alf5071h
I appreciate that sim time costs money. I have some small experience in pilot training syllabus change and revision with the Navy. We were plagued by the know nothings who would harp on the "replace aircraft hours with sim hours" without knowing what limitations sims have ... or even knowing which generation of sims we had been funded for.
(Grrrr, still makes me mad, even now, how foolish this "guidance" was as compared to tools at hand). And then if we wanted to buy new or upgrade the sims ... where is the money?) See also the thorny problem discussed in sim training for the stall or upset or spin case: can one afford to build the sim that can give you that training?
I suspect that the airline industry runs into similar institutional problems.
In re knowing your systems to the depth I advocate, versus "need to know level of training."
I cannot concur with knowing the systems to the depth of one or two briefing slides. The ability to trouble shoot and work through a degraded mode requires both well crafted SOPs and procedures (QRH/Memory Items/ECAMS/what have you) and an understanding of what the system is doing as you turn various things on and off. You need depth of understanding.
A rough analogy is the understanding of how a car works when one has overhauled an engine and replaced a transmission,
versus
"get in and drive" level of knowledge typically resident in a motorist.
The former is often able to get more out of a car, or know what not to do with it, than the latter as things begin to go wrong.
As systems get more complex and interrelated, the pilots must be educated, or educate themselves, or both, on how these complex pieces interract with one another.
Any organization will want to standardize training to ensure a certain minimum standard is achieved and maintained, and a predictable result be attained. (Ecucation in depth will help with the ability of aircrew to interact with techs/maintenance, and thus reduce fault isolation and remedy time cycles).
The institution has to invest in the continuing education.
See John T"s comments about change. It is ever with us.
So too is the requirement, not option, of both education and training so that you get the most out of your system. <== That would seem to get a return on the bottom line, would it not, if only via cost avoidance?
(At this point, seque to FOQA and someone yelling about Six Sigma in pilot training, and I'll be riding off into the sunset.
)
Final thought: the computer in the cockpit is like a firearm in the hands of the standard citizen. Dangerous if you aren't well trained and educated in its use, a great asset if you are well trained and educated in its use.