Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with all things in life balance seems to be the key and thus overemphasis on complex multiple emergencies seems counterproductive
Ask most airline pilots what, if given the choice, would they like to practice in their available simulator time. Few, I suggest would choose complex double jeopardy scenarios where they are deeply involved in listening to the PNF droning through QRH performance tables, while the PF types useless tosh into a CDU, talks to pretend ATC, flight attendants, engineers and does all the warm and fuzzy stuff that is called CRM and TEM (must tick those boxes).
In his fine book "Handling the Big Jets," the author Captain D.P Davies makes the point about enthusiasm and says " The demand of jet transport flying can be best met by enthusiasm...personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value, because it is a built-in productive force, and those who have it do not have to be pushed into practice and the search for knowledge...enthusiasm thus generates its own protection and this is the frame of mind which needs to be developed for the best execution of the airline pilot's task."
I suggest most enthusiastic pilots, if given the choice of sequences they would like to practice, would prefer practice at hands on manual flying with no "help" from flight directors, auto-throttles and GPS tracking. It is well documented that automation dulls basic flying skills so rather than pay lip service to that fact, let the pilot get into night landings into limit crosswind components on limiting runways, left and right circuits, all flaps up landings limiting length manual braking, high altitude stall recoveries, low level stall recoveries near the ground in landing configuration. Black hole approaches. The choice is theirs. Real unusual attitude recoveries - not just from 20 degrees up and down. Maximum manual braking on short wet runways. And not just one crack at any of these, but sufficient practice that self confidence is restored.
Oh to be able to walk out of that six-monthly simulator session with your head held high knowing that at least for the short term you are a real airman in the true sense of the word - not just another well paid bored data input processor
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
checked twice a year, and the only training available is a 2 hour session the day before, is this really enough when you consider the elevated standard that is now expected?
The complaining I've read here is from a small number of people. Hard to tell if they're representative or not but you just don't tend to hear people "cop out" like this in face to face. Could this complaining and the "unfairness" claims be the result of the wave of GA drivers which moved rapidly into a new airline a number of years ago? An airline which perhaps did not have a truly firmly established training culture? Just thinking out loud but I never heard this kind of talk when I struggled through my introduction to jets, sims and airline culture all at the same time (just as so many have before and since).
let the pilot get into night landings into limit crosswind components on limiting runways, left and right circuits, .....limiting length manual braking, ......Black hole approaches. .... Maximum manual braking on short wet runways.
let the pilot get into night landings into limit crosswind components on limiting runways, left and right circuits, all flaps up landings limiting length manual braking, high altitude stall recoveries, low level stall recoveries near the ground in landing configuration. Black hole approaches. .... Real unusual attitude recoveries - not just from 20 degrees up and down. Maximum manual braking on short wet runways.
Unfortunately, the SIM costs money to run and the Regulator insists on (as mentioned) a "matrix" of items to be covered.
Few, I suggest would choose complex double jeopardy scenarios where they are deeply involved in listening to the PNF droning through QRH performance tables, while the PF types useless tosh into a CDU, talks to pretend ATC, flight attendants, engineers and does all the warm and fuzzy stuff that is called CRM and TEM (must tick those boxes).
I find that as much as I hate it because I'm not that good at it, gong through the complex scenarios such as Volcanic Ash encounter or Dual Hyd Failures is some of the best learning process available. Knowing what he'll get beforehand helps the pilot to get the most out of the training but being checked on ANY of the usual Matrix stuff keeps him honest. This is the real world.
And not just one crack at any of these, but sufficient practice that self confidence is restored.
Oh to be able to walk out of that six-monthly simulator session with your head held high knowing that at least for the short term you are a real airman in the true sense of the word
Accept the fact you will make mistakes, put them behind you and continue with your professional approach. You may even have to accept putting up with someone who perhaps is not really a suitable instructor or trainer. Just like you may have to fly with someone who is a lousy captain and/or pilot.
If I may, the tip I would offer for what it's worth which may not be much at all is to spend a bit of time AFTER the session making proper notes out of your de-brief notes so the next time you remember what you cocked up and how to do it all better. When someone tells you how something is done, put his name next to that note so you can quote him next session!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Matrix ...or CASA matrix, is the answer given by training departments when it is to hard to change something.
Of course the Matrix is changeable.... it merely depends on what fleet you are on, and whether or not you have a pro-active training manager or trainers... ( the word trainer is more often than not easily interchanged [and often more appropriately] with the word checker)
Of course the Matrix is changeable.... it merely depends on what fleet you are on, and whether or not you have a pro-active training manager or trainers... ( the word trainer is more often than not easily interchanged [and often more appropriately] with the word checker)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
average Joe is going to say UAs, steep turns, stalls and other fun stuff.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The complaining I've read here is from a small number of people
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: korea
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to disappoint you yo-dag but have never had any of the problems of low standards that you allude to, and have never had to make the excuses you refer to, but thanks anyway for your kind assessment of my abilities. Judging from your references to upgrade sims, I take it you're are newly upgraded, so I'm sure you'll make a great instructor in 6 months time when you have your 500 hours command time....., I look forward to your wise advise, and interesting anicdotes on professional conduct when you check me next....NOT
In the mean time we all agree the sim Should be a great tool for training, but unfortunately its rarely utilised to the the extent that it should be, and for the purpose for which it was designed.
In the mean time we all agree the sim Should be a great tool for training, but unfortunately its rarely utilised to the the extent that it should be, and for the purpose for which it was designed.
The sim is a wonderful machine. We should all be very excited in our approach to every sim training session. Here is the chance for the you to be challenged and cope with emergencies that have happened or will happen to somebody...and give you the knowledge and confidence for you to survive if you see these scenarios in real life.
Sim checking on the other hand is much more stressful. If you realise that both sides of the equation (checker and checkee) are looking for success, then you can make the session easier by ensuring that you methodically check the boxes and ensure that your checker observes you doing so.
Never begrudge the checker or trainer the opportunity to pass on or give you the opportunity to benefit from the checker/trainer's experience. He/she is trying to help YOU.
Aviation is a profession where we learn by pass-down lessons. Learning from practical experience in aviation has a long history of fatal consequences.
Sim checking on the other hand is much more stressful. If you realise that both sides of the equation (checker and checkee) are looking for success, then you can make the session easier by ensuring that you methodically check the boxes and ensure that your checker observes you doing so.
Never begrudge the checker or trainer the opportunity to pass on or give you the opportunity to benefit from the checker/trainer's experience. He/she is trying to help YOU.
Aviation is a profession where we learn by pass-down lessons. Learning from practical experience in aviation has a long history of fatal consequences.
been watching this thread for a few days now.
all i have to say is there is now a new acronyn in aviation, SNAP (sensitive new age pilot).
back in my day when i was a young kiddy i used to dream of multiple failures. we never got too worked up until we had lost about 30-40% of the total aircraft systems and first to go was the automatics shortly followed by captains incapacitation.
those were the days.
all i have to say is there is now a new acronyn in aviation, SNAP (sensitive new age pilot).
back in my day when i was a young kiddy i used to dream of multiple failures. we never got too worked up until we had lost about 30-40% of the total aircraft systems and first to go was the automatics shortly followed by captains incapacitation.
those were the days
.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as usual I always get a surprise and sometimes a good laugh when I see some of these posts.
It seems the flight deck is still populated by the "Hero Class". The long time checker who is the ....."let me show how much I know type".
Then there is the yesteryear types who got bludgeoned into submission and put up with the "learning environment" so they could keep their job.
And of course there are those who believe they are schooled and educated at PHD level ( but are not) as to how training should be conducted.
Dummies some but thankfully not all.
Just keep the macho's out of the training and checking. Make the classroom AKA simulator a real training experience and if you are a product of a good training system then checks ........realistic checks........do not pose a problem.
And one last point........If you have good trainers (educators) do you really need a check?
Mmmmm I am now into the trenches.
Help!
It seems the flight deck is still populated by the "Hero Class". The long time checker who is the ....."let me show how much I know type".
Then there is the yesteryear types who got bludgeoned into submission and put up with the "learning environment" so they could keep their job.
And of course there are those who believe they are schooled and educated at PHD level ( but are not) as to how training should be conducted.
Dummies some but thankfully not all.
Just keep the macho's out of the training and checking. Make the classroom AKA simulator a real training experience and if you are a product of a good training system then checks ........realistic checks........do not pose a problem.
And one last point........If you have good trainers (educators) do you really need a check?
Mmmmm I am now into the trenches.
Help!
Moderator
back in my day when i was a young kiddy i used to dream of multiple failures
I am reminded of a 727 sim check many decades ago as a new chum. Captain (a good lad and very competent) was an old and wise checkie being checked by a mate (who had not the slightest hesitation in loading up his mate with failures). I can remember, as clear as a bell .. we were down to something like one wing, one engine, a couple of standby instruments, no vis, no coffee, etc. etc .. and the old hand needed something to be done by the FE .. leaned back in a relaxed manner and said "when you get the time, old chap, could you xyz for me, please ?".
That sim session gave me a goal for which to aspire when it came to being in front of the aircraft .... I reckon that bloke could keep the bird in the air regardless of what transpired, miracles included. I doubt that I ever achieved anything like his competence but the goal was there, nonetheless.
Seriously, though, in regard to the thread's subject, it is sad to see such a useful training and confidence building gadget as the sim being squandered on excessive button pressing and LOFT (as opposed to manipulative) training activity. It is a pity that dollar reality doesn't permit routine additional training/practice sessions ...
In my simplistic view of life ..
(a) the regulated check bits need to be done as such .. competence against a specific standard has to be demonstrated. This ought not be done in an intimidatory manner .. but it needs to be done.
(b) spare time (and one has to acknowledge the cost problem) is wasted if it is not used to the benefit of the crew.
(c) the realities of a particular sim's fidelity needs to be factored into what might be done/achieved during playtime exercises.
The problems I see are
(i) if a checkie does the training, and this is relevant where spare time is availed within a routine checking sim environment, there is the "problem" regarding what response is appropriate if the crew make a complete hash of a practice exercise (considering the checkie's regulatory delegations).
- does the checkie adopt a standards pass/fail stance ? (in the overall scheme of things such would be a counterproductive path as the great majority of crews, not surprisingly, would choose not to expose themselves to such risk and the opportunity is lost)
- does the checkie manufacture a suitable, non-punitive reason not to complete the session so that additional time can be had to provide for more exposure/training to overcome whatever the performance problem may have been ? Indeed, an operator may have the mechanism to do this without query on the authority of the instructor. I have seen this approach used to productive benefit.
-does the checkie simply ignore the "poor" performance ? I suggest that this is incompatible with regulatory delegations
(ii) if the training is done as (a) separate session(s) by a non-checkie, the regulatory delegation conflict can be avoided but there still is the "problem" of a significant skills deficit in a practice exercise. However it might be done, we should avoid a crew's leaving a session following a less than desirable performance level .. if for no reason other than the confidence issue.
As I see it, the main thing is for the instructor to tailor the manner in which exercises are structured so that the learning steps are kept within manageable increments for the crew in question. Progress needs to be via walking rather than running .. the aim being to minimise the likelihood of confidence-destroying poor performance.
As a for instance, exposure to min speed critical OEI on takeoff needs to be approached progressively, lest the crew's confidence be shattered due to needless rolling inverted and crashing ..
I have seen very experienced checkies (who were dismissive of the need for small steps) force the issue and embarrass themselves needlessly. Several extra truncated failures involving increasing levels of skill difficulty can achieve the end goal without excessive time loss and, more importantly, with miminim risk of counterproductive confidence issues. Slow and steady is not a bad war cry, in my view.
On this particular area of activity, I am reminded of an initial command trainee who was having quite real confidence issues with takeoff failures. We manufactured some additional time and progressively got him to the point where he could handle (confidently and competently, single pilot, raw data, etc) Vmca-limited failures during the takeoff flare with a requirement to backtrack the opposite localiser... needless to say, his worries about "normal" takeoff failures evaporated and we then were able to move on with a much improved confidence level.
So far as multiple failures and loading up the chap in the seat are concerned, we could argue the pros and cons until the cows come home ..
Some thoughts, for the training environment, ..
(a) the exercise should never be about the instructor sitting at the panel .. the instructor is there solely to provide a training/practice service/facilitation to the pilot. If it doesn't provide a benefit to the pilot, then it is wasted time.
(b) some operators provide the opportunity for their crews to use the box during non-scheduled time for practice. If I recall correctly, Qantas did this for the 737 at Melbourne on a fixed base operating basis when I was last involved with that facility ?
(c) reality is that line flying is routine and not able to be used for other than very limited training. ie the box is where we can extend ourselves.
(d) certification (including the flying bits) doesn't consider adventurous combinations of significant failures. It follows that such ought never to be the subject of formal assessment.
(e) the aim is to build skills and confidence .. anything counterproductive to these aims is unhelpful.
(f) if the pilot is interested, he/she should be given the opportunity to push the boundaries for self improvement. Conversely, the pilot who does not wish to play, should not be coerced into so doing due to the potential for confidence loss.
(g) we need to keep in mind that there will always be a range of pilot skills and capabilities. At the end of the day, it is nice to think that we can all extend ourselves a bit .. but the bottom line is that a pilot needs to be sufficiently competent to handle a line flight with the likely to be expected range of problems which might attend such an operation. This is what the formal training and checking process should be about ?
I am reminded of a 727 sim check many decades ago as a new chum. Captain (a good lad and very competent) was an old and wise checkie being checked by a mate (who had not the slightest hesitation in loading up his mate with failures). I can remember, as clear as a bell .. we were down to something like one wing, one engine, a couple of standby instruments, no vis, no coffee, etc. etc .. and the old hand needed something to be done by the FE .. leaned back in a relaxed manner and said "when you get the time, old chap, could you xyz for me, please ?".
That sim session gave me a goal for which to aspire when it came to being in front of the aircraft .... I reckon that bloke could keep the bird in the air regardless of what transpired, miracles included. I doubt that I ever achieved anything like his competence but the goal was there, nonetheless.
Seriously, though, in regard to the thread's subject, it is sad to see such a useful training and confidence building gadget as the sim being squandered on excessive button pressing and LOFT (as opposed to manipulative) training activity. It is a pity that dollar reality doesn't permit routine additional training/practice sessions ...
In my simplistic view of life ..
(a) the regulated check bits need to be done as such .. competence against a specific standard has to be demonstrated. This ought not be done in an intimidatory manner .. but it needs to be done.
(b) spare time (and one has to acknowledge the cost problem) is wasted if it is not used to the benefit of the crew.
(c) the realities of a particular sim's fidelity needs to be factored into what might be done/achieved during playtime exercises.
The problems I see are
(i) if a checkie does the training, and this is relevant where spare time is availed within a routine checking sim environment, there is the "problem" regarding what response is appropriate if the crew make a complete hash of a practice exercise (considering the checkie's regulatory delegations).
- does the checkie adopt a standards pass/fail stance ? (in the overall scheme of things such would be a counterproductive path as the great majority of crews, not surprisingly, would choose not to expose themselves to such risk and the opportunity is lost)
- does the checkie manufacture a suitable, non-punitive reason not to complete the session so that additional time can be had to provide for more exposure/training to overcome whatever the performance problem may have been ? Indeed, an operator may have the mechanism to do this without query on the authority of the instructor. I have seen this approach used to productive benefit.
-does the checkie simply ignore the "poor" performance ? I suggest that this is incompatible with regulatory delegations
(ii) if the training is done as (a) separate session(s) by a non-checkie, the regulatory delegation conflict can be avoided but there still is the "problem" of a significant skills deficit in a practice exercise. However it might be done, we should avoid a crew's leaving a session following a less than desirable performance level .. if for no reason other than the confidence issue.
As I see it, the main thing is for the instructor to tailor the manner in which exercises are structured so that the learning steps are kept within manageable increments for the crew in question. Progress needs to be via walking rather than running .. the aim being to minimise the likelihood of confidence-destroying poor performance.
As a for instance, exposure to min speed critical OEI on takeoff needs to be approached progressively, lest the crew's confidence be shattered due to needless rolling inverted and crashing ..
I have seen very experienced checkies (who were dismissive of the need for small steps) force the issue and embarrass themselves needlessly. Several extra truncated failures involving increasing levels of skill difficulty can achieve the end goal without excessive time loss and, more importantly, with miminim risk of counterproductive confidence issues. Slow and steady is not a bad war cry, in my view.
On this particular area of activity, I am reminded of an initial command trainee who was having quite real confidence issues with takeoff failures. We manufactured some additional time and progressively got him to the point where he could handle (confidently and competently, single pilot, raw data, etc) Vmca-limited failures during the takeoff flare with a requirement to backtrack the opposite localiser... needless to say, his worries about "normal" takeoff failures evaporated and we then were able to move on with a much improved confidence level.
So far as multiple failures and loading up the chap in the seat are concerned, we could argue the pros and cons until the cows come home ..
Some thoughts, for the training environment, ..
(a) the exercise should never be about the instructor sitting at the panel .. the instructor is there solely to provide a training/practice service/facilitation to the pilot. If it doesn't provide a benefit to the pilot, then it is wasted time.
(b) some operators provide the opportunity for their crews to use the box during non-scheduled time for practice. If I recall correctly, Qantas did this for the 737 at Melbourne on a fixed base operating basis when I was last involved with that facility ?
(c) reality is that line flying is routine and not able to be used for other than very limited training. ie the box is where we can extend ourselves.
(d) certification (including the flying bits) doesn't consider adventurous combinations of significant failures. It follows that such ought never to be the subject of formal assessment.
(e) the aim is to build skills and confidence .. anything counterproductive to these aims is unhelpful.
(f) if the pilot is interested, he/she should be given the opportunity to push the boundaries for self improvement. Conversely, the pilot who does not wish to play, should not be coerced into so doing due to the potential for confidence loss.
(g) we need to keep in mind that there will always be a range of pilot skills and capabilities. At the end of the day, it is nice to think that we can all extend ourselves a bit .. but the bottom line is that a pilot needs to be sufficiently competent to handle a line flight with the likely to be expected range of problems which might attend such an operation. This is what the formal training and checking process should be about ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(d) certification (including the flying bits) doesn't consider adventurous combinations of significant failures. It follows that such ought never to be the subject of formal assessment
JT's post is so good it's hard to add to it, but I'll have a try.
What checkies and trainers need to realise is that they have a tremendous advantage over the average line pilot because they are exposed so often to the simulator and to observing how others cope (both good and not so good). As a result they probably don't need to hit the books - they are (or should be) in a constant state of learning on the job and so it becomes relatively easy for them. The average line pilot gets maybe two hours 'training' every few months, then his/her licence is on the line for the check part of the session. Mere book preparation can not hope to cover every scenario that a checkie can dream up with superior experience of what tricks can be performed in the simulator. It is a responsibility of the trainer to pass on what they can to prepare the candidate prior to the check part, but that's not always easy if the Company runs a cyclic programme where various boxes have to be ticked (what I assume is the 'CASA matrix' that is referred to elsewhere) and only one sim session is allowed for this. Sometimes the trainer then has to take off his training hat and put on the checkie hat as CASA delegate etc etc. Not everyone is good at this dual function.
When failure rates go up, costs go up. While I have no love for beancounters, sometimes perhaps they need to ask why costs have gone so high. Check and training departments in a situation where the failure rate has increased need to take a good look at the reasons. Some of the problem may be in the pilot selection process - rarely should it be anything to do with experience levels if the training is done right in the first place. But if the raw material is not properly screened, of course there is a risk of failures. Maybe the manuals or SOPs are difficult to follow, or have diverged from other training material provided - e.g. by the manufacturer. Don't get me started on illiterates who write manuals!
Candidates certainly also have a responsibility to know their way around the QRH and other Company manuals. Given any chance, they should practice approaches on the line, but even that becomes difficult with tight schedules and the need these days to conserve fuel. Gone are the days when one could say "Ive got a sim check coming up, so I'd better do a couple of hand-flown, NDB circling, non-vasis night approaches".
So many things for a responsible checkie to consider when passing judgement.
What checkies and trainers need to realise is that they have a tremendous advantage over the average line pilot because they are exposed so often to the simulator and to observing how others cope (both good and not so good). As a result they probably don't need to hit the books - they are (or should be) in a constant state of learning on the job and so it becomes relatively easy for them. The average line pilot gets maybe two hours 'training' every few months, then his/her licence is on the line for the check part of the session. Mere book preparation can not hope to cover every scenario that a checkie can dream up with superior experience of what tricks can be performed in the simulator. It is a responsibility of the trainer to pass on what they can to prepare the candidate prior to the check part, but that's not always easy if the Company runs a cyclic programme where various boxes have to be ticked (what I assume is the 'CASA matrix' that is referred to elsewhere) and only one sim session is allowed for this. Sometimes the trainer then has to take off his training hat and put on the checkie hat as CASA delegate etc etc. Not everyone is good at this dual function.
When failure rates go up, costs go up. While I have no love for beancounters, sometimes perhaps they need to ask why costs have gone so high. Check and training departments in a situation where the failure rate has increased need to take a good look at the reasons. Some of the problem may be in the pilot selection process - rarely should it be anything to do with experience levels if the training is done right in the first place. But if the raw material is not properly screened, of course there is a risk of failures. Maybe the manuals or SOPs are difficult to follow, or have diverged from other training material provided - e.g. by the manufacturer. Don't get me started on illiterates who write manuals!
Candidates certainly also have a responsibility to know their way around the QRH and other Company manuals. Given any chance, they should practice approaches on the line, but even that becomes difficult with tight schedules and the need these days to conserve fuel. Gone are the days when one could say "Ive got a sim check coming up, so I'd better do a couple of hand-flown, NDB circling, non-vasis night approaches".
So many things for a responsible checkie to consider when passing judgement.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember during my 737 type rating training in Christchurch, New Zealand many years ago asking the check captain ( a miserable pedant if ever I met one) if he minded giving the F/O a practice abort from the right hand seat as during the whole endorsement he had never been given that opportunity.
The check captain stared at me in shock, amazed that such a heinous thing should be considered, and refused point blank to consider this heresy, saying under no conditions will a first officer ever conduct an abort, because all aborts are conducted by the captain...
Next day was the final simulator check except this time it was with another check pilot. We finished the session with a few minutes to spare and he asked us if there is anything we would like to practice - like for instance flying under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I ventured to ask him if the F/O could practice an abort from the RH seat; and waited for what I thought would the inevitable denial.
But there was no problem at all as far as this check pilot was concerned and so he gave the happy (and very competent experienced F/O) several aborts high and low speed and everyone walked out smiling.
The check captain stared at me in shock, amazed that such a heinous thing should be considered, and refused point blank to consider this heresy, saying under no conditions will a first officer ever conduct an abort, because all aborts are conducted by the captain...
Next day was the final simulator check except this time it was with another check pilot. We finished the session with a few minutes to spare and he asked us if there is anything we would like to practice - like for instance flying under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I ventured to ask him if the F/O could practice an abort from the RH seat; and waited for what I thought would the inevitable denial.
But there was no problem at all as far as this check pilot was concerned and so he gave the happy (and very competent experienced F/O) several aborts high and low speed and everyone walked out smiling.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One has to ask what motivates someone to become a check captain....
Some genuinely do it for the right reasons - to train others - because they enjoy it, and presumably believe that imparting their knowledge will result in greater safety. (These guys usual run sessions which are challenging but enjoyable - and you walk out feeling as though you have learnt something).
Others do it because of status....
Others do it because it gives them improved salary (although apparently this is debatable), roster stability and greater time at home...
Others just have giant un-squashable egos....
I am truly surprised by some candidates chosen by a certain airline on a particular fleet. Many satisfy the criteria of my last three points.... employed presumably because the (potentially) good trainers wont go near the training department. (And I believe the training department may have recognised their mistake in 1 or 2 cases).
Some genuinely do it for the right reasons - to train others - because they enjoy it, and presumably believe that imparting their knowledge will result in greater safety. (These guys usual run sessions which are challenging but enjoyable - and you walk out feeling as though you have learnt something).
Others do it because of status....
Others do it because it gives them improved salary (although apparently this is debatable), roster stability and greater time at home...
Others just have giant un-squashable egos....
I am truly surprised by some candidates chosen by a certain airline on a particular fleet. Many satisfy the criteria of my last three points.... employed presumably because the (potentially) good trainers wont go near the training department. (And I believe the training department may have recognised their mistake in 1 or 2 cases).
Anyone have an answer to my original question.
What training resourses (practice sims etc...) are allocated by QF, CX, DJ, etc... to pilots prior to their checks?
What training resourses (practice sims etc...) are allocated by QF, CX, DJ, etc... to pilots prior to their checks?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF - no practice sims prior, although subject to availability, a fixed base sim (no instructor) can sometimes be arranged. Some genius also mandated that you can't have a fixed base sim within two weeks of your license renewal as it may be cheating.........
Years ago, in Q, cyclic sim training was run over two days twice a year, first day was training the second day being the check. Then training went to four single sessions a year with a warm up excercise at the start of the session before the fun began. The bean counters got into the act and now we do three single day sessions a year. Part of each session is training and part is checking to satisfy the legal requirements.
Regards,
BH.
Regards,
BH.
Moderator
Given any chance, they should practice approaches on the line
.. I might have pushed it a bit one time as an FO on the Fokker .. never having flown a DME let down other than in the link, I proposed to have a go one time into King Island with the usual 300 kt gale blowing. After demonstrating quite successfully that I didn't have a clue in those conditions (and wasted probably 10-15 minutes at the same time) I figured it might be a good idea to go back and revisit the exercise in the link with high winds.
During the 70s/80s we flew regular raw data, manual letdowns to keep the standard up .. apart from anything else, it built confidence and made going up and down the coast a lot more fun than it probably is these days ?
Some genius also mandated that you can't have a fixed base sim within two weeks of your license renewal as it may be cheating.........
.. you're pulling our leg, surely ??
.. I might have pushed it a bit one time as an FO on the Fokker .. never having flown a DME let down other than in the link, I proposed to have a go one time into King Island with the usual 300 kt gale blowing. After demonstrating quite successfully that I didn't have a clue in those conditions (and wasted probably 10-15 minutes at the same time) I figured it might be a good idea to go back and revisit the exercise in the link with high winds.
During the 70s/80s we flew regular raw data, manual letdowns to keep the standard up .. apart from anything else, it built confidence and made going up and down the coast a lot more fun than it probably is these days ?
Some genius also mandated that you can't have a fixed base sim within two weeks of your license renewal as it may be cheating.........
.. you're pulling our leg, surely ??