Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Using airline simulators to their full extent

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Using airline simulators to their full extent

Old 9th Jun 2024, 02:16
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 15
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nowadays, sims are expensive and work 24/7,365. 4 hour sim sessions are the norm and even a 10 minute break can be frowned upon or discarded due to the pressure to complete the syllabus segment. There is little scope to include items of "interest" such as all/multiple engine failures with relights, volcanic ash penetration procedures, ditching protocols etc.
However, the regulators still have their say by apportioning a disproportionate amount of time to V1 cuts, Engine out Missed approaches, complex engine out escape routes, stalling clean, landing config and high altitude. ( when was the last time..or ever, you had an engine failure at V1?? ).
When one conflates the cutbacks and trimming of sim sessions for conversions, the amount of pragmatic and flight operational relevant items can get very thin, within the scheme of approaching the skills test or qualifying to type PC.
Accounting and aviation have never been good bedfellows, though up till now, safety and its relevance in simulator practiced procedures, still has a place...but for how long ?
Tiger pork is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2024, 02:59
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 315
Received 108 Likes on 76 Posts
Originally Posted by Centaurus
Losing two or three or four for Why! Volcanic ash for sure .. preference is to shut them down prior to them shutting down un-aided once clear of ash, you maybe able to restart engines which are not seriously damaged .. but who shuts down operating engines. . .. ..
The procedure I have observed in the Sim (see my earlier post, type was 747-400) was to immediately reduce engines to idle, and descent accordingly while u-turning.

Engines idle reduces the temperature and so the melting process of the ash particles onto the turbine section especially. That gives a good chance to save some engines from ultimate damage.

I am not a pilot, so get confirmation by pro's.
waito is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2024, 04:11
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,243
Received 123 Likes on 72 Posts
Originally Posted by waito
The procedure I have observed in the Sim (see my earlier post, type was 747-400) was to immediately reduce engines to idle, and descent accordingly while u-turning.

Engines idle reduces the temperature and so the melting process of the ash particles onto the turbine section especially. That gives a good chance to save some engines from ultimate damage.

I am not a pilot, so get confirmation by pro's.
Yes, the procedure for Boeing and Airbus aircraft is to reduce thrust to idle (if conditions allow) and to exit the ash cloud as quickly as possible, usually via a 180 turn. Deliberately shutting the engines down runs the risk of not being able to get them started again.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2024, 06:46
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 51
Posts: 1,097
Received 161 Likes on 76 Posts
Talking of all engine out -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garu...sia_Flight_421

Not just volcanic ash.
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2024, 13:19
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
Yes, the procedure for Boeing and Airbus aircraft is to reduce thrust to idle (if conditions allow) and to exit the ash cloud as quickly as possible, usually via a 180 turn. Deliberately shutting the engines down runs the risk of not being able to get them started again.
There is also increasing bleed to increase stall margins(if i remember correctly).

Originally Posted by Bergerie1
Let me expand on the issue of an all-engine failure, and on the 747 in particular. In 1982, I was the flight training manager of the British Airways 747 flight. At a previous flight training mangers’ meeting, in order to save money by removing unnecessary training exercises, I had to defend the need for still practising the all-engine failure drill, despite it being a remote possibility. I did so for several reasons, not only to demonstrate the symptoms that might be experienced and to practise the engine re-light drills, but, even more importantly, to think about and discuss the prioritisation of the actions and decisions required by the crew.

The priorities, in my view (and remember I am now way out-of-date!) are:- (1) fly the aircraft; (2) diagnose the cause; (3) try to re-start the engines, and (4) consider how best to prepare for a ditching or crash landing.

Item 1. The captain probably has to fly using only those instruments powered by the battery bus. He may also have control problems such as dutch-roll, as in one of the VC10 incidents I mentioned earlier. He also has to decide the best speed to fly – max range, max endurance and/or engine re-light speed.

Item 2 and 3. The engineer will be trying to diagnose the cause while simultaneously carrying out the appropriate drills with the co-pilot. Both will be fully occupied with little time to spare. How should they prioritise these activities?

Item 4. The captain will be starting to think about possible outcomes, trying to balance the priorities of which speed is best for the circumstances, how long and/or how far he might be able to glide, and what kind of landing/ditching may ensue.

In the BA 38 accident at LHR, there was hardly any time to think, let alone diagnose the problem. The captain made an almost instant non-standard decision which was right.

In the BA 009 incident, the captain had time but was faced with a number of additional problems – the failure of the co-pilot’s oxygen mask, unusal symptoms and, on the approach to Jakarta, being unable to see the runway properly because of the abraded windscreen.

The symptoms were not the same as those demonstrated in the simulator, and they were fortunate that the engines went into some kind of sub-idle condition which left the autopilot still useable. Altogether, the three crew members were both extremely lucky and extremely capable.

But, so far as simulators are concerned, real life is very rarely the same, nevertheless, the training does help in providing some kind of framework on which to work.

Seven years later a KLM 747 suffered a similar volcanic ash incident when descending into Anchorage!!
I would add near the beginning to turn toward a best suitable landing area(unless there isn't one or you happen to be well above it). I believe there has been an all engine out scenario where this was not attempted until later on and then they were out of range(possibly the CRJ dual flameout at its service ceiling and a military Global Express in Afghanistan(if I remember correctly).
punkalouver is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2024, 14:30
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 82
Posts: 1,300
Received 96 Likes on 40 Posts
punkalouver, Thanks, you are absolutely right, I should have added 'navigate'. And there are many more things that have to be thought about in a high stress situation and in a finite time, but I wasn't thinking only of volcanic ash. That was the whole point of the exercise and the discussion afterwards.
Bergerie1 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2024, 15:54
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 257
Received 18 Likes on 9 Posts
A huge amount of time is wasted in full motion simulators. Never gonna change so why waste time thinking about it?

The absurdity of much modern airline flight training is underlined for me every time I go in the box and see the fire glove. Its the simulated fire glove.

Probably made by the manufacturer, costs a ridiculous amount, has absolutely zero functionality, as a result is impossible to use, therefore is never used in any scenario.

Why not just put a glove there?
BoeingDriver99 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2024, 16:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,257
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
Single Engine GA in a 747-400 was always fun.
blue up is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2024, 03:57
  #29 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 74
Posts: 2,284
Received 37 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
A huge amount of time is wasted in full motion simulators. Never gonna change so why waste time thinking about it?

The absurdity of much modern airline flight training is underlined for me every time I go in the box and see the fire glove. Its the simulated fire glove.

Probably made by the manufacturer, costs a ridiculous amount, has absolutely zero functionality, as a result is impossible to use, therefore is never used in any scenario.

Why not just put a glove there?
Similar to the stupid replica (not dummy) fire extinguishers and O2 Masks some TDMs fit .
ZFT is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2024, 06:13
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99

Why not just put a glove there?
Because it's probably gone in two weeks. For whatever reason.
the_stranger is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2024, 09:32
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 257
Received 18 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by the_stranger
Because it's probably gone in two weeks. For whatever reason.
You are not wrong there
BoeingDriver99 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2024, 05:13
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,204
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 10 Posts
Re dummy fire extinguishers and asbestos gloves in simulators reminded me of an event of many years ago when a Pacific Island 737 landed at Tarawa, Kiribati. In those days passenger restraint items kept in the cabin included pair of handcuffs and a baton. As passengers were disembarking, a local islander leapt up the airstairs and bursting into the cockpit lashed out at the captain and F/O with his fists. As both pilots were still strapped in doing cockpit checks, it was difficult for them to defend themselves. Fortunately a passenger about to leave the aircraft grabbed the lunatic from behind and with the help of the F/O who had managed to undo his safety harness, threw the islander down the airstairs.

Security in the form of two local coppers waiting at the foot of the stairs, took him by the hand and led him away without a struggle. Later back at home base, the chief pilot sporting a bruise on his head changed the rules and had the restraint equipment moved from the cabin to the cockpit saying it was useless in the cabin if someone got into the cockpit..

In court to explain his actions, the islander explained to the local beak that his house built of wood and palm tree fronds and situated close to the perimeter of the airport, had been blown over on several occasions by jet blast from departing 737's doing a 180 to line up for take off. Enough was enough, so he had decided to have a go at the next arriving crew. The beak sympathised with his plight and no charges were laid.

Dummy restraint systems in the cockpit of simulators. I am sure rare items indeed.

Last edited by Centaurus; 12th Jun 2024 at 05:26.
Centaurus is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 12th Jun 2024, 06:32
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 452
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Current EASA rules regarding volcanic ash require that operators who might have ash encounters due to to operation in proximity to volcanoes do risk assessment and mitigation which for us resulted in a dual-engine flameout on the sim (with automatic relight after leaving the ash cloud). In over 30 years I recall one training where a dual engine flameout without restart was practiced and maybe a few instances where we tried that on extra time (e.g. Hudson River scenario at home base). Most successful results required some non-checklist "cheating" by starting the APU to improve controllability and regain speed brakes.

There was at least one instance of a forced landing due to dual engine failure on the ILS into Munich by an Austrian Fokker 70 around 20 years ago. While it was a landing to walk away from the result might have been different at another location.

Evidence Based Training allows to do away with routine sim items that pilots demonstratedly handle well and introduce stuff that has rarely been trained under previous rules. E.g. we might not have to demonstrate the ability to preside over an autoland Cat 3 with and without go-around and every type of approach we're authorised to perform during every session. This has freed time for some real-world training with less of a time corset.
Alpine Flyer is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.