Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training
"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 ?? "
No he's not, but it wasn't unusual to see some management types lurking the halls of the sim building in the wee small hours doing a bit of practice before the event.
Regards,
BH.
.. you're pulling our leg, surely ?? "
No he's not, but it wasn't unusual to see some management types lurking the halls of the sim building in the wee small hours doing a bit of practice before the event.
Regards,
BH.
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 idea of no fixed base sim within 2 weeks of a license renewal really shows how out of touch the training department is.
Surely anything at all which improves the safety of flight is a bonus. If a person is prepared to practice before a sim - then good on them for taking the initiative. The trouble is that there is so little training being done for normal line guys, people should be encouraged to practice in their own time.
Ultimately they still have to perform in the sim during their check.
(Its seems that the assumption is that the person would be a guaranteed failure and it is only because of the practice he will pass - it may indeed be the case although a rarity and when you start considering this where do you stop - what about the person who scrapes through his sim on the day without the practice but then is marginal online - surely someone like this who takes the effort to practice on his own is ultimately improving safety)
Qf went towards improved training for a while, then did a backflip -for a while they were producing comprehensive sim study guides - which took all the information from the numerous poorly written manuals and added generally some practical information which had been long removed (or just not available) - yes it made studying for sim sessions easier - but it also provided a good reference to various systems and reasons for doing things which was not available (some of this sort of info was the specialist instructor info hidden from the troops used to ping people in the sim) ..... At no stage did it remove the need to cover all of the books.
Alas, someone decided that it was to easy to study for sims, and people were neglecting to read all the books - So they stopped the study guides (at least longhaul did) and removed all the extra information.
What I think they fail to realise is that whilst it is important to study the books for the sim - the theory part is generally not tested on its own - it is the practical application of theory and procedures which is what is tested - so a study guide is hardly going to make a sim easy for someone.
So one step forward with proactive training was suddenly reversed with a giant hop step and jump backwards.....
Surely anything at all which improves the safety of flight is a bonus. If a person is prepared to practice before a sim - then good on them for taking the initiative. The trouble is that there is so little training being done for normal line guys, people should be encouraged to practice in their own time.
Ultimately they still have to perform in the sim during their check.
(Its seems that the assumption is that the person would be a guaranteed failure and it is only because of the practice he will pass - it may indeed be the case although a rarity and when you start considering this where do you stop - what about the person who scrapes through his sim on the day without the practice but then is marginal online - surely someone like this who takes the effort to practice on his own is ultimately improving safety)
Qf went towards improved training for a while, then did a backflip -for a while they were producing comprehensive sim study guides - which took all the information from the numerous poorly written manuals and added generally some practical information which had been long removed (or just not available) - yes it made studying for sim sessions easier - but it also provided a good reference to various systems and reasons for doing things which was not available (some of this sort of info was the specialist instructor info hidden from the troops used to ping people in the sim) ..... At no stage did it remove the need to cover all of the books.
Alas, someone decided that it was to easy to study for sims, and people were neglecting to read all the books - So they stopped the study guides (at least longhaul did) and removed all the extra information.
What I think they fail to realise is that whilst it is important to study the books for the sim - the theory part is generally not tested on its own - it is the practical application of theory and procedures which is what is tested - so a study guide is hardly going to make a sim easy for someone.
So one step forward with proactive training was suddenly reversed with a giant hop step and jump backwards.....
Last edited by blueloo; 9th Jan 2009 at 06:52.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have look at Sioux city etc etc. for examples of pilot skill that you can aspire to.
I could have the wrong crash, but I dont think that was a good example of pilot skill to aspire to.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is not the first time that Tee Emm has whined about airline check and training 
I dont want my family flying with crew who are spooked by unusual, complicated or multiple failures. Or pilots who give up
And I am quite certain that the passengers you carry Tee Emm feel exactly the same as myself 
Maybe you should choose a different career path. It is never too late to change.
I dont want my family flying with crew who are spooked by unusual, complicated or multiple failures. Or pilots who give up
And I am quite certain that the passengers you carry Tee Emm feel exactly the same as myself Maybe you should choose a different career path. It is never too late to change.
Moderator
Or pilots who give up
In the early CRM days, AN ran some interesting refresher exercises for a while.
One I recall well involved two people seated opposite each other but with a screen between to prevent visual contact. The exercise required A to provide verbal description of the layout of set of blocks (or similar) via Q&A so that B could arrange the same set of objects in the same way... against a tight clock limit.
Interestingly, a significant proportion of non-pilots threw in the towel early on when it became apparent that the odds were stacked in favour of the clock's winning ... I can't recall ever seeing a pilot do so .. all played the game right down to the wire (crash). Interesting personality variation, I thought ... perhaps the pilot folk have a more focussed view of being the first to arrive at the scene of the accident ?
Maybe you should choose a different career path. It is never too late to change.
Tee Emm is a very experienced greybeard pilot and one of the those chaps I could never imagine having done anything other than flying ..
In the early CRM days, AN ran some interesting refresher exercises for a while.
One I recall well involved two people seated opposite each other but with a screen between to prevent visual contact. The exercise required A to provide verbal description of the layout of set of blocks (or similar) via Q&A so that B could arrange the same set of objects in the same way... against a tight clock limit.
Interestingly, a significant proportion of non-pilots threw in the towel early on when it became apparent that the odds were stacked in favour of the clock's winning ... I can't recall ever seeing a pilot do so .. all played the game right down to the wire (crash). Interesting personality variation, I thought ... perhaps the pilot folk have a more focussed view of being the first to arrive at the scene of the accident ?
Maybe you should choose a different career path. It is never too late to change.
Tee Emm is a very experienced greybeard pilot and one of the those chaps I could never imagine having done anything other than flying ..
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast majority of airliner accidents these days are the result of stoopid decisions being made by pilots flying perfectly serviceable aircraft.
Me thinks there would be fewer accidents if we spent more time in the sim at the gate with the brakes parked discussing issues that kill instead of driving around the sky with multiple system failures that in many cases HAVE NEVER OCCURED.
Me thinks there would be fewer accidents if we spent more time in the sim at the gate with the brakes parked discussing issues that kill instead of driving around the sky with multiple system failures that in many cases HAVE NEVER OCCURED.
Moderator
Me thinks there would be fewer accidents ..
While your view is respected, would we not be more productively employed with a probability of a better outcome ..
(a) doing the philosophical discussions over coffee, while
(b) using the box (however we might choose) to exploit its potential .. viz., as a realistic make-believe aeroplane ?
I'm not too fussed, philosophically, whether we play routine or try to be a little more adventurous ... but one thing is for certain, the box is the place to play and experiment with non-routine activities for training and confidence. Doing so in the air is a good way to increase mishaps. Trying to figure out a new problem in anger has never appeared to be a smarter angle than day-dreaming about it over coffee and then having a looksee at the problem in the box.
Certainly, it might never occur but, if we go too far down that road .. then one could argue along the line of increased reliability reducing the need for most/much of the traditional training efforts.
I know that I am far more comfortable in back with a greybeard up front who has been there, done that .. rather than with a new base-grade captain (crew). For the routine, either will get you home .. for the out-of-left-field .. the money probably is on the old hand (read = higher experience level).
While your view is respected, would we not be more productively employed with a probability of a better outcome ..
(a) doing the philosophical discussions over coffee, while
(b) using the box (however we might choose) to exploit its potential .. viz., as a realistic make-believe aeroplane ?
I'm not too fussed, philosophically, whether we play routine or try to be a little more adventurous ... but one thing is for certain, the box is the place to play and experiment with non-routine activities for training and confidence. Doing so in the air is a good way to increase mishaps. Trying to figure out a new problem in anger has never appeared to be a smarter angle than day-dreaming about it over coffee and then having a looksee at the problem in the box.
Certainly, it might never occur but, if we go too far down that road .. then one could argue along the line of increased reliability reducing the need for most/much of the traditional training efforts.
I know that I am far more comfortable in back with a greybeard up front who has been there, done that .. rather than with a new base-grade captain (crew). For the routine, either will get you home .. for the out-of-left-field .. the money probably is on the old hand (read = higher experience level).
Having recently had to deal with an emergency that involved simultaneous major unrelated failures, I felt that the training system had prepared us pretty well. All of the Lego building blocks that we needed were there.
But, I don't consider multiple problems make any sort of reasonable training exercise. I have enough trouble remembering what happens in a sim ex without it involving compound emergencies.
But, I don't consider multiple problems make any sort of reasonable training exercise. I have enough trouble remembering what happens in a sim ex without it involving compound emergencies.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: uk
Age: 62
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you get the best out of a trainee in the sim? Put them at ease. 
How do you train for multiple failures? Train the right mindset - i.e use the simulator as a tool to give a pilot confidence, regardless of his/her experience. Teach the fundamentals in prioritising, flight deck management and operating philosophy. Armed with the basics a pilot can then use their skills, gained through flying experience to procatively manage a situation. Giving multiple failures, particularly unrelated, is counterproductive. On the other hand, generating say a hydraulic leak which then leads to a related failure can be very positive, particularly when you want to highlight such fundamentals as diagnosis and prioritisation. Nothing happens in the aircraft the way it is trained in the sim. Similiarly, you cannot train for every conceivable failure. This is why it is so important that you give pilots the best tools to deal with any failure/s that they may experience.
How does a pilot best prepare for recurrent checks? Dont leave it until a week before your check to dust off the books.
My advice is to continually strive to increase your knowledge in a gradual manner. That way the cramming is not required, and you'll actually look forward to the recurrent check as an opportunity to further that knowledge. Incidentally, it is a complete fallacy that trainers/examniers dont need to read up on the books. Its quite the opposite, we are continually in them. 
What do you do if you get a "checker" and not a trainer? Try to learn from it. Every pilot has something to teach you, sometimes that may well include how not to do it!
Happy simmimg!
How do you train for multiple failures? Train the right mindset - i.e use the simulator as a tool to give a pilot confidence, regardless of his/her experience. Teach the fundamentals in prioritising, flight deck management and operating philosophy. Armed with the basics a pilot can then use their skills, gained through flying experience to procatively manage a situation. Giving multiple failures, particularly unrelated, is counterproductive. On the other hand, generating say a hydraulic leak which then leads to a related failure can be very positive, particularly when you want to highlight such fundamentals as diagnosis and prioritisation. Nothing happens in the aircraft the way it is trained in the sim. Similiarly, you cannot train for every conceivable failure. This is why it is so important that you give pilots the best tools to deal with any failure/s that they may experience.
How does a pilot best prepare for recurrent checks? Dont leave it until a week before your check to dust off the books.
My advice is to continually strive to increase your knowledge in a gradual manner. That way the cramming is not required, and you'll actually look forward to the recurrent check as an opportunity to further that knowledge. Incidentally, it is a complete fallacy that trainers/examniers dont need to read up on the books. Its quite the opposite, we are continually in them. What do you do if you get a "checker" and not a trainer? Try to learn from it. Every pilot has something to teach you, sometimes that may well include how not to do it!
Happy simmimg!
"I have enough trouble remembering what happens in a sim ex without it involving compound emergencies".
Mrdeux, if that it the case, and assuming that your cognitive skills are intact and normal, then I suggest that your SOPS are probably too complex to work properly under pressure, or your checkies are too anal about the delivery of those SOPs. When I hear checkies berating sim candidates because they did not spout the exact words I get mightily pissed off. For example- fire drill: I have always said, and will continue to say (after identifying etc) 'discharge shot one, timing 30 seconds' then do the Pan call myself. After 30 seconds if the sim fire warning is still on, it's likely I will say something like 'bugger me, it's still on fire, so discharge shot two', while simultaneously upgrading the PAN to a Mayday. If I forget to say 'my radios' (as I sometimes do), even a half-wit would have to realise that I am already talking to ATC as per Company SOP even if I did not say the magic words first. A bit like 'my control' versus 'I have control' - it's pretty bloody obvious to all but a total retard who is driving it.
Sometimes I have copped a ration of bull**** at debrief because the words at some stage of the check were non-standard. Depending on the seriousness or otherwise of the checkie's assessment, I will either argue the toss or just nod wisely. Once, a CASA inspector tried to fail me on a check pilot renewal. I was acting as support for another Captain who was a bit rusty. On a circling approach the speed was rapidly trending south, but had not actually got to the trigger for a 'speed' call. So, hoping the CASA guy wouldn't hear, (but he obviously did) I just quietly said 'getting a bit slow there, George' . CASA man went ape-**** at de-brief because I was a checkie and should know better than to use non-standard calls blah blah. I think the prick was hoping I'd let the other guy get it to stick-shaker so I could can him. But of course if I had let it go that far, there was a risk I would also get canned for lack of proper support, so it was a no win. In my spray to Mr CASA I pointed out that I have seen candidates get so tongue-tied under pressure trying to get the exact words that they have forgotten real important stuff, like getting the fuel off first in a fire, or like controlling the flight path before doing the drill etc. These ARE fail points, not a few less than perfect words.
Particularly once compound failures start to be inserted into sim exercises, one can expect some departure from absolute standard to be within the rules of engagement. Multiple failures often call for some improvisation. In such situations what I look for is that they don't get too close to terrain, too far out of tolerance, or stall. If they get it safely on the ground without any of the above they usually pass.
Mrdeux, if that it the case, and assuming that your cognitive skills are intact and normal, then I suggest that your SOPS are probably too complex to work properly under pressure, or your checkies are too anal about the delivery of those SOPs. When I hear checkies berating sim candidates because they did not spout the exact words I get mightily pissed off. For example- fire drill: I have always said, and will continue to say (after identifying etc) 'discharge shot one, timing 30 seconds' then do the Pan call myself. After 30 seconds if the sim fire warning is still on, it's likely I will say something like 'bugger me, it's still on fire, so discharge shot two', while simultaneously upgrading the PAN to a Mayday. If I forget to say 'my radios' (as I sometimes do), even a half-wit would have to realise that I am already talking to ATC as per Company SOP even if I did not say the magic words first. A bit like 'my control' versus 'I have control' - it's pretty bloody obvious to all but a total retard who is driving it.
Sometimes I have copped a ration of bull**** at debrief because the words at some stage of the check were non-standard. Depending on the seriousness or otherwise of the checkie's assessment, I will either argue the toss or just nod wisely. Once, a CASA inspector tried to fail me on a check pilot renewal. I was acting as support for another Captain who was a bit rusty. On a circling approach the speed was rapidly trending south, but had not actually got to the trigger for a 'speed' call. So, hoping the CASA guy wouldn't hear, (but he obviously did) I just quietly said 'getting a bit slow there, George' . CASA man went ape-**** at de-brief because I was a checkie and should know better than to use non-standard calls blah blah. I think the prick was hoping I'd let the other guy get it to stick-shaker so I could can him. But of course if I had let it go that far, there was a risk I would also get canned for lack of proper support, so it was a no win. In my spray to Mr CASA I pointed out that I have seen candidates get so tongue-tied under pressure trying to get the exact words that they have forgotten real important stuff, like getting the fuel off first in a fire, or like controlling the flight path before doing the drill etc. These ARE fail points, not a few less than perfect words.
Particularly once compound failures start to be inserted into sim exercises, one can expect some departure from absolute standard to be within the rules of engagement. Multiple failures often call for some improvisation. In such situations what I look for is that they don't get too close to terrain, too far out of tolerance, or stall. If they get it safely on the ground without any of the above they usually pass.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multiple failures often call for some improvisation. In such situations what I look for is that they don't get too close to terrain, too far out of tolerance, or stall. If they get it safely on the ground without any of the above they usually pass.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timely images from CNN thankyou very much. Is dead stick to a river too difficult Tee Emm? Dont cry old man, if it hasn't happened yet it will probably never happen to you?
Ever had an engine fall off? Realistic, has occurred at east twice.
Ever had a FADEC fail at V1? Realistic, the PCM in my truck failed twice, same function as FADEC.
Ever had an engine failure, the other on fire at V1? Realistic when birds or bats about, yes?
What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.
Have you ever considered Tee Emm that maybe australian aviation drags the world rather than lead. Triple so for the GA Joysticks.
True words
However people like Tee Emm and his many supporters, choose to whine about training hardship; and then no doubt will later whine again at the crash site about their inadequate training
Ever had an engine fall off? Realistic, has occurred at east twice.
Ever had a FADEC fail at V1? Realistic, the PCM in my truck failed twice, same function as FADEC.
Ever had an engine failure, the other on fire at V1? Realistic when birds or bats about, yes?
What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.
Have you ever considered Tee Emm that maybe australian aviation drags the world rather than lead. Triple so for the GA Joysticks.
Train Hard - Fight Easy
However people like Tee Emm and his many supporters, choose to whine about training hardship; and then no doubt will later whine again at the crash site about their inadequate training
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point?
Ever had an engine fall off? Realistic, has occurred at east twice.
Ever had a FADEC fail at V1? Realistic, the PCM in my truck failed twice, same function as FADEC.
Ever had an engine failure, the other on fire at V1? Realistic when birds or bats about, yes?
Ever had a FADEC fail at V1? Realistic, the PCM in my truck failed twice, same function as FADEC.
Ever had an engine failure, the other on fire at V1? Realistic when birds or bats about, yes?
What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.
Have you ever considered Tee Emm that maybe australian aviation drags the world rather than lead. Triple so for the GA Joysticks.
Quote:
Train Hard - Fight Easy
True words
Train Hard - Fight Easy
True words
However people like Tee Emm and his many supporters, choose to whine about training hardship; and then no doubt will later whine again at the crash site about their inadequate training
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by psycho joe
None of these are multiple unrelated failures.
Quote:
What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.
Neither is this.
Quote:
What about realistic volcanic ash? Not the gay AN volcanic event. Can you manage it for real; the VOLCANIC ASH checklist, UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist and DUAL ENGINE FAILURE all from the QRH simultaneously. This is a realistic scenario and practiced by foreign airlines.
Neither is this.
Originally Posted by Tee Emm
Tyre burst on take off followed by engine failure caused by FOD and maybe asymmetric flap caused by tyre debris
The Concorde suffered a tyre failure with the well-known catastrophic result.
The A320 which ditched in the Hudson suffered a condition no one trains for. Although "Sully" pulled it off, what would other pilots have done?
HAs anyone here been loaded up with truly unrelated major failures? Example.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Tee Emm and his mates are scared of the SIM? And be sure, HR warm-loves are massaging their swollen spineless backs as I type.....
Perhaps whining is a healthy sign. Yes? No?
Everyone, most of all the travelling public, would be far better off if unsuitable pilots are voluntarily motivated to find a less intimidating profession.
Chin up and just go away
Perhaps whining is a healthy sign. Yes? No?
Everyone, most of all the travelling public, would be far better off if unsuitable pilots are voluntarily motivated to find a less intimidating profession.
Chin up and just go away
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
How about this one FOR REAL which by definition is a so called UNRELATED FAILURE
F-100 in the clear between storms, suitably separated, lightning strikes, usual sort out from that.
AND THEN, double hydraulic failure over a very short time.
Turns out the discharge was in the fin, cooked connections to both systems.
In the Sim, howels of UNFAIR, in real life, get over it princess, do the QRH, FOPPM, SOP's and all go home on time.
As for the T & C in the sim, apart from the fact that there are ego trippers in the ranks on all sides in the last 16 years I have only seen/heard of a very few so called "horror trips" and certainly don't use that process on my canditates.
C YA
F-100 in the clear between storms, suitably separated, lightning strikes, usual sort out from that.
AND THEN, double hydraulic failure over a very short time.
Turns out the discharge was in the fin, cooked connections to both systems.
In the Sim, howels of UNFAIR, in real life, get over it princess, do the QRH, FOPPM, SOP's and all go home on time.
As for the T & C in the sim, apart from the fact that there are ego trippers in the ranks on all sides in the last 16 years I have only seen/heard of a very few so called "horror trips" and certainly don't use that process on my canditates.
C YA