Originally Posted by glendalegoon
THE whole point of this thread was to help a new pilot to fly a very old plane and old simulator.
I do understand what occurs with reading and posting on this particular aviation forum – and I certainly agree that some of us learn things that we would never have guessed in a thousand years! That doesn’t immediately mean that we agree with all that is posted – by a long shot. The idea that I’ve always tried to convey – is that proper use of simulation can (with specifically accomplished goals) actually and effectively teach pilots how to manage an airplane throught he myriad of conditions seen in airline operations today. Almost 35 years ago, it became clear that both the airlines and the regulators could – in certain circumstances – accept the use of such training equipment in lieu of requiring everything to be done in the airplane. As I’ve said many times here … when using the airplane, the first 5 or 6 responsibilities of the instructor have nothing to do with training the student – and only AFTER all those other requirements have been satisfied can the real reason for everyone being on board in the first place gets to happen … training. Conversely, when using a simulator – the only thing required is to train the student … period!
However, there were some caveats that were laid out and as technology improved over time, those caveats began to be met more readily … and this continued to improve until the development of Part 121, Appendix H, and the associated Advisory Circular – that clearly, and for the first time, allowed ALL of the training AND the check of a pilot to be accomplished and completed in a qualified airplane simulator. The first time the pilot actually saw the airplane (in many cases anyway) he/she was involved in obtaining his/her line operating experience with passengers on board. That was in June of 1980. We’ve come some 34 years now and in during this time the “knowledge generation” has been reduced from about 8-10 years to 8-10 weeks! Of all the simulators that have ever been qualified and used in the US – and there have been almost 1400 since mid-1980, but the fact that there are only a whisper more than 800 of these devices currently active means that almost that number have fallen by the wayside in those years.
I say all of the above to say … in response to your comment quoted above … as most of the “regulars” here can attest, my “hot button” issue is the development of “cheat sheet” short cuts to satisfy the requirements that are often watched and signed off in a simulator. I’ve seen so many “cheat sheet” suggestions that “seem to work” in the simulator – having absolutely nothing to do with how the airplane should actually be flown – but fool the inattentive or ill-trained instructor or evaluator that we run the risk of admitting good “slight-of-hand” artists – who “talk” a good game, and have “demonstrated their ability” through the use of a set of canned numbers and suggestions to “get through the simulator session” – that I’m beginning to fear for the safety of the industry. I’m not interested in what appears to work in the simulator that looks good to an observer. I’m interested in using these devices on the basis that these devices provide identical “on-set cueing” information that is just exactly like what would be recognize in the airplane under the same conditions … that the simulator performs and handles “just like the airplane” in similar circumstances. There are some simulators that do this regularly – but the point is that even with the oldest simulator in the industry, if the instructor is properly and completely trained and pays proper attention to his/her students’ actions while operating the simulator, that student should be able to learn exactly what the airplane will do and learn exactly what he/she must do in response. Anything less does not do anything but jeopardize the safety of anyone flying with those person(s). The only way to do this and do it regularly is to have simulators that perform to the standards that have been agreed upon and for instructors and evaluators to expect identical performance of the student/examinee … just as would be expected were it all to have been done in the airplane. Finding ways around the programming or fudging the fact that a simulator does not really “fly,” and give the impression that all is good – is, in fact, not good and very easily could be catastrophic in the most negative manner possible. And, if I had to, I could point out case after case, after case where this is clearly evident. That is the reason I participate on these forums – not to toot my horn or have people be “in awe” of my brilliance … that is why I remain anonymous … THAT is not my goal … competency in the cockpit is my goal … and that is the reason I participate here – and I thank JT for the opportunity … probably nowhere near often enough.