Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training

[Tee Emm]

The vast majority of pilots who are subject to scheduled simulator checks have seen the situation where the check pilot introduces systems failures that are often unrelated. Example: Tyre burst on take off followed by engine failure caused by FOD and maybe asymmetric flap caused by tyre debris. The imagination of some check captains knows no bounds and events like these are sometimes known as double jeopardy failures. Even the aces of the base have trouble coping with this sort of "training."

That said, it is informative to ponder CASA Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 5-23-2 (0) under the chapter Multi-Engine Aeroplane Operations and Training - sub heading Generic Range of Variables. Briefly, this gives CASA's thoughts on flight training and includes the following line of advice:

"Assessment should not involve simulation of more than one emergency at a time".

There are obvious good grounds for that statement based on long established principles of teaching. Yet, many pilots have walked unsteadily from a head banging simulator session convinced they will never make the grade because of a perceived inability to hack multiple emergencies, when in fact it is the instructor that is pushing the bounds of fair and intelligent instruction.

[pa60ops]

I get what you are saying, but are we talking about training or testing/checking here. On the actual check I would expect single failures, but in training - I guess some additional fail items could be expected???

[Muff Hunter]

if that was on a check it sounds like the checky was trying to bend you over.

personally if i felt the checky was being unfair and purposely trying to fail me i'd stop the sim session and ask for a meeting with managment to discuss.................

[PW1830]

TM,
Peruse a few accident reports and you will see that multiple failures do occur and the pilot who can assess and prioritise the the handling of the malfunctions survives.
The simulator is the only place to recreate these.The ability to prioritise malfunctions is an integral part of pilot training.Enjoy!
Shedding a tyre tread can result in ingestion and engine failure - not an unrelated failure.
Not all checklist items or malfunctions are categorised as an "emergency".
Have look at Sioux city etc etc. for examples of pilot skill that you can aspire to.

[neville_nobody]

Not to mention the concord debacle

[The Bunglerat]

Indeed. It is quite a plausible scenario for a shredded tyre to result in further problems, e.g. hydraulic line failure from said tyre debris. That said, I acknowledge that there are some "old school" instructor types out there who think the only way to do their jobs is to load the student up with problem after problem after problem - until they snap. This is not a realistic situation, and the sooner these people hang up their hats, the better.

Training and checking is all just part of the job description, and as long as one continues to work in this industry, it's just one of those things we all have to put up with. However the best operators recognise that the environment should be more "T" and less "C."

[The Green Goblin]

When the hosty spills coffee on your lap knocking your oily chicken kiev onto the CDU modifying the cost index to warp speed along with decoupling the thronomeister from the sphinxter valve, you better be on your game sonny!

[Old Fella]

Having been on both ends of the system, i.e. being trained and being the instructor, I can say with some authority that purposely overloading students with multiple unrelated failures is an exercise in futility which does nothing but satisfy the ego of the instructor. That said there are documented instances where one seemingly isolated emergency has led to multiple problems. One which I will always remember involved a USAF C141 Starlifter 64-0614 departing RAAF Base Richmond in the late 1970's. Shortly after becoming airborne the No 3 engine suffered an uncontained turbine failure, which resulted in multiple holes in the integral wing tanks caused by blade fragments puncturing the skin, the loss of No 4 engine due to debris ingestion and puncture damage causing compressor damage, and just to add to the confusion the cargo hold was holed by hot turbine blade fragments which caused a cargo compartment fire. A successful double asymmetric circuit and landing was accomplished, assisted by some valuable heading vectors to the C141 crew given by a RAAF C130 crew conducting circuit training. Some days it is best to stay on the ground. The aircraft now lies at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base boneyard. So, sometimes multiple failures do occur.

[Roger Greendeck]

Fully concur that too many instructors are tempted to load up the student with multiple emergencies. The usual reason is that if you can handle such a complex situation you will be fine in the more simple ones. The argument against is that whilst when you are left with nothing but your seat height adjust and your dog tags to fly an IMC approach anything you come up with is fine, but most real cases do not require such improvisation. The ability to apply correct checks and procedures can only be tested with simpler emergencies.

As with all things in life balance seems to be the key and thus overemphasis on complex multiple emergencies seems counterproductive.

Having said all that I remember some mates in a Royal Navy Sea King having an engine failure on take off from a frigate and whilst circling to land had a completely unrelated aux hydraulic failure. As Old Fella said 'sme days it is best to stay on the ground.'

[Bullethead]

Over the years I've had several occurrences of multiple unrelated problems in the one flight, so it does happen, and as Old Fella says, sort of, "Some days I'd wished I'd stayed at home". But I hadn't and the problems were all dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

That's still no excuse for overloading a trainee until you find the breaking point, if the seats were swapped and the trainee was givinig it to the trainer his breaking point would also soon be found. No pilot is immune.

I once saw a very overloaded trainee give up and nose the sim over and deliberately crash the thing. A totally wasted sim session, a demoralised trainee, who was actually quite a competent operator, and an instructor who had to rerun a session and explain his actions to his boss. I couldn't, and still can't, see the point of it.

Regards,
BH.

[yowie]

Having sufferred the fate of the glareshield Warning/caution FULL, what TF do I do now situation on an initial endorsement, to be asked by the checkie "how'd ya think ya went", with the inevitable response "huh"?,
I remember a story of a checkie who DID NOT introduce ANY failures into a particular SIM session, only to have, some 4 hrs later, a full blown emergency with almost every system failed. The SIM is an invaluable training tool which unfortunately is being used as a invariable checking tool by tools:ugh:

[ACMS]

Command training LOFT sessions are the worst ( atleast here in CX )

Basically 2 types they will throw at you:--

1/ multiple possibly related problems that you can take your sweet time resolving.
2/ time critical problems with multiple related events. ( depress, cargo fire and eng out ) all caused by the one cargo door blow out. ( for eg )

They want to see your CRM skills, prioritization skills and adherance ( as much as is possible ) to SOP's to get the machine on the ground before the wing falls off!!

A few more grey hairs at the end. :(

They do have to put you under some pressure to make sure you can handle it.

Having said that some checkers do get a bit carried away.

[blueloo]

Green Goblin....
oily chicken kiev


...see you have lost all credibility....eveybody knows chicken kiev is far to luxurious to be served as a crew meal..... and we all know, that some major airlines cannot spare the expense for added oil. For future use on pprune, i suggest you refer to all crew meals as fish or chicken (ie bland white meat easily substituted with any other cheap bland white meat - such as dog, cat or possum) with red sauce.

[BraceBrace]

Multiple socalled "unrelated" failures do happen often, usually because fire or uncontained failures don't limit themselves to one place in the aeroplane. Fire spreads and destroys everything on its path, flying pieces of metal as well. And you cannot simply "neglect" that possibility. Things like these should be trained, but they should be "training" and not checking. Management of checklists, making priorities, personal behaviour, CRM,... these are vital lessons to SURVIVE in those cases (consider UA 232 in Sioux as an example) because all of these situations are all different.

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
oily chicken kiev

...see you have lost all credibility....eveybody knows chicken kiev is far to luxurious to be served as a crew meal..... and we all know, that some major airlines cannot spare the expense for added oil. For future use on PPRuNe, i suggest you refer to all crew meals as fish or chicken (ie bland white meat easily substituted with any other cheap bland white meat - such as dog, cat or possum) with red sauce.

hahahahaha

Well Said :ok:

[allaru]

Sounds like your checkys just that, a checky. Total waste of sim time, and its unfortunate that in this day and age that training departments still attract those sort of knobs.

Its the same old bull **** where ever you go, we as pilots are our worst own enemy, I can't think of any industry where SOME of our own TRY and screw us over on a regular basis.

There are some bloody good trainers out there, who really enjoy what they do, and are good at it, unfortunately every training department has its fair share of idiots, wanting to prove something.

"now this is checking with a small C, and training with a big T, oh but it is still a check....blah blah blah."

"Are there any questions" .."No I think you just about covered everything" THOUGHT BUBBLE ("yes I have heaps of questions but if I ask you'll mark me down on knowledge so I won't ask")

"Now I have a few questions for you"... THOUGHT BUBBLE ("Ok as long as I can ask you some questions that I know the answers to as well")

"now thats it would you like to look at anything else....ah NO not really...... THOUGHT BUBBLE- (id rather f@#k off to the pub cause I've learnt absolutely nothing as usual and I've already had it up to here with your bull****, you've waisted my time and the companies money, see u again in 6 months. Besides which I don't want to risk f$#king something up, cause it is a CHECK after all.)

Best course of action in the mission impossible style sim scenario is to take your time, extended briefings, slow taxi, enter holding patterns, by then the inexperienced sim instructor starts to run out of time, starts cutting corners, has his attention diverted and usually f#$ks something up. The experienced sim instructor will work his way around it, but at least you buy your self some extra time, there are very few situations which require you to land like NOW.

Hope this helps...

[YoDawg]

personally if i felt the checky was being unfair and purposely trying to fail me i'd stop the sim session and ask for a meeting with managment to discuss.................

Harden up.

The machine is there for training as much as practicing. If you go in insisting on knowing in advance exactly what is going to be failed on every session, and then reacting to it like a canned event, then you're cheating yourself.

A lot of people don't seem to realise the training is about doing 90% of the work at home or in the classroom. Knowing the procedures, systems, QRH, etc long before you step into the sim to see it in action.

Treat the session as an introduction to the failures and an invaluable opportunity to figure out how to handle any emergency, not necessarily that emergency.

Sim Psychology - Don't be afraid of the machine. Loaded up with multiple failures? Tough **** - what are you gonna do in real life?? Who ya gonna call? Management on the satphone? Ghostbusters? As I said - harden up. And do your homework.

Okay I know it's a wank but:

First upgrade sim: Bomb threat LOFT scenario. Big fun playing the CRM game. Leads to explosion in fwd cargo, depressurisation over high terrain, #2 Eng Fire, Dual Hyd failure, Flt Cont non-normal (due to Hyd issue). Maybe it wasn't pretty my handling of it and it certanly wasn't fun but I learned a little from it about how to juggle things under pressure. Did I cry to management about how they had more than one major systems failure? Take a guess.

Put in the effort at home in your own time. Don't blame the instructor for expecting you to work.

"Assessment should not involve simulation of more than one emergency at a time".

Is that an exact quote? If so then I'd suggest that "should not" does not mean "shall not" or "must not."

Why train down to an expectation when you can train up to a standard? If you're under training and you can't handle the burst tyre followed by engine and subsequent hydraulic malfunctions then okay, have a little cry and most instructors will usually turn the "Hard" selector to "Easy" for you.

And if it's a "scheduled" check (aka a Recurrent or PPC) then it is usually a canned exercise and there is no reason for them to be introducing the extra malfunction along the way.

So which one is it?

Before the peanut gallery start in with the predictable sledging etc no I don't consider myself an ace; but I do consider myself deserving of realistic training. This means multiple failures a lot of the time, just like (surprise!) in real life. I'll say it again: Harden up.

The canned recurrent sim sessions are easily determined in advance from the other pilots. It's very easy to not learn anything from these sessions. The professional pilot accepts the nature of the "game" and strives to learn regardless of whatever difficulty (including the instructor) he might be facing.

there are very few situations which require you to land like NOW.

Except all the ones mentioned in the QRH of course. Excellent training advice there. And free too.

Best course of action in the mission impossible style sim scenario is to take your time, extended briefings, slow taxi, enter holding patterns, by then the inexperienced sim instructor starts to run out of time, starts cutting corners, has his attention diverted and usually f#$ks something up. The experienced sim instructor will work his way around it, but at least you buy your self some extra time, there are very few situations which require you to land like NOW.

Sorry but that is one of the worst comments I've ever read on this forum. Unprofessional in the extreme. The time in the sim (be it training or regular recurrent) is there for you to be brought up to and/or demonstrate proficiency at.. the standard. The people I've met during my years in the airlines who say things like that quoted above are usually the ones of the lowest standard who shamelessly make excuses in de-brief minutes after their poor performance (which is bad enough) but even worse, usually do not even acknowledge their own complete lack of preparation.

If you've got a beef with the fellow running the sim, too bad. Put in your best while he puts in his worst. Learn from it. Have a beer afterward. Move on. You are paid to do this. If you're the sort who will waste the simulator time, the company's time, the instructor's time, the other pilot's time and your own time with the childish and unprofessional **** quoted above then please do everyone from the CEO to the pax to your fellow crew a favour and quit the airline before you hurt someone.

[waren9]

I agree with most of what you say, if not how you've said it.

When you hear of young fellas new to type actually getting laughed at by checkers in their first company sims you know its gone too far.

Besides checking, these senior guys have a big responsibility (call it CRM or whatever) to set the tone for these new guys to the company, teach them something and mould them into a useful crew member for out on the line. Not to pull them apart, make them feel like a loser and destroy any semblence of self confidence these guys might have had.

Four hours of willy waving by the checker is no fun for anyone, let alone a criminal waste of the best pilot training and CRM resource the company will ever have. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a bit of it in this country.

Personally, I prefer not to learn by rote the company sim sessions. It will fill your head with mindsets about what may not happen anyway. Do your best to know the books and your plane (I'm not the best bookworm), jump in and do it best as you can on the day. After all, we dont go to work knowing whats gonna fail that day, do we?

[wotthe]

Couldn't agree more yodawg.

From my experience people who prescribe to the practise of that described by allaru are actually terrified when they walk in and use those tactics as an exercise in competing with the checky in order to get 'one up' and have him use all of his wiley ways to cover off the matrix requirements and complete the session in the required time. I believe it's their way of dealing with their own 'perceived' inadequacies.

When I come up against these individuals I generally allow them to run out of time and have to come back and do it all over again.
Don't for one minute think that the genuine checky (as opposed to the hatchet weilder) enjoys these tactics.

There is no greater pleasure than seeing a crew perform well, enjoying the experience and hopefully learning something from it. It also makes your job so much easier.

No checky enjoys a difficult session, especially when you know the individuals being trained/checked are going to do it tough from the outset. (you generally know this from previous sessions)

[KRUSTY 34]

What sort of training resources are available to QF, CX, DJ pilots etc... Lately in our company we have seen a dramatic increase in failures, not only for initial (probably a function of declining experience levels), but also amongst recurrent checks for the old hands. Among some of the failures are several Training Captains!

My theory is that in reaction to a nervous CASA the knives on these checks are much sharper than previously. Our ranking system alows for only Two(2) of a ranking of 2, (5 being ace, and 1 being unsatifacory) A 2 is deemed as satisfactory after a de-brief. Score 3 Two's out of a total of 2 dozen or more items, and it's back for a re-check.

Now I'm not saying that the knife shouldn't be sharp, but when you consider that most of these abnormals are being checked twice a year, and the only training available is a 2 hour session the day before, is this really enough when you consider the elevated standard that is now expected?

[A37575]

As with all things in life balance seems to be the key and thus overemphasis on complex multiple emergencies seems counterproductive

Agree. With the overwhelming accent pushed by the aircraft manufacturer's and compliant airline operations managements on full use of all automatics, the last thing pilots need in recurrent simulator training is fanciful scenarios where time is wasted going around in holding patterns on autopilot reading lengthy checklists to cover whatever combinations of non - normals dreamed up by the training department. They already spend ninety-five percent of flight time on automatic pilot.

Ask most airline pilots what, if given the choice, would they like to practice in their available simulator time. Few, I suggest would choose complex double jeopardy scenarios where they are deeply involved in listening to the PNF droning through QRH performance tables, while the PF types useless tosh into a CDU, talks to pretend ATC, flight attendants, engineers and does all the warm and fuzzy stuff that is called CRM and TEM (must tick those boxes).

In his fine book "Handling the Big Jets," the author Captain D.P Davies makes the point about enthusiasm and says " The demand of jet transport flying can be best 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 the search for knowledge...enthusiasm thus generates its own protection and this is the frame of mind which needs to be developed for the best execution of the airline pilot's task."

I suggest most enthusiastic pilots, if given the choice of sequences they would like to practice, would prefer practice at hands on manual flying with no "help" from flight directors, auto-throttles and GPS tracking. It is well documented that automation dulls basic flying skills so rather than pay lip service to that fact, let the pilot get into night landings into limit crosswind components on limiting runways, left and right circuits, all flaps up landings limiting length manual braking, high altitude stall recoveries, low level stall recoveries near the ground in landing configuration. Black hole approaches. The choice is theirs. Real unusual attitude recoveries - not just from 20 degrees up and down. Maximum manual braking on short wet runways. And not just one crack at any of these, but sufficient practice that self confidence is restored.

Oh to be able to walk out of that six-monthly simulator session with your head held high knowing that at least for the short term you are a real airman in the true sense of the word - not just another well paid bored data input processor

[YoDawg]

checked twice a year, and the only training available is a 2 hour session the day before, is this really enough when you consider the elevated standard that is now expected?

Agreed: Two hours of training time is not good before a four-hour check. But the elevated standard is something I have a hard time accepting. If anything, in some areas of the Australian airline world the standard now appears to be lower than previously. This is not hard fact but merely from observation of standards and speaking to trainers in all the different shows in Australia.

The complaining I've read here is from a small number of people. Hard to tell if they're representative or not but you just don't tend to hear people "cop out" like this in face to face. Could this complaining and the "unfairness" claims be the result of the wave of GA drivers which moved rapidly into a new airline a number of years ago? An airline which perhaps did not have a truly firmly established training culture? Just thinking out loud but I never heard this kind of talk when I struggled through my introduction to jets, sims and airline culture all at the same time (just as so many have before and since).

let the pilot get into night landings into limit crosswind components on limiting runways, left and right circuits, .....limiting length manual braking, ......Black hole approaches. .... Maximum manual braking on short wet runways.

Much of that is close to or actually what the qualified pilot is supposed to be proficient at already.

let the pilot get into night landings into limit crosswind components on limiting runways, left and right circuits, all flaps up landings limiting length manual braking, high altitude stall recoveries, low level stall recoveries near the ground in landing configuration. Black hole approaches. .... Real unusual attitude recoveries - not just from 20 degrees up and down. Maximum manual braking on short wet runways.

If you ask the pilot what he wants to practice, of course the average Joe is going to say UAs, steep turns, stalls and other fun stuff.

Unfortunately, the SIM costs money to run and the Regulator insists on (as mentioned) a "matrix" of items to be covered.


Few, I suggest would choose complex double jeopardy scenarios where they are deeply involved in listening to the PNF droning through QRH performance tables, while the PF types useless tosh into a CDU, talks to pretend ATC, flight attendants, engineers and does all the warm and fuzzy stuff that is called CRM and TEM (must tick those boxes).


Well that's true. Few kids would choose to eat their vegetables either but they're good for them! :ok: I find that as much as I hate it because I'm not that good at it, gong through the complex scenarios such as Volcanic Ash encounter or Dual Hyd Failures is some of the best learning process available. Knowing what he'll get beforehand helps the pilot to get the most out of the training but being checked on ANY of the usual Matrix stuff keeps him honest.

This is the real world.


And not just one crack at any of these, but sufficient practice that self confidence is restored.


Oh to be able to walk out of that six-monthly simulator session with your head held high knowing that at least for the short term you are a real airman in the true sense of the word

The military, who are not as constrained by operating costs, have regular sim TRAINING as part of day to day squadron life. They do not always go into the machine knowing what is going to go wrong. This is how it should be for you to get the warm, fuzzy feeling you mention. Alas, we are driven by bean-counters so the only realistic alternative is to do all the work you can before the session and then milk the experience for what it's worth.

Accept the fact you will make mistakes, put them behind you and continue with your professional approach. You may even have to accept putting up with someone who perhaps is not really a suitable instructor or trainer. Just like you may have to fly with someone who is a lousy captain and/or pilot.


If I may, the tip I would offer for what it's worth which may not be much at all is to spend a bit of time AFTER the session making proper notes out of your de-brief notes so the next time you remember what you cocked up and how to do it all better. When someone tells you how something is done, put his name next to that note so you can quote him next session! ;)

[WynSock]

I suggest you build a bridge and get over it. If your employment is not in jeopardy, why worry?

[blueloo]

The Matrix ...or CASA matrix, is the answer given by training departments when it is to hard to change something.

Of course the Matrix is changeable.... it merely depends on what fleet you are on, and whether or not you have a pro-active training manager or trainers... ( the word trainer is more often than not easily interchanged [and often more appropriately] with the word checker)

[A37575]

average Joe is going to say UAs, steep turns, stalls and other fun stuff.

"Fun stuff?" Must say I have never thought of it as fun. More like deadly serious training keeping in mind the latest research that concludes CFIT is no longer the most common cause of airline accidents but that Loss of Control has now reached top place.

[A37575]

The complaining I've read here is from a small number of people

It is only a small number of regular contributors that keep Pprune pages merrily rocking along - leaving the vast majority as interested but silent observers who keep their views (probably wisely) to themselves.

[allaru]

Sorry to disappoint you yo-dag but have never had any of the problems of low standards that you allude to, and have never had to make the excuses you refer to, but thanks anyway for your kind assessment of my abilities. Judging from your references to upgrade sims, I take it you're are newly upgraded, so I'm sure you'll make a great instructor in 6 months time when you have your 500 hours command time....., I look forward to your wise advise, and interesting anicdotes on professional conduct when you check me next....NOT

In the mean time we all agree the sim Should be a great tool for training, but unfortunately its rarely utilised to the the extent that it should be, and for the purpose for which it was designed.

[FlexibleResponse]

The sim is a wonderful machine. We should all be very excited in our approach to every sim training session. Here is the chance for the you to be challenged and cope with emergencies that have happened or will happen to somebody...and give you the knowledge and confidence for you to survive if you see these scenarios in real life.

Sim checking on the other hand is much more stressful. If you realise that both sides of the equation (checker and checkee) are looking for success, then you can make the session easier by ensuring that you methodically check the boxes and ensure that your checker observes you doing so.

Never begrudge the checker or trainer the opportunity to pass on or give you the opportunity to benefit from the checker/trainer's experience. He/she is trying to help YOU.

Aviation is a profession where we learn by pass-down lessons. Learning from practical experience in aviation has a long history of fatal consequences.

[hoss]

been watching this thread for a few days now.

all i have to say is there is now a new acronyn in aviation, SNAP (sensitive new age pilot).

back in my day when i was a young kiddy i used to dream of multiple failures. we never got too worked up until we had lost about 30-40% of the total aircraft systems and first to go was the automatics shortly followed by captains incapacitation.

those were the days;).

[blueloo]

captains incapacitation

Do you mean the aeroplane can still fly after this has happened? :E

[gunshy67]

Well, as usual I always get a surprise and sometimes a good laugh when I see some of these posts.

It seems the flight deck is still populated by the "Hero Class". The long time checker who is the ....."let me show how much I know type".

Then there is the yesteryear types who got bludgeoned into submission and put up with the "learning environment" so they could keep their job.

And of course there are those who believe they are schooled and educated at PHD level ( but are not) as to how training should be conducted.

Dummies some but thankfully not all.

Just keep the macho's out of the training and checking. Make the classroom AKA simulator a real training experience and if you are a product of a good training system then checks ........realistic checks........do not pose a problem.

And one last point........If you have good trainers (educators) do you really need a check?

Mmmmm I am now into the trenches.

Help!

:ugh:

[john_tullamarine]

back in my day when i was a young kiddy i used to dream of multiple failures

I am reminded of a 727 sim check many decades ago as a new chum. Captain (a good lad and very competent) was an old and wise checkie being checked by a mate (who had not the slightest hesitation in loading up his mate with failures). I can remember, as clear as a bell .. we were down to something like one wing, one engine, a couple of standby instruments, no vis, no coffee, etc. etc .. and the old hand needed something to be done by the FE .. leaned back in a relaxed manner and said "when you get the time, old chap, could you xyz for me, please ?".

That sim session gave me a goal for which to aspire when it came to being in front of the aircraft .... I reckon that bloke could keep the bird in the air regardless of what transpired, miracles included. I doubt that I ever achieved anything like his competence but the goal was there, nonetheless.

Seriously, though, in regard to the thread's subject, it is sad to see such a useful training and confidence building gadget as the sim being squandered on excessive button pressing and LOFT (as opposed to manipulative) training activity. It is a pity that dollar reality doesn't permit routine additional training/practice sessions ...

In my simplistic view of life ..

(a) the regulated check bits need to be done as such .. competence against a specific standard has to be demonstrated. This ought not be done in an intimidatory manner .. but it needs to be done.

(b) spare time (and one has to acknowledge the cost problem) is wasted if it is not used to the benefit of the crew.

(c) the realities of a particular sim's fidelity needs to be factored into what might be done/achieved during playtime exercises.

The problems I see are

(i) if a checkie does the training, and this is relevant where spare time is availed within a routine checking sim environment, there is the "problem" regarding what response is appropriate if the crew make a complete hash of a practice exercise (considering the checkie's regulatory delegations).

- does the checkie adopt a standards pass/fail stance ? (in the overall scheme of things such would be a counterproductive path as the great majority of crews, not surprisingly, would choose not to expose themselves to such risk and the opportunity is lost)

- does the checkie manufacture a suitable, non-punitive reason not to complete the session so that additional time can be had to provide for more exposure/training to overcome whatever the performance problem may have been ? Indeed, an operator may have the mechanism to do this without query on the authority of the instructor. I have seen this approach used to productive benefit.

-does the checkie simply ignore the "poor" performance ? I suggest that this is incompatible with regulatory delegations

(ii) if the training is done as (a) separate session(s) by a non-checkie, the regulatory delegation conflict can be avoided but there still is the "problem" of a significant skills deficit in a practice exercise. However it might be done, we should avoid a crew's leaving a session following a less than desirable performance level .. if for no reason other than the confidence issue.

As I see it, the main thing is for the instructor to tailor the manner in which exercises are structured so that the learning steps are kept within manageable increments for the crew in question. Progress needs to be via walking rather than running .. the aim being to minimise the likelihood of confidence-destroying poor performance.

As a for instance, exposure to min speed critical OEI on takeoff needs to be approached progressively, lest the crew's confidence be shattered due to needless rolling inverted and crashing ..

I have seen very experienced checkies (who were dismissive of the need for small steps) force the issue and embarrass themselves needlessly. Several extra truncated failures involving increasing levels of skill difficulty can achieve the end goal without excessive time loss and, more importantly, with miminim risk of counterproductive confidence issues. Slow and steady is not a bad war cry, in my view.

On this particular area of activity, I am reminded of an initial command trainee who was having quite real confidence issues with takeoff failures. We manufactured some additional time and progressively got him to the point where he could handle (confidently and competently, single pilot, raw data, etc) Vmca-limited failures during the takeoff flare with a requirement to backtrack the opposite localiser... needless to say, his worries about "normal" takeoff failures evaporated and we then were able to move on with a much improved confidence level.

So far as multiple failures and loading up the chap in the seat are concerned, we could argue the pros and cons until the cows come home ..

Some thoughts, for the training environment, ..

(a) the exercise should never be about the instructor sitting at the panel .. the instructor is there solely to provide a training/practice service/facilitation to the pilot. If it doesn't provide a benefit to the pilot, then it is wasted time.

(b) some operators provide the opportunity for their crews to use the box during non-scheduled time for practice. If I recall correctly, Qantas did this for the 737 at Melbourne on a fixed base operating basis when I was last involved with that facility ?

(c) reality is that line flying is routine and not able to be used for other than very limited training. ie the box is where we can extend ourselves.

(d) certification (including the flying bits) doesn't consider adventurous combinations of significant failures. It follows that such ought never to be the subject of formal assessment.

(e) the aim is to build skills and confidence .. anything counterproductive to these aims is unhelpful.

(f) if the pilot is interested, he/she should be given the opportunity to push the boundaries for self improvement. Conversely, the pilot who does not wish to play, should not be coerced into so doing due to the potential for confidence loss.

(g) we need to keep in mind that there will always be a range of pilot skills and capabilities. At the end of the day, it is nice to think that we can all extend ourselves a bit .. but the bottom line is that a pilot needs to be sufficiently competent to handle a line flight with the likely to be expected range of problems which might attend such an operation. This is what the formal training and checking process should be about ?

[A37575]

(d) certification (including the flying bits) doesn't consider adventurous combinations of significant failures. It follows that such ought never to be the subject of formal assessment

Very well said JT

[Mach E Avelli]

JT's post is so good it's hard to add to it, but I'll have a try.

What checkies and trainers need to realise is that they have a tremendous advantage over the average line pilot because they are exposed so often to the simulator and to observing how others cope (both good and not so good). As a result they probably don't need to hit the books - they are (or should be) in a constant state of learning on the job and so it becomes relatively easy for them. The average line pilot gets maybe two hours 'training' every few months, then his/her licence is on the line for the check part of the session. Mere book preparation can not hope to cover every scenario that a checkie can dream up with superior experience of what tricks can be performed in the simulator. It is a responsibility of the trainer to pass on what they can to prepare the candidate prior to the check part, but that's not always easy if the Company runs a cyclic programme where various boxes have to be ticked (what I assume is the 'CASA matrix' that is referred to elsewhere) and only one sim session is allowed for this. Sometimes the trainer then has to take off his training hat and put on the checkie hat as CASA delegate etc etc. Not everyone is good at this dual function.
When failure rates go up, costs go up. While I have no love for beancounters, sometimes perhaps they need to ask why costs have gone so high. Check and training departments in a situation where the failure rate has increased need to take a good look at the reasons. Some of the problem may be in the pilot selection process - rarely should it be anything to do with experience levels if the training is done right in the first place. But if the raw material is not properly screened, of course there is a risk of failures. Maybe the manuals or SOPs are difficult to follow, or have diverged from other training material provided - e.g. by the manufacturer. Don't get me started on illiterates who write manuals!
Candidates certainly also have a responsibility to know their way around the QRH and other Company manuals. Given any chance, they should practice approaches on the line, but even that becomes difficult with tight schedules and the need these days to conserve fuel. Gone are the days when one could say "Ive got a sim check coming up, so I'd better do a couple of hand-flown, NDB circling, non-vasis night approaches".
So many things for a responsible checkie to consider when passing judgement.

[A37575]

I remember during my 737 type rating training in Christchurch, New Zealand many years ago asking the check captain ( a miserable pedant if ever I met one) if he minded giving the F/O a practice abort from the right hand seat as during the whole endorsement he had never been given that opportunity.

The check captain stared at me in shock, amazed that such a heinous thing should be considered, and refused point blank to consider this heresy, saying under no conditions will a first officer ever conduct an abort, because all aborts are conducted by the captain...

Next day was the final simulator check except this time it was with another check pilot. We finished the session with a few minutes to spare and he asked us if there is anything we would like to practice - like for instance flying under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I ventured to ask him if the F/O could practice an abort from the RH seat; and waited for what I thought would the inevitable denial.

But there was no problem at all as far as this check pilot was concerned and so he gave the happy (and very competent experienced F/O) several aborts high and low speed and everyone walked out smiling.

[blueloo]

One has to ask what motivates someone to become a check captain....

Some genuinely do it for the right reasons - to train others - because they enjoy it, and presumably believe that imparting their knowledge will result in greater safety. (These guys usual run sessions which are challenging but enjoyable - and you walk out feeling as though you have learnt something).

Others do it because of status....

Others do it because it gives them improved salary (although apparently this is debatable), roster stability and greater time at home...

Others just have giant un-squashable egos....



I am truly surprised by some candidates chosen by a certain airline on a particular fleet. Many satisfy the criteria of my last three points.... employed presumably because the (potentially) good trainers wont go near the training department. (And I believe the training department may have recognised their mistake in 1 or 2 cases).

[KRUSTY 34]

Anyone have an answer to my original question.

What training resourses (practice sims etc...) are allocated by QF, CX, DJ, etc... to pilots prior to their checks?

[blueloo]

QF - no practice sims prior, although subject to availability, a fixed base sim (no instructor) can sometimes be arranged. Some genius also mandated that you can't have a fixed base sim within two weeks of your license renewal as it may be cheating.........

[Bullethead]

Years ago, in Q, cyclic sim training was run over two days twice a year, first day was training the second day being the check. Then training went to four single sessions a year with a warm up excercise at the start of the session before the fun began. The bean counters got into the act and now we do three single day sessions a year. Part of each session is training and part is checking to satisfy the legal requirements.

Regards,
BH.

[john_tullamarine]

Given any chance, they should practice approaches on the line

.. I might have pushed it a bit one time as an FO on the Fokker .. never having flown a DME let down other than in the link, I proposed to have a go one time into King Island with the usual 300 kt gale blowing. After demonstrating quite successfully that I didn't have a clue in those conditions (and wasted probably 10-15 minutes at the same time) I figured it might be a good idea to go back and revisit the exercise in the link with high winds.

During the 70s/80s we flew regular raw data, manual letdowns to keep the standard up .. apart from anything else, it built confidence and made going up and down the coast a lot more fun than it probably is these days ?

Some genius also mandated that you can't have a fixed base sim within two weeks of your license renewal as it may be cheating.........

.. you're pulling our leg, surely ??

[Bullethead]

"Some genius also mandated that you can't have a fixed base sim within two weeks of your license renewal as it may be cheating.........

.. you're pulling our leg, surely ?? "

No he's not, but it wasn't unusual to see some management types lurking the halls of the sim building in the wee small hours doing a bit of practice before the event.

Regards,
BH.

[blueloo]

The idea of no fixed base sim within 2 weeks of a license renewal really shows how out of touch the training department is.

Surely anything at all which improves the safety of flight is a bonus. If a person is prepared to practice before a sim - then good on them for taking the initiative. The trouble is that there is so little training being done for normal line guys, people should be encouraged to practice in their own time.

Ultimately they still have to perform in the sim during their check.

(Its seems that the assumption is that the person would be a guaranteed failure and it is only because of the practice he will pass - it may indeed be the case although a rarity and when you start considering this where do you stop - what about the person who scrapes through his sim on the day without the practice but then is marginal online - surely someone like this who takes the effort to practice on his own is ultimately improving safety)

Qf went towards improved training for a while, then did a backflip -for a while they were producing comprehensive sim study guides - which took all the information from the numerous poorly written manuals and added generally some practical information which had been long removed (or just not available) - yes it made studying for sim sessions easier - but it also provided a good reference to various systems and reasons for doing things which was not available (some of this sort of info was the specialist instructor info hidden from the troops used to ping people in the sim) ..... At no stage did it remove the need to cover all of the books.

Alas, someone decided that it was to easy to study for sims, and people were neglecting to read all the books - So they stopped the study guides (at least longhaul did) and removed all the extra information.

What I think they fail to realise is that whilst it is important to study the books for the sim - the theory part is generally not tested on its own - it is the practical application of theory and procedures which is what is tested - so a study guide is hardly going to make a sim easy for someone.

So one step forward with proactive training was suddenly reversed with a giant hop step and jump backwards.....

[waren9]

Have look at Sioux city etc etc. for examples of pilot skill that you can aspire to.


Pardon me, but didnt they crash? Rumbled on down the runway with less than take-off power set, with a guts full of snow and ice then sat there and wondered why it wouldnt accelerate or fly? Did anyone call "Stop!" or for TOGA?

I could have the wrong crash, but I dont think that was a good example of pilot skill to aspire to.

[Tidbinbilla]

You definitely have the wrong crash.......

TID

[waren9]

:ouch::ok:

[Sked]

You're thinking of the Potomac.

[Walter E Kurtz]

This thread is not the first time that Tee Emm has whined about airline check and training :(

I dont want my family flying with crew who are spooked by unusual, complicated or multiple failures. Or pilots who give up :ugh: And I am quite certain that the passengers you carry Tee Emm feel exactly the same as myself :ooh:

Maybe you should choose a different career path. It is never too late to change.

[john_tullamarine]

Or pilots who give up

In the early CRM days, AN ran some interesting refresher exercises for a while.

One I recall well involved two people seated opposite each other but with a screen between to prevent visual contact. The exercise required A to provide verbal description of the layout of set of blocks (or similar) via Q&A so that B could arrange the same set of objects in the same way... against a tight clock limit.

Interestingly, a significant proportion of non-pilots threw in the towel early on when it became apparent that the odds were stacked in favour of the clock's winning ... I can't recall ever seeing a pilot do so .. all played the game right down to the wire (crash). Interesting personality variation, I thought ... perhaps the pilot folk have a more focussed view of being the first to arrive at the scene of the accident ?

Maybe you should choose a different career path. It is never too late to change.

Tee Emm is a very experienced greybeard pilot and one of the those chaps I could never imagine having done anything other than flying ..

[oicur12]

The vast majority of airliner accidents these days are the result of stoopid decisions being made by pilots flying perfectly serviceable aircraft.

Me thinks there would be fewer accidents if we spent more time in the sim at the gate with the brakes parked discussing issues that kill instead of driving around the sky with multiple system failures that in many cases HAVE NEVER OCCURED.

[john_tullamarine]

Me thinks there would be fewer accidents ..

While your view is respected, would we not be more productively employed with a probability of a better outcome ..

(a) doing the philosophical discussions over coffee, while

(b) using the box (however we might choose) to exploit its potential .. viz., as a realistic make-believe aeroplane ?

I'm not too fussed, philosophically, whether we play routine or try to be a little more adventurous ... but one thing is for certain, the box is the place to play and experiment with non-routine activities for training and confidence. Doing so in the air is a good way to increase mishaps. Trying to figure out a new problem in anger has never appeared to be a smarter angle than day-dreaming about it over coffee and then having a looksee at the problem in the box.

Certainly, it might never occur but, if we go too far down that road .. then one could argue along the line of increased reliability reducing the need for most/much of the traditional training efforts.

I know that I am far more comfortable in back with a greybeard up front who has been there, done that .. rather than with a new base-grade captain (crew). For the routine, either will get you home .. for the out-of-left-field .. the money probably is on the old hand (read = higher experience level).

[fangorboy]

Train Hard - Fight Easy

[mrdeux]

Having recently had to deal with an emergency that involved simultaneous major unrelated failures, I felt that the training system had prepared us pretty well. All of the Lego building blocks that we needed were there.

But, I don't consider multiple problems make any sort of reasonable training exercise. I have enough trouble remembering what happens in a sim ex without it involving compound emergencies.

[The Puzzler]

How do you get the best out of a trainee in the sim? Put them at ease. :)

How do you train for multiple failures? Train the right mindset - i.e use the simulator as a tool to give a pilot confidence, regardless of his/her experience. Teach the fundamentals in prioritising, flight deck management and operating philosophy. Armed with the basics a pilot can then use their skills, gained through flying experience to procatively manage a situation. Giving multiple failures, particularly unrelated, is counterproductive. On the other hand, generating say a hydraulic leak which then leads to a related failure can be very positive, particularly when you want to highlight such fundamentals as diagnosis and prioritisation. Nothing happens in the aircraft the way it is trained in the sim. Similiarly, you cannot train for every conceivable failure. This is why it is so important that you give pilots the best tools to deal with any failure/s that they may experience.

How does a pilot best prepare for recurrent checks? Dont leave it until a week before your check to dust off the books. := My advice is to continually strive to increase your knowledge in a gradual manner. That way the cramming is not required, and you'll actually look forward to the recurrent check as an opportunity to further that knowledge. Incidentally, it is a complete fallacy that trainers/examniers dont need to read up on the books. Its quite the opposite, we are continually in them. :sad:

What do you do if you get a "checker" and not a trainer? Try to learn from it. Every pilot has something to teach you, sometimes that may well include how not to do it!

Happy simmimg! :ok:

[Mach E Avelli]

"I have enough trouble remembering what happens in a sim ex without it involving compound emergencies".

Mrdeux, if that it the case, and assuming that your cognitive skills are intact and normal, then I suggest that your SOPS are probably too complex to work properly under pressure, or your checkies are too anal about the delivery of those SOPs. When I hear checkies berating sim candidates because they did not spout the exact words I get mightily pissed off. For example- fire drill: I have always said, and will continue to say (after identifying etc) 'discharge shot one, timing 30 seconds' then do the Pan call myself. After 30 seconds if the sim fire warning is still on, it's likely I will say something like 'bugger me, it's still on fire, so discharge shot two', while simultaneously upgrading the PAN to a Mayday. If I forget to say 'my radios' (as I sometimes do), even a half-wit would have to realise that I am already talking to ATC as per Company SOP even if I did not say the magic words first. A bit like 'my control' versus 'I have control' - it's pretty bloody obvious to all but a total retard who is driving it.
Sometimes I have copped a ration of bull**** at debrief because the words at some stage of the check were non-standard. Depending on the seriousness or otherwise of the checkie's assessment, I will either argue the toss or just nod wisely. Once, a CASA inspector tried to fail me on a check pilot renewal. I was acting as support for another Captain who was a bit rusty. On a circling approach the speed was rapidly trending south, but had not actually got to the trigger for a 'speed' call. So, hoping the CASA guy wouldn't hear, (but he obviously did) I just quietly said 'getting a bit slow there, George' . CASA man went ape-**** at de-brief because I was a checkie and should know better than to use non-standard calls blah blah. I think the prick was hoping I'd let the other guy get it to stick-shaker so I could can him. But of course if I had let it go that far, there was a risk I would also get canned for lack of proper support, so it was a no win. In my spray to Mr CASA I pointed out that I have seen candidates get so tongue-tied under pressure trying to get the exact words that they have forgotten real important stuff, like getting the fuel off first in a fire, or like controlling the flight path before doing the drill etc. These ARE fail points, not a few less than perfect words.
Particularly once compound failures start to be inserted into sim exercises, one can expect some departure from absolute standard to be within the rules of engagement. Multiple failures often call for some improvisation. In such situations what I look for is that they don't get too close to terrain, too far out of tolerance, or stall. If they get it safely on the ground without any of the above they usually pass.

[A37575]

Multiple failures often call for some improvisation. In such situations what I look for is that they don't get too close to terrain, too far out of tolerance, or stall. If they get it safely on the ground without any of the above they usually pass.

Nicely phrased and other checkpilots/sim instructors please note.

[Walter E Kurtz]

Timely images from CNN thankyou very much. Is dead stick to a river too difficult Tee Emm? Dont cry old man, if it hasn't happened yet it will probably never happen to you?

Ever had an engine fall off? Realistic, has occurred at east twice.

Ever had a FADEC fail at V1? Realistic, the PCM in my truck failed twice, same function as FADEC.

Ever had an engine failure, the other on fire at V1? Realistic when birds or bats about, yes?

What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.

Have you ever considered Tee Emm that maybe australian aviation drags the world rather than lead. Triple so for the GA Joysticks.

Train Hard - Fight Easy True words

However people like Tee Emm and his many supporters, choose to whine about training hardship; and then no doubt will later whine again at the crash site about their inadequate training :yuk::yuk::yuk:

[psycho joe]

Ever had an engine fall off? Realistic, has occurred at east twice.

Ever had a FADEC fail at V1? Realistic, the PCM in my truck failed twice, same function as FADEC.

Ever had an engine failure, the other on fire at V1? Realistic when birds or bats about, yes?


None of these are multiple unrelated failures.

What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.


Neither is this.

Have you ever considered Tee Emm that maybe australian aviation drags the world rather than lead. Triple so for the GA Joysticks.

Do other countries use multiple unrelated failures as part of their checking regimen?

Quote:
Train Hard - Fight Easy

True words


Someone thinks their in the SAS. How about Train smart - Fly Smart?

However people like Tee Emm and his many supporters, choose to whine about training hardship; and then no doubt will later whine again at the crash site about their inadequate training

If so, perhaps it's because there's a massive difference between CHECKING and TRAINING.

[YoDawg]

None of these are multiple unrelated failures.


Quote:
What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.
Neither is this.


Well what about this then?


Tyre burst on take off followed by engine failure caused by FOD and maybe asymmetric flap caused by tyre debris


One event has led to the other two - hardly unrelated. So what is Tee Emm really complaining about?

The Concorde suffered a tyre failure with the well-known catastrophic result.

The A320 which ditched in the Hudson suffered a condition no one trains for. Although "Sully" pulled it off, what would other pilots have done?

HAs anyone here been loaded up with truly unrelated major failures? Example.

[Walter E Kurtz]

So Tee Emm and his mates are scared of the SIM? And be sure, HR warm-loves are massaging their swollen spineless backs as I type..... :yuk:

Perhaps whining is a healthy sign. Yes? No?

Everyone, most of all the travelling public, would be far better off if unsuitable pilots are voluntarily motivated to find a less intimidating profession.

Chin up and just go away :)

[greybeard]

How about this one FOR REAL which by definition is a so called UNRELATED FAILURE

F-100 in the clear between storms, suitably separated, lightning strikes, usual sort out from that.
AND THEN, double hydraulic failure over a very short time.
Turns out the discharge was in the fin, cooked connections to both systems.

In the Sim, howels of UNFAIR, in real life, get over it princess, do the QRH, FOPPM, SOP's and all go home on time.

As for the T & C in the sim, apart from the fact that there are ego trippers in the ranks on all sides in the last 16 years I have only seen/heard of a very few so called "horror trips" and certainly don't use that process on my canditates.

C YA :ok:

[blueloo]

Walter E Kirtz - I love a person with a complete rigid inflexibility like yours. Its so refreshing to see such fixed prehistoric views.

Stiff upper lip. Pip Pip.

[Walter E Kurtz]

The surface of the earth is also rigid and and the laws of physics are mostly inflexible Blueloo. With no illusions, I exist happily in the real world. From what I read here some australian pilots live on Fantasy Island.

Confidence during checks only comes after competence. Please explain Blueloo how Tee Emms thoughts improve competence and safety? Does this thread improve airmanship?

Why are so many australian pilots so determined to water down training designed to elevate their competence?

For the sake of the travelling public, why not stop whining on this site and read your FCOM tonight?

(Tee Emm will no doubt pull his thread soon. For the sake of Airmanship I ask the Moderators leave it in place)

[Captain Stoobing]

The word of the day should be CONTEXT;

Training for multiple failures should be just that...........Training.

Everyone knows that a CASA Delegate, ATO, Checker or CASA FOI can fail anyone, even the greatest, by loading them up until they breach an FCOM / FAM / QRH / FM requirement. That is all it takes. Not hard.

What is to be gained by that.............NOTHING.

Every CASA Delegate, ATO, Checker or CASA FOI is legally required to adhere to the CAR , CAO requirements of checking. Most airlines with a CAR 217 system require the assessor to adhere to a script, ie The instructor notes of the Cyclic, assessment or whatever. If they deviate from that script they risk repercussions from the crew if they find out. As most crew are given a matrix to read through prior to their assessment, this should be highly unlikely.

I, however, like to empower the crew's I assess or train to handle situations, like mutilple failures. This is done within the "CONTEXT" of training. For example, Session 1 of a command upgrade ( where I work) generally has a bit of spare time at the end. I "BRIEF" the crew that they will be given a, for example, an uncontrollable engine fire at V1 +5, or a gear problem with an engine failure. Whilst they do this exercise, I freeze the sim, make a suggestion, unfreeze, etc and then we positively de-breif their actions at the end.
I suggest that we try this again after they pass their command endorsement, session 4, again within the "CONTEXT" of training. They go away and think about handling this situation or others like it, come back at the end and do it very very very well.

The exercise is unscripted, should the crew not want to do it, I cannot force them as it is not a requirement. I have not had one candidate say no.

The end result is that they have widened their peripheral vision of the operation, and are better equipped to handle multiple failures.

My 2 cents worth as a CASA Delegate and Airline Checker.

[Walter E Kurtz]

Quoted from original Tee Emm statement:

Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training
simulator checks
aces of the base have trouble coping with this sort of "training."
CASA's thoughts on flight training
Assessment should not involve
principles of teaching.
intelligent instruction.

Tee Emm does not differentiate between checking and training. Check Captain control is reasonable, watered down training is not.

[mrdeux]

Mrdeux, if that it the case, and assuming that your cognitive skills are intact and normal, then I suggest that your SOPS are probably too complex to work properly under pressure, or your checkies are too anal about the delivery of those SOPs. When I hear checkies berating sim candidates because they did not spout the exact words I get mightily pissed off.
Firstly, I'm very much a believer that flying is like Italian driving. In other words, what's behind me doesn't matter. Once I've done something, it's forgotten. That's especially easy when a sim exercise consists of numerous takeoffs (that may or may not have issues), with IPs to different approaches (just as likely on different runways). Nothing flows, it's just a disjointed series of small items, done to fill in a matrix for CASA. So debriefing me on something that happened in the second ILS, when I've just done six, is probably a waste of breath.

And the anal word perfect brigade...I don't think they do anything for the quality of the training when they consider 'altimeter' to be different to 'altimeters'. Who really cares, as long as a call is made. On the other hand, if you're off inventing your own procedures, then you do need to be pulled back into line.

Loft exercises on the other hand, can be run as very worthwhile training exercises. They happen in real time. You can explore the consequences of various problems, and real multiple failures can be done in such a way that it is of value. For instance, a duct leak can lead to a depressurisation, and then on to flap problems. There are plenty of problems that will lead to subsequent issues, and yes, I have no problem with rational training for these. But, having some ego maniac playing with the buttons at the back in a totally random fashion has no training value at all. Related failures; no issue. Unrelated failures; utterly worthless as training.

[The NAS Debater]

Chaps,

Sitting at my console watching the little green blips as you guys and gals fly through my airspace pondering the deep thoughts herein.

It occurs to me that there's a very simply way for you to avoid all the angst associated with sim runs from hell. Join the merry band of ATCs at Airservices and it's likely you'll never have to do cyclic refresher training again. When our Flight Data Processor failed on the 21st, rather than rely on the tired old dogma of being appropriately prepared, we simply did what we thought was a good thing. Thankfully we (you) all made it through.

So rather than facing the strain of prep for emergencies refresher on a regular basis we get to sit around fat dumb and happy and just put up with the sheer terror of the real thing occasionally.

TND

PS Wonder how the Hudson ditching would have turned out without the wealth of experience in the cockpit?

[psycho joe]

PS Wonder how the Hudson ditching would have turned out without the wealth of experience in the cockpit?

The aircraft may have been stuck up there forever. :ok:

[Tee Emm]

PS Wonder how the Hudson ditching would have turned out without the wealth of experience in the cockpit

Word around the industry is the captain will be facing civil court action for using incorrect company SOP teminology and thus endangering the lives of thousands of people below the flight path except he had the good luck to find a river.

He said "I have the aircraft" instead of the SOP of "I have control"....

[DutchRoll]

Experience was not the only thing which saved the day in the Hudson ditching (and anyway the F/O was brand new on type). There are lots of highly experienced pilots whose bodily parts are scattered over the landscape.

Anyway, while I agree that it is not unreasonable to get some demanding failures in the sim, I have certainly also experienced the flip-side, being given a multiple failure which left the aeroplane unflyable. The check captain allowed us to fight with the aeroplane up to and including the impact with the ground. Words were spoken (then and later, as it went up the chain) and it didn't count in the assessment. I think he also got his botty smacked.

There are dividing lines between "realistic", "extremely unlikely but let's see how you handle it", and "what are you trying to prove exactly?"

[Centaurus]

think he also got his botty smacked

Was that because he was getting too anal?:ok:

[AirTrafficOne]

To OLD FELLA - re C-141 Starlifter at RAAF Richmond 31 Oct 1977....I was doing some research and just saw your comment. I was the 20 year old air traffic controller in the tower at Richmond that day. Frightened me then, still scares me now. The most terrifying thing I've ever witnessed..... we thought they wouldn't make it - most amazing bit of flying I've ever seen... ground effect put to good use!

[Fantome]

AIR TRAFFIC ONE - interesting flashback. Here's the post from a few years ago that you mention. (Not everyone has the time, patience or interest to go trawling.)


Old Fella

Simulated multiple failures
Having been on both ends of the system, i.e. being trained and being the instructor, I can say with some authority that purposely overloading students with multiple unrelated failures is an exercise in futility which does nothing but satisfy the ego of the instructor. That said there are documented instances where one seemingly isolated emergency has led to multiple problems. One which I will always remember involved a USAF C141 Starlifter 64-0614 departing RAAF Base Richmond in the late 1970's. Shortly after becoming airborne the No 3 engine suffered an uncontained turbine failure, which resulted in multiple holes in the integral wing tanks caused by blade fragments puncturing the skin, the loss of No 4 engine due to debris ingestion and puncture damage causing compressor damage, and just to add to the confusion the cargo hold was holed by hot turbine blade fragments which caused a cargo compartment fire. A successful double asymmetric circuit and landing was accomplished, assisted by some valuable heading vectors to the C141 crew given by a RAAF C130 crew conducting circuit training. Some days it is best to stay on the ground. The aircraft now lies at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base boneyard. So, sometimes multiple failures do occur.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of multiple failures, here's another post from back then that aroused some sharp responses. ALLARU was unloading some of his contempt for aspects of the checking vs training 'culture', saying that in his experience a sim session was something to be knocked over with as much craft and cunning as he could contrive. He certainly sounded soured by his encounters. Would his viewpoint have any validity today? CENTAURUS?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

5th Jan 2009,
allaru

training with capital T
Sounds like your checkys just that, a checky. Total waste of sim time, and its unfortunate that in this day and age that training departments still attract those sort of knobs.

Its the same old bull **** where ever you go, we as pilots are our worst own enemy, I can't think of any industry where SOME of our own TRY and screw us over on a regular basis.

There are some bloody good trainers out there, who really enjoy what they do, and are good at it, unfortunately every training department has its fair share of idiots, wanting to prove something.

"now this is checking with a small C, and training with a big T, oh but it is still a check....blah blah blah."

"Are there any questions" .."No I think you just about covered everything" THOUGHT BUBBLE ("yes I have heaps of questions but if I ask you'll mark me down on knowledge so I won't ask")

"Now I have a few questions for you"... THOUGHT BUBBLE ("Ok as long as I can ask you some questions that I know the answers to as well")

"now thats it would you like to look at anything else....ah NO not really...... THOUGHT BUBBLE- (id rather f@#k off to the pub cause I've learnt absolutely nothing as usual and I've already had it up to here with your bull****, you've waisted my time and the companies money, see u again in 6 months. Besides which I don't want to risk f$#king something up, cause it is a CHECK after all.)

Best course of action in the mission impossible style sim scenario is to take your time, extended briefings, slow taxi, enter holding patterns, by then the inexperienced sim instructor starts to run out of time, starts cutting corners, has his attention diverted and usually f#$ks something up. The experienced sim instructor will work his way around it, but at least you buy your self some extra time, there are very few situations which require you to land like NOW.

Hope this helps...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[boaccomet4]

I like, others have been subjected to a rediculous sim session where five failures were introduced within a few minutes of each other. We even heard the sim instructor question the necessity for so many failures and the reply was pretty much "We are paying for it - just do it." The other pilot and myself looked at each other and agreed that teamwork and sops was our best plan of attack with a bit of lateral thinking. We landed the aircraft with an uncontained engine fire, electical bus failure, complete hydraulic failure, one engine shut down and having to manually extend the undercarrige. During the de brief we were advised that he just wanted to see what would happen and yes his request for so many failures was outside the company Training and Checking Guidelines. The feedback we gave him was that it was unreasonable and he admitted that his ego got in the way but he wanted to have some fun.

In my opinion the crew en mass should be able to give the company feedback if a particular Check Captain is throwing his weight around unreasonably. The crew en mass should be able to vote out that person from the C&T department as not being of a mature and reasonable nature and who is potentially costing the company money because of high rates of crew being subject to operational clearance.

Introducing unreasonable fear into a checking environment has the potential to costing the company mega dollars because you have a percentage of crew subject ot operational clearance.

[A37575]

In my opinion the crew en mass should be able to give the company feedback if a particular Check Captain is throwing his weight around unreasonably. The crew en mass should be able to vote out that person from the C&T department as not being of a mature and reasonable nature and who is potentially costing the company money because of high rates of crew being subject to operational clearance.


In an ideal world, maybe. The biggest single error an enthusiastic airline pilot can make is to `make waves` or worse still, offer a constructive suggestion how training could be improved. Constructive criticism is usually taken as personal criticism of the clown that has the power. As far as simulator "training" is concerned, grin and bear it is the generally the safest option. Cynical perhaps? but pragmatic.

[Old Fella]

To AirTrafficOne & Fantome. Probably the saddest outcome of any non-standard form of Simulator training of which I am aware led to the loss of a RAAF B707 off East Sale. Those who know of the accident and the circumstances which led to it, and the circumstances in which it happened, will know what I mean. Training is, or should be, structured to ensure the competency of crews to handle those Normal, Abnormal and Emergency procedures published in the aircraft Flight Manual. Any additional "good gen" training should be conducted with caution.

As I previously commented, loading crews up with multiple unrelated emergency situations is more often than not done to boost the ego of the instructor as he/she sets out to demonstrate their own perceived superiority.

[haughtney1]

I've just read this entire thread, and I must say I've thoroughly enjoyed the input of all who have Thusfar contributed.
My employer has its fair share of Oz and Kiwi trainers in the ranks, many of whom came from GA and airlines back in Oz and NZ. Sadly, until relatively recently many of these trainers could best be described as industrial psychopaths/tyrants. As is typical in a large organisation, the truly determined psychopath can disguise their true colours by simply playing the game when it comes to their own standards checks and then resume their usual dogma once the spot-light is off them again.
Sadly it appears to me that whilst all the posters on here are in general agreement that a standard must be maintained, there seems to be a real divergence in what some would consider training.
When I did my initial 757 course some years ago, the most knowledge, confidence and overall value I ever received during training was from a sim instructor who recognised the value in demonstrating and then allowing the crew to try and replicate the process. It wasn't about willy waving or ego, it was about teaching and training...a fact which is lost on a few people on this thread and until recently...my employers training department.

[pakeha-boy]

Ditto H1,...

Sim rides and training are required "evils"...they have never bothered me....humoured me,humbled me but hey...deal with it

Sim and Training,allows each Airlines Training and evaluation,practices to be flexible and responsive(or should be)to your needs operating on the line,whilst simultaneously complying with reg requirements and responding to industry developments and trends.......hopefully they are designed to address the designed specific needs of that airline..

Common themes have to be addressed..stalls,apps,TCAS/RA,etc etc....hopefully areas that have been addressed by a particular pilot group..areas that apply to that operation.......getting multiple failures is part of the training.....cant see why it should be an issue,,,....the failures hopefully,are designed to maximize your training and provide scenario-based learning opportunity...........always looked at sim sessions as the key to ensure standardization and maximizing a crews potential...

Was actually busted from a chk airmen/sim chk pilot programme, quite a few years ago ,becasue the companys policy was to check/pass..or ...check/bust........always thought that was a load of horse manure......I always trained and chked to proffiency......very seldom did anyone require extra training

My approach was to gain a crews confidence and make the sim and training event a no failure event,no matter what was in the profile,..with that in mind ....they always "trained" better........needless to say ..the company threw my carcass back on the line.....and out of the chk programme.....

so much for trying to be a good buggar!!!

[happy clapper]

Lets add some real day occurances to you priceless button pushers,
How bout we start the sim like a normal flight.
Hey Bob was your o/night allowances stuffed up?
Hey Bob why did we have to wait 20 min for our limo?
Hey Bob how come Joe went sick and I got called out?
Hey Bob I have a hangover your sector
Hey Bob as we are running late,lets find an engineering defect so we can blame the delay on them.
Hey Bob,do we let the cadet do any thing today.
Hey Bob,is it Left,Ctr or Right A/P this time.
Hey Bob,are you having the Beef or Chicken?
Hey Bob,how come my D**k is itchy?
You Blokes have multiple failures each day before you even start an engine:ok: