Air North Brasilia Crash in Darwin (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak your post implied that most exmilitary pilots have a load them up view of training, and believe dangerous practices are acceptable. This is a gross generalisation and not reflected in my experience.
The military safety culture has changed significantly in the last 20 years and accident rates will bare this out. It is not the people but the culture of "this is a dangerous game accidents will happen", that was to blame. This seemed to be implied by Goblin as still OK in his closing line.
An example: Double asymetric training in aircraft. Resulted in one fatal accident and several near misses. The airforce lost several lives and a lot of respect because it did not learn from civilian experience here and transfer the training to a simulator earlier.
What you and green goblin have stated about guarding against student errors is instructing 101. Given that once you have an ATPL you can magically become a check and trainer without any training experience, I hope that companies insist on teaching such basic survival techniques and include them in what the military would call an instructor guide for any given training event. A proper instuctional technique course would be nice.
The discussion here has centred around whether asymmetric training should be mandated in the simulator. I had a quick search of the NTSB web site and found 51 accidents in the last 20 years with asymmetric thrust as a factor. None that I could see was a training accident but a significant number involved poor handling of the emergency. Food for thought. As for opinion, a good simulator as many earlier posters have stated, can give far better emergency training than the real aircraft.
Enough from me I will await the eventual report.
Happy flying
The military safety culture has changed significantly in the last 20 years and accident rates will bare this out. It is not the people but the culture of "this is a dangerous game accidents will happen", that was to blame. This seemed to be implied by Goblin as still OK in his closing line.
An example: Double asymetric training in aircraft. Resulted in one fatal accident and several near misses. The airforce lost several lives and a lot of respect because it did not learn from civilian experience here and transfer the training to a simulator earlier.
What you and green goblin have stated about guarding against student errors is instructing 101. Given that once you have an ATPL you can magically become a check and trainer without any training experience, I hope that companies insist on teaching such basic survival techniques and include them in what the military would call an instructor guide for any given training event. A proper instuctional technique course would be nice.
The discussion here has centred around whether asymmetric training should be mandated in the simulator. I had a quick search of the NTSB web site and found 51 accidents in the last 20 years with asymmetric thrust as a factor. None that I could see was a training accident but a significant number involved poor handling of the emergency. Food for thought. As for opinion, a good simulator as many earlier posters have stated, can give far better emergency training than the real aircraft.
Enough from me I will await the eventual report.
Happy flying
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A failure at V1 is perfectly controllable
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BombsGone (hmmm, not ex-military are we...)
Well my experience of ex-military pilots is somewhat different. I have flown with about 50 of them, in various capacities, and have found them, with one outstanding exception, to be generally arrogant, overbearing, and disdainful of civil pilots. I have experienced the following:
- one ex-Lightning pilot who thought it was OK to perform aileron rolls in a Jetstream 31 during recurrent checks;
- one who thought performing "buzz and break" manoeuvres was acceptable with pax on board;
- One who I had to fail on a Line Check, because he called visual whilst he was not only IMC, but after he had just flown through the localiser at 90 degrees and had no idea where he was relative to the runway;
- one ex-fast jet guy who failed his F27 conversion because he simply could not fly in a straight line - I kid you not;
- one ex-military instructor who hit me across the head while I was flying, sending my headset down under the rudder pedals, because he didn't like the way I was flying the approach. His rationale was that he had got away with a lot worse in the RAF;
- one who used to request that USAF fighters do practice intercepts on our aircraft over the North Sea ("embellishing"), scaring the crap out of the pax in the process;
- one who disappeared from a conversion course for three days to go on a binge with his squadron buddies, stating that "military matters" were more important than the training;
- one who we had to fire after he had six altitude busts in a month in the London TMA;
- and, of course, all the tossers who simply can't fly without their treasured ex-military flying gloves, and the ones who go on and on about how ****-hot they were in the military, and who treat all civil pilots with contempt.
And that is the very short list of my experiences with ex-military pilots.
In my experience, ex-military pilots do not always adapt well to civil flying, because the very qualities that made them selectable to the military, are undesirable in civil flying. Try explaining CRM to a lot of ex-fast jet guys and see how far you get...
I don't know about Australia, but in the UK there are whole airline flight departments that are nothing more than RAF Old Boys clubs. The Chief pilot simply loads the company up with his ex-squadron buddies, irrespective of skill or competency. In one airline I worked for, the Fleet Training Manager was caught filing positive recurrent check paperwork on fellow RAF alumni, when no check had actually taken place. I mean, why go to all the trouble of actually checking these guys? They are ex-Forces, how could they not be competent. He got fired for that after the CAA did an audit. Guess where he ended up? The CAA, another bastion of ex-RAF types.
Don't get me wrong, there are some good guys out there, but there are others who simply can't let go of the giant Boy's Own adventure that their military service was, in their minds at any rate.
Anyway, to answer your points:
It isn't a gross generalisation because it IS reflected in MY experience.
Maybe you can in Australia, but in the Civilised World you can't. In JAA/EASA land, you have to go through the TRI Core Course before you can do any airline-level instruction, and quite a long process of discrete CAA courses and sim sessions before you can actually become a sim instructor or TRI. It isn't easy at all.
Again, in JAA/EASA land, most of that is included in the company Training Manual.
Apart from this one of course, and the J31 fatal accident at Prestwick, and the night asymmetric training accident involving a SA227-AC Metroliner, VH-NEJ, at Tamworth on 16 September 1995, and numerous other in the US. If you go back in RAAF history you will find many training accidents while doing asymmetric training, from various wrecked Hudsons in the '50s down to today.
Well after reading the Whyalla Airlines report, I wouldn't hold your breath... 
Well my experience of ex-military pilots is somewhat different. I have flown with about 50 of them, in various capacities, and have found them, with one outstanding exception, to be generally arrogant, overbearing, and disdainful of civil pilots. I have experienced the following:
- one ex-Lightning pilot who thought it was OK to perform aileron rolls in a Jetstream 31 during recurrent checks;
- one who thought performing "buzz and break" manoeuvres was acceptable with pax on board;
- One who I had to fail on a Line Check, because he called visual whilst he was not only IMC, but after he had just flown through the localiser at 90 degrees and had no idea where he was relative to the runway;
- one ex-fast jet guy who failed his F27 conversion because he simply could not fly in a straight line - I kid you not;
- one ex-military instructor who hit me across the head while I was flying, sending my headset down under the rudder pedals, because he didn't like the way I was flying the approach. His rationale was that he had got away with a lot worse in the RAF;
- one who used to request that USAF fighters do practice intercepts on our aircraft over the North Sea ("embellishing"), scaring the crap out of the pax in the process;
- one who disappeared from a conversion course for three days to go on a binge with his squadron buddies, stating that "military matters" were more important than the training;
- one who we had to fire after he had six altitude busts in a month in the London TMA;
- and, of course, all the tossers who simply can't fly without their treasured ex-military flying gloves, and the ones who go on and on about how ****-hot they were in the military, and who treat all civil pilots with contempt.
And that is the very short list of my experiences with ex-military pilots.
In my experience, ex-military pilots do not always adapt well to civil flying, because the very qualities that made them selectable to the military, are undesirable in civil flying. Try explaining CRM to a lot of ex-fast jet guys and see how far you get...
I don't know about Australia, but in the UK there are whole airline flight departments that are nothing more than RAF Old Boys clubs. The Chief pilot simply loads the company up with his ex-squadron buddies, irrespective of skill or competency. In one airline I worked for, the Fleet Training Manager was caught filing positive recurrent check paperwork on fellow RAF alumni, when no check had actually taken place. I mean, why go to all the trouble of actually checking these guys? They are ex-Forces, how could they not be competent. He got fired for that after the CAA did an audit. Guess where he ended up? The CAA, another bastion of ex-RAF types.
Don't get me wrong, there are some good guys out there, but there are others who simply can't let go of the giant Boy's Own adventure that their military service was, in their minds at any rate.
Anyway, to answer your points:
This is a gross generalisation and not reflected in my experience.
Given that once you have an ATPL you can magically become a check and trainer without any training experience,
I hope that companies insist on teaching such basic survival techniques and include them in what the military would call an instructor guide for any given training event. A proper instuctional technique course would be nice.
None that I could see was a training accident
Enough from me I will await the eventual report.
Moderator
from the evidence we already have, the conditions on the day were benign and well within the certification envelope
the crew were considered to be above-average pilots
that's the weather and crew taken care of, I guess .. now, what are your views on the other considerations ... for which we have, as yet, not much information of which I am aware .. ?
My money is firmly on crew error
I knew neither of the crew so I have no view on their abilities or standards. Regardless, has there been any hard evidence presented to date to suggest that they made an error ? The ATSB may discover that that was the case but, in the meantime, I think that we are better served keeping our counsel on matters of total speculation ? While not particularly wanting to get into speculation, I think it might be interesting to see what the investigation digs up in respect of aircraft systems and C&T systemic problems.
however, a smart check pilot will never allow this to happen in the first place
The sensible instructor will endeavour to do so .. however, sometimes strength and timing wins out .. I recall a mate who, as a helo instructor, couldn't prevent a student's mishandling of the collective during an autorotate flare with unfortunately predictable results. I like Tee Emm's attitude .. why put yourself in a potentially very marginal situation if you don't really need to do so ? History indicates that many fatals have been associated with training to avoid the fatal being trained for .. if that makes sense ..
While never having flown as a military pilot, I have had extensive involvement with such folk both in and out of the military .. I'm a tad confused as to why we are moving into military versus civil arguments ?
the crew were considered to be above-average pilots
that's the weather and crew taken care of, I guess .. now, what are your views on the other considerations ... for which we have, as yet, not much information of which I am aware .. ?
My money is firmly on crew error
I knew neither of the crew so I have no view on their abilities or standards. Regardless, has there been any hard evidence presented to date to suggest that they made an error ? The ATSB may discover that that was the case but, in the meantime, I think that we are better served keeping our counsel on matters of total speculation ? While not particularly wanting to get into speculation, I think it might be interesting to see what the investigation digs up in respect of aircraft systems and C&T systemic problems.
however, a smart check pilot will never allow this to happen in the first place
The sensible instructor will endeavour to do so .. however, sometimes strength and timing wins out .. I recall a mate who, as a helo instructor, couldn't prevent a student's mishandling of the collective during an autorotate flare with unfortunately predictable results. I like Tee Emm's attitude .. why put yourself in a potentially very marginal situation if you don't really need to do so ? History indicates that many fatals have been associated with training to avoid the fatal being trained for .. if that makes sense ..
While never having flown as a military pilot, I have had extensive involvement with such folk both in and out of the military .. I'm a tad confused as to why we are moving into military versus civil arguments ?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's the weather and crew taken care of, I guess .. now, what are your views on the other considerations ... for which we have, as yet, not much information of which I am aware .. ?
Regardless, has there been any hard evidence presented to date to suggest that they made an error ?
Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty - Galileo
It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth - Arthue Conan Doyle
In other words, yes it is possible that some obscure technical failure put the aircraft beyond the control of the pilots... but I think we all know that it is unlikely.
I like Tee Emm's attitude .. why put yourself in a potentially very marginal situation if you don't really need to do so ?
I'm a tad confused as to why we are moving into military versus civil arguments ?
Last edited by remoak; 20th May 2010 at 13:09.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but Brasilia simulators have been available in the USA for many years. No reason at all why Air North couldn't have used them, they are all FAA/EASA certified which is more than enough for CASA I would think.
Mt Cook airlines in NZ have been, until very recently, sending their ATR crews to Thailand for recurrent training... it's just the cost of doing business. If you can't afford to train in the sim, you can't afford to fly that type.
To me, the real issue is that CASA allow this type of training to happen when sims are available - whether they are in Oz or not.
Mt Cook airlines in NZ have been, until very recently, sending their ATR crews to Thailand for recurrent training... it's just the cost of doing business. If you can't afford to train in the sim, you can't afford to fly that type.
To me, the real issue is that CASA allow this type of training to happen when sims are available - whether they are in Oz or not.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the real issue is that CASA allow this type of training to happen when sims are available - whether they are in Oz or not
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks!
I am not prepared to discuss the accident in question, however a few points have been raised in recent discussion that I feel deserve some comment:
As an experienced training Capt on Transport category aircraft including the days when a sim was not available, I have conducted all training sequences in the aircraft including engine failures and in some cases after V1 with all 3 wheels still on the ground (prior to Vr) and fly away. Yes, there is a risk, however I suggest that good training techniques, good planning in conducting the sequences and appropriate briefings are all good mitigators against the identified risks. Once upon a time there was no choice as Sims for many aircraft were not available.
Australian CASA requirements for Training Captains are weak to say the least and in many cases approvals are given to pilots with no training background or experience whatsoever. I have always considered this inappropriate at best and it is good to see some changes filtering thru the system these days. Once upon a time it was rare to find a pilot that at one time or another had not been an instructor in GA, that is now not the case and many of these non-instructors are put in a training position with minimal or no Instructional Technique training. I have always believed that a basic instructors course should be part of any training pilot approval.
Nevertheless, the boys clubs still exist and many training departments are full of the mates of Chief Pilots and/or Head of Training etc. regardless of their training background (or lack of) and even their ability to instruct. How some of these pilots can successfully plan a training mission and minimise all the risks is often I believe just good luck. I wont even mention assessment standards and how they are achieved!
Since the introduction of Sims the ego of some training pilots to engage in sequences that might only be carried out in the sim surfaces from time to time and in fact I have seen some of these ego maniacs try some of this stuff in the aircraft, surviving (sometimes) only due to good luck rather than good management! I have no idea what they are trying to prove? (the push em till they break attitude perhaps?)
Sims have their place and are an excellent tool for conducting training, especially in those sequences that have a high level of risk. I believe it is unfortunate that some training pilots and perhaps some training departments don't endorse ego free training in order to get the best value out of the time and effort that is applied. Ego is part of human nature but in this business unless perhaps you are a fighter pilot (where it helps to survive), it should be left at the flight deck or sim door!
I am not prepared to discuss the accident in question, however a few points have been raised in recent discussion that I feel deserve some comment:
As an experienced training Capt on Transport category aircraft including the days when a sim was not available, I have conducted all training sequences in the aircraft including engine failures and in some cases after V1 with all 3 wheels still on the ground (prior to Vr) and fly away. Yes, there is a risk, however I suggest that good training techniques, good planning in conducting the sequences and appropriate briefings are all good mitigators against the identified risks. Once upon a time there was no choice as Sims for many aircraft were not available.
Australian CASA requirements for Training Captains are weak to say the least and in many cases approvals are given to pilots with no training background or experience whatsoever. I have always considered this inappropriate at best and it is good to see some changes filtering thru the system these days. Once upon a time it was rare to find a pilot that at one time or another had not been an instructor in GA, that is now not the case and many of these non-instructors are put in a training position with minimal or no Instructional Technique training. I have always believed that a basic instructors course should be part of any training pilot approval.
Nevertheless, the boys clubs still exist and many training departments are full of the mates of Chief Pilots and/or Head of Training etc. regardless of their training background (or lack of) and even their ability to instruct. How some of these pilots can successfully plan a training mission and minimise all the risks is often I believe just good luck. I wont even mention assessment standards and how they are achieved!
Since the introduction of Sims the ego of some training pilots to engage in sequences that might only be carried out in the sim surfaces from time to time and in fact I have seen some of these ego maniacs try some of this stuff in the aircraft, surviving (sometimes) only due to good luck rather than good management! I have no idea what they are trying to prove? (the push em till they break attitude perhaps?)
Sims have their place and are an excellent tool for conducting training, especially in those sequences that have a high level of risk. I believe it is unfortunate that some training pilots and perhaps some training departments don't endorse ego free training in order to get the best value out of the time and effort that is applied. Ego is part of human nature but in this business unless perhaps you are a fighter pilot (where it helps to survive), it should be left at the flight deck or sim door!
Since the introduction of Sims the ego of some training pilots to engage in sequences that might only be carried out in the sim surfaces from time to time and in fact I have seen some of these ego maniacs try some of this stuff in the aircraft, surviving (sometimes) only due to good luck rather than good management! I have no idea what they are trying to prove? (the push em till they break attitude perhaps?)
The proof of this is previous posts regarding aircraft climbing with a propeller which fails to feather and continues to windmill. Yes the sim may say its possible and some incidents in the past the crew may have had similar situations in which they were able to climb, but is this the case always?
At least one bras was not even able to maintain altitude after a powerplant failure, let alone continue a take-off sucessfully (not refering to the Air North accident).
Whilst training a V1 failure in the aircraft was necessary without simulators as mentioned before it always carries a greater risk than a normal departure. Throw in even a small system failure on top of a simulated failure and confusion and loss of control can occur, a simple distraction at the wrong moment is all it takes.
Any instructor who has had a student lock up on them during sequences like stalling knows the risks involved in any abnormal operation. Any way of mitigating the risks should be taken. Assymetrics and emergency training in large aircraft should be in the simulator as the risk factor everything considered is very high.
Last edited by 43Inches; 22nd May 2010 at 00:37.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
In my earlier post in this I eluded to the egos, competency and suitability of the Check and Training people.
More has now surfaced in this area, and the old chestnut of Military vs Civil as well.
It is so VITALLY IMPORTANT that the people charged with the resposibility of our standards are suitable, well trained, audited regularly and can leave their egos at home.
The use of any training sequence as a "load to they break" should be eradicated from the system, probably an impossible task without an extensive search and find audit of many companies, as we all resist admitting our errors/mistakes and choices, particularly Management.
As a canditate, if you feel the process is unrealistic, stop the check or training, put the Sim on the blocks, land the A/C and go home.
YES I have done this in a major Asian Airline, when my support F/O was being destroyed, tough afternoon for a while with the DFO Training, who supported me in the result.
This particular "trainer" when asked a question stated, "questions from you indicate a lack of knowlege" which should be a classic for the record.
Non of my comments should be taken to reflect on the unfortunate people at the Air North accident, we all await the full report and whatever changes may flow from that.
Stay safe
More has now surfaced in this area, and the old chestnut of Military vs Civil as well.
It is so VITALLY IMPORTANT that the people charged with the resposibility of our standards are suitable, well trained, audited regularly and can leave their egos at home.
The use of any training sequence as a "load to they break" should be eradicated from the system, probably an impossible task without an extensive search and find audit of many companies, as we all resist admitting our errors/mistakes and choices, particularly Management.
As a canditate, if you feel the process is unrealistic, stop the check or training, put the Sim on the blocks, land the A/C and go home.
YES I have done this in a major Asian Airline, when my support F/O was being destroyed, tough afternoon for a while with the DFO Training, who supported me in the result.
This particular "trainer" when asked a question stated, "questions from you indicate a lack of knowlege" which should be a classic for the record.
Non of my comments should be taken to reflect on the unfortunate people at the Air North accident, we all await the full report and whatever changes may flow from that.
Stay safe
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my point of view herein lies the 2 problems;
In Australia we just issue training approval to CAR 217/RPT organisations to easy, in JAR land one must do a full course to become a "TRI" and must pass a instructional abilitys assesment in the sim aswell to prove they can impart knowledge. In Oz all CASA needs for a training pilot is the hours stated by the ops manual and the tick from the flight standards manager or chief pilot. We really need to get in line with other ICAO regulators around the World, training is REALLY important! As for the sim's it should be a flat rule ANY RPT organisation be it greater or less than 5700kgs MUST use a sim (even any organisation other than RPT that operates a sophistacted a/c should also compulsury use a sim aswell) end of story and if the operator can't afford the cost of flightsafety, simcom etc.. they shouldn't be in business, an accident will cost you reputation, insurance etc.... I think it comes down to how much the boss of the company want's to spend. my 2 cents worth.
In Australia we just issue training approval to CAR 217/RPT organisations to easy, in JAR land one must do a full course to become a "TRI" and must pass a instructional abilitys assesment in the sim aswell to prove they can impart knowledge. In Oz all CASA needs for a training pilot is the hours stated by the ops manual and the tick from the flight standards manager or chief pilot. We really need to get in line with other ICAO regulators around the World, training is REALLY important! As for the sim's it should be a flat rule ANY RPT organisation be it greater or less than 5700kgs MUST use a sim (even any organisation other than RPT that operates a sophistacted a/c should also compulsury use a sim aswell) end of story and if the operator can't afford the cost of flightsafety, simcom etc.. they shouldn't be in business, an accident will cost you reputation, insurance etc.... I think it comes down to how much the boss of the company want's to spend. my 2 cents worth.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: here
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" Once upon a time there was no choice as Sims for many aircraft were not available."
But that was then, this is now. This technology has been available for far too long, and the risks of this training have been known for even longer. Why why why are we allowed to conduct EFATO training at low level in the aircraft?! How tragic this reactive industry continues to be.
But that was then, this is now. This technology has been available for far too long, and the risks of this training have been known for even longer. Why why why are we allowed to conduct EFATO training at low level in the aircraft?! How tragic this reactive industry continues to be.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lala-land
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... Yes, there is a risk, however I suggest that good training techniques, good planning in conducting the sequences and appropriate briefings are all good mitigators against the identified risks. ...
Sorry Triadic, but that is just bollocks.
As training accidents happened on large aircraft at a rate significantly higher compared to line operations simulators became an international requirement many decades ago. Large aircraft training accidents have killed some of the best and brightest training captains and experienced line crews, regardless of their pre-sortie planning and briefings.
Look at the purchase/operating costs of a modern simulator - not really different from the costs of the aircraft it models (and with not much chance to have 300 fare paying bums seated behind the crew). Airlines and regulators know that that enormous expenditure of a new 747 simulator is money better spent than using any company 747 that is between revenue flights to conduct crew training.
Very simple risk management - all large aircraft training in a simulator, no debate, no waivers, no dispensations. If the company can't afford simulator training, then they should not be operating.
Sorry Triadic, but that is just bollocks.
As training accidents happened on large aircraft at a rate significantly higher compared to line operations simulators became an international requirement many decades ago. Large aircraft training accidents have killed some of the best and brightest training captains and experienced line crews, regardless of their pre-sortie planning and briefings.
Look at the purchase/operating costs of a modern simulator - not really different from the costs of the aircraft it models (and with not much chance to have 300 fare paying bums seated behind the crew). Airlines and regulators know that that enormous expenditure of a new 747 simulator is money better spent than using any company 747 that is between revenue flights to conduct crew training.
Very simple risk management - all large aircraft training in a simulator, no debate, no waivers, no dispensations. If the company can't afford simulator training, then they should not be operating.
Folks,
Not mentioned here is the fidelity of the simulators, not just the IRE/TREs by whatever regional or operator name.
With major airlines and their simulator sections, this is not usually a major problem, but in my opinion, it is a problem where smaller aircraft are concerned.
It can also be a problem in "simulator centers" that serve a number of airlines. Commercial pressure militates against the ideal tailored training programs, tending towards the lowest common denominator and lowest cost, particularly where pilots are footing the bill.
Part of the CASA problem is that it is doubtful that their compliance staff have adequate combination's of training and experience for the fidelity checking of simulators.
In a similar vein, when an adequate simulator is not available, there seems to be a propensity to approve part task trainers beyond their reasonable limits. Indeed, some approvals have pushed the limits to qualify under Part 60 as a simulator at all, let alone a simulator really suitable for endorsement training.
On the subject of instructors, the task of eliminating personalities from the task is a close to impossible one, and it takes a rare boss of training or exceptional Chief Pilot to manage such problems. Accepting, of course, that he or she is not the Chief Offender.
There is room for huge improvement in the selection and training of IRE/TREs in Australia, at all levels of air transport operations.
Tootle pip!!
Not mentioned here is the fidelity of the simulators, not just the IRE/TREs by whatever regional or operator name.
With major airlines and their simulator sections, this is not usually a major problem, but in my opinion, it is a problem where smaller aircraft are concerned.
It can also be a problem in "simulator centers" that serve a number of airlines. Commercial pressure militates against the ideal tailored training programs, tending towards the lowest common denominator and lowest cost, particularly where pilots are footing the bill.
Part of the CASA problem is that it is doubtful that their compliance staff have adequate combination's of training and experience for the fidelity checking of simulators.
In a similar vein, when an adequate simulator is not available, there seems to be a propensity to approve part task trainers beyond their reasonable limits. Indeed, some approvals have pushed the limits to qualify under Part 60 as a simulator at all, let alone a simulator really suitable for endorsement training.
On the subject of instructors, the task of eliminating personalities from the task is a close to impossible one, and it takes a rare boss of training or exceptional Chief Pilot to manage such problems. Accepting, of course, that he or she is not the Chief Offender.
There is room for huge improvement in the selection and training of IRE/TREs in Australia, at all levels of air transport operations.
Tootle pip!!
Wonder how CASA would view a 217 org doing engine failures in the circuit at night in a metro?
I thought we had learned from experience, but obviously not.
Why isn't the regulator doing its job and stopping this madness?
I thought we had learned from experience, but obviously not.
Why isn't the regulator doing its job and stopping this madness?
Why isn't the regulator doing its job and stopping this madness?
Nothing personal barleyhi but I get very tired of the whining of people who are not prepared to DO something about it.
Write to CASA anonymously.
Call CASA anonymously.
Report it to the ATSB.
If you feel strongly about it do something about it.
Moderator
Wonder how CASA would view a 217 org doing engine failures in the circuit at night in a metro?
That sort of thing has been going on forever when circumstances conspire. For instance, my first day failure practice on the Electra was on my first renewal ... the entire endorsement program had been done for the group at night to suit aircraft availability. I won't bother listing all the other rules we broke as well ... whether good or bad the job got done.
That sort of thing has been going on forever when circumstances conspire. For instance, my first day failure practice on the Electra was on my first renewal ... the entire endorsement program had been done for the group at night to suit aircraft availability. I won't bother listing all the other rules we broke as well ... whether good or bad the job got done.
