slast and RAT 5 … good day to you both! It is abundantly clear to me that, except for the possibility of some very minor exceptions, the 3 of us are, as RAT 5 put it, “in violent agreement” and I think there is a good probability that this “agreement” may well extend to a significant number of other participants on this particular thread.
My primary concern has been and continues to be – and I believe both of you feel exactly the same way – the singular importance of maintaining control of this multi-thousand pound combination of metal and combustible fuel, where ever a given flight takes it … but particularly so when we deliberately bring it, and ourselves, closer to the usually unforgiving earth at speeds and momentums that would (and usually does) generate an increased heart rate and at least some increased perspiration tendency.
I share your opinion, RAT 5, about the “under use” (and when used, it is often “missed used”) of a properly equipped and qualified airplane flight simulator – and to this I add what I believe to be a hugely important requirement … which is that ALL simulator training and/or evaluation sessions should be conducted by a completely and competently trained instructor or evaluator, thoroughly trained on and experienced in the application of the capabilities … and the limitations that have to be applied … to the specific flight simulator to be used for either type of session.
The aspect of discussing these issues here is, at least for me, largely satisfying and certainly relieving … as I recognize that there are others who share my concern for having all of our colleagues completely and competently trained for all the circumstances that anyone one of them might encounter – no matter how frequently or infrequently. This is the primary reason that in the past I have recommended and I continue to recommend that this industry establish a legitimate and professional process where there is a regular meeting of all of those involved in the responsibilities and endure the consequences of any of those issues and/or circumstances that might not be or were not handled as well as they could have or should have been handled.
Further, I believe that the “full-blown,” “everyone present” kinds of sessions this approach might suggest would only have to be held – perhaps – as infrequently as once every other, or every third year. The participation for these “all out” meetings would likely include regulatory authorities (from as many nations as possible), pilots and/or pilot groups (again, from as wide a spectrum as possible), airline management (with the same kind of wide spectrum participation), training specialists, educational specialists, and simulation equipment manufacturers/developers
During the intervening time, representatives from each of these groups should meet as frequently as once or twice a year – changing the location of such meetings if that might encourage a wider participation. Of course, without having checked previously, I would suspect that international organizations – such as the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society or ICAO – might well consider hosting such efforts – where the facilities for such meetings would be immediately available – virtually at any time.
I truly believe that the more we talk about what we need and what we want – the more others hear about and discuss those needs and desires, the more complete any training and qualification effort actually mounted and delivered might become.