After reading the post by OK465 (above) my mind immediately flashed back to my first airline employment where we all referred to the equipment we used as “the used airplane lot,” or other similar references, some not so suited for mixed audiences. All the airplanes were the same make, model, and series, but were acquired from a whole litany of differing sources. There may have been a couple of airframes that could be recognized as being somewhat similar in handling or operating characteristics to another airframe on the lot … but I wouldn’t bet anything of value that any more than a very few of the more experienced pilots would have been able to make such a comparison. OK465, sir, you hit the nail squarely on the head – and I’m actually somewhat embarrassed that I didn’t make exactly the same connection – particularly after being a part of the rather regular “hanger flying” sessions that many of my fellow aviators had at almost any gathering of any more than a couple of the line pilots. Different airframes had very distinct characteristics that were unlike any other airplane, in our fleet at least. Whether it was the necessity to sneak some speed brakes out for a couple of seconds after leveling off at say 3000 feet during descent approaching to land, so that one could get the speed down to extend the first increment of flaps … to the necessity of having to add power to keep the airspeed from plummeting too quickly after leveling off at 3000 to keep the airspeed from decreasing below the desired airspeed for the flap setting desired. Other times, there was a clear necessity to make an adjustment on short final (either from “high” to “on-slope” or from “low” to “on-slope”) that required dramatically different power and trim adjustments once the desired flight path was achieved. There was even an attempt by a small group of line pilots to categorize particular tail numbers to provide an individual memory jog for the new guys joining the group, ostensibly designed to “make their life easier.” That was stopped when one of the check airmen recognized a similar action from two of the relatively new FO’s he was paired with on one 3-day trip.
The point here is that often there are differing qualities of performance or handling characteristics that are quite obvious from airframe to airframe – and those differences are, or at least “can be,” every bit as “different,” and more so in some cases, as some of the “differences” between the simulator and the airplane. We used several different simulator sources for our training and checking – and the differences were clearly evident. Also, those differences were the topic of a lot of discussion when notifications of individual recurrent training or checks were noted when schedules were published. The ONLY similarity that absolutely must exist is the knowledge of what to do and how to do it, and then use the skill-set developed to see to it that the airplane performed the way it had to perform to get through the task at hand. The same thing holds true for operating a simulator that has shown some signs of not handling or performing the way the airplane performs or handles – and that is the same application of what to do and how to do it … the knowledge acquired and the knowledge of how to manipulate the controls available to get through the task at hand. It may sound trite – but it’s absolutely true. And it is at this point where the competence of the simulator instructor simply has to take up any slack … and with my experience with all kinds of airplanes and all kinds of simulators representing each airplane type … it is the knowledge, the competence, and the ability of the instructor in a simulator to be sure that the right “knowledge” is recognized and the “correct” manipulation of the controls of the airplane (as simulated) are exhibited and then ensures that there are no questions and no misunderstandings. I am fearful that far too many instructors leave the “instructing” to the simulator itself - and yes, I am fully aware of what that means. This kind of error is probably the most egregious error that can be made in the operation of a flight simulator. Typically, when flight training is conducted in an airplane, the instructor must stay “on top” of what circumstances exist and are or may be developing, and cannot afford to let a student get the airplane into a set of circumstances from which that instructor cannot recover. One of the oft-heard comments from the students I had was voiced almost immediately after I took control of the airplane away from that student. Their comment was “…I was just going to …” and then they would finish with what they either knew or what they saw that I had done with the airplane. Well, maybe I should have let them go just another second or two or three. To see if they really ‘would have’ done what I did. In the simulator there is no such requirement. In the simulator, an instructor can allow the student to actually DO what they intend to do – or NOT do what they should have done. There is no “…I was just going to…” However, and more often than one might realize, the intervention of the instructor may be quite a bit more subtle than physically taking control. And that comes from a failure to recognize difficulties or hesitancies with respect to the either the control application or control application sequence they observe, or fail to recognize, or fail to correct, in response to an existing or developing set of handling or performance parameters. Allowing a student to do what they think is correct, and then do it over and over and over … that student almost has the right to understand that what he/she has done was the correct and proper response. Instructors need to be aware of what that student is doing and what that student is thinking. It is true at least some of the time is that what the student has done was not necessarily based on what he/she was thinking – but very well may have been based on what that student was looking at when he/she actually did something. The more the instructor “allows” the student to do something, anything, over and over, without correction or comment, the more that student is going to believe that the action taken is what the instructor wanted to see – when the truth may be entirely different. Instructing should be a very integral and very involved process – otherwise instructing wouldn’t be as important as it is. This is why I keep harping on the fact that instructors must be trained completely and competently on each and every simulator they are going to use to teach pilots what they need to know, what they need to do, and how they are expected to put those two aspects together. Anything less will result in less – and I don’t believe we can accept less ... in fact, we should be expecting more. I've also advocated an effort to revisit instructor training - both in the larger scope of things - and in the minute, nitty gritty kinds of things that if overlooked could lead to an improper learning or reinforcement of something not intended and not wanted. I would prefer this to be international in scope and attended by both instructors (and potential instructors) and those persons to whom the instructors are to report. If its correct, there is no such thing as "too much" instruction.