LH2,
Originally Posted by polohippo
Yes I do work in southern Spain and I do not wish to state the school that I work for.
Originally Posted by LH2
[T]o summarise, I understand that you have no first-hand experience of this particular school?
Are we on a witch hunt? Next you'll demand we all sign affidavits to support our statements on PPRuNe. Have some respect for his desire to remain anonymous. Or is that not how business is done in Spain?
------------------------
Originally Posted by polohippo
The experiences that I talk about come from one of my colleagues who stated that having NO multi engine experience at all was put in the sim on his first day there without any briefing at all. In the climb out the instructor failed an engine on him and then started laughing at him when it all went horribly wrong.
Originally Posted by LH2
The first sim "session" is just to get a feel for the sim itself, there is no instruction involved other than explain where things are in the sim and how it differs from the real aircraft (as it says in the training curriculum). Before this, your colleague would have had a full day's (or was it two days?) ME theory briefing and sat a quick exam, and before even that, likely he would have passed 14 ATPL subjects, including those dealing with ME flight and performance?
To me what this illustrates (whether it applies to your colleague or not) is that some people: a) do not pay attention, and b) want to be spoon-fed everything. That will not work in places such as Spain (and btw even less so in France) where you are expected to put your own effort into things.
First off the ATPL question-bank ceremonies do not effectively inculcate the depth of theoretical knowledge mandated under the JAR learning objectives (some of which do cover important topics
). Secondly the theoretical knowledge germane to asymmetric flight at the ATPL TKC level is unlikely to be so remembered as to expunge a comprehensive revision during an ME Class Rating course. I used to read on this forum comments about the PPL being a 'licence to learn', and I should like to offer up the 2nd postulate of PPRuNe's 'professional licensing' threads: the ATPL TKC is an
introductory overview to aeroplane operations and, even if coupled with such a comprehensive ME ASYM ground lecture, does not obviate the critical requirement of in-flight practice. Have you read the comments above about students being given no in-flight ASYM practice?
I found, during an attendance last year, the level of theoretical knowledge held by
some Aerodynamics instructors to be
dangerously inadequate notwithstanding the
assumption that an ATPL TKC would have provided a grounding. It is not surprising to me in the slightest that polohippo's colleague was given no pre-'flight' briefing.
The issue raised by polohippo, which you LH2 have ignored, is one of his colleague having been childishly mocked by an Aerodynamics instructor following a failure to demonstrate a level of
non-existent practical skill. To propose such pusillanimous derision is acceptable is both insanely foolish and unpropitious to the task of cultivating the requisite skill-set. To propose that a failure to execute ME Class engine failure procedures properly, having never previously been guided through one, is indicative of an inattentive candidate who harbours desires to be spoon-fed, in my opinion, betrays a pathological problem on your part in recognising the very necessity for flight
training.
------------------------
All but one of the unfavourable criticisms in this thread directed towards Aerodynamics are, so far as my personal experience goes, valid and, more to the point, only the tip of the iceberg. BigGrecian has commented upon second-hand information regarding Aerodyanmics' lack of partial panel training. This point is at variance both from my experience and from that relayed by others (who had had ME/IR training with UK FTOs), in which respect Aerodyanmics had gone the extra mile in providing, if anything, instrument and equipment failure scenarios too frequently.