But because the probability of occurrence in real life is so small it cannot be justified as a recurrent item. If sim time was unlimited then OK, but alas it is not
Excellent reply. The "probability" factor is a good point. I recall the comment made by the 767 captain of the Gimli Glider, as it was called. Readers may recall he did a good job of a dead stick landing after running out of fuel. He said that if only Air Canada (his airline) had allowed even one practice dead stick landing, he would have approached his own event with more confidence. As it was it was always going to be a hit or miss affair.
Of course since that episode, there have been a few more dead stick landings including an A340 and a Garuda 737. The probability of their occurrence in real life means they could not be justified as a recurrent item in the simulator....? Well, hello!
Some argue that there is significant wasted time in simulators with much depending on the organisational skill of the instructor. Instructors who freeze the simulator for lengthy and sometimes verbose discussions, waste valuable time. Those that permit excessive track miles on automatic pilot waste valubale time. The simulator is a training device not a comfortable arm chair ride while ficticious scenarios are permitted to be played out to a ridiculous extent - some of which include the captain discussing events with the ficticious cabin staff aka the instructor.
In terms of time management, the result is a lot of superfluous chatting between agencies while the minutes tick over before the morning tea break. Much of the briefing and chats could just as effectively conducted in a briefing room and the simulator time kept for vital hands on training; ensuring competence at dead stick glide approach landings comes to mind. Include manual reversion approach and landings among that.
During one entire type rating course in the simulator not one landing (apart from a manual reversion) was conducted without the help of the automatic brakes. In other words graduates were going on to line training in the real aircraft without ever used manual braking on landing. Yet another airline syllabus of simulator training thought it unnecessary to ensure graduates had proved competent at GPWS pull up manoeuvres. Sure, they had been briefed - but never actually carried out any in the simulator. But no shortage of L-nav and V nav automatics every session.
Time and again, one reads accident reports where investigators recommend operators to include specific simulator training to prevent further events common to the accident. Occasionally an operator will take on board those recommendations - but not too often. Flight International recently quoted one European Agency as reccommending operators accent training on strong crosswind landing training in simulators following a couple of accidents involving low hour pilots flying transport jets.
One response was that the simulator sessions were already packed with essential material and there was no time for extras not considered "vital" to flight safety. Talk about a negative approach to flight safety.
There needs to be greater emphasis on giving pilots hands on skills in the simulator and this includes practice at the "remote" possibility events. Wasting valuable simulator time L-navving around a holding pattern on autopilot reading lengthy checklists does not equip pilots with the basic flying skills long eroded because of the accent on automatics. This applies especially to the new breed of Multi crew licence graduates.