Originally Posted by Centaurus
I must be dumb because I cannot visualise what you mean.
Centaurus, my friend, of all the participants on this forum, you would be among the very last to whom I would attribute “dumb” as an accurate description.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
There are some professional simulator instructors who have never flown the real aeroplane they are instructing for in the simulator. After all not all simulator instructors have flown the A380 or a Boeing 787 yet have passed the interviews and a type rating course on the simulator and certified competent to test and instruct.
…which, I believe, is a part – a substantial part – of the problem. That problem being someone has determined that those who have the kind of “training” and “experience” you have described is all that is necessary to be deemed competent and experienced enough to convey their acquired “competency” and “experience” to others who will then be deemed competent enough take the airplane and all of its passengers and cargo across whatever distance, at whatever altitude and airspeed, through whatever meteorological conditions, without care or concern for the safety and efficiency of that effort.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
In fact there are many airline retired simulator instructors who may only "fly" their specific simulator twice a year for a couple of hours each time to maintain the minimum currency required by the regulator. I bet the majority of that is on automatic pilot as well.
Of course, those retired airline pilots who have taken positions as “simulator instructors," do have some (perhaps a substantial amount) of airplane time on the respective airplane, on which they can depend, or at least, to which they may refer, when they make judgments with respect to what and how they are instructing in the simulator. Clearly, the longer the time between “the real airplane” and “the simulated airplane,” the less value results from the dulled sharpness of the memories that are formulating the information being relayed. This results in the value of what is instructed being
inversely proportional to the recency of any and all experience gained in having regularly performed those same tasks now being instructed. And, it should be distinctly recognized that having to depend on “the automatic pilot” to get through the short time required for that so-called “currency,” is a pitiful substitution for the competency and experience that should be relied upon to achieve the quality of whatever “instructing” is being attempted.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
In my experience it is rare to see a simulator instructor whether he is a current check pilot or simply a retired pilot, actually take a control seat and demonstrate to a candidate how to conduct a high speed rejected take off with all its after stopping SOP's. Or demonstrate to a candidate that is having problems with an engine failure, manual reversion, low level circling approach, or all flaps up landing. Most of the time the simulator instructor has a rigid set of SOP to stick to during a type rating sequence or recurrent training sequence. He sits back in the instructor panel and reads the syllabus and presses the required buttons on the IOS. The syllabus is usually approved by the local regulator and due to limitations of time available and cost of simulator time, there is rarely time for extra handling training that may be needed. Certainly he won't have the time to change seats with the candidate and show him how it should be done.
There is a “saying” in the US … “you get what you pay for.” The accuracy of this “saying,” comes to realization – unfortunate realization – in recognizing the accuracy of your comment. Those posing those SOPs, structuring those training sequences … (i.e., “if it’s the 4th training session we must get through RTOs and Emergency Descents” … even though normal landings that were addressed on the 2nd training session are still misunderstood and unsatisfactory) are more interested in what looks good on paper, and what looks good to those who pay the bills, than anything else. In fact, the instructors that we do use are unbelievably good at putting the students through just enough rote-memory-practice that they are able to squeak through a demonstration. Unfortunately, in doing so, invariably, there will be several student pilots who “complete” the course with improper or incomplete or misunderstood cause/effect relationships with improper or incomplete or misunderstood actions that they may believe to be appropriate or believe must be taken … unfortunately … ONE such student is all it takes to generate bent metal and spilled blood … and, if … or perhaps more properly … when … the appropriate circumstances combine in just the right sequence … IT WILL HAPPEN … and we are completely at the mercy of “lucky stars” or “accidental correctness” to avoid such tragedies.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
I find it difficult to get my head around the points that some contributors to the debate say, when they mention instructors need to be familiar with the perceived differences between the real aircraft and what is experienced in the simulator. This is especially so when the same instructors could have conceivably not flown the real aircraft for ten years or more.
I could not agree with you more, my friend. It borders on the impossible for any competent aviator to misunderstand the necessary differences of having pilots who pointedly perceive, understand, and act accordingly with respect to a simulated airplane’s presentation of contrived events and their response to those inputs … and their being able to correctly perceive, understand, and act when the real airplane contributes in-put cueing to pilots … day-in and day-out. Unfortunately, almost any list of accidents, which may be generated by any who read these words, are replete with questions like, “why didn’t they recognize what was happening?” I think we need to seriously look at who, how, when, with what, to what end, do we, as an industry, conduct pilot training. That look and those questions simply have to address the tools, the persons who use those tools, and training of those persons to use those tools, and what kind of competency do we expect those persons to achieve in order to competently and completely train the pilots who will be putting all that training into use. I don’t think it will happen if we continue on the path that we all find ourselves at the moment.
May I suggest the following:
The Royal Aeronautical Society's 2014 International Flight Crew Training Conference will address the issues facing the flight crew training community from the perspectives of aircraft operators; aircraft manufacturers; makers, users and providers of training systems; researchers; and regulators. Papers will be presented by leading experts and workshops will discuss the International Pilot Training Consortium (IPTC) work to date, the outstanding issues and how best to take forward further work.
For more information about this conference and to register online please visit the event website.
Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | The International Pilot Training Consortium: Next Steps?
Alternatively, please contact
[email protected] or call the RAeS conference department on +44 (0)20 7670 4345.