Originally Posted by
Mach E Avelli
The result of this mentality is we have carefully scripted simulator checks where everything is rehearsed well before the event. I have actually had candidates ask me for the exact test sequences, approaches, route etc 14 days in advance of a simple Instrument Rating renewal. They arc up when I reply with a copy of the official test form and delay notification of the route until 24 hours in advance. Yet their masters often hit them with short notice roster changes or off-schedule charters and they cash their pay cheques cheerfully enough.
In some jurisdictions it seems gone are the days of non-jeopardy LOFT exercises where crews were encouraged to step outside their comfort zone. Now, it's all about ticking the boxes on the form.
We have gone down the ATQP route and almost everyone I speak with much prefers it. In the old days you almost had to get hold of the instructor's notes as it was assumed that you were in possession of them anyway! IMO it led to a rather false atmosphere with crews sitting there waiting for the EVENT then responding far too quickly with a pre-prepared plan.
Now, the trainer (within practical limits of time, databases, etc.) can let the detail progress according to the decisions made by the crew and can alter things as it is no longer running on rails. The focus has changed from being +/- X kts and +/- Y ft to “how was the situation managed?”, “did they use all the available information to come to a decision?”, “was the decision making process effective?” and things of that nature.
Of course we still do traditional failures, malfunctions, handling, etc. but that’s more “train to competence” so on a assessment detail the soft skills are much more under the microscope, as they have greater influence on bringing a flight to a successful conclusion than being able to do an inverted night asymmetric NDB on a partial panel...