I was, determinedly, going to stay out of this discussion; but rather than leave my two bob in my pocket:- Let's take three sprogs; Fred, Pete and Bill and do some multi engine training.
Fred has superb engine handling skills, reasonable stick and rudder but is slow on transition to instruments and getting from 'failure' to fix.
Pete has the book off pat, can quote the rules and checklist, but stick and rudder clumsy, doesn't 'get' the internal combustion engine, is prone to making quick decisions and rushing through checks.
Bill is OK generally, but when he reaches across the cockpit to reset #2 altimeter, the hand follows the eyes and thus the aircraft creeps 10° off heading and he is slow to correct it.
The list is as long as your arm, common or garden sprog basic issues. Now a good trainer should be able to identify and correct these by developing a hand crafted 'program' for either of the lads; develop their confidence and get them to a standard where OEI operations are basically an interesting, safe learning experience. Feathered or simulated? academic in a 'safe' – AFM supported environment, (FAR 23 certification - carefully considered) CAO 40 (IMO) being for the "guidance of wise men". etc.
But no amount of ticked boxes will correct the radical errors. One dark and stormy, when the number one is about to make a monkey of the engineers, is probably the only time in a career where all of the basic errors, not corrected will surface, this is not the time to start learning. How we get pilots to the stage of seamless transition and almost faultless execution under 'real' pressure is a matter of quality training and establishing sound 'default' settings. So that once in a lifetime event finishes in the bar, not at another cold wet gravesite.
Tick-a-box, black letter law, cover your arse, micro management cannot replace good, sound, 'intuitive' basic training. If the folk doing the training can't or don't recognise the errors, all the slavish dedication to tick-a-box training cannot and will not help. If the natural 'intuition' found within a good training pilot is beaten down by enforced, prescriptive legislation; how can we be certain that a box ticked is indeed, a job done well? At least later in life, a half decent check pilot will hone in on and target perceived weakness, this is as it should be; but is the candidate the problem or the training system??. Have a look about and see just who holds sway these days; it's most certainly not men of the calibre, intelligence and hard won experience Centaurus recollects.
Aye well, that's my two bob's worth; although I'll probably regret it later....
