Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter E Kirtz - I love a person with a complete rigid inflexibility like yours. Its so refreshing to see such fixed prehistoric views.
Stiff upper lip. Pip Pip.
Stiff upper lip. Pip Pip.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The surface of the earth is also rigid and and the laws of physics are mostly inflexible Blueloo. With no illusions, I exist happily in the real world. From what I read here some australian pilots live on Fantasy Island.
Confidence during checks only comes after competence. Please explain Blueloo how Tee Emms thoughts improve competence and safety? Does this thread improve airmanship?
Why are so many australian pilots so determined to water down training designed to elevate their competence?
For the sake of the travelling public, why not stop whining on this site and read your FCOM tonight?
(Tee Emm will no doubt pull his thread soon. For the sake of Airmanship I ask the Moderators leave it in place)
Confidence during checks only comes after competence. Please explain Blueloo how Tee Emms thoughts improve competence and safety? Does this thread improve airmanship?
Why are so many australian pilots so determined to water down training designed to elevate their competence?
For the sake of the travelling public, why not stop whining on this site and read your FCOM tonight?
(Tee Emm will no doubt pull his thread soon. For the sake of Airmanship I ask the Moderators leave it in place)
The word of the day should be CONTEXT;
Training for multiple failures should be just that...........Training.
Everyone knows that a CASA Delegate, ATO, Checker or CASA FOI can fail anyone, even the greatest, by loading them up until they breach an FCOM / FAM / QRH / FM requirement. That is all it takes. Not hard.
What is to be gained by that.............NOTHING.
Every CASA Delegate, ATO, Checker or CASA FOI is legally required to adhere to the CAR , CAO requirements of checking. Most airlines with a CAR 217 system require the assessor to adhere to a script, ie The instructor notes of the Cyclic, assessment or whatever. If they deviate from that script they risk repercussions from the crew if they find out. As most crew are given a matrix to read through prior to their assessment, this should be highly unlikely.
I, however, like to empower the crew's I assess or train to handle situations, like mutilple failures. This is done within the "CONTEXT" of training. For example, Session 1 of a command upgrade ( where I work) generally has a bit of spare time at the end. I "BRIEF" the crew that they will be given a, for example, an uncontrollable engine fire at V1 +5, or a gear problem with an engine failure. Whilst they do this exercise, I freeze the sim, make a suggestion, unfreeze, etc and then we positively de-breif their actions at the end.
I suggest that we try this again after they pass their command endorsement, session 4, again within the "CONTEXT" of training. They go away and think about handling this situation or others like it, come back at the end and do it very very very well.
The exercise is unscripted, should the crew not want to do it, I cannot force them as it is not a requirement. I have not had one candidate say no.
The end result is that they have widened their peripheral vision of the operation, and are better equipped to handle multiple failures.
My 2 cents worth as a CASA Delegate and Airline Checker.
Training for multiple failures should be just that...........Training.
Everyone knows that a CASA Delegate, ATO, Checker or CASA FOI can fail anyone, even the greatest, by loading them up until they breach an FCOM / FAM / QRH / FM requirement. That is all it takes. Not hard.
What is to be gained by that.............NOTHING.
Every CASA Delegate, ATO, Checker or CASA FOI is legally required to adhere to the CAR , CAO requirements of checking. Most airlines with a CAR 217 system require the assessor to adhere to a script, ie The instructor notes of the Cyclic, assessment or whatever. If they deviate from that script they risk repercussions from the crew if they find out. As most crew are given a matrix to read through prior to their assessment, this should be highly unlikely.
I, however, like to empower the crew's I assess or train to handle situations, like mutilple failures. This is done within the "CONTEXT" of training. For example, Session 1 of a command upgrade ( where I work) generally has a bit of spare time at the end. I "BRIEF" the crew that they will be given a, for example, an uncontrollable engine fire at V1 +5, or a gear problem with an engine failure. Whilst they do this exercise, I freeze the sim, make a suggestion, unfreeze, etc and then we positively de-breif their actions at the end.
I suggest that we try this again after they pass their command endorsement, session 4, again within the "CONTEXT" of training. They go away and think about handling this situation or others like it, come back at the end and do it very very very well.
The exercise is unscripted, should the crew not want to do it, I cannot force them as it is not a requirement. I have not had one candidate say no.
The end result is that they have widened their peripheral vision of the operation, and are better equipped to handle multiple failures.
My 2 cents worth as a CASA Delegate and Airline Checker.
Last edited by Captain Stoobing; 23rd Jan 2009 at 23:17.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoted from original Tee Emm statement:
.
Tee Emm does not differentiate between checking and training. Check Captain control is reasonable, watered down training is not.
Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training
simulator checks
aces of the base have trouble coping with this sort of "training."
CASA's thoughts on flight training
Assessment should not involve
principles of teaching
intelligent instruction.
Last edited by Walter E Kurtz; 22nd Jan 2009 at 23:08. Reason: format
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.
Firstly, I'm very much a believer that flying is like Italian driving. In other words, what's behind me doesn't matter. Once I've done something, it's forgotten. That's especially easy when a sim exercise consists of numerous takeoffs (that may or may not have issues), with IPs to different approaches (just as likely on different runways). Nothing flows, it's just a disjointed series of small items, done to fill in a matrix for CASA. So debriefing me on something that happened in the second ILS, when I've just done six, is probably a waste of breath. And the anal word perfect brigade...I don't think they do anything for the quality of the training when they consider 'altimeter' to be different to 'altimeters'. Who really cares, as long as a call is made. On the other hand, if you're off inventing your own procedures, then you do need to be pulled back into line.
Loft exercises on the other hand, can be run as very worthwhile training exercises. They happen in real time. You can explore the consequences of various problems, and real multiple failures can be done in such a way that it is of value. For instance, a duct leak can lead to a depressurisation, and then on to flap problems. There are plenty of problems that will lead to subsequent issues, and yes, I have no problem with rational training for these. But, having some ego maniac playing with the buttons at the back in a totally random fashion has no training value at all. Related failures; no issue. Unrelated failures; utterly worthless as training.
Last edited by mrdeux; 26th Jan 2009 at 20:47.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Age: 62
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking up...
Chaps,
Sitting at my console watching the little green blips as you guys and gals fly through my airspace pondering the deep thoughts herein.
It occurs to me that there's a very simply way for you to avoid all the angst associated with sim runs from hell. Join the merry band of ATCs at Airservices and it's likely you'll never have to do cyclic refresher training again. When our Flight Data Processor failed on the 21st, rather than rely on the tired old dogma of being appropriately prepared, we simply did what we thought was a good thing. Thankfully we (you) all made it through.
So rather than facing the strain of prep for emergencies refresher on a regular basis we get to sit around fat dumb and happy and just put up with the sheer terror of the real thing occasionally.
TND
PS Wonder how the Hudson ditching would have turned out without the wealth of experience in the cockpit?
Sitting at my console watching the little green blips as you guys and gals fly through my airspace pondering the deep thoughts herein.
It occurs to me that there's a very simply way for you to avoid all the angst associated with sim runs from hell. Join the merry band of ATCs at Airservices and it's likely you'll never have to do cyclic refresher training again. When our Flight Data Processor failed on the 21st, rather than rely on the tired old dogma of being appropriately prepared, we simply did what we thought was a good thing. Thankfully we (you) all made it through.
So rather than facing the strain of prep for emergencies refresher on a regular basis we get to sit around fat dumb and happy and just put up with the sheer terror of the real thing occasionally.
TND
PS Wonder how the Hudson ditching would have turned out without the wealth of experience in the cockpit?
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
PS Wonder how the Hudson ditching would have turned out without the wealth of experience in the cockpit?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS Wonder how the Hudson ditching would have turned out without the wealth of experience in the cockpit
He said "I have the aircraft" instead of the SOP of "I have control"....
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experience was not the only thing which saved the day in the Hudson ditching (and anyway the F/O was brand new on type). There are lots of highly experienced pilots whose bodily parts are scattered over the landscape.
Anyway, while I agree that it is not unreasonable to get some demanding failures in the sim, I have certainly also experienced the flip-side, being given a multiple failure which left the aeroplane unflyable. The check captain allowed us to fight with the aeroplane up to and including the impact with the ground. Words were spoken (then and later, as it went up the chain) and it didn't count in the assessment. I think he also got his botty smacked.
There are dividing lines between "realistic", "extremely unlikely but let's see how you handle it", and "what are you trying to prove exactly?"
Anyway, while I agree that it is not unreasonable to get some demanding failures in the sim, I have certainly also experienced the flip-side, being given a multiple failure which left the aeroplane unflyable. The check captain allowed us to fight with the aeroplane up to and including the impact with the ground. Words were spoken (then and later, as it went up the chain) and it didn't count in the assessment. I think he also got his botty smacked.
There are dividing lines between "realistic", "extremely unlikely but let's see how you handle it", and "what are you trying to prove exactly?"
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GDay from the Gold Coast
To OLD FELLA - re C-141 Starlifter at RAAF Richmond 31 Oct 1977....I was doing some research and just saw your comment. I was the 20 year old air traffic controller in the tower at Richmond that day. Frightened me then, still scares me now. The most terrifying thing I've ever witnessed..... we thought they wouldn't make it - most amazing bit of flying I've ever seen... ground effect put to good use!
AIR TRAFFIC ONE - interesting flashback. Here's the post from a few years ago that you mention. (Not everyone has the time, patience or interest to go trawling.)
Old Fella
Simulated multiple failures
Having been on both ends of the system, i.e. being trained and being the instructor, I can say with some authority that purposely overloading students with multiple unrelated failures is an exercise in futility which does nothing but satisfy the ego of the instructor. That said there are documented instances where one seemingly isolated emergency has led to multiple problems. One which I will always remember involved a USAF C141 Starlifter 64-0614 departing RAAF Base Richmond in the late 1970's. Shortly after becoming airborne the No 3 engine suffered an uncontained turbine failure, which resulted in multiple holes in the integral wing tanks caused by blade fragments puncturing the skin, the loss of No 4 engine due to debris ingestion and puncture damage causing compressor damage, and just to add to the confusion the cargo hold was holed by hot turbine blade fragments which caused a cargo compartment fire. A successful double asymmetric circuit and landing was accomplished, assisted by some valuable heading vectors to the C141 crew given by a RAAF C130 crew conducting circuit training. Some days it is best to stay on the ground. The aircraft now lies at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base boneyard. So, sometimes multiple failures do occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of multiple failures, here's another post from back then that aroused some sharp responses. ALLARU was unloading some of his contempt for aspects of the checking vs training 'culture', saying that in his experience a sim session was something to be knocked over with as much craft and cunning as he could contrive. He certainly sounded soured by his encounters. Would his viewpoint have any validity today? CENTAURUS?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Jan 2009,
allaru
training with capital T
Sounds like your checkys just that, a checky. Total waste of sim time, and its unfortunate that in this day and age that training departments still attract those sort of knobs.
Its the same old bull **** where ever you go, we as pilots are our worst own enemy, I can't think of any industry where SOME of our own TRY and screw us over on a regular basis.
There are some bloody good trainers out there, who really enjoy what they do, and are good at it, unfortunately every training department has its fair share of idiots, wanting to prove something.
"now this is checking with a small C, and training with a big T, oh but it is still a check....blah blah blah."
"Are there any questions" .."No I think you just about covered everything" THOUGHT BUBBLE ("yes I have heaps of questions but if I ask you'll mark me down on knowledge so I won't ask")
"Now I have a few questions for you"... THOUGHT BUBBLE ("Ok as long as I can ask you some questions that I know the answers to as well")
"now thats it would you like to look at anything else....ah NO not really...... THOUGHT BUBBLE- (id rather f@#k off to the pub cause I've learnt absolutely nothing as usual and I've already had it up to here with your bull****, you've waisted my time and the companies money, see u again in 6 months. Besides which I don't want to risk f$#king something up, cause it is a CHECK after all.)
Best course of action in the mission impossible style sim scenario is to take your time, extended briefings, slow taxi, enter holding patterns, by then the inexperienced sim instructor starts to run out of time, starts cutting corners, has his attention diverted and usually f#$ks something up. The experienced sim instructor will work his way around it, but at least you buy your self some extra time, there are very few situations which require you to land like NOW.
Hope this helps...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Fella
Simulated multiple failures
Having been on both ends of the system, i.e. being trained and being the instructor, I can say with some authority that purposely overloading students with multiple unrelated failures is an exercise in futility which does nothing but satisfy the ego of the instructor. That said there are documented instances where one seemingly isolated emergency has led to multiple problems. One which I will always remember involved a USAF C141 Starlifter 64-0614 departing RAAF Base Richmond in the late 1970's. Shortly after becoming airborne the No 3 engine suffered an uncontained turbine failure, which resulted in multiple holes in the integral wing tanks caused by blade fragments puncturing the skin, the loss of No 4 engine due to debris ingestion and puncture damage causing compressor damage, and just to add to the confusion the cargo hold was holed by hot turbine blade fragments which caused a cargo compartment fire. A successful double asymmetric circuit and landing was accomplished, assisted by some valuable heading vectors to the C141 crew given by a RAAF C130 crew conducting circuit training. Some days it is best to stay on the ground. The aircraft now lies at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base boneyard. So, sometimes multiple failures do occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of multiple failures, here's another post from back then that aroused some sharp responses. ALLARU was unloading some of his contempt for aspects of the checking vs training 'culture', saying that in his experience a sim session was something to be knocked over with as much craft and cunning as he could contrive. He certainly sounded soured by his encounters. Would his viewpoint have any validity today? CENTAURUS?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Jan 2009,
allaru
training with capital T
Sounds like your checkys just that, a checky. Total waste of sim time, and its unfortunate that in this day and age that training departments still attract those sort of knobs.
Its the same old bull **** where ever you go, we as pilots are our worst own enemy, I can't think of any industry where SOME of our own TRY and screw us over on a regular basis.
There are some bloody good trainers out there, who really enjoy what they do, and are good at it, unfortunately every training department has its fair share of idiots, wanting to prove something.
"now this is checking with a small C, and training with a big T, oh but it is still a check....blah blah blah."
"Are there any questions" .."No I think you just about covered everything" THOUGHT BUBBLE ("yes I have heaps of questions but if I ask you'll mark me down on knowledge so I won't ask")
"Now I have a few questions for you"... THOUGHT BUBBLE ("Ok as long as I can ask you some questions that I know the answers to as well")
"now thats it would you like to look at anything else....ah NO not really...... THOUGHT BUBBLE- (id rather f@#k off to the pub cause I've learnt absolutely nothing as usual and I've already had it up to here with your bull****, you've waisted my time and the companies money, see u again in 6 months. Besides which I don't want to risk f$#king something up, cause it is a CHECK after all.)
Best course of action in the mission impossible style sim scenario is to take your time, extended briefings, slow taxi, enter holding patterns, by then the inexperienced sim instructor starts to run out of time, starts cutting corners, has his attention diverted and usually f#$ks something up. The experienced sim instructor will work his way around it, but at least you buy your self some extra time, there are very few situations which require you to land like NOW.
Hope this helps...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 71
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Captains - Empower Versus Disempower
I like, others have been subjected to a rediculous sim session where five failures were introduced within a few minutes of each other. We even heard the sim instructor question the necessity for so many failures and the reply was pretty much "We are paying for it - just do it." The other pilot and myself looked at each other and agreed that teamwork and sops was our best plan of attack with a bit of lateral thinking. We landed the aircraft with an uncontained engine fire, electical bus failure, complete hydraulic failure, one engine shut down and having to manually extend the undercarrige. During the de brief we were advised that he just wanted to see what would happen and yes his request for so many failures was outside the company Training and Checking Guidelines. The feedback we gave him was that it was unreasonable and he admitted that his ego got in the way but he wanted to have some fun.
In my opinion the crew en mass should be able to give the company feedback if a particular Check Captain is throwing his weight around unreasonably. The crew en mass should be able to vote out that person from the C&T department as not being of a mature and reasonable nature and who is potentially costing the company money because of high rates of crew being subject to operational clearance.
Introducing unreasonable fear into a checking environment has the potential to costing the company mega dollars because you have a percentage of crew subject ot operational clearance.
In my opinion the crew en mass should be able to give the company feedback if a particular Check Captain is throwing his weight around unreasonably. The crew en mass should be able to vote out that person from the C&T department as not being of a mature and reasonable nature and who is potentially costing the company money because of high rates of crew being subject to operational clearance.
Introducing unreasonable fear into a checking environment has the potential to costing the company mega dollars because you have a percentage of crew subject ot operational clearance.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion the crew en mass should be able to give the company feedback if a particular Check Captain is throwing his weight around unreasonably. The crew en mass should be able to vote out that person from the C&T department as not being of a mature and reasonable nature and who is potentially costing the company money because of high rates of crew being subject to operational clearance.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unrelated Multiple Failures
To AirTrafficOne & Fantome. Probably the saddest outcome of any non-standard form of Simulator training of which I am aware led to the loss of a RAAF B707 off East Sale. Those who know of the accident and the circumstances which led to it, and the circumstances in which it happened, will know what I mean. Training is, or should be, structured to ensure the competency of crews to handle those Normal, Abnormal and Emergency procedures published in the aircraft Flight Manual. Any additional "good gen" training should be conducted with caution.
As I previously commented, loading crews up with multiple unrelated emergency situations is more often than not done to boost the ego of the instructor as he/she sets out to demonstrate their own perceived superiority.
As I previously commented, loading crews up with multiple unrelated emergency situations is more often than not done to boost the ego of the instructor as he/she sets out to demonstrate their own perceived superiority.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I've just read this entire thread, and I must say I've thoroughly enjoyed the input of all who have Thusfar contributed.
My employer has its fair share of Oz and Kiwi trainers in the ranks, many of whom came from GA and airlines back in Oz and NZ. Sadly, until relatively recently many of these trainers could best be described as industrial psychopaths/tyrants. As is typical in a large organisation, the truly determined psychopath can disguise their true colours by simply playing the game when it comes to their own standards checks and then resume their usual dogma once the spot-light is off them again.
Sadly it appears to me that whilst all the posters on here are in general agreement that a standard must be maintained, there seems to be a real divergence in what some would consider training.
When I did my initial 757 course some years ago, the most knowledge, confidence and overall value I ever received during training was from a sim instructor who recognised the value in demonstrating and then allowing the crew to try and replicate the process. It wasn't about willy waving or ego, it was about teaching and training...a fact which is lost on a few people on this thread and until recently...my employers training department.
My employer has its fair share of Oz and Kiwi trainers in the ranks, many of whom came from GA and airlines back in Oz and NZ. Sadly, until relatively recently many of these trainers could best be described as industrial psychopaths/tyrants. As is typical in a large organisation, the truly determined psychopath can disguise their true colours by simply playing the game when it comes to their own standards checks and then resume their usual dogma once the spot-light is off them again.
Sadly it appears to me that whilst all the posters on here are in general agreement that a standard must be maintained, there seems to be a real divergence in what some would consider training.
When I did my initial 757 course some years ago, the most knowledge, confidence and overall value I ever received during training was from a sim instructor who recognised the value in demonstrating and then allowing the crew to try and replicate the process. It wasn't about willy waving or ego, it was about teaching and training...a fact which is lost on a few people on this thread and until recently...my employers training department.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditto H1,...
Sim rides and training are required "evils"...they have never bothered me....humoured me,humbled me but hey...deal with it
Sim and Training,allows each Airlines Training and evaluation,practices to be flexible and responsive(or should be)to your needs operating on the line,whilst simultaneously complying with reg requirements and responding to industry developments and trends.......hopefully they are designed to address the designed specific needs of that airline..
Common themes have to be addressed..stalls,apps,TCAS/RA,etc etc....hopefully areas that have been addressed by a particular pilot group..areas that apply to that operation.......getting multiple failures is part of the training.....cant see why it should be an issue,,,....the failures hopefully,are designed to maximize your training and provide scenario-based learning opportunity...........always looked at sim sessions as the key to ensure standardization and maximizing a crews potential...
Was actually busted from a chk airmen/sim chk pilot programme, quite a few years ago ,becasue the companys policy was to check/pass..or ...check/bust........always thought that was a load of horse manure......I always trained and chked to proffiency......very seldom did anyone require extra training
My approach was to gain a crews confidence and make the sim and training event a no failure event,no matter what was in the profile,..with that in mind ....they always "trained" better........needless to say ..the company threw my carcass back on the line.....and out of the chk programme.....
so much for trying to be a good buggar!!!
Sim rides and training are required "evils"...they have never bothered me....humoured me,humbled me but hey...deal with it
Sim and Training,allows each Airlines Training and evaluation,practices to be flexible and responsive(or should be)to your needs operating on the line,whilst simultaneously complying with reg requirements and responding to industry developments and trends.......hopefully they are designed to address the designed specific needs of that airline..
Common themes have to be addressed..stalls,apps,TCAS/RA,etc etc....hopefully areas that have been addressed by a particular pilot group..areas that apply to that operation.......getting multiple failures is part of the training.....cant see why it should be an issue,,,....the failures hopefully,are designed to maximize your training and provide scenario-based learning opportunity...........always looked at sim sessions as the key to ensure standardization and maximizing a crews potential...
Was actually busted from a chk airmen/sim chk pilot programme, quite a few years ago ,becasue the companys policy was to check/pass..or ...check/bust........always thought that was a load of horse manure......I always trained and chked to proffiency......very seldom did anyone require extra training
My approach was to gain a crews confidence and make the sim and training event a no failure event,no matter what was in the profile,..with that in mind ....they always "trained" better........needless to say ..the company threw my carcass back on the line.....and out of the chk programme.....
so much for trying to be a good buggar!!!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Shore
Age: 55
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets add some real day occurances to you priceless button pushers,
How bout we start the sim like a normal flight.
Hey Bob was your o/night allowances stuffed up?
Hey Bob why did we have to wait 20 min for our limo?
Hey Bob how come Joe went sick and I got called out?
Hey Bob I have a hangover your sector
Hey Bob as we are running late,lets find an engineering defect so we can blame the delay on them.
Hey Bob,do we let the cadet do any thing today.
Hey Bob,is it Left,Ctr or Right A/P this time.
Hey Bob,are you having the Beef or Chicken?
Hey Bob,how come my D**k is itchy?
You Blokes have multiple failures each day before you even start an engine
How bout we start the sim like a normal flight.
Hey Bob was your o/night allowances stuffed up?
Hey Bob why did we have to wait 20 min for our limo?
Hey Bob how come Joe went sick and I got called out?
Hey Bob I have a hangover your sector
Hey Bob as we are running late,lets find an engineering defect so we can blame the delay on them.
Hey Bob,do we let the cadet do any thing today.
Hey Bob,is it Left,Ctr or Right A/P this time.
Hey Bob,are you having the Beef or Chicken?
Hey Bob,how come my D**k is itchy?
You Blokes have multiple failures each day before you even start an engine
