What would you like to practice in the simulator

[Centaurus]

Those readers that have undergone type rating training in simulators know that the majority of the sequences taught have received regulatory approval and are mandated as part of zero flight time licencing.

Due to restrictions on simulator time and the expense involved, it is usually impractical to adequately cover all the QRH Non-Normals. Some of these may be covered however over a three-year cyclic programme. Once the candidate gets into the real aeroplane it becomes very much a case of learning on the job and it may take six months or more of regular line flying before the pilot feels quite at home with flying the aircraft.

In fact if the captain becomes incapacitated the new pilot may be catapulted into a potentially bewildering position of responsibility for the continued safety of the flight

Since the vast majority of jet transport line flying is on automatic pilot and automatic navigation, it sometimes becomes quite a shock to a new pilot if for some reason he has to revert to basics. For example, radio aid navigation, flight without the aid of a flight director and autothrottle and of course, manual flying other than take off and last few seconds of the approach and landing.

I believe there is a pressing need for simulator instructors to be permitted to use their own experiences of the past to ensure type rating candidates can cope with the unexpected. Within the constraints of simulator time, the following short list should be considered as a starting point for hands on raw data practice:

Profile descent from cruise altitude to touch-down using a DME v Altitude profile in varying winds. This is done by hand flying on instruments without automatics.

Manual handling practice at landing with strong crosswinds until competent at touching down with no drift applied. Autothrottle off.

Manual handling of landing on performance limiting runway length and that to include all flaps up approach.

High altitude (30,000 ft and above) stall recovery to safe level flight and low altitude stall recovery in landing configuration below 1000 ft AGL.

Loss of all engines culminating in a forced landing to a runway. Best known as a `dead-stick` landing.

Readers are invited to add their own ideas. Constructive criticism welcome. And remember that the purpose of these sequences is to improve basic flying flying skills without the crutch of automatics.

[alas8]

Totally agree. For recurrents I would certainly modify scenarios and would give much more flexibility to sim instructor to make the game as realistic as possible to facilitate decision making. Otherwise it is too much predictable and well known in advance what will follow. Scenarios and general training approach which was more or less ok for initial training (the goal is to learn basics) is very boring for recurents. Money spent for nothing. Here I am talking about my experience with one of the big independent training providers from bizjet world...

[Dan Winterland]

Two engine go-arounds. We get lots of practice at going around at 200' on one engine in IMC, but statistics show that the lightweight GA with TOGA power is a rare event and often badly handled.

It's time training reflected reality. For example, the standard V1 cut may be a requirement for the IR due to historic reasons from when engines were far less reliable, but it's so rare these days - it barely features in the statistics.

[ZFT]

Isn't this the whole purpose of the ICAO Evidence Based Training initiative? I believe Emirates,(and others?) with the agreement of their regulator have already implemented phase 1 into their recurrent training programs.

[de facto]

I practiced balked landings recently...i asked for two engines,but one failed during the increase of thrust.:}

I like to practice engine failure at different flaps setting on approach and visual/circle to land is a must as we never do any in China...

[rogerg]

IMC approach and landing using standby instruments.

[172_driver]

I am fortunate to fly in an environment where hand flying is encouraged and practiced on the line.

I have never done a Smoke, Fire or Fumes scenario. It was not part of the TR syllabus. 2 years on the line now, B737 F/O. Would need a creative TRE, but should be doable no?

An unreliable airspeed departure profile, airwork/return, and approach in IMC would also be a confidence boost.

[de facto]

An unreliable airspeed departure profile, airwork/return, and approach in IMC would also be a confidence boost.

You will get those soon enough i think and if you regularly fly manually as you wrote,the last three should come with no sweat.

I have never done a Smoke, Fire or Fumes scenario. It was not part of the TR syllabus. 2 years on the line now, B737 F/O. Would need a creative TRE, but should be doable no?

Ask at your next sim,why would the TRE need to be creative?It is a quite straight forward checklist especially since boeing merged the electrical smoke and air conditioning smoke checklist into a single one to avoid us poor bastards starting off into a wrong checklist..:E

[A37575]

Unstable approach identification and handling

Some years back, an Indonesian registered Boeing 737 approached too fast and was never stabilised while attempting to land in good weather at Jogkarta. The aircraft was nearly 80 knots fast over the fence with flaps still at Flap 5. Despite numerous GPWS warnings the captain pressed on regardless and over-ran the runway at high speed and caught fire killing several aboard.

If ever there was a perfect example of the dangers of an unstabilised approach, this was it. In simulator training there is a great deal of emphasis on stabilised approaches; and so there should be. Having said that, it is all very well to read up on the varying dangers associated with an unstable approach and think you have got it covered. But, there is nothing like a demonstration to new pilots of the final consequences. As the old saying goes - A picture is worth a thousand words. And what better place to demonstrate than in a simulator.

For captains who may have become complacent and with new pilots converting to the 737 - especially cadets - the simulator instructor should consider demonstrating what happened to that aircraft using the same configuration and speeds. At the very least, new pilots see a graphic demonstration of the consequences and how at any stage in the approach and landing flare, the captain could have gone around but refused to do so, despite entreaties from the first officer who did little to prevent the accident.

With a runway set at 7500 ft at sea level it takes less than five minutes to set up the simulator at 1500 ft on final at 240 knots and Flaps 5 and make the approach. Aim to be 210 knots over the fence like the accident aircraft. And then float until touch down. That five minutes is sheer gold to young cadets going directly into the RH seat of jet transports because now they can see the potential consequences of pressing on with an unstable approach.

The above suggestion becomes pertinent when, according to an article in Flight International, the European Aviation Safety agency (EASA) has proposed the mandatory installation of automated cockpit systems to reduce the risk of runway over-run. EASA is quoted as saying runway excursions were the fourth most frequent accident category for commercial air transport in Europe for over a decade.

Experience has shown that the ideal of the first officer as a monitor to alert the captain to the potential danger of a unstabilised approach, has its limitations - particularly if he has never personally seen a seriously unstable approach. Simulator training as described above would be one solution to be considered and at negligible cost.

[BizJetJock]

Most posters seem to have missed that the OP is talking about the initial type rating course, not recurrent training. For recurrents, I agree with all the replies, particularly the one from alas8.

However for the OP, here are my comments:
Profile descent from cruise altitude to touch-down using a DME v Altitude profile in varying winds. This is done by hand flying on instruments without automatics.
This is part of line training - or should be. Why waste time in the sim practicing something that can be done on normal ops?

Manual handling practice at landing with strong crosswinds until competent at touching down with no drift applied. Autothrottle off.
Most sims are so poor at modelling crosswind behaviour that this is not of great benefit in the sim. In principle it is a line training item again, but in reality there are never crosswinds around when you want one!

Manual handling of landing on performance limiting runway length and that to include all flaps up approach.
Certainly in Europe this is a required item for the type rating, so should be being done already.

High altitude (30,000 ft and above) stall recovery to safe level flight and low altitude stall recovery in landing configuration below 1000 ft AGL.

As above!

Loss of all engines culminating in a forced landing to a runway. Best known as a `dead-stick` landing.
I disagree with this being on the initial course, it is something to bring in once someone has time on type. Training for the day when you have a double engine failure and the captain is incapacitated seems to be a bit far fetched....

Normally a new low hours F/O will have a safety pilot on the jumpseat until the training captain is satisfied that he would be able to cope with an incapacitation (already practiced in the sim); therefore I think overall that you are being a bit unnecessarily pessimistic about the whole issue.

Happy flying - just don't eat the fish!:ok:

[Tee Emm]

Quote:
Profile descent from cruise altitude to touch-down using a DME v Altitude profile in varying winds. This is done by hand flying on instruments without automatics. This is part of line training - or should be. Why waste time in the sim practicing something that can be done on normal ops?


Certainly never seen this in line training where the accent is always on VNAV and LNAV with the autopilot and autothrottles all doing their stuff. Few captains will permit descents DME v Altitude probably because they themselves have forgotten how to do so.

Most sims are so poor at modelling crosswind behaviour that this is not of great benefit in the sim.

Try not to generalise too much (Most Sims etc) Properly maintained Level D (full flight zero flight time) simulators are required to meet certain fidelity standards. That includes crosswind limit fidelity. If not then the simulator needs looking at. Certainly the 737 simulators I have operated in crosswinds are very close to the crosswind characteristics of the real aircraft.

I disagree with this being on the initial course, it is something to bring in once someone has time on type. Training for the day when you have a double engine failure and the captain is incapacitated seems to be a bit far fetched....


Agree that dual engine failure and simultaneous incapacitation is far fetched but unable to find any reference to this combination in the posts so far.

As far as waiting for time on type before practicing a dead stick landing. Would you also wait for time on type before practice incapacitation? No logic there. If type rating training includes loss of thrust on all engines and re-start doesn't work, it would seem a natural progression to manoeuver for a forced landing.

[CanadaKid]

Readers are invited to add their own ideas. Constructive criticism welcome. And remember that the purpose of these sequences is to improve basic flying flying skills without the crutch of automatics.

I always found the LVO takeoff with eng failure below 60 kts exciting, particularly if TOGA is used. One must be quite handy on both the rudder pedals and closing thrust on the operative engine if you're on a light twin or a heavily powered twin like the B777, B767.

Cheers, CK

[Gulfstreamaviator]

STOP / GO discussions in regard to just when would you actually call STOP for example: a blown tire at V1, on balanced runway.

Loss of ASI, as per Air France.

High altitude stalls.

Performance landings, i.e. minimum runway used.

Dead stick landings without any flight instruments. Also perhaps your type will have no HYD or ELEC either.

These are all part of the INITIAL skill base in my opinion.

Add: one main gear fails to extend on landing.

That's all for now folks...... glf

[cavortingcheetah]

Landing a 737/400 on a teeny weeny British aircraft carrier.