Judd
20th May 2019, 03:32
lBrowsing Tech Forum, I saw this post:
=leftI understand this may be a long shot, but I'm just about to undertake the 777 training course within the next few weeks, and hAve yet to receive any training documentation. As I'm keen to get on with my training and have a look, i was wondering if anyone would be able to share with me a current FCOM, FCTM & QRH.
=leftRecently heard via the grapevine that CASA had refused to accept type ratings from previously approved third party simulator traing providers in USA. Second hand info only so maybe take with a grain of salt.
Understand Virgin Australia experienced some disquiet from some of their pilots trained overseas and are now sending crews to UK for 737 type ratings.
One of the simulator sequences taught in a USA by one of the many Third Party providers, was stall recovery during the final approach of an ILS. The sequence mirrored the well publicised Turkish Airlines B737 Amsterdam crash, where due to a defective radio altimeter, the autothrottles suddenly closed to idle around at 1500 ft while the aircraft was auto coupled to the ILS.
Following that accident the closed throttles on ILS scenario is a common simulator training sequence in some airlines. Anyone that has observed such training will find it is hard to imagine how a three man crew could have missed all the signs. eg airspeed 25 knots below Vref, excessive back trimming by the stabiliser and other indications. The Turkish Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft stalled and crashed short of the runway with several fatalities. Fortunately soft ground softened the impact and most passengers survived
A candidate of a US third party provider was trained using the above description except the simulator instructor required the candidate to not only recover from the stall which finally occured around 1000 ft agl, but to continue the ILS and land. Good airmanship would have dictated an immediate go-around following the succesful recovery from the stall. The third party provider had this sequence as a pass/fail assessment. If you didn't land you failed! Clearly, the rules regarding a stable approach were disregarded. The candidate subsequently obtained his type rating which CASA then endorsed on his Australian licence. According to the candidate, the same overseas provider also neglected to supply the Flight Crew Training Manual for the 737 - despite that publication be an indispensable part of the FCOM suite. Instead company notes were provided.
One wonders how many other Australian candidates who bought their type ratings from hitherto reputable third party providers, experienced similar questionable type rating training? CASA appears to have has done the right thing by refusing to accept type ratings offered by certain overseas simulator training providers.
=leftI understand this may be a long shot, but I'm just about to undertake the 777 training course within the next few weeks, and hAve yet to receive any training documentation. As I'm keen to get on with my training and have a look, i was wondering if anyone would be able to share with me a current FCOM, FCTM & QRH.
=leftRecently heard via the grapevine that CASA had refused to accept type ratings from previously approved third party simulator traing providers in USA. Second hand info only so maybe take with a grain of salt.
Understand Virgin Australia experienced some disquiet from some of their pilots trained overseas and are now sending crews to UK for 737 type ratings.
One of the simulator sequences taught in a USA by one of the many Third Party providers, was stall recovery during the final approach of an ILS. The sequence mirrored the well publicised Turkish Airlines B737 Amsterdam crash, where due to a defective radio altimeter, the autothrottles suddenly closed to idle around at 1500 ft while the aircraft was auto coupled to the ILS.
Following that accident the closed throttles on ILS scenario is a common simulator training sequence in some airlines. Anyone that has observed such training will find it is hard to imagine how a three man crew could have missed all the signs. eg airspeed 25 knots below Vref, excessive back trimming by the stabiliser and other indications. The Turkish Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft stalled and crashed short of the runway with several fatalities. Fortunately soft ground softened the impact and most passengers survived
A candidate of a US third party provider was trained using the above description except the simulator instructor required the candidate to not only recover from the stall which finally occured around 1000 ft agl, but to continue the ILS and land. Good airmanship would have dictated an immediate go-around following the succesful recovery from the stall. The third party provider had this sequence as a pass/fail assessment. If you didn't land you failed! Clearly, the rules regarding a stable approach were disregarded. The candidate subsequently obtained his type rating which CASA then endorsed on his Australian licence. According to the candidate, the same overseas provider also neglected to supply the Flight Crew Training Manual for the 737 - despite that publication be an indispensable part of the FCOM suite. Instead company notes were provided.
One wonders how many other Australian candidates who bought their type ratings from hitherto reputable third party providers, experienced similar questionable type rating training? CASA appears to have has done the right thing by refusing to accept type ratings offered by certain overseas simulator training providers.