According to the aviation correspondent of the "The Australian" newspaper, the Indonesian plane crash that left five Australians and 16 others dead last year was among 48 percent of jet aircraft accidents that took place during landing and a big percentage that involved leaving the runway. An annual safety report released by the International Air Transport Association also suggests that many of these accidents could have been prevented by a "timely go-around."
Assuming jet crews undergo regular simulator checks then it brings up the question of should simulator training specifically address factors causing overruns. From personal experience in the simulator training industry I have observed countless cases of landing long and if the "runway" had been on the limiting length dry or wet for the aircraft configuration, an overrun would certainly have been on the cards.
It is difficult not to generalise in these cases. But it is probable that most simulator sessions on type rating or recurrent training, centre around full use of automation in accordance with perceived manufacturer's recommendations for the aircraft type. Landings in the simulator are at airports selected by the airline and in most cases the runways are far in excess of the limiting length.
There is no shortage of engine failures on take off and long winded radar vectors including holding patterns preceding an engine-out landing or maybe go-around. All these no sweat with autopilot engaged and 8-10,000 ft length sealed surfaces. No problem if the surface is slippery either. LOFT exercises go for a couple of hours and may include lots of taxiing, Vnav and Lnav air-route flying accompanied by head-scratching scenarios involving poring through manuals in-flight, coupled with CRM and inter-active discussions with imagined cabin crew, ATC, company people. All very fine stuff of course. But accidents continue to happen caused by overuns on short wet runways and people get killed. And rarely are these addressed in simulator sessions.
Surely, if operators are to seriously address the overrun problem there should be greater accent given to having regular training in the simulator using a relatively short wet runway in order to fine-tune basic handling skills. This means actual hands-on flying - not an interminable automatic approach to 200 ft to a 10,000 ft runway where gross speed errors rarely cause a raised eyebrow because there is no danger of an overrun.
Landing on a runway limiting length in a strong crosswind is a good test of pilot pure flying skill. While some simulators can be programmed for a generic short runway, others may have many airports in their data base but mostly with runways far in excess of that needed for a real test of piloting skill. It should not be too hard to programme a simulator with one short runway for adverse weather landing practice.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are operators whose simulator training philosophy is to tick the boxes to meet minimum regulatory requirements, then steer clear of any sequence that smacks of something different to full use of automatics - then shake their heads in wonderment at the perceived stupidity of a crew where people get killed as a result of a poorly executed approach and landing. Simulators are wonderful tools that can provide crews with manipulative skills at no risk. No wonder an injured fore-finger is considered a no-go MEL item where automatics are concerned.
