The "Startle" Effect during type rating training.
Google “Surprise Factor in aviation” and there is no shortage of replies. They include recommendations that a surprise or startle factor should be introduced into routine simulator training. While this sounds like yet another buzzword like CRM and TEM, the concept has its limitations.
For example:
During an instructor mutual practice session in a 737 Classic simulator, my colleague quietly arranged to block the captain’s static port before takeoff. I was unaware of this.
During the takeoff roll there are no untoward indications. After lift-off the PM in the copilot’s seat called “Positive Rate of Climb” from the indication of his barometric altimeter. This would normally trigger a call from the captain of “Gear Up” providing his instruments confirmed the aircraft was clear of the ground.
In this case due to the captain’s blocked static port, my altimeter and the IVSI remained inoperative although the attitude, and thrust setting indicated the aircraft should have been climbing away. A few seconds later I was startled when the windshear aural warning sounded and I noticed the airspeed reducing steadily. I pushed the thrust levers against the stops and increased pitch attitude a few degrees.
Soon after with the ASI needle dropping quite rapidly as we gained height in initial climb, the stick shaker actuated. Initial reaction was to lower the nose but with no airspeed, altimeter and IVSI on the captain’s side and with takeoff thrust and normal initial climb attitude on the ADI it was clear we had an erroneous airspeed and altimeter situation.
My colleague “froze” the simulator, grinned and asked what I thought was causing all these spurious readings? I had never seen this combination events before.Naturally there was a startle or surprise factor when it all happened seconds after VR but in those days the expressions “Startle or Surprise factor” had yet to enter aviation lexicon. We took this sort of thing in our stride as part and parcel of flying aeroplanes. Big deal, as they say.
Of course I was embarrassed at being caught hesitating for a few seconds as I pondered what on earth was happening. I decided to pull this trick on my own 737 type rating students and we all had sheepish laughs at the various reactions.
I mentioned this to two long retired friends from our days in military aviation. I was taken aback when both said it was a rotten trick to play on unsuspecting students and that it would have been better instructional technique to first brief them of the intention to block the captain’s static vent, and then demonstrate to them by flying the aircraft and ‘pattering.”
After all, watching a pattered demonstration as part of the training sequence during a type rating allows students to absorb what they see rather than being caught totally unawares and embarrassing themselves like I did when my colleague pulled the stunt on me.
It seems to me that the new fad for deliberately setting up a startle or surprise event is counter- productive and contrary to good instructional technique. Call it practicing bleeding if you like. What is the point of practicing being frightened or startled? It already happens numerous times in everyday life including flying.
A well flown demonstration of the effect of a blocked static vent takes only a few minutes and everyone goes away having learned a lesson without embarrassing themselves in front of the instructor or other crew members. It is rare to see a simulator instructor take the time to first demonstrate a sequence whether engine failure on the runway followed by a rejected take off or a continued take off.
Saying that there is no requirement for demonstrations during type rating training in the simulator misses the whole point. A picture is worth a thousand words. Of course the instructor needs to be a competent practitioner. Which may explain why few instructors dare risk their reputation?