Airline Sim Training/Prof Checks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline Sim Training/Prof Checks
Is anyone brave enough to stick there head above the parapet?
During six-monthly prof-checks, most guys I talk to say its fairly 'routine' stuff, engine failures, OEI climbs approaches etc - couple of additional failures thrown in for good measure (ELECT/HYD).
When I ask about upset recovery, unusual attitudes & hand-flying the conversation usually goes quiet - it's either not practiced at all or there is very limited opportunity in the time available.
So, can it be assumed that prof checks are simply that, just checking continued proficiency based around a very predictable combination of scenarios?
If this is the case, outside of the allocated time for prof checks, how many of you get the chance to do some actual training (discounting initial type or captain upgrades) on type? Seems like lots of checking but very little training going on.
Furthermore, in the sweat-box, is there any element of CRM applied? I have heard from several sources during prof-check it is very rigorously based around the drills and SOPs and that there is very little 'thinking' goes on by the crew - we know its an engine failure and we apply the drill but doesn't CRM suppose that there should be at least some basic level of interaction between the flight crew about the failure before diving into the drills/SOPS (we've seen wrong engines being shutdown, for example, in crews haste to complete the drills in the past). Before anyone beats the crap out of me, I know that sometimes there is no time for discussion and action is required immediately but perhaps training to react as such in every case this way may be a latent hazard in itself...
Very interested to know the reality of what's going on from those actually involved and if anyone is courageous enough, in your reply please indicate your type and geographic area e.g. 777 Captain - North America.
Is the current training/proficiency system adequate?
Also, like the abolishment of C of As in airworthiness for 'continuing airworthiness' should we consider a similar system for 'continuing proficiency' for flight crew perhaps to free up more time to focus on the less predictable challenges a flight crew may face? (annual prof check and 6 monthly (non-prof) training session).
Some may say 'its not broken don't fix it' but others may say that the current arrangement is failing to change with the new technology and industry challenges....
Again, no beating up please - just provide honest opinion/examples and if not relevant to you then move onto the next forum rather than start a bun-fight
During six-monthly prof-checks, most guys I talk to say its fairly 'routine' stuff, engine failures, OEI climbs approaches etc - couple of additional failures thrown in for good measure (ELECT/HYD).
When I ask about upset recovery, unusual attitudes & hand-flying the conversation usually goes quiet - it's either not practiced at all or there is very limited opportunity in the time available.
So, can it be assumed that prof checks are simply that, just checking continued proficiency based around a very predictable combination of scenarios?
If this is the case, outside of the allocated time for prof checks, how many of you get the chance to do some actual training (discounting initial type or captain upgrades) on type? Seems like lots of checking but very little training going on.
Furthermore, in the sweat-box, is there any element of CRM applied? I have heard from several sources during prof-check it is very rigorously based around the drills and SOPs and that there is very little 'thinking' goes on by the crew - we know its an engine failure and we apply the drill but doesn't CRM suppose that there should be at least some basic level of interaction between the flight crew about the failure before diving into the drills/SOPS (we've seen wrong engines being shutdown, for example, in crews haste to complete the drills in the past). Before anyone beats the crap out of me, I know that sometimes there is no time for discussion and action is required immediately but perhaps training to react as such in every case this way may be a latent hazard in itself...
Very interested to know the reality of what's going on from those actually involved and if anyone is courageous enough, in your reply please indicate your type and geographic area e.g. 777 Captain - North America.
Is the current training/proficiency system adequate?
Also, like the abolishment of C of As in airworthiness for 'continuing airworthiness' should we consider a similar system for 'continuing proficiency' for flight crew perhaps to free up more time to focus on the less predictable challenges a flight crew may face? (annual prof check and 6 monthly (non-prof) training session).
Some may say 'its not broken don't fix it' but others may say that the current arrangement is failing to change with the new technology and industry challenges....
Again, no beating up please - just provide honest opinion/examples and if not relevant to you then move onto the next forum rather than start a bun-fight
Twin jet (big) UK.
Not the case for us, following a deliberate change of policy by the company a few years back.
On a basic level generally one of the 6 monthly 2 day checks is devoted to the mandatories (day one LPC/OPC/ possibly AOWPs etc), day two is the other mandatories due such as rapid decompressions, etc. CRM is definitely involved and assessed.
The other 2 day 6 monthly check tends to be a much more free flowing, usually a LOFT/CRM exercise, one of a batch of 5, to start with, then the rest is the likes of manual handling ( ccts, stalls etc) and general mopping up, look sees of perhaps issues that have cropped up on the line, etc.
That said can I chuck a couple of comments back to the OP:
CRM most definitely is applied, right from the moment you walk into the box and on every detail these days - e.g. the LPC/OPC check is a check of both the crewmembers, not just one individual so even something as basic an engine shut down on the basic recurrent needs CRM, certainly passing the check it's not just about showing you can read a checklist and throw/pull the right handles in the right order... Overall CRM underpins everything and is assessed throughout all sim exercises, certainly with us, and is debriefed. Frankly these days if the session turns into a genuine "sweatbox" with no CRM = No pass.
Not sure which crews you are talking to but AFAIK upsets, unusual attitudes etc have to be covered/assessed on a recurrent basis as laid down by the regulator, hand flying is done as required, as part of a circuits detail or less ideally is embedded in the stall/GPS/TCAS details, although often you are correct in thinking time is limited.
can it be assumed that prof checks are simply that, just checking continued proficiency based around a very predictable combination of scenarios?
On a basic level generally one of the 6 monthly 2 day checks is devoted to the mandatories (day one LPC/OPC/ possibly AOWPs etc), day two is the other mandatories due such as rapid decompressions, etc. CRM is definitely involved and assessed.
The other 2 day 6 monthly check tends to be a much more free flowing, usually a LOFT/CRM exercise, one of a batch of 5, to start with, then the rest is the likes of manual handling ( ccts, stalls etc) and general mopping up, look sees of perhaps issues that have cropped up on the line, etc.
That said can I chuck a couple of comments back to the OP:
"Furthermore, in the sweat-box, is there any element of CRM applied?"
When I ask about upset recovery, unusual attitudes & hand-flying the conversation usually goes quiet - it's either not practiced at all or there is very limited opportunity in the time available.
Last edited by wiggy; 1st Mar 2017 at 15:12.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA rules demand that all major items (ATA chapters, Upset Recovery, Basic Flying etc.) are handled in a three year cycle.
In my outfit day 1 is a LOFT, 4 hours, with two different scenarios, one flown by the FO, one by the CMD. They usually contain some things that happened on the line, or some major occurences elsewhere, or just a CRM flight. There is not one right solution but many different and evenly viable outcomes. We usually do know whats coming, however we still decide on the spot an after a thorough FORDEC what to do. At the end there is usually some spare time set aside for basic flying and Upset recovery (both unusual attitudes and stall at high and low altitude), for this semester we have UPRT as a major training item so it will be more than usual.
Day 2 is the OPC/LPC, which is flown in several parts, a mini-LOFT, engine out stuff for each pilot and LOW VIS training. Engine out is always the same, V1 cut, a non precision approach followed by a go around and an ILS, which will be flown sometimes raw data, sometimes with a FD, but in any case manually.
During one of the two sessions we have to fly at least one TCAS RA each and the trainer can try to surprise the trainees with one or two surprise things that are not part of the official profile.
Apparently the company wants to change the whole setup to do the check on day 1 and LOFT and exercises on day 2, same as apparently TangoAlpads outfit does it.
A320, Europe.
In my outfit day 1 is a LOFT, 4 hours, with two different scenarios, one flown by the FO, one by the CMD. They usually contain some things that happened on the line, or some major occurences elsewhere, or just a CRM flight. There is not one right solution but many different and evenly viable outcomes. We usually do know whats coming, however we still decide on the spot an after a thorough FORDEC what to do. At the end there is usually some spare time set aside for basic flying and Upset recovery (both unusual attitudes and stall at high and low altitude), for this semester we have UPRT as a major training item so it will be more than usual.
Day 2 is the OPC/LPC, which is flown in several parts, a mini-LOFT, engine out stuff for each pilot and LOW VIS training. Engine out is always the same, V1 cut, a non precision approach followed by a go around and an ILS, which will be flown sometimes raw data, sometimes with a FD, but in any case manually.
During one of the two sessions we have to fly at least one TCAS RA each and the trainer can try to surprise the trainees with one or two surprise things that are not part of the official profile.
Apparently the company wants to change the whole setup to do the check on day 1 and LOFT and exercises on day 2, same as apparently TangoAlpads outfit does it.
A320, Europe.
