The Airline interview simulator tests - Are they relevant to current generation jets?

[Centaurus]

With the unprecedented recruiting of pilots by the two major airlines in Australia it is no secret that the interview process includes a manipulative flying skill evaluation test in either a B737 or B767 full flight airline simulator. This test is administered to all candidates regardless of flying experience. Melbourne runway 16 is the commonly used scenario.

It normally consists of a take off, steep turns, climbing and descending at fixed airspeed and rates, holding pattern entry, ILS. Depending on the airline there may be tracking to and from a NDB followed by a Twin NDB approach for Melbourne 16. The test is flown as single pilot without use of flight director, autopilot or autothrottle. Candidates are assessed on their hand-flown, raw data instrument flying skills. Most candidates have never flown jets.

Interestingly, experience has shown the same test administered on current experienced jet pilots brought up on full use of automation, usually results in some embarrassment as high levels of raw data manipulative skills are no longer required of current generation airline crews. Indeed one of the major airlines is known to encourage full use of automation at all phases of flight until 500 feet before touch-down. This includes training circuits and landings in the simulator.

Both the major manufacturers Airbus and Boeing emphasize use of full automation from shortly after lift-off to a few seconds before touch-down - with hand flying used as a last resort. The majors and airline simulator training providers in Australia follow this line.

There is an obvious contradiction. In one area, the airline recruiting test requires the demonstration of manipulative skills in a 737 or 767 flight simulator by pilots who may have never flown anything larger than a Piper Seminole, yet they neglect to demand the same skills of it’s own captains and first officers.

On the other hand the airlines operationally require their crews to conduct the vast majority of flying on automatics including flight management systems – skills easily attainable in most areas by practicing with Microsoft flight simulator games.

Rather than assess future airline pilot candidates on pure flying manipulative skills in a large jet simulator they have never flown – with some coping and some not – would it not be more logical to test these candidates on their computer skills at operating the flight management systems along with automatic pilot, flight director usage and auto-throttle? After all it is these automatics systems skills – and not pure flying manipulative skills – that are now required in modern airliners.

This assessing policy would allow candidates to prepare for the test by improving their computer skills - the very skills Airbus and Boeing say is essential to the safe and economic operation of their aircraft. It would also open up the available pilot market. Practice at home flight simulator computer games is available via the internet to all candidates – whereas few pilots can afford the cost of getting ahead of the mob by hiring an airline 767 or 737 full flight Level D simulator with instructor for even just one hour in order to practice hand flying raw data in a type they have never even sat in the cockpit before. And this does not try address the time lost and cost of airfares to candidates who are forced to travel from interstate to Sydney or Melbourne to book a practice simulator session with an instructor.

The current airline simulator testing policy tends to bias unfairly against candidates who are expected to handle a simulated jet airliner and demonstrate competence at instrument flight sequences such as ILS and Twin NDB approaches in IMC. This all within 45 minutes of sitting in a 767 or 737 flight deck for the first time. Yet, in a normal type rating course of up to 15 simulator sessions, these hand-flown sequences are not introduced until well into the course. And an instructor is on hand to coach the pilots under training. But no such luxury is afforded to the general aviation pilot undergoing a manipulative skills test in the simulator for entry into the major airlines in Australia

[neville_nobody]

Don't underestimate the calibre of people entering airlines. I would say if you were flying a piper seminole at airline entry you would be in the minority. Plenty of guys in regionals and Air Force. So the test is suppose to allow for diverse experience base

Jetstar should certainly drop the sim for anyone with A320 time as flying a 767 has nothing to do with flying a A320.

As for the rest you have to test flying skill somehow so by using raw data you at least give a somewhat level playing field.

Most people seem to fork out a grand to hire the real sim for practice too. Bit of a cottage industry going on there. Dunno what it proves by getting coaching before the test.

[ACMS]

Answer: yes

You gotta start somewhere.

They don't expect a Seminole Pilot to ace a 767 sim, they are looking to see how well you adapt, to see improvement during the session and how fast you pick things up. Come on, stop making excuses for everything will ya.
It's a level playing field, same Sim ride for all.

Would you rather they just concentrate on the psyco babble crap?

[Aussie]

I think its amuzing hearing about qualified guys failing sims. Eg A320 capt failing a sim during an interview, yet he has thousand hrs on type.. Wonder if he can fly the Aircraft..?

[The Bunglerat]

From my own experience, first jet type rating was Airbus. Now I'm flying bright red B737 thingies for you-know-who. Without getting into the tired old A v B argument, I personally prefer the Bus for its superior technology and fly-by-wire advantages. However, if there's a downside to the wonders of FBW sidestick flying, it turns one into a very lazy pilot. This fact was painfully driven home to me when doing my 737 conversion, because I had to "learn" how to fly all over again. So no matter how much automation is available in the modern cockpit, there's always something to be said for basic manipulative skills.

That said, when looking at it from the other side of the coin, what really surprised me during my course was the number of guys/girls doing their jet endorsement who struggled with the aeroplane - not so much from a flying perspective but from getting to grips with the automation. One might argue that they shouldn't be unfairly criticized if they've never flown a highly automated cockpit before, but I would counter it with this: From the outset it was always my intention to eventually fly jets one day. I never set out on a career in aviation, only to settle for retiring in a clapped-out bugsmasher. Thus I took a personal interest in learning all about jet transports long before I ever got anywhere near one. For years I tinkered with both MS Flight Sim and the PS1 B744 sim software. I got my hands on books about glass cockpit systems and all manner of things relating to the operation of a big jet. This knowledge also helped me in my GA flying, because I was taking full advantage of a GPS-coupled autopilot/flight director when other guys flying the same company aeroplane didn't know how to operate the autopilot in anything other than HDG mode. Thus by the time I finally got into jet flying, I was pretty comfortable with many aspects of the day-to-day operation. I'm not saying I was some hotshot rocket ace, just someone who was well prepared. Considering there are so many drivers out there who aspire to this kind of flying, they don't seem to be doing much to prepare themselves for it.

Centaurus touches on a very relevant subject about the issues of becoming over-reliant on cockpit automation, and having known him personally for quite a few years, I know that, at the core, he has always been a diehard stick-&-rudder man. Nevertheless I think it's reasonable to say that both manipulative and automation skills are a vital part of airline flying - and with regard to automation, there are so many resources out there in the public domain (such as the flight sim software as already mentioned), to help aspiring jet drivers get their grey matter into gear. If any of you wannabe's happen to be reading this, my question to you is this: What are YOU doing to make sure you are really ready to get into this kind of flying? At the end of the day, it's not rocket science...

[Capt Wally]

Interesting thread & quiet relivent to todays topics of modern airline assesment. I some time ago now had the opertunity to fly the B727 sim & the then new B767 sim all on the one night thru a very good friend of mine whilst he was training FE's. Yes it was a loooooong time ago sadly ! I had at the time not flown any high performance planes & found that both types (B727 & B767) required different manipulative skills. Whilst the B767 was almost too easy to fly in a normal config (I was amazed at how easy it was to some degree) the B727 was a real handfull (in an abnormal flight situation) and far more challenging/interesting, & I felt like I was really usuing raw skills to manipulate the 3 holer! Some one said here it's a level playing field with the sim check. Correct it is but where in lies the difference is the candidate being tested. I imagine that an actual hands on skills test will always be practicable at the assesment level of an interview but allowance should always be made for the particular candidates previous experience.
I have seen the reverse over the years also Some more senior experienced Capts of heavy metal have struggled to manipulate a plane with more manual input requirements (as others have mentioned in their posts here anyway). IE: basic autopilot & single pilot. Not saying they are not able to fly the above but require different assesments & training.
Enjoy the ride guys, all assesments of yr skills along the way has a two fold effect. One it shows to yourself & the testing officer obviously that you are able to adapt, learn & even improvise. The other effect is that it shows any deficiencies of skills you 'thought ' you had & therefore allows you to perhaps sharpen yr own pencil !:)

CW:)

[galdian]

Certainly an intersting post.
If you want a straight, absolute yes or no answer it would (IMHO) be no - the sim assessment has passed it's use by date.

Personally I believe the single greatest asset to safety is CRM although I am well aware that in all cultures there are the individuals who cannot, or will not, make it work because of their own personalities and indeed there are cultures who at the best struggle with the concept because it is opposite to their social structure and safety (sadly) is less important than tradition.
Regardless CRM has the potential to allow the greatest overall increase in safety (once again IMHO.)

Assuming you had restrictions on time/money available for assessments I'd be designing exercises that demonstrate:
- an understanding of the benefits of CRM and the personality to make it work;
- the ability to use automation aligned with the ability to use various modes as required to achieve the required result;
- an understanding that the automation is NOT flying the aircraft - YOU always are (may sound stupid but I see it all too often, it's real!);
- situational awareness so that you can judge that what the computer is telling you is "about right" or not;
- an ability to discern what is important and what is not (commonsense, something of a lost ability I sometimes think.)

Certainly there are other aspects to be considered (the ability to do basic maths calculations without taking off shoes and socks comes to mind :hmm:) however the above is the direction I'd be looking in.

Of course there is no reason why the above could not be incorperated into a SIM ride - maybe the emphasis needs to move away from the "ability to fly" towards the "ability to manage" the SIM ride whilst still assessing both.

Anyhow that's my 2 cents worth! :ok:

[Icarus53]

Agreed - an interesting thread.

A quick question to those in jets - do Boeing/Airbus have AP approved for single engine approaches??? Also, to what degree are you required to hand fly during cyclics? Do the exercises require hand flying or raw data at any stage???

In relation to the topic at hand - use of automatics also encouraged in my company, however the AP is not approved for single engine approaches. This means that you do need to keep in touch with your hand flying and basic instrument flying skills or you could come a cropper during cyclics. Cyclics also can include a requirement for raw data approaches and manoeuvres.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the relevance of the test - as some have mentioned, it is not so much about the flying standard as a demonstration of apptitude.

On the subject of testing computer skills - I think you draw a long bow. When the computer doesn't do what you expect (for whatever reason), it's your SA and instrument skills that get you out of trouble until you can get the computer back in play.

Another two cents poorer,

Icarus

[The Bunglerat]

Icarus, both Airbus and Boeing are quite capable of flying autopilot-coupled single-engine approaches. However, whereas the autothrust on the Airbus handles single-engine ops very well, the Boeing does not. In fact, I find the autothrottle logic on the 737 quite sluggish compared to the Bus, and that's with two engines, let alone one - therefore would not be inclined to use it, even if Boeing procedures did permit it (which they do not, by the way).

[Icarus53]

Thanks Bunglerat - good info.

How about any requirement to hand fly during cyclics? Do many blokes do some hand flying on the line from time to time?

[ITCZ]

All above points covered, in fact more than covered, in the UK CAA paper "Flight Crew Reliance on Automation"

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2004_10.PDF

(IMHO) be no - the sim assessment has passed it's use by date.

Personally I believe the single greatest asset to safety is CRM

Galdian, have to say that I disagree with you.

Got my first taste of full automation 3 yrs ago. Fantastic stuff, loved it. Took me a little while, and a few surprises, to realise that there was still an aeroplane under all that automation!

Despite what the glossy brochures say, automation does not replace piloting skills and knowledge. In some ways, it creates a greater overhead of knowledge and skill for the pilot. You need to know everything we knew before, PLUS the automation, and its limitations. It requires advanced CRM behaviours and greater mental agility, introducing the concept of strategic use of levels of automation, and at the same time reduces the opportunities to practice and retain basic flying skills. In earlier generation jets you practiced hand flying every time it was your sector. Now you have to think and plan when to hand fly.

Boeing still writes procedures in the FCOM abnormal section for Dual FMS Fail, MCDU Lock Up, FD Fail, Airspeed Unreliable/Erratic, etc.

Automated aircraft have wings, have mechanical thrust producing devices, fly in the tropopause, operate in airspace that has rules, etc. It is a way of flying, but it is still flying, and will need pilots that know more than how to load a STAR into the FMS.

Pre-employment sim checks of basic IF skills is not old fashioned, it is just as important, if not more important than before. It will show which pilots have taken the trouble to maintain their basic skills, and which applicants let their skills decay (if they ever really possessed them).

yet they neglect to demand the same skills of it’s own captains and first officers.

If you ever get the chance to have a friendly glass of red with a Sim checker or the Head of Training for such an airline, they would tell you how they feel and how they grade 'their own' pilots when those pilots are unable to demo basic manouevres to the expected level! Usually the first return to the sim after going to the new type is enough of a surprise to the pilot -- who then plans some handflying on the line to revive those skills.

The difference is, they could do it to the standard previously, its on their training file. Its lack of practice, not inability, and maybe a little complacency, which will be remedied by a freshly motivated (or embarrased) pilot. Its different when you are hiring, you need to see it first.

[RED WINGS]

Interestingly when I did my first airline sim check I was very low houred came from raw data ops on Senecas and aced it!
Few years of airline flying later mostly glass cockpit where hand flying/raw data practice is frowned upon. I believe the same as most airline ops, I attended a couple of airline sim checks. Difference this time I found it very difficult to cope with and didnt do a very good job! I guess its like everything if you dont use it you loose it! So in theory a youngster will do far better on a sim check than an airline jet experienced pilot so other than you can demonstrate that you have improved throughout the session its useless, much like all the phsyc testing but dont get me started on that one!
But at the end of the day its the airlines toys for them to play with how they wish, depends how much you want the job?