Originally Posted by
Plastic787
So why was this “suitable for long haul” stipulation not a thing just a few short years ago where the exact same set of circumstances you have just described were extant? Am I incorrect in saying that a candidate that displayed any element of training risk would not have made it through the assessment?
Genuine question here because if so then we are definitely talking about a watering down of standards; my understanding (and that of many others) of the BA Sim assessment was it considered a check of your ability to pass any BA type rating you could theoretically be coursed be that short haul or long haul.
I agree, I think the idea of training risk is nonsense specially as you’d need to have an ATPL,
thus sufficient experience.
Also, I have witnessed someone do the assessment not long ago where her PF sector was a raw data SID, tracking to a VOR, take up the hold, set up a procedural ILS and land, NO EVENT. God knows how the assessor figured that she ticked all the six competencies they assess for. Without a situation(event) that requires positive, co-operative decision making through CRM and a PM sector that was atrocious, she got longhaul.
It’s a gimmick to force people into shorthaul.