Originally Posted by
Gargleblaster
I am sure I have missed out on something, and I suspect you are an instructor and am likewise suspecting you have suggestions for improvements, feel free !
I am impressed that you said, "I am sure I have missed something out." That's a rare sentence on a forum! You would seem to be the only person to actually question what they believe to be right. A questioning attitude is a core element of Crew Resource Management (CRM) and effective Threat and Error Management (TEM). It reflects the belief that performance is malleable and improvable through critical analysis and continuous learning, but that is only ever likely to occur if you have a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset.
Your suspicions are correct, but I prefer the term, 'teacher.' Instructors dump information on students; teachers follow a scientifically proven academic process that, amongst other things, encourages the self-development of the thinking pilot. Put another way: instructing is for the moment, teaching is for life. Pun intended!
As part of that teaching and learning process, rather than me tell you what I think, I would rather encourage you to come up with some suggestions yourself. This is facilitation—yet another important difference between instructing and modern-day flying teaching!
A good starting point for question and debate on the Rejected Takeoff (RTO), which I use on both FI courses and for airline training, is the Manchester, UK 737 accident of 1985. This was a watershed moment for the airline industry and forced us all to fundamentally reconsider the RTO procedure.
There are also some spring-off-the-page errors in some of the posts above, which seem to be the result of outdated thinking and a fixed mindset. I can perhaps understand this attitude in basket weaving or blacksmithing, but I find it difficult to understand how this exists in such an obviously modern, progressive, and high-consequence industry such as aviation.
The original poster's RTO call is incorrect and certainly not a standard CAP 413 call. In fact, the phrase ‘emergency brief’ is also not technically correct. Abandonded Take Off is a phrase no longer in use in the UK.
The use of the phrase ‘immediate abnormal actions’ is also incorrect. If a procedure calls for time-constrained immediate action, it is not an abnormal procedure; it is an emergency procedure. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, have ever come across the term ‘immediate abnormal actions,’ but I am always happy to be corrected, given factual evidence!
Below is the link to a Wiki page that gives further useful links. The Smithsonian video is particularly interesting as it interviews some of the survivors and reinforces some key points. Without the link, it can be found on a search engine by using: Manchester 737 disaster 1985.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_M...rport_disaster