QF A330 CIRCUITS at AV

[jjhews]

Just curious with anyone who works for QF this A330 doing circuits at AV right now, would this be base training? Attached https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/738x511/screen_shot_2018_12_14_at_11_41_39_am_720bbf2e439a9a0c7f64f3 f5e791af51bfdb956b.png

[Gnadenburg]

Qantas circuits at Avalon always seem more like holding patterns. Right back to the 70's. Ansett, TAA and IPEC would belt around the circuit whilst QF would disappear out of view.

[PW1830]

500ft circuits while avoiding the chicken sheds or dumbbells when the wind was all cross during S/O fo F/O endorsement were not holding patterns!

[Iron Bar]

Base training, I think it would be for SO to FO trainees who don’t have the req company “handling pilot” experience.

[Gnadenburg]

500ft circuits while avoiding the chicken sheds or dumbbells when the wind was all cross during S/O fo F/O endorsement were not holding patterns!


Right then. Must have missed that. Went to school next to Avalon and it was neat to watch as a kid. Enjoyed base training in jets there years later in a pointless exercise considering simulator fidelity. Must admit, simulator is more difficult than real life, 500 ft circling approaches seemed a breeze with all the visual cues. In the simulator it was more a computer game but then again, that may have been because the requirement was to be on one engine. Seeing co-pilots these days struggle on two engine visual approaches I can just imagine the pilot shortage ( in Asia especially ) if these elemental skills still needed to be demonstrated.

[mustafagander]

Gnadenburg, from personal experience I can say that it's about removing the "gee whiz" factor from your first aircraft flight usually the next morning.
No matter how good the sim, and they really do have excellent fidelity, an aircraft is different mentally. A big plus is that you get to hack the jet around like you will rarely do on line ops.

[Veruka Salt]

It was FO upgrade training for 2 x SOs.

[Conductor]

Surprised they found a spare A330 today given some of the disruption of the last couple of days! QF42 CGK- SYD into PER; QF52 SIN- BNE into CNS I think; QF583 didn't leave SYD last night due to weather, etc.

I wonder if they'll do base training on the Dugong or 787 if people decide to vertically promote on that?

That is correct.

[Street garbage]

Gnadenberg- is that a wind up?
Simulator easier than real life- how much koolaid have you had intravenously?

[Gnadenburg]

Think I said the opposite to your interpretation.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Gnadenberg- is that a wind up?
Simulator easier than real life- how much koolaid have you had intravenously?

Not sure how you get that from Must admit, simulator is more difficult than real life

[clark y]

Serious question- Do other airlines in Australasia do base training in the real aircraft these days?
As for the SO to FO upgrade, surely these individuals would have had the shiny jet syndrome beaten out of them after years of plying the world in heavy jets. Other airlines just chuck brand new newbies in the RH seat of 180.seat jets.

That being said, it would be fun to go and have a crack at a few circuits in a 150 ton toy.

[Veruka Salt]

Cathay (and presumably Dragonair) still do it. Hong Kong CAD requirement.

[wheels_down]

Tiger do it for the Airbus to Boeing crews converting.

Virgin dont.

[clark y]

So not a regulatory requirement then, more an in house rule.

[mrdeux]

Back in the GoDs, I recall 5 hours of circuits at Avalon in the 747-200.

[Slezy9]

Air NZ don't on the jet fleet. First landing is with pax on board.

[engine out]

They started to look at doing it again as it was quicker to put a few trainees and TREs in an aircraft for a few hours than take up sim space and lose the TRE for a few days on a trip whilst they did stage 1 of the training.

[Street garbage]

Not sure how you get that from
My error.
I should have asked why do you think the sim is harder than real life?

[JPJP]

Cathay (and presumably Dragonair) still do it. Hong Kong CAD requirement.
A likely reason - The only people that would work for Cathay and Dragonair are either cadets, or the incredibly inexperienced. A Cat D simulator removes any requirement for Base training for suitably qualified pilots.

Air NZ don't on the jet fleet. First landing is with pax on board.

Egzactly :E

[Capn Bloggs]

I should have asked why do you think the sim is harder than real life?
Obvious to anybody who does recurrents in the sim, and flies the aircraft...

[Street garbage]

Obvious to anybody who does recurrents in the sim, and flies the aircraft...
Obviously that's not the question.
The question is why the sim is harder for base training (see the Title thread) than real life.
And yes, cyclics in the sim are not easy.

[Veruka Salt]

A likely reason - The only people that would work for Cathay and Dragonair are either cadets, or the incredibly inexperienced. A Cat D simulator removes any requirement for Base training for suitably qualified pilots.

JP JP,

Its an ‘across the board’ requirement, regardless of prior experience. I’m also told it’s an Airbus requirement on initial conversion to wide body with no prior narrow body jet time.

QF did away with it on the 767 from around 2006 on - unsure what current requirement would be for FO upgrade onto the Boeing widebodies there.

[JPJP]

JP JP,

Its an ‘across the board’ requirement, regardless of prior experience. I’m also told it’s an Airbus requirement on initial conversion to wide body with no prior narrow body jet time.

QF did away with it on the 767 from around 2006 on - unsure what current requirement would be for FO upgrade onto the Boeing widebodies there.


Understood. That’s what I meant by “qualified”. In order for a pilot to be eligible for a type rating completed solely in a Class D Simulator, they must have held a type rating in a jet before. Plus whatever nebulous flight time and lisencing requirements the regulator requires. True in FAA land and in EASA (I believe). Hence the British Airways cadets requiring an extended training footprint.

[Miles Long]

No matter how good or otherwise the sim is, nothing other than real life experience can expose one to “Airbusisms” in a dynamic environment. And that applies to all backgrounds and levels of expertise.

[Gnadenburg]

Obviously that's not the question.
The question is why the sim is harder for base training (see the Title thread) than real life.
And yes, cyclics in the sim are not easy.


I was making reference to the sim being more difficult in circling scenarios than in real life. Mostly due the extra cues in real life versus the ≈ 80 degree splay or field of vision in a sim.

For circuits, I don't know, the Airbus practice of disappearing downwind in more an abbreviated ILS than a visual flying sequence is not very challenging ( nor efficient ) at all.

With circling, in the olden days, the regulator required a 500 ft single engine night circle off a NPA with 25 kts X-W. 20s downwind, 30 degree bank, don't look at the sim visuals 'till within 20 degree of QDM due lag. It was a computer game. Real life circling was definitely easier thou.

Today, even though the circling exercises easier in the sim ( no failures ), you only demonstrate it once every few years where I am. I find it "harder" than a circling approach into Korea at 4am or a widebody circling approach in Japan with the reduced circling area- due visual cues and sim lag.

Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit.

[Miles Long]

Snip
Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit.[/QUOTE]

Good point.
In less than ideal conditions it’s still easy to get around the circuit until you’re on finals, Then it can be a handful, especially in heat, turbulence, crosswind and wind changes.
“Aibusisms” I’m referring to can add to the challenge, including ( but not limited to)...lagging auto thrust, G/S mini, flight controls which seduce the uninitiated into overcontrolling, auto trim that stops late in the approach (ever run out of energy or elevator authority in the flare?), ground effect etc.
The sim can come close to, but never really replicate the real world approach and landing of an A330.

[Outtahere]

Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit.
The A350 differences/ TR course takes this path. Retrofitting to the legacy types would be beneficial.

[*Lancer*]

Understood. That’s what I meant by “qualified”. In order for a pilot to be eligible for a type rating completed solely in a Class D Simulator, they must have held a type rating in a jet before. Plus whatever nebulous flight time and lisencing requirements the regulator requires. True in FAA land and in EASA (I believe). Hence the British Airways cadets requiring an extended training footprint.


CASR 61.775 suggests that does not apply in Australia, unless you know of a different reference?

Engine out is on the money - it's about trainer pilot utilisation, although like Keg says aircraft availability is now limiting.