Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multiple Unrelated systems failures during simulator training
The vast majority of pilots who are subject to scheduled simulator checks have seen the situation where the check pilot introduces systems failures that are often unrelated. Example: Tyre burst on take off followed by engine failure caused by FOD and maybe asymmetric flap caused by tyre debris. The imagination of some check captains knows no bounds and events like these are sometimes known as double jeopardy failures. Even the aces of the base have trouble coping with this sort of "training."
That said, it is informative to ponder CASA Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 5-23-2 (0) under the chapter Multi-Engine Aeroplane Operations and Training - sub heading Generic Range of Variables. Briefly, this gives CASA's thoughts on flight training and includes the following line of advice:
"Assessment should not involve simulation of more than one emergency at a time".
There are obvious good grounds for that statement based on long established principles of teaching. Yet, many pilots have walked unsteadily from a head banging simulator session convinced they will never make the grade because of a perceived inability to hack multiple emergencies, when in fact it is the instructor that is pushing the bounds of fair and intelligent instruction.
That said, it is informative to ponder CASA Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 5-23-2 (0) under the chapter Multi-Engine Aeroplane Operations and Training - sub heading Generic Range of Variables. Briefly, this gives CASA's thoughts on flight training and includes the following line of advice:
"Assessment should not involve simulation of more than one emergency at a time".
There are obvious good grounds for that statement based on long established principles of teaching. Yet, many pilots have walked unsteadily from a head banging simulator session convinced they will never make the grade because of a perceived inability to hack multiple emergencies, when in fact it is the instructor that is pushing the bounds of fair and intelligent instruction.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get what you are saying, but are we talking about training or testing/checking here. On the actual check I would expect single failures, but in training - I guess some additional fail items could be expected???
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: tassie
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if that was on a check it sounds like the checky was trying to bend you over.
personally if i felt the checky was being unfair and purposely trying to fail me i'd stop the sim session and ask for a meeting with managment to discuss.................
personally if i felt the checky was being unfair and purposely trying to fail me i'd stop the sim session and ask for a meeting with managment to discuss.................
TM,
Peruse a few accident reports and you will see that multiple failures do occur and the pilot who can assess and prioritise the the handling of the malfunctions survives.
The simulator is the only place to recreate these.The ability to prioritise malfunctions is an integral part of pilot training.Enjoy!
Shedding a tyre tread can result in ingestion and engine failure - not an unrelated failure.
Not all checklist items or malfunctions are categorised as an "emergency".
Have look at Sioux city etc etc. for examples of pilot skill that you can aspire to.
Peruse a few accident reports and you will see that multiple failures do occur and the pilot who can assess and prioritise the the handling of the malfunctions survives.
The simulator is the only place to recreate these.The ability to prioritise malfunctions is an integral part of pilot training.Enjoy!
Shedding a tyre tread can result in ingestion and engine failure - not an unrelated failure.
Not all checklist items or malfunctions are categorised as an "emergency".
Have look at Sioux city etc etc. for examples of pilot skill that you can aspire to.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. It is quite a plausible scenario for a shredded tyre to result in further problems, e.g. hydraulic line failure from said tyre debris. That said, I acknowledge that there are some "old school" instructor types out there who think the only way to do their jobs is to load the student up with problem after problem after problem - until they snap. This is not a realistic situation, and the sooner these people hang up their hats, the better.
Training and checking is all just part of the job description, and as long as one continues to work in this industry, it's just one of those things we all have to put up with. However the best operators recognise that the environment should be more "T" and less "C."
Training and checking is all just part of the job description, and as long as one continues to work in this industry, it's just one of those things we all have to put up with. However the best operators recognise that the environment should be more "T" and less "C."
When the hosty spills coffee on your lap knocking your oily chicken kiev onto the CDU modifying the cost index to warp speed along with decoupling the thronomeister from the sphinxter valve, you better be on your game sonny!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully concur that too many instructors are tempted to load up the student with multiple emergencies. The usual reason is that if you can handle such a complex situation you will be fine in the more simple ones. The argument against is that whilst when you are left with nothing but your seat height adjust and your dog tags to fly an IMC approach anything you come up with is fine, but most real cases do not require such improvisation. The ability to apply correct checks and procedures can only be tested with simpler emergencies.
As with all things in life balance seems to be the key and thus overemphasis on complex multiple emergencies seems counterproductive.
Having said all that I remember some mates in a Royal Navy Sea King having an engine failure on take off from a frigate and whilst circling to land had a completely unrelated aux hydraulic failure. As Old Fella said 'sme days it is best to stay on the ground.'
As with all things in life balance seems to be the key and thus overemphasis on complex multiple emergencies seems counterproductive.
Having said all that I remember some mates in a Royal Navy Sea King having an engine failure on take off from a frigate and whilst circling to land had a completely unrelated aux hydraulic failure. As Old Fella said 'sme days it is best to stay on the ground.'
Over the years I've had several occurrences of multiple unrelated problems in the one flight, so it does happen, and as Old Fella says, sort of, "Some days I'd wished I'd stayed at home". But I hadn't and the problems were all dealt with in a satisfactory manner.
That's still no excuse for overloading a trainee until you find the breaking point, if the seats were swapped and the trainee was givinig it to the trainer his breaking point would also soon be found. No pilot is immune.
I once saw a very overloaded trainee give up and nose the sim over and deliberately crash the thing. A totally wasted sim session, a demoralised trainee, who was actually quite a competent operator, and an instructor who had to rerun a session and explain his actions to his boss. I couldn't, and still can't, see the point of it.
Regards,
BH.
That's still no excuse for overloading a trainee until you find the breaking point, if the seats were swapped and the trainee was givinig it to the trainer his breaking point would also soon be found. No pilot is immune.
I once saw a very overloaded trainee give up and nose the sim over and deliberately crash the thing. A totally wasted sim session, a demoralised trainee, who was actually quite a competent operator, and an instructor who had to rerun a session and explain his actions to his boss. I couldn't, and still can't, see the point of it.
Regards,
BH.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having sufferred the fate of the glareshield Warning/caution FULL, what TF do I do now situation on an initial endorsement, to be asked by the checkie "how'd ya think ya went", with the inevitable response "huh"?,
I remember a story of a checkie who DID NOT introduce ANY failures into a particular SIM session, only to have, some 4 hrs later, a full blown emergency with almost every system failed. The SIM is an invaluable training tool which unfortunately is being used as a invariable checking tool by tools
I remember a story of a checkie who DID NOT introduce ANY failures into a particular SIM session, only to have, some 4 hrs later, a full blown emergency with almost every system failed. The SIM is an invaluable training tool which unfortunately is being used as a invariable checking tool by tools
Command training LOFT sessions are the worst ( atleast here in CX )
Basically 2 types they will throw at you:--
1/ multiple possibly related problems that you can take your sweet time resolving.
2/ time critical problems with multiple related events. ( depress, cargo fire and eng out ) all caused by the one cargo door blow out. ( for eg )
They want to see your CRM skills, prioritization skills and adherance ( as much as is possible ) to SOP's to get the machine on the ground before the wing falls off!!
A few more grey hairs at the end.
They do have to put you under some pressure to make sure you can handle it.
Having said that some checkers do get a bit carried away.
Basically 2 types they will throw at you:--
1/ multiple possibly related problems that you can take your sweet time resolving.
2/ time critical problems with multiple related events. ( depress, cargo fire and eng out ) all caused by the one cargo door blow out. ( for eg )
They want to see your CRM skills, prioritization skills and adherance ( as much as is possible ) to SOP's to get the machine on the ground before the wing falls off!!
A few more grey hairs at the end.
They do have to put you under some pressure to make sure you can handle it.
Having said that some checkers do get a bit carried away.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Goblin....
...see you have lost all credibility....eveybody knows chicken kiev is far to luxurious to be served as a crew meal..... and we all know, that some major airlines cannot spare the expense for added oil. For future use on pprune, i suggest you refer to all crew meals as fish or chicken (ie bland white meat easily substituted with any other cheap bland white meat - such as dog, cat or possum) with red sauce.
oily chicken kiev
...see you have lost all credibility....eveybody knows chicken kiev is far to luxurious to be served as a crew meal..... and we all know, that some major airlines cannot spare the expense for added oil. For future use on pprune, i suggest you refer to all crew meals as fish or chicken (ie bland white meat easily substituted with any other cheap bland white meat - such as dog, cat or possum) with red sauce.
Multiple socalled "unrelated" failures do happen often, usually because fire or uncontained failures don't limit themselves to one place in the aeroplane. Fire spreads and destroys everything on its path, flying pieces of metal as well. And you cannot simply "neglect" that possibility. Things like these should be trained, but they should be "training" and not checking. Management of checklists, making priorities, personal behaviour, CRM,... these are vital lessons to SURVIVE in those cases (consider UA 232 in Sioux as an example) because all of these situations are all different.
Quote:
oily chicken kiev
...see you have lost all credibility....eveybody knows chicken kiev is far to luxurious to be served as a crew meal..... and we all know, that some major airlines cannot spare the expense for added oil. For future use on PPRuNe, i suggest you refer to all crew meals as fish or chicken (ie bland white meat easily substituted with any other cheap bland white meat - such as dog, cat or possum) with red sauce.
oily chicken kiev
...see you have lost all credibility....eveybody knows chicken kiev is far to luxurious to be served as a crew meal..... and we all know, that some major airlines cannot spare the expense for added oil. For future use on PPRuNe, i suggest you refer to all crew meals as fish or chicken (ie bland white meat easily substituted with any other cheap bland white meat - such as dog, cat or possum) with red sauce.
Well Said
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: korea
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and another thing....
personally if i felt the checky was being unfair and purposely trying to fail me i'd stop the sim session and ask for a meeting with managment to discuss.................
The machine is there for training as much as practicing. If you go in insisting on knowing in advance exactly what is going to be failed on every session, and then reacting to it like a canned event, then you're cheating yourself.
A lot of people don't seem to realise the training is about doing 90% of the work at home or in the classroom. Knowing the procedures, systems, QRH, etc long before you step into the sim to see it in action.
Treat the session as an introduction to the failures and an invaluable opportunity to figure out how to handle any emergency, not necessarily that emergency.
Sim Psychology - Don't be afraid of the machine. Loaded up with multiple failures? Tough **** - what are you gonna do in real life?? Who ya gonna call? Management on the satphone? Ghostbusters? As I said - harden up. And do your homework.
Okay I know it's a wank but:
First upgrade sim: Bomb threat LOFT scenario. Big fun playing the CRM game. Leads to explosion in fwd cargo, depressurisation over high terrain, #2 Eng Fire, Dual Hyd failure, Flt Cont non-normal (due to Hyd issue). Maybe it wasn't pretty my handling of it and it certanly wasn't fun but I learned a little from it about how to juggle things under pressure. Did I cry to management about how they had more than one major systems failure? Take a guess.
Put in the effort at home in your own time. Don't blame the instructor for expecting you to work.
"Assessment should not involve simulation of more than one emergency at a time".
Why train down to an expectation when you can train up to a standard? If you're under training and you can't handle the burst tyre followed by engine and subsequent hydraulic malfunctions then okay, have a little cry and most instructors will usually turn the "Hard" selector to "Easy" for you.
And if it's a "scheduled" check (aka a Recurrent or PPC) then it is usually a canned exercise and there is no reason for them to be introducing the extra malfunction along the way.
So which one is it?
Before the peanut gallery start in with the predictable sledging etc no I don't consider myself an ace; but I do consider myself deserving of realistic training. This means multiple failures a lot of the time, just like (surprise!) in real life. I'll say it again: Harden up.
The canned recurrent sim sessions are easily determined in advance from the other pilots. It's very easy to not learn anything from these sessions. The professional pilot accepts the nature of the "game" and strives to learn regardless of whatever difficulty (including the instructor) he might be facing.
there are very few situations which require you to land like NOW.
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.
If you've got a beef with the fellow running the sim, too bad. Put in your best while he puts in his worst. Learn from it. Have a beer afterward. Move on. You are paid to do this. If you're the sort who will waste the simulator time, the company's time, the instructor's time, the other pilot's time and your own time with the childish and unprofessional **** quoted above then please do everyone from the CEO to the pax to your fellow crew a favour and quit the airline before you hurt someone.
Last edited by YoDawg; 5th Jan 2009 at 20:06.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yo Dowg
I agree with most of what you say, if not how you've said it.
When you hear of young fellas new to type actually getting laughed at by checkers in their first company sims you know its gone too far.
Besides checking, these senior guys have a big responsibility (call it CRM or whatever) to set the tone for these new guys to the company, teach them something and mould them into a useful crew member for out on the line. Not to pull them apart, make them feel like a loser and destroy any semblence of self confidence these guys might have had.
Four hours of willy waving by the checker is no fun for anyone, let alone a criminal waste of the best pilot training and CRM resource the company will ever have. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a bit of it in this country.
Personally, I prefer not to learn by rote the company sim sessions. It will fill your head with mindsets about what may not happen anyway. Do your best to know the books and your plane (I'm not the best bookworm), jump in and do it best as you can on the day. After all, we dont go to work knowing whats gonna fail that day, do we?
When you hear of young fellas new to type actually getting laughed at by checkers in their first company sims you know its gone too far.
Besides checking, these senior guys have a big responsibility (call it CRM or whatever) to set the tone for these new guys to the company, teach them something and mould them into a useful crew member for out on the line. Not to pull them apart, make them feel like a loser and destroy any semblence of self confidence these guys might have had.
Four hours of willy waving by the checker is no fun for anyone, let alone a criminal waste of the best pilot training and CRM resource the company will ever have. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a bit of it in this country.
Personally, I prefer not to learn by rote the company sim sessions. It will fill your head with mindsets about what may not happen anyway. Do your best to know the books and your plane (I'm not the best bookworm), jump in and do it best as you can on the day. After all, we dont go to work knowing whats gonna fail that day, do we?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more yodawg.
From my experience people who prescribe to the practise of that described by allaru are actually terrified when they walk in and use those tactics as an exercise in competing with the checky in order to get 'one up' and have him use all of his wiley ways to cover off the matrix requirements and complete the session in the required time. I believe it's their way of dealing with their own 'perceived' inadequacies.
When I come up against these individuals I generally allow them to run out of time and have to come back and do it all over again.
Don't for one minute think that the genuine checky (as opposed to the hatchet weilder) enjoys these tactics.
There is no greater pleasure than seeing a crew perform well, enjoying the experience and hopefully learning something from it. It also makes your job so much easier.
No checky enjoys a difficult session, especially when you know the individuals being trained/checked are going to do it tough from the outset. (you generally know this from previous sessions)
From my experience people who prescribe to the practise of that described by allaru are actually terrified when they walk in and use those tactics as an exercise in competing with the checky in order to get 'one up' and have him use all of his wiley ways to cover off the matrix requirements and complete the session in the required time. I believe it's their way of dealing with their own 'perceived' inadequacies.
When I come up against these individuals I generally allow them to run out of time and have to come back and do it all over again.
Don't for one minute think that the genuine checky (as opposed to the hatchet weilder) enjoys these tactics.
There is no greater pleasure than seeing a crew perform well, enjoying the experience and hopefully learning something from it. It also makes your job so much easier.
No checky enjoys a difficult session, especially when you know the individuals being trained/checked are going to do it tough from the outset. (you generally know this from previous sessions)
What sort of training resources are available to QF, CX, DJ pilots etc... Lately in our company we have seen a dramatic increase in failures, not only for initial (probably a function of declining experience levels), but also amongst recurrent checks for the old hands. Among some of the failures are several Training Captains!
My theory is that in reaction to a nervous CASA the knives on these checks are much sharper than previously. Our ranking system alows for only Two(2) of a ranking of 2, (5 being ace, and 1 being unsatifacory) A 2 is deemed as satisfactory after a de-brief. Score 3 Two's out of a total of 2 dozen or more items, and it's back for a re-check.
Now I'm not saying that the knife shouldn't be sharp, but when you consider that most of these abnormals are being 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?
My theory is that in reaction to a nervous CASA the knives on these checks are much sharper than previously. Our ranking system alows for only Two(2) of a ranking of 2, (5 being ace, and 1 being unsatifacory) A 2 is deemed as satisfactory after a de-brief. Score 3 Two's out of a total of 2 dozen or more items, and it's back for a re-check.
Now I'm not saying that the knife shouldn't be sharp, but when you consider that most of these abnormals are being 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?