting:
Take off: speed +-, heading +-, altitude overshoot on leveling +-
Level flight: heading +-, speed +-, altitude +-
Approach: Flaps speeds +-, Vref+5 +-, ILS dots +-
Anything else important?
Various authorities will have their own tolerances. Typically V2 to +5 for the 2nd segment climb after a simulated engine failure, plus or minus 10 knots for most general speeds, but minus nothing on Vref, plus or minus 100 feet on altitudes, but minus nothing at minima etc.
However, most reasonable examiners will accept momentary excursions from any of the laid down tolerances, provided that the candidate makes timely corrections to get back within the tolerances.
In other words, lapses are acceptable; failure to recognise and/or not correcting is not.
Don't fixate on the tolerances, just be aware of them and fly the best you can. Fixating can cause you to lose the 'big picture' which is far more of a sin than being a few knots off a speed or a few feet off an altitude.
Most pilots who fail simulator checks do so not because they exceed tolerances but because they lose orientation or mismanage the task that the examiner sets.
However, most reasonable examiners will accept momentary excursions from any of the laid down tolerances, provided that the candidate makes timely corrections to get back within the tolerances.
In other words, lapses are acceptable; failure to recognise and/or not correcting is not.
Don't fixate on the tolerances, just be aware of them and fly the best you can. Fixating can cause you to lose the 'big picture' which is far more of a sin than being a few knots off a speed or a few feet off an altitude.
Most pilots who fail simulator checks do so not because they exceed tolerances but because they lose orientation or mismanage the task that the examiner sets.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbavykas,
Can't speak for European airlines, but at my airline we don't worry about tolerances during a sim check/sim eval. What we look for is whether you can figure the airplane out in a short period of time and whether you can build a working relationship quickly with the other pilot you have with you in the sim (do you quickly develop or pick up on the SOP's, etc). Additionally, we will give you certain airspeeds to remember - gear and flap - and see if you remember to call for configuration changes at the right time.
So, for example, if you could maintain the altitude of a 737 to within 200 feet at the beginning of the evaluation, are you able to maintain altitude at the end of the session? You did not have any clue how to use the automation at the beginning of the session; were you able to use your prior knowledge to bring up an ILS? At the beginning you didn't have a common SOP with the other pilot, but did you make some up to work as a team?
IMO, asking a pilot to maintain the flight test tolerances during a sim eval in an airplane they are unfamiliar with is unfair. In saying that, I have done a sim eval with an operator who wanted me to know the AFM because it showed "a desire to work for the company."
Good luck with the eval!
Can't speak for European airlines, but at my airline we don't worry about tolerances during a sim check/sim eval. What we look for is whether you can figure the airplane out in a short period of time and whether you can build a working relationship quickly with the other pilot you have with you in the sim (do you quickly develop or pick up on the SOP's, etc). Additionally, we will give you certain airspeeds to remember - gear and flap - and see if you remember to call for configuration changes at the right time.
So, for example, if you could maintain the altitude of a 737 to within 200 feet at the beginning of the evaluation, are you able to maintain altitude at the end of the session? You did not have any clue how to use the automation at the beginning of the session; were you able to use your prior knowledge to bring up an ILS? At the beginning you didn't have a common SOP with the other pilot, but did you make some up to work as a team?
IMO, asking a pilot to maintain the flight test tolerances during a sim eval in an airplane they are unfamiliar with is unfair. In saying that, I have done a sim eval with an operator who wanted me to know the AFM because it showed "a desire to work for the company."
Good luck with the eval!
@ +TSRA
Only half a speed-brake
2 OP: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0193:EN:PDF Appendix 7, IR skill test bullet 10 Flight test tolerances (starts at page 107).
Use wisely!
FD.
Use wisely!
FD.
So, for example, if you could maintain the altitude of a 737 to within 200 feet at the beginning of the evaluation, are you able to maintain altitude at the end of the session?
Throw in the often ridiculous requirement to also learn standard calls and checklist responses all in 45 minutes does nothing to ensure the candidate is the Right Stuff.
In my experience it is usually possible for the assessor to get a good idea of the potential of the candidate in the first five minutes after take off. The fact he may stuff up so called standard calls and perceived CRM doesn't matter in reality. All you are after is can he fly on instruments allowing for the fact he may never have flown a jet transport before. After take off checklists and before landing checklists to be learned off by heart when he has never flown a similar type and has never read the FCOM, is unfair and unnecessary.
If he does a steep turn in the 737 simulator in the first 15 minutes of the assessment and is +/- 200 feet that is very good. But how is he then expected to do another steep turn 30 minutes later and be plus or minus 50 feet when he has not been given the chance to be given dual instruction during the previous 30 minutes of the 'test'? Some of these so called assessments conducted in simulators are laughable except they are serious. Rather like the face to face interview conducted by HR wallies where there are no technical questions of general aviation content but lots of warm and fuzzy rubbish on how well do you get on with your fellow pilots in the cockpit.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus,
Had you bothered to read my post you would see that I quite clearly stated that asking a pilot to maintain the flight test tolerances during a sim eval in an airplane they are unfamiliar with is unfair.
You seem to think that this means I somehow look for improvement to the standard. You twist my words sir. I simply look for improvement - of any kind. If that improvement is 200 feet to level - awesome. If its 200 feet and it never leaves but they remember an airspeed- awesome. I would have thought my tone gave that away; however I guess I have to spell it out.
At the end of the day, I look for decision making. Do they ask for time if they feel pressured? Do they ask for help from their co-pilot (who is quite able to give them all the information needed)? Do they use the resources presented to them. Do they show an ability to trap the threats and manage their errors. Let me bold this so it is very clear: If they cannot remember anything I told them at the beginning of the sim eval, but have the wherewithal to ask the co-pilot to give them the information to keep the airplane safe - I'll hire them right there, all other things being equal.
I don't look for "the right stuff." I look to see whether dropping $50k on a person will result in customer complaints about attitude and whether I am going to see more of the regulator in my office. If I can say no to both, chances are high I'll be reviewing your resume again and calling your references.
I guess if looking for a good attitude, CRM use, and an ability to not crash during a sim eval makes me an "HR Wallie," then I'm guilty as charged.
Had you bothered to read my post you would see that I quite clearly stated that asking a pilot to maintain the flight test tolerances during a sim eval in an airplane they are unfamiliar with is unfair.
You seem to think that this means I somehow look for improvement to the standard. You twist my words sir. I simply look for improvement - of any kind. If that improvement is 200 feet to level - awesome. If its 200 feet and it never leaves but they remember an airspeed- awesome. I would have thought my tone gave that away; however I guess I have to spell it out.
At the end of the day, I look for decision making. Do they ask for time if they feel pressured? Do they ask for help from their co-pilot (who is quite able to give them all the information needed)? Do they use the resources presented to them. Do they show an ability to trap the threats and manage their errors. Let me bold this so it is very clear: If they cannot remember anything I told them at the beginning of the sim eval, but have the wherewithal to ask the co-pilot to give them the information to keep the airplane safe - I'll hire them right there, all other things being equal.
I don't look for "the right stuff." I look to see whether dropping $50k on a person will result in customer complaints about attitude and whether I am going to see more of the regulator in my office. If I can say no to both, chances are high I'll be reviewing your resume again and calling your references.
I guess if looking for a good attitude, CRM use, and an ability to not crash during a sim eval makes me an "HR Wallie," then I'm guilty as charged.
Do they show an ability to trap the threats and manage their errors
What on earth is that supposed to mean? A candidate is having trouble tracking a localiser in a cross-wind. Does that mean he lacks the flying ability "to trap the threat?" Please write plain English. Another candidate has a problem with orientating his position using a combination of a VOR radial and DME. He asks his support pilot to give him advice as he has momentarily lost the plot and is having trouble with instrument flying as well. Oh! well done that man for "managing your error". Do you give him a pass because in asking for another pilot's opinion he is using CRM - despite the fact he has trouble flying in IMC on radio navigation. What is the point of testing a candidate when he needs to ask the support pilot to help him cope?
