JcJeant
The first question is :
What is a qualified pilot ?
On which basis (in AF) they are named "qualified" ?
On which basis are they recruited ?
What are the level of qualification and how is the recruitment in other companies ? different .. more .. less ?
What is the following of their qualification .. rate of refreshing courses ... etc ...
What is the security policy of the company .. the general atmosphere on such safety within the company ..
I want to remind the Colin report about Air France
There is another question - to what extent do simulator exercises provide sufficiently real training for emergencies?
There is a considerable psychological impact that the human factors people seem to have ignored. That is that transferring computer game simulator learning into handling 'real world' emergencies does not work well with all people. In the 'old days' before clever simulators all such training was in the air and if a trainee repeatedly 'lost it' under pressure it became immediately apparent. This weeding out will not happen with sim rides where trainees learn to pass the sim ride.
It could be said that the only reason that pilots are required is for
when the automatics fail.
Several posts here have statements like: "
The simulator does not perform like the real aircraft after a stall" or "
the simulator cannot behave as the real aircraft does outside the normal flight envelope" and even "
the simulator does not fly like the real aircraft in Alternate Law"
So the simulator is being used to train pilots in how to handle emergencies, upsets and LOC, despite actually not behaving like the real aircraft in emergencies, upsets and LOC?
The current approach of only using simulators for training pilots to fly simulators does not seem extremely logical. I am sure that the accountants love it.