Prompting disguised as CRM "support" calls during instrument rating tests

[A37575]

Consider a two pilot operation instrument rating test conducted by a CAA flight ops inspector. Boeing/Airbus types included. Most operators lay down via the company operations manual, company outside of tolerance calls to be made by the PNF and is a form of prompting to the PF to smarten up and fly more accurately. Calls such as "Speed, Altitude, Sink Rate, Tracking etc come to mind.

During an instrument rating test specifically, the question arises whether these calls should be considered as subtle prompting or hinting by the PNF and not normally permitted in a regulatory skills test of this nature.

The instrument rating tolerances mandated in the relevant national CAA manuals are there for one purpose - and that is to give the candidate a reasonable and safe latitude during prescribed manoeuvres. If the candidate exceeds those tolerances by a sustained amount, he may fail the test.

In a single pilot IFR instrument rating test, the testing officer will not normally be permitted to prompt or even hint, if the candidate goes outside laid down parameters. Yet in a two pilot operation this seems to be permitted under the guise of good CRM and adherence to company (not CAA manual ) procedures.

It could be argued there appears to be one rule for a two pilot operation and another for a single pilot operation. Should prompting by a PNF in an aircraft certificated to be crewed by two pilots, be acceptable during an instrument rating test? Explain your reasoning:ok:

[Daysleeper]

It could be argued there appears to be one rule for a two pilot operation and another for a single pilot operation.

No arguments there, there actually are different rules. In the UK a multi-pilot IR is not valid for Single Pilot Aircraft.

Calls such as "Speed, Altitude, Sink Rate, Tracking etc come to mind.

The pilot monitoring is (should) be being assessed on their monitoring, if the airline SOP has a speed call due to deviation then they should make the speed call and so on.

And... most SOP deviation limits are about the same or more relaxed than IR test limits. So the examiner should already have a very good idea of the PF's ability before the deviation calls are made.

Fly the sim like you fly the real aircraft, act as you really would and don't spend a fortune teaching folk how to work as a crew and then not test them as a crew.

[Denti]

No arguments there, there actually are different rules. In the UK a multi-pilot IR is not valid for Single Pilot Aircraft.

Isn't that a european rule by now? At least it is similar over here in central europe.

Anyway, IFR checks on boeing/airbus aircraft can be flown using the full range of tools and instrumentation available on those aircraft types. Which means of course full automation may be used, flight director is a given.

[Daysleeper]

Isn't that a european rule by now? At least it is similar over here in central europe.

Almost certainly however, knowing how pedantic some pprune users are if I had said europe then someone would have come on to disagree based on some place I'd never heard of, so I thought I'd just stick with the place I knew for sure :}

[LH-OAB]

Daysleeper,

I've been type rated in the UK on two SPAs, operated multi-crew. On both occasions, the CAA issued an IR annotated "MPA-IR".

[Daysleeper]

I've been type rated in the UK on two SPAs, operated multi-crew. On both occasions, the CAA issued an IR annotated "MPA-IR".

Um... it's been years since I did SPA stuff but I seem to recall there were some types the CAA insisted were multi-crew even though they were single pilot elsewhere. Was the old Metro not single pilot in the USA?
Thing being if your IR says MPA-IR then you cannot use it for single pilot operations.

[A37575]

I don't see why a prompt from the PNF to the PF on any aspect of their functions would be objectionable. After all, they're operating a two crew aircraft together as a team

But we are talking about a government regulatory test of one pilot's instrument flying ability. It is not a crew operating on line and it is not training - it is like any examination - it is a test. Is prompting allowed in an examination? Of course not. While the support pilot should operate ancilliary controls at the request of the pilot under test then all decisions should be made by the applicant for the renewal or issue of the instrument rating.

The ground theory component of the test is a question and answer session. While both the applicant and his support pilot may be together during the session, the support pilot certainly would not be permitted to prompt the applicant during this part of the test.

[Denti]

Seems that checks are done very differently wherever you fly. Flying a multi pilot aircraft the check has to be done so that both pilots are assessed at doing their respective job. If the PM fails to prompt when needed both pilots will fail the check. Same if the PF busts any limits.

An IFR check is a skill test, not a knowledge test. For multi pilot flying those skills include everything a PM has to do, including prompting, use of CRM concepts and so on. A knowledge test is something different, that is why we have to do those separately on our own.

Single pilot IFR checks of course have to follow different rules and will be flown in a single hand environment.

[Daysleeper]

But we are talking about a government regulatory test of one pilot's instrument flying ability. It is not a crew operating on line and it is not training - it is like any examination - it is a test. Is prompting allowed in an examination? Of course not. While the support pilot should operate ancilliary controls at the request of the pilot under test then all decisions should be made by the applicant for the renewal or issue of the instrument rating.

See the earlier point, in the UK (and europe) a multi-pilot IR is ONLY valid on that type operating as part of a crew. So it's not 1 pilot that is being tested.

My point being if the PM is saying " 4 miles 100 ft low" that's fine it's normal ops. If the PM is saying, " 4 miles, 100 ft low, select 400 feet per minute and by the way you might want to go back to 600 in a mile and blah blah blah then that's not fine. There is a difference between normal deviation calls and just pattering the other person round. Again I'm pretty sure every CAA approved examiner I've met is well up to speed on it and is very good at managing the test. Can't speak for other countries.

[LH-OAB]

If too much emphasis is placed on testing CRM and not enough on ability in other areas (instrument flying, basic handling, etc.), the weak can make it through when they otherwise wouldn't.

Consider this one, slightly off-topic but in the same vein. The other pilot and I were in the sim for the purpose of removing the "Restricted to Co-Pilot" limitation on his SPA TR. The SPA in question was operated multi-crew on public transport flights and single crew with a Pilot Assistant on private flights. I held a full TR and was there as the RHS support. We were briefed that he would move to the LHS for this exercise. He repeatedly crashed and burned on the EFATO, demonstrating no idea whatsoever of how to control the aircraft. We hadn't been briefed that the test would be conducted multi-crew and I thought it was reasonable to assume that he would be required to demonstrate single pilot abilities. The outcome? He was certified competent and I got the black mark for failing to take control (ie poor CRM).

[Brian Abraham]

If the tolerance calls by the PNF are a problem, how about flying as if the other guy/gal had become incapacitated. Might have to schedule a CC to sit in the seat, or make a PA "is there a pilot on board?" :E

[galaxy flyer]

I would submit, it depends a bit on the task. I would expect the examinee to be able to conduct a non-emergency IFR approach pretty much on his own, with no more than the book call-outs. On the other hand, an emergency should show the presence or lack of good CRM. The entire crew should work together to recover successfully.

My standard brief, as an AF evaluator, was I'll be a good co-pilot, won't screw with you, but it is your check ride, not mine. I'll do what you ask, but won't do more. I saw a number of guys get rushed, obviously need more time, but I'd never give an additional turn in holding unless they asked, for example.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I spend a lot of time in sims as support, and always will, unless otherwise instructed be a competent but lacking in initutive co pilot.
I prompt for standard items and prompt for deviations, but will not prompt with corrective actions.

However sometimes, the circumstances for the sim ride are different: for example, a copilot upgrade who needs to demonstrate full understanding of the operation, and how to operate with low experience, and low hourwed copilot... (very normal corporate operations.)

Very occasionally with Co pilots in Right seat, I am the Captain, and they are only required to demonstrate the handling required for SIR revalidation.

[ehwatezedoing]

If the PM fails to prompt when needed both pilots will fail the check. Same if the PF busts any limits.


Here is exactly the answer I was going to write.

Both pilots will fail the check if..