Simulator re-current training - what is important to you?

[Centaurus]

Generally speaking, apart from specific type rating sequences, simulator training has descended into a box ticking series of exercises designed to meet regulatory requirements. There is no shortage of engine failures at V1, ILS in various configurations and lashings of automatics. These are spread among LOFT, cyclic training and base checks with most manoeuvres entirely predictable. Opinions vary widely as to their value in the long run.

With the introduction of GPS and EGPWS, the number of CFIT accidents are steadily decreasing. With perhaps 80% of simulator sessions being on automatic pilot, some pilots see a need to keep up basic handling skills, while others feel these are gradually becoming unnecessary especially in FBW aircraft.

Most of us learned to fly because of the joy and satisfaction of stick and rudder skills and not because of the joy and satisfaction of FMCS skills. So let me put this to you.

You are given two hours of "free range" personal practice in the simulator. There is no one around to laugh at you or criticise you.

List the exercises that would give you most personal satifaction whether they be stick and rudder skills or automatic pilot monitoring skills. Explain briefly the reasons for your choice.

[john_tullamarine]

My vote goes for figure-8 ILS touch and goes on a dual ILS runway (ie both ends - takeoff, clean up, reversal and down the opposite ILS). Single pilot, hand flown, raw data, minima set to 50ft and 150m (so one might actually stay on the runway during the reconfigure for the touch and go), nominal crosswind.

Simple reason .. this is the best I have found for honing and smoothing basic IF skills ... plus it's great fun once the cobwebs are swept out and the pulse rate goes down a bit .... (737) .. pity I haven't had the chance to do any in the past several years ..

.. I don't need anyone to laugh at me ... I can do that by myself ..

... and Centaurus has seen me when my skills have been down more than a bit after a break from flying ...

[Rainboe]

And damn good Engine Failures after V1 and after TO are a good way of testing the underarm sweat glands. You're right- sim training in the last few years has become box ticking with no element of fun or stretching flying skills. To the question near the end 'we have a few minutes- anything you'd like to practice?', the reply has to be 'no thankyou.' Practice anything to fill out time 'for fun' and make a balls up, and you may find you fail your check. It's like a driving test examiner saying 'you've passed (so far). Drive me back to the Driving Centre.' Decline! Say 'thanks, but YOU drive this one!'.

[SR71]

Hand flown, FD off, OEI, max xwind, intercepts to ILS or NDB followed by descent to minima (by Centaurus' definition, this is all single pilot IFR).

Repeat ad naseum.

Now try with all the EFIS U/S.

That'd make me feel warm and fuzzy at the end of the session if I did a good job. Chances are I wouldn't.

I'd also like the chance to experience an analogous situation to the DC-10 Sioux City and A300 Baghdad detail i.e., complete hydraulic failure.

[greybeard]

Thank goodness there are still thinking people out in the "real world".

I have retreated to the status of a full/part time Sim instructor for a variety of Contract Airlines, Western and Asian.
The BARE Munimum is what most pilots want to do, scripted if you please so there are NO surprises, particularly from Asia.
The basic task of an NDB NPA is for some as difficult as a moon shot for NASA, dont allow for wind in proceedure turns, can't do a min wx circuit, the sim is a bit hard for vis I know but I can assist with timing etc, sink rates in the Turn??, use of aileron on T/O and LDG in X-wind, use of more than idle reverse on S/E ldgs on shorter runways?????.
As for real time management and crew co-ord, well there we go.

Basic flying skills are on the way out, AUTOMATION COMPLACENCY has most crews firmly in its grip. what has also emerged is that even using the automatics, the basic geographical flight management is still not real sharp as it is not practiced.

WE FOLLOW THE LINE IN THE NAV OR GPS DISPLAY.

As for picking a map shift on an IRS (no gps update) equip, one in 5 may catch it.
Basic maths have disapeared, cant do a load sheet or fuel calc without a calculator, if an error is put in ??? may miss the "is it close" mental check.

Holding pattern geometry, WHAT'S THAT I was asked??, drift corrections??

Now to actually flying a OEI manual approach and horrors a manual missed aproach, an attack of the vapours comes on.

Ask the Seoux City guys, ask DHL at Bagdad, do we need these skills?? ONLY IF WE WISH TO LIVE ALL THE TIME WE WOULD LIKE.

I know we have highly reliable equip etc but the human side has gone backwards further than the good stuf has gone ahead.

All those who have the misfortune to cross my path will get a wakeup, all I can hope is that it lasts until it is needed

Cheers to all

[Flyrr100]

Straight and Level with a flight attendant sitting on the FA Jumpseat. (A319).
:E

[JW411]

Rainboe:

Near the end "we have a few minutes is there anything you would like to practice"?

Provided that you have already successfully completed the mandatory items of your OPC/LPC, it does not matter if you make an imperial horlicks of such a practice. You cannot be failed for that.

For example, a raw data ILS is mandatory for the skill test only and not for a subsequent OPC/LPC. Therefore you could make a bit of a mess of a raw data ILS and it should not affect the outcome since it is a training exercise and not a mandatory exercise.

[Rananim]

LOFT exercises are always the best form of simulator training as they come closest to reality.And always one subtle failure as opposed to a multitude of problems.No briefing either as you dont get one in reality.For example,imagine a flight from A to B with a go-around at B due to a blocked runway followed by radar vectors towards rising terrain(ATC error).The instructor should aim to challenge the crew's situational awareness at the least inopportune moment but never in a contrived manner.

[john_tullamarine]

Rananim ... but a tad difficult to organise if you are in the box by yourself ....

[L G Cooper]

All of the above assumes some decent fidelity in the sim. Having flown (struggled) in a number of sims both fixed and rotary, I've walked away feeling less confident of my hands and feet skill than of my ability to manage various emergency scenarios. The control laws are not in harmony with the real aircraft and often I'd have to implemement short term work arounds that I'd have to undo on return to work.

That being said, engine failures with low minima in VMC with a turnback to the reciprocal or cross runway (for the all engines out case) or a OEI climb away IMC/VMC with high DA and rising terrain work me hard to meet the numbers and apply good judgement. :ooh:

LGC

[Centaurus]

Apart from the sheer enjoyment of barrel rolls in the 737 simulator (off-motion of course) and very good in IMC for unusual attitude recoveries if caught behind an A380! - I found the following manoeuvres handy for keeping up stick and rudder skills in a raw data no automatics (not even autobrakes or autothrottle ) situation.

35 knot crosswind landing from 1500 ft on VASIS only (no ILS). This really exposes the difficulty of accurate visual centre-line tracking without the aid of an electronic display. Repeat approach this time on ILS raw data from 1500 ft Cat 1 weather minima. – good for rapid scan, but watch for it to go ape on becoming visual with the runway. 1500 ft is chosen because most simulators can be automatically positioned at 5 miles from the runway and it saves time.

Raw data take-off on ILS runway with simulator visual display switched off – ie total blackness. Keep straight on centre-line by scanning HSI localiser needle. Then proceed to fly 2000 ft circuit and intercept ILS by means of combination ADF and DME if available and land, flaring at 30-50 feet on radio altimeter.

After touch down keep straight on localiser applying reverse and manual brakes. On reaching zero ground speed, park brakes, get out of seat and switch on the visual display. If close to centre-line and stopped on correct side of localiser, beam with pride regretting no one to see what a good job you did – if not, weep bitter tears and try again. This is a first class manoeuvre aimed at increasing the rate of your instrument scan.

Position at 10,000 ft visually on dead side of 7000 ft runway and execute a dead stick landing. These landings have happened. Remember the “Gimli Glider” Air Canada 767 flapless dead stick landing? The captain later observed that if he had only been given the chance of just one dead stick landing in the simulator, he would approached the landing with more confidence. Now is your chance. If complete stuff-up, then try again until within a bull’s roar.

Slippery runway, strong crosswind landing flown from typical 1500 ft visually. This is to give you the practice at juggling reverse thrust back to idle in order to stop the aircraft sliding sideways under the influence of reverse, then going back to full reverse in conjunction with appropriate rudder pedal steering. Sounds complicated? You better believe it. If not, read the Boeing FCTM on the subject and you will see it is complicated and requires good stick and rudder skills. Practice until competent.

Immediate low level circuit after lift-off - the object being to get the aircraft back on the ground in minimum time commensurate with safe flying following (say) bomb threat or severe cabin fire after lift-off. Interestingly, some years ago, this manoeuvre was included by El Al Israeli Airline as part of command training on the 737NG. In the environment they operated in, one can see their reasons for practicing this manoeuvre. Sound handling skills should get you back on the ground within two minutes of the warning occurring on lift-off.

Set simulator up for five mile final again. Switch off all the visual lighting selections on the instructor panel except the landing runway. This includes taxiway lighting, airport lighting, visual horizon and enviroment (city and suburbs) lighting leaving a true black hole approach. Attempt a visual approach with no visual or electonic aids. The object of the exercise is to reveal the difficulty of flying an accurate approach angle without glide slope guidance. In other words avoid it.


There are other scenarios of your own choosing but all with the object of retaining basic stick and rudder skills that one day might stand you in good stead. Finally, a quote worth keeping in mind from that eminent test pilot Captain D.B.Davies in his "Handling the Big Jets"

"Do not become lazy in your professional lives. The autopilot is a great comfort, so are the flight director and approach coupler. But do not get into a position where you need these devices to complete a flight.

Keep in practice in raw data ILS, particulalrly in crosswinds. Keep in practice in hand- flying at altitude and in making purely visual approaches....as we get older we all become slightly more lazy, slightly more tired - and this is a bit of a trap.

The demand of jet flying can best be met by enthusiasm. Personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value because it is a built-in productive force, and those who have it do not have to be pushed into practice and search for knowledge. Enthusiasm thus generates its own protection. This is the frame of mind which needs to be developed for the best execution of the airline pilot's task.

[GlueBall]

Barrel roll;
deep stall;
all engines out dead stick landing from 10,000'

[Bumz_Rush]

Sim checks, are as suggested a box ticking exercise.....I wonder if it would be possible to legislate for a "mandatory free time", of say 30 mins for the dead stick approach, etc, etc.

Normally by the end of the required sessions we are not very happy to sit and sweat for another 30 mins...but the best sim sessions I have ever had, have ben the dead stick approach, and the ONE engine take off.


How can we get back to flying the aircraft, rather than the computer....when it all goes wrong, usually the computer fails not the airframe.....

Bumz

[LEM]

Before 9/11 we sometimes finished our session by a free ride around Manhattan, passing under the bridge, in between the Twins, and eventually with a double flameout and landing at JFK.

Also flying THROUGH tall buildings was as exciting as stupid... but after 4 hours at 100% it was a well earned videogame.

Then we realized the visual display is duplicated in the control room, and wondered what the guy outside may have been thinking of us.... :O


I like the scenarios suggested by Centaurus, and wish I could have more instructors like him.

Mastering the fundamentals of flying is what gives you incredible confidence, over which you can build all the rest.

[Caudillo]

Agree 100% Bumz Rush - excellent thread, good on you Centaurus for coming up with it!

[alexban]

when time remains at the end of the sim we usually have this 'what do you want to do,guys?' time.
It is the most fun and self confidence building flight i've ever had.No engine landing from different altitudes and distances from the rwy,different landing gear configuration landings,extremely strong crosswinds (we have a tre which had to land the real 737 at 59 kt crosswind) ,pilot incapacity after v1,followed by some major failure and SE ,single pilot landing.. or most lately:'you take off and land in one minute,no other requirement" -it's superb.
And yes LEM,the display is duplicated in the computer room.Last time we did a take off in FRA,and compulsory land in less than one min,I did a continuous left turn,at 500' ,60 deg bank,land at the middle of the rwy 25L in about 40 sec ;) ,I found an A4 sheet of paper ,with the flight diagram depicted on it,waiting for us at reception when we exited the sim.And the guys there were quite smiling..they had some fun too,I guess..

[A37575]

Personal practice would include 250 knot idle descent IMC with speed-brakes extended then GPWS pull-up warning followed by immediate pull-up ensuring speed-brakes in after firewalling thrust and pulling up (all simultaneously where possible). Practice till perfect. And: All flaps up landing on minimum legal length runway.

[AirRabbit]

Gentlemen (and Ladies – assuming at least some of you are of the more gentle persuasion)

I completely agree with Caudillo – this type of information is truly valuable, and Centaurus, you know my interest and the importance with which I will take the information generated from this thread. Here’s hoping that more will join and add their thoughts as well.

The only word of caution I would offer for all the excellent suggestions here is the following: simulators, for all they are and do, are, after all is said and done, simply computers that are programmed to do certain things. Certainly, everyone here who is, or has been, confronted with periodic exposures to the dreaded simulator check or training period can verify, simulators have come a very long way in past 15 – 20 years. While everyone in the business continually strives to ensure that simulators are as accurate and as faithful to the handling and performance of the airplane as can be achieved, simulators are still limited in certain ways. Basically, the equations of motion used in simulation are modified with values from a specific airplane that are gathered during flight testing of that airplane. The more data taken, and the more that data can be found to be accurate (e.g., the same values found through repeated attempts), the more reliable will be the “mathematic model” of how that airplane performs and handles. However, you must recognize that this “accuracy” is ONLY available for those areas where data has been gathered. Because the airplane is flown during its development and certification in those areas prescribed by rule (and whatever else the airplane manufacturer deems necessary, if any) those are going to be the only areas where the simulation will replicate the airplane.

Going back to the “dark ages” of simulation, people were highly critical (and justifiably so) of either the handling or the performance of the simulator (or both) when compared to the airplane. Pilots were always citing the lack of realism and the inaccuracies of how the simulator “flew.” However, over the past 2 decades, these critical comments have been less and less, and pilots have become increasingly confident in what the simulator presents. We have touted the accuracy and reliability of simulation for so long now, and done so in such loud and authoritative voices, I believe we may have “over sold” our product in one key area. While the highest level of simulators available (“Level D”) is treated as though it IS the actual airplane, even this level is still made up of computers, programmed with data gathered during flight tests. If the Level D simulator is taken to a flight condition that is outside of the flight tested flight envelope, there is absolutely NO guarantee that what you will see/hear/feel is anything close to what you will get if the same circumstance is encountered in the airplane. Don’t get me wrong. We can extrapolate the data with all of the aerodynamic concerns raised – however, no one can confirm that what has been extrapolated is accurate. Of course, those data points immediately beyond the flight tested area are probably not terribly inaccurate, if they are inaccurate at all. However, the farther away from those flight tested areas you go, the less and less you can trust what you’re seeing and feeling.

Even in the “tried and true” acrobatic maneuver of a “one-g” barrel roll comes into question. While it is quite true that if a pilot were to maintain a “one-g” flight condition (give or take a fraction of a “g”) throughout a barrel roll maneuver, the airplane would never know the difference; there are some aerodynamic models that are dependent on pitch angle and roll angle relative to the horizon and side-slip angle relative to the direction of flight. If the aerodynamic model (“aeromodel”) in a given simulator is dependent on these factors, then a bank angle beyond some undetermined value (usually at or slightly beyond what is typically a flight-test maximum), modified with what has been flight tested, may wind up providing a calculation that includes “division by zero.” In such circumstances, there is no telling what the simulator would do or not do. For example, I’ve seen simulators that after having been "flown" to a given pitch and bank (beyond what you would see during normal flight) with no additional control input, just “stays” at that same pitch and bank … forever. Certainly no airplane would do that.

Other aeromodels that include true 360 degree pitch, roll, and yaw capabilities will certainly provide a resolution to the pilot input – whatever that input may be. However, once outside the flight tested parameters, there is absolutely no guarantee that what the pilot will see, hear, and/or feel will be anything like what s/he might expect under the same circumstances in the airplane.

It is for these reasons that there is a growing interest in what I believe is the mistaken practice of using airplane flight simulators as routine, post accident investigation tools. If the accident occurred without the airplane getting outside of its flight tested envelope and did not incur control deflections greater than those experienced during flight test – a simulator might be able to be used to significant assistance. Please note, I said “might.” And it will be a very safe bet that if the accident airplane got outside of that flight tested envelope and/or had control deflections outside of those same areas, what is ultimately seen in the simulator is not what the accident airplane did. So, some of the suggestions here, may be a bit beyond what you might want to do in a simulator. I would be very regretful if someone were to be having "fun" in a simulator after his/her check ride and later see the same (or very similar) circumstances, and confidently do what was done in the simulator, only to find that what happened was to make the situation worse -- and I'll leave any "extrapolation" of that to the knowledgable readers here. I'm just advocating that we not practice the wrong thing.

So, again, Centaurus, thanks for asking the questions, and I hope many more ideas are posted. Already there are some really good ideas for how a simulator can – and in my opinion – should be used, at least periodically, for pilot exposure to situations and conditions that might not otherwise be seen or recognized. Lets just do so knowingly and knowledgably. Please.
_______
AirRabbit

[ZFT]

AirRabbit,

A very nice analysis of the limitations of FFSs.

One point – There seems to be a popular misconception the Level ‘D’ sims have better handling characteristics than Level ‘C’ sims.

In reality (dependant upon the certifying authority) the only real difference in handling between the two will be will objectively matched motion buffets and some specific aero effects, but nothing to the basic handling qualities.

[redsnail]

Last recurrent I did we had some "play time" left over after the check. Instead of escaping to some cool drinks we used that time. We did some jet upset recoveries at 1,000' as well as some double engine failure with glide approaches.

That was fun. :eek: :ok:

[Centaurus]

AirRabbit. Thanks for excellent reply - points taken. There is a fine line between "playing" in the simulator and purposeful practice at sequences such as max crosswind landings on slippery runways or approach sequences involving dark night low visibility manual handling. The latter is where pilot-induced-oscillation (PIO) has been known to occur.

Seldom are these exercises seen in an airline syllabus of training. It would a pity if pilots were discouraged from practicing them simply because of lack priority based on available time left in the session.

In addition, crews rarely have easily understood technical information available for them to decide the acceptable limits of simulator fidelity. Commonsense must prevail here.

[Old Smokey]

You have an excellent thread running here Centaurus, 10 out of 10 for a good effort.

I know that I'm echoing a good deal of what has already been said here, but there is a good case for recurrent training in set-piece scenarios, e.g. Engine Fire upon rotation, Instrument failures etc. These give the trainee confidence in managing the more serious events that can take place. What concerns me, both as an instructor and a student, is when the entire simulator detail is to a pre-written script. Much book bashing precedes the Sim detail, and the detail then becomes a test of how well the student can recall what he/she has read, with little opportunity to exercise situation management in unexpected situations (all abnormalities on real flights are unexpected, and out of left field).

I would consider that an ideal recurrent detail would be split into 3 portions, the first being for practice at the important 'set-piece' manoeuvres.

The second portion could be addressed to requests from the trainee for practice at various manoeuvres / situations. Obviously the student has requested these because of his/her perceived need to experience and manage particular situations that they feel a lack of confidence / understanding for.

The third portion could be at the instructor's discretion, giving a number of problems 'out of left field'. In my experience as an Instructor and a Student, I find the most value in these. Generally (but not always) they serve as great confidence builders for the student, in developing and exercising their management of unexpected situations. These may even be injected into the 'set-piece' exercises, such as engine failure, instead of the 'expected' flame-out a bird strike / compresser stall / excessive EGT may be substituted as the cause. How many instructors initiate an RTO with a below target N1/EPR instead of the expected flame-out? (Are you still on line greybeard, Yup, you were good at that). I tend to disagree with greybeard in his assertion that Asian students didn't like stepping out of the box of the set-piece routine. Certainly, in a very 'boxed' culture, there was a fundamental resistance, but, given the opportunity to 'free-range', most accepted it with great gusto.

My most memorable student was a Command trainee who insisted that I keep loading him up until he could handle no more. I was running out of simultaneous failures to a ridiculous level, but he continued to handle it well, very well in fact. It raised quite a sweat, but at the end of the detail stepped out with the words; "Now I know that I'm ready for command". It was a great confidence booster for him, and he did inded become a very good Captain, Instructor, Check Airman, and Management pilot.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[john_tullamarine]

.. and, likewise, I recall with some fondness a particular upgrade crew (74 F/O to initial 73 command and 74 S/O to 73 F/O). We thrashed engine failures to death during one extended session with the result that both could comfortably and competently address critical handling failures (min weight, aft CG, minV1, seizure or similar during the rotate, and backtrack the opposite localiser - try it sometime .. even allowing for sim fidelity problems, it presents a bit of a handful for the first few attempts).

The command upgrade student had been a little defensive in several earlier sessions but he unwound completely after this one ... I recall quite clearly his comment along the lines of "I was always a bit frightened by failures but now, too easy ...". This pair, in a later session leading up to their low vis quals, had similar views about overtraining when they got to the stage of being quite comfortable (if a bit sweaty) on handflown raw data 0/0 ILS to a full stop.

A number of these crews had serious I/F problems due to too much time on the widebody without enough concern to the next endorsement ... it was VERY satisfying seeing the sort of standards that the small group of contract instructors (of which I was a part) pulled out of these folk ... took a lot of good will and hard work on both sides but it was great fun....

At the end of the day, it is really a case of trying to scrounge some extra time for confidence and skills building in the face of the Great God Dollar.

Likewise, as a young FO on my first jet, I can recall sitting right seat to one of our old checkies ... one of his mates was playing the panel and all sorts of interesting things were thrown at him. As I recall he was able to handle multiple wings falling off and the like with grace and dexterity... although, at one stage when everything imaginable was happening (and I remember this as clear as ..) he turned to the FE, who was playing the Wurlitzer with much skill, and said words to the effect of .. "I say, old son, when you have a spare moment, could you possibly do XYZ".

I would have dearly loved to have had the seniority to fly the line with this guy to learn a bit at the feet of a Master.

[Centaurus]

J at T. "Playing the Wurlitzer" I love that. I wonder how many of the younger set would know what the Wurlitzer really was?

Old Smokey. A little gimmick that I occasionally introduced during "playtime" at the end of a session had a surprising ending once upon a time. This was to leave the simulator and take one student with me for a cup of coffee, leaving the other pilot to carry out a solo circuit with no one else in the simulator. Of course, the simulator was placed on no motion while we were away.

Outside the simulator it was easy to hear the sound of the gear being extended downwind and to hear the sound of reverse thrust after touch-down. We would open the door to the simulator in time to see the solo student applying the parking brake on completion of the landing run.

We (the second student and I) would give the solo student a hearty round of applause and a hard copy of the track on the instructor's panel would be printed and given to the solo student as proof of "First Solo".

The reaction of Asian students to this was quite heart warming as their normal impassive reserve broke into smiles all around.


And then one day I was running this little show again (it takes all of ten minutes and is worth every second in confidence building as a pilot incapacitation exercise) with a couple of highly experienced former Bae 146 pilots, one of whom was a tough looking bloke and seemingly quite cocky during his type rating.

Off he went on his first 737 solo while his F/O and I had our cuppa outside and listened for the landing. That done, we changed over and sent his mate on his first solo. As the tough bloke and I walked to the coffee room with the printed copy of his solo circuit in his hand, he turned to me and shook my hand which caught me completely by surprise, and said "Thanks for that solo - you have completely restored my love of flying with that experience of flying by myself."

He explained that he had been slaughtered in the 146 simulator in his previous company and was dreading failing the 737 type rating. In fact he had flown the 737 quite well during our sessions leading to the solo playing - but apparently underneath a gruff exterior he had been all nerves.

Maybe there is a moral to this tale, but one thing is for sure - and that is the solo circuit was never in any syllabus of training - but it was worth it for one bloke, anyway.

[AirRabbit]

ZFT wrote:

A very nice analysis of the limitations of FFSs.
One point – There seems to be a popular misconception the Level ‘D’ sims have better handling characteristics than Level ‘C’ sims.
In reality (dependant upon the certifying authority) the only real difference in handling between the two will be will objectively matched motion buffets and some specific aero effects, but nothing to the basic handling qualities.

I agree with you 100%, sir. In addition to the objectively matched buffets and some specific aero effects, there are also objectively measured sounds (the specificity of which is about to be set out and be a bit more germane to the flight tasks at hand) and I feel relatively confident of more highly favorable “Cooper-Harper” ratings with the wider field-of-view visual systems that are going to be required of Level D. We’ve come a very long way – but a simulator is still not the airplane.

I am really impressed with the breadth and depth of the comments here. Hopefully some of this will make its way into the halls of the training gurus around the world – and anointed by the relevant regulators – of course they’re never irrelevant, right?
________
AirRabbit

[Ignition Override]

You all have excellent ideas, which I can not surpass.

Practicing PRMs (closely-spaced parallel approaches, possibly ILS and an LDA) might not be worth the time spent on them, at least not each year.

As for engine failures, we (most of us) all need practice on V1 cuts.

How about already coming down the glideslope with a quick flameout, or better yet, descending from the FAF at 1200'/min. on a non-precision? This could be excellent training for a rare but possible problem-maybe best not as checking item, but to make us much better pilots. For the laymen out there, a non-precison is a misnomer, and requires much more work than a precision, because there is no glidepath indicator (except on some new aircraft which have an artificial glideslope for all database approaches), and the descent rate must be managed with our hands and changing the power settings and various descent rates: we extend landing gear with full flaps before the final approach fix. It is very hard to remember how to figure out where a visual descent point should be (no DME, especially on the NDB). I forgot a year ago.

Already at the MDA with Maximum Drag and an engine goes bang?:ooh: You need lots of power when fully configured for level flight-how about level with all this drag and trying to push up the good engine as you think what flap setting you need to AVOID a descent into the cloud/fog-covered ground, but not risk a stall?

Memorize this life-saving "technique", along with about how much extra rudder input you need, before it is too late. We have NO automation (just altitude hold), but might have 122 passengers in the longest stretched series.

As for a random flight control failure, try one with a stuck (up) spoiler panel. This is quite awkward and challenging-you might roll up to 75-80* bank (in the simulator) before you recover.:(

[Centaurus]

If anyone has doubts about the safety value of keeping in regular simulator practice at basic hand flying raw data flying skills, then suggest you read the Pprune Rumours and News continuing thread on the Eygptian Flash-Air B737-300 accident that occurred under CAVOK dark night conditions in January 2004 at Sharm-el-Sheikh killing 140 people.

The CVR transcript makes for chilling reading especially the repeated calls by the panicking captain as PF for the autopilot to be engaged as he lost the plot trying to hand fly a normal climbing turn. The aircraft went into the ocean at 406 knots with the pilot still trying to engage the autopilot. I recall a similar tragedy involving an totally incompetent crew of an A320 that hit the water at similar speeds somewhere in the Middle East a few years ago.

It is clear that regulatory authorities in UK and other parts of the world need to do more than just just show "concern" at the lip service paid by operators to maintenance of basic handling skills.

While the Flash Air crash is an extreme case (in more ways than one it seems) of total pilot reliance on automatics to the exclusion of all else, there is no doubt in my mind that a similar mind-set exists in the flight operations management of most airlines.

When the switching off of a flight director is perceived as a potential heart attack event, what hope is there for those pilots who wish to maintain raw data skills both in the air and in a simulator? Government Examiners of Airmen must step in and stop this rot of now dangerously diminishing basic flying skills caused by airline management insistence of use of one hundred percent automatics from lift off to near touch-down.

[john_tullamarine]

I think that the best explanation came from an older colleague some years ago .. and one who would be known to Centaurus in earlier days ..

Said colleague had a million or so hours on large piston (DC3) and turboprop (with some dated military jet) and was in the process of doing his first civil airliner twinjet endorsement ..... ie he was more than used to having to work out what the AH etc was telling him ...

Lad was having a hard time of it, what with flight directors and similar nonsense, and the normally high levels of self-confidence were settling progressively into the depths of the mud and silt .....

THEN ... came the standby power session in the box ...

.... lad came out walking on the clouds ..... "hey, mate, they turned off the winking and blinking lights and the other geezus boxes .... it's just like a REAL aeroplane ..."

[Ignition Override]

Centaurus and John The Moderator:

A very advanced airliner had a very close call with the ground near Las Vegas not too long ago, at night!. Something to do with hand-flying and the TOGA detent required for full go-around power?

The pilot who is familiar said that he also had an interesting problem when hand-flying a go-around. Don't know whether the flight director was on or off.

Coming from other planes and about 15-25 years flying experience, many pilots find it very difficult to slam the throttles up to the firewall (to find the TOGA detent), unless training for stall or windshear recovery; this happens only once per year. But this is normal for a go-around/missed approach on many new aircraft, or only when hand-flying? :confused:

[Centaurus]

Dunno about that as I haven't personally "slammed" the throttles to firewall thrust or TOGA thrust, either. I think it was a CRJ or similar that crashed during a very late IMC go-around in France last year killing some of the pax. He was way off the ILS centreline in fog and despite calls from the F/O to GA, he left it very late. He failed to rotate to the GA attitude and hit the deck in level attitude.

The investigation criticised the operator for not conducting proper low level GA training of its pilots and not making efficient use of the simulator for this purpose. That is not uncommon for numerous airline operators.

It is quite common to see runway level GA botched up during simulator training - if it is done at all. Mainly due to failure to rotate to GA attitude.

Also have seen people press TOGA and if for some reason the throttles do not advance, they keep on frantically pressing TOGA instead of over-riding and pushing the throttles open manually. Couple that with poor attitude control and the scene is set for a hit runway go around.

If low level IMC GA are done it is usually on automatics where all the crew does is to press TOGA and make the appropriate flap and gear selections. All too easy when compared to the basic handling skills needed to conduct a manual IMC GA. Example loss of all forward vision due heavy rain at the flare.

[john_tullamarine]

Another two thoughts

(a) V1 cut is easy-peasy ... try the cut during the rotation flare immediately after liftoff instead where it all gets interesting due to being a much more dynamic situation .. especially at low weight/speed schedule. Pilot has to control both yaw and roll rates, both of which get a bit interesting. If this is OK, then the V1 cut can be done with a cup of coffee in one hand ...

(b) slam accel on multis has another risk - directional control problems if OEI, if the failure occurs during the slam, or if the accelerations are grossly asymmetric for some reason. Keep in mind that many engines are not mechanically limited and can run up above their rated thrust without too much effort. I can recall one accident investigation where we ended up putting the probable cause to a confusing (to the crew) asymmetric thrust situation (without a failure) where it was very likely that a mishandled power increase caused a Vmc style departure during the early airborne takeoff phase... crash, burn, many die.


Centaurus' observations about automation-centric pilots persevering with the buttons when the stick and throttles etc are right in front of them is seen regularly in high workload sim situations .. a bit like the parachutist who perserveres with a hard pull main instead of going for the reserve ... not generally a successful strategy. This presumes that basic I/F stick and rudder skills have not be allowed to atrophy, of course.

Guess I was fortunate when I went onto my first exposure to whizz bang technology .. the operator went through a short-lived flirtation with "must do it with the buttons" and then moderated to a "know both ways, use the most appropriate at the time, just don't screw up and embarrass the boss".