bluesideoops
1st Mar 2017, 01:18
Is anyone brave enough to stick there head above the parapet?
During six-monthly prof-checks, most guys I talk to say its fairly 'routine' stuff, engine failures, OEI climbs approaches etc - couple of additional failures thrown in for good measure (ELECT/HYD).
When I ask about upset recovery, unusual attitudes & hand-flying the conversation usually goes quiet - it's either not practiced at all or there is very limited opportunity in the time available.
So, can it be assumed that prof checks are simply that, just checking continued proficiency based around a very predictable combination of scenarios?
If this is the case, outside of the allocated time for prof checks, how many of you get the chance to do some actual training (discounting initial type or captain upgrades) on type? Seems like lots of checking but very little training going on.
Furthermore, in the sweat-box, is there any element of CRM applied? I have heard from several sources during prof-check it is very rigorously based around the drills and SOPs and that there is very little 'thinking' goes on by the crew - we know its an engine failure and we apply the drill but doesn't CRM suppose that there should be at least some basic level of interaction between the flight crew about the failure before diving into the drills/SOPS (we've seen wrong engines being shutdown, for example, in crews haste to complete the drills in the past). Before anyone beats the crap out of me, I know that sometimes there is no time for discussion and action is required immediately but perhaps training to react as such in every case this way may be a latent hazard in itself...
Very interested to know the reality of what's going on from those actually involved and if anyone is courageous enough, in your reply please indicate your type and geographic area e.g. 777 Captain - North America.
Is the current training/proficiency system adequate?
Also, like the abolishment of C of As in airworthiness for 'continuing airworthiness' should we consider a similar system for 'continuing proficiency' for flight crew perhaps to free up more time to focus on the less predictable challenges a flight crew may face? (annual prof check and 6 monthly (non-prof) training session).
Some may say 'its not broken don't fix it' but others may say that the current arrangement is failing to change with the new technology and industry challenges....
Again, no beating up please - just provide honest opinion/examples and if not relevant to you then move onto the next forum rather than start a bun-fight
During six-monthly prof-checks, most guys I talk to say its fairly 'routine' stuff, engine failures, OEI climbs approaches etc - couple of additional failures thrown in for good measure (ELECT/HYD).
When I ask about upset recovery, unusual attitudes & hand-flying the conversation usually goes quiet - it's either not practiced at all or there is very limited opportunity in the time available.
So, can it be assumed that prof checks are simply that, just checking continued proficiency based around a very predictable combination of scenarios?
If this is the case, outside of the allocated time for prof checks, how many of you get the chance to do some actual training (discounting initial type or captain upgrades) on type? Seems like lots of checking but very little training going on.
Furthermore, in the sweat-box, is there any element of CRM applied? I have heard from several sources during prof-check it is very rigorously based around the drills and SOPs and that there is very little 'thinking' goes on by the crew - we know its an engine failure and we apply the drill but doesn't CRM suppose that there should be at least some basic level of interaction between the flight crew about the failure before diving into the drills/SOPS (we've seen wrong engines being shutdown, for example, in crews haste to complete the drills in the past). Before anyone beats the crap out of me, I know that sometimes there is no time for discussion and action is required immediately but perhaps training to react as such in every case this way may be a latent hazard in itself...
Very interested to know the reality of what's going on from those actually involved and if anyone is courageous enough, in your reply please indicate your type and geographic area e.g. 777 Captain - North America.
Is the current training/proficiency system adequate?
Also, like the abolishment of C of As in airworthiness for 'continuing airworthiness' should we consider a similar system for 'continuing proficiency' for flight crew perhaps to free up more time to focus on the less predictable challenges a flight crew may face? (annual prof check and 6 monthly (non-prof) training session).
Some may say 'its not broken don't fix it' but others may say that the current arrangement is failing to change with the new technology and industry challenges....
Again, no beating up please - just provide honest opinion/examples and if not relevant to you then move onto the next forum rather than start a bun-fight