Recurrent - How do you deal with it?

[BoeingThom]

I was just wondering how you anyone here deals with the pressure before reccurent?

I know that here there are a few lads who are under books for two weeks solid.

I try and read a chapter a month, on the road, how about you?

Tom

[Kit d'Rection KG]

I enjoy checks, whether line or sim, and don't do anything special for them. Remember that checking is not (or should not be) a trapping process, but rather, on the one hand, your employer making sure you're competent, and on the other, offering you the chance to get that little bit better, and to rehearse unusual things which you hope not to see on line.

If you set out to excel, day by day, the checks will become a pleasure. On the other hand, if you set out to do the bare minimum to remain employed, you can bet your bottom dollar that a decent training system will find this out.

So, keep on top of things, be aware, rehearse possible problems day by day (just by thinking them through and checking that you're up to speed on procedures, technical knowledge etc), and then look forward to your checks.

Trainers generally don't like working with fearful candidates, and they get real pleasure from seeing people do well.

[JW411]

Make sure you have read your books and have your SOPs and limitations bang up to date before you turn up. As a TRI/TRE I can forgive a lot if you are well prepared but I get pretty pi**ed off if you can't even be bothered to prepare yourself. (In fact, my last Flight Ops Director considered that anyone who presented himself on a flight deck without knowing his recall items, SOPs and limitations as being criminally negligent).

Having prepared yourself then the next most important thing to do is to relax! You will always perform better if you are relaxed. I know it is hard to do but think of your LPC/OPC as being a useful and positive learning experience and not one of the seven labours of Hercules.

It is also counter-productive to trot out the usual moans about not feeling at your best at 0300 in the morning etc etc. We have heard it all before and understand the problem. Any decent TRI/TRE will make due allowance as to the time of day etc. What does get pretty tedious is a constant string of excuses.

Be positive, prepare yourself well, try to relax and set your mind to making best use of what should be a good learning experience. I have been around simulators since 1962 and I have to tell you that the best part of it all is still the cold beer afterwards!

[Old Smokey]

Frankly, if you're going to feel any pressure at all, it should be before a normal flight in the real aircraft. If you screw up in the simulator, then it's an uncomfortable situation, but an opportunity to learn something valuable. If you screw up in the aircraft, the stakes are enormous.

By living in a state of keeping up to date with notices etc., and a relaxed cycle of refreshing all systems and procedures in your own time, as Kit d'Rection KG has suggested, you will be well prepared for any flight, including line check, or any simulator recurrent session or base check.

'Examination nerves' are well understood by most check airmen, and a professional examiner will make due allowance for this, much as a good doctor will make due allowance for 'Medical Examination nervousness' in elevated BP, pulse rate etc.

I'm in agreement with JW411 that, as an examiner, I am pi$$ed off by a student who has made no real effort to know the aircraft and procedures as he or she should. If, on the other hand, I encounter another student whose preperation has been good, but is of a low level of understanding, then it's a different matter altogether. It's rewarding to be able to assist such a person in generating a better understanding.

If you're up to date with everything for 365 days per year, there should be no more preparation necessary than for a normal flight.:ok: If you can do that, the pressure disappears altogether.;)

Regards,

Old Smokey

[fireflybob]

This is a very interesting subject. As has been previously intimated a lot also depends on the ability of the "instructor/examiner" to put the candidate at ease. Inevitably one is going to feel more or less relaxed with different individuals but remember even the instructor has experience of undergoing checks him/herself!

From the purely logical point of view one should be thoroughly prepared and most companies these days give an indication of the types of system failures etc which will be covered in a particular detail prior to the event and some also require "open book" questionnaires to be completed beforehand.

However there are also ways to programme your subconscious mind to complete the check in a relaxed and successful manner. Your brain does not know the difference between an ACTUAL experience and one that is vividly IMAGINED on a regular basis. Mentally picture yourself performing exactly as you would like - picture the debrief where the instructor is complimenting you on an outstanding performance. Also, be careful about how your "self-talk" is programming you. Terms such as "the sweat box" etc cause your brain to think in a certain manner. You can have fun with this and think of all sorts of metaphores to describe the experience etc. Use empowering affirmations such as "My performance in the simulator is getting better and better everday" and write this down 10 times first thing in the morning when you wake up and again just before you go to sleep. This way you are programming your subconscious mind which will go to work to bring about the reality you want without you even having to think about it! Now I know some of you will be thinking "What a load of rubbish - how can that stuff make any difference?" . I can assure you it DOES work - just try it and see and there are plenty of books on the market which will point you in the right direction.

Finally, remember that "failure" is an event not a person! If a pilot fails a check this is as much, in my opinion, a reflection on the "system" as the individual! That does not mean we should not take individual responsibility for our performance but just do your best and learn from the outcome. We usually learn most from our "failures" and usually you do not die in the simulator!

Good Luck!

[Kit d'Rection KG]

most companies these days give an indication of the types of system failures etc which will be covered in a particular detail prior to the event and some also require "open book" questionnaires to be completed beforehand.

...all of which is either a tacit admission by training management of the de-skilling of our profession or a sop to those who don't achieve high standards of professionalism by commercially-motivated managers (who don't pay enough or won't provide high quality selection and training).

If you do work for a company which publishes simulator exercises beforehand, I would strongly advise you not to read them, in fact throw them away, and thereby avoid lots of potential traps. Remember the aeroplane doesn't know what's on this season's check schedule, and it's the one which will really make a difference to your career...

...if you're competent to fly the aeroplane, you'll pass the simulator with ease, and enjoy it too.

[RoyHudd]

None of the above actually addresses the issue that many pilots are apprehensive of sim checks, including some very able people who perform exceptionally well on the line.

Firefly Bob's ideas are fascinating, and JW411/Old Smokey's perspectives seem reasonable enough, but the fact remains that anxiety surrounds many pilots' attendance and subsequent performance in the sim.

My belief is that the exercises tested are unrealistic mainly in terms of the rapidity of switching from one scenario to another, and that certain individuals are better equipped than others to make these mental and practical leaps from. say LVP's to an RTO to swapping seats to a rapid decompression and Emergency Descent. This adaptability is not necessarily a measure of performance in real-life emergencies, despite their sometimes complex and variable nature. It seems that stress levels and performance are related to an artificial set of parameters, despite the unbelievably high reality standard of modern-day simulators. And this ultimately leads to anxiety and sub-standard assessments for competent individuals.

How to resolve this problem is an issue that I have insufficient experience to address, but I do believe that the artificiality question needs recognising. (I personally do ok in the sim, and this contribution is not intended as a personal blame-laying issue or an excuse)

[john_tullamarine]

..which highlights the oft-observed factor that a lot comes down to the examiner/instructor.

At the good end are those folk who (while requiring a satisfactory performance) have the personal skills to put the crew at ease and draw out the best from them ... then, at the other end are those examiners/instructors who would have been placed better in a role doing something altogether different.

A lot comes down to the personality of the crew up front .. I can recall a very competent management pilot, who was a good instructor/examiner, but who invariably got a dose of nerves during his own checks .. why ? who knows, for his competence was never in question ... he eventually gave the checking/management roles away and was a very happy chappy on the line ...

[GlueBall]

Training/checking fundamendals should not include a systems memory contest, but rather a measure of the crewmembers' demonstrated flying abilities, overall judgement and attitude.
Notwithstanding the emergency checklist recall items, the training culture of memorizing systems and procedures can be dangerous, especially when airplanes in the fleet are not all standardized. For example, one airplane type could be powered by multiple engine manufactures, and different engine series, all with different parameters, EPR/N1/EGT. . .etc. Different limitations apply.
Furthermore, it has been found that in abnormal situations, scholarly crewmembers, especially those who are gung ho on systems memorization, have a propensity to begin corrective actions before checking and following the QRH step-by-step procedures.
So when the instructor asks: "How many working generators do you need for dispatch?" The correct answer would not be the memorized answer, but: "it's an MEL item."