QF A330 CIRCUITS at AV
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A likely reason - The only people that would work for Cathay and Dragonair are either cadets, or the incredibly inexperienced. A Cat D simulator removes any requirement for Base training for suitably qualified pilots.
Its an ‘across the board’ requirement, regardless of prior experience. I’m also told it’s an Airbus requirement on initial conversion to wide body with no prior narrow body jet time.
QF did away with it on the 767 from around 2006 on - unsure what current requirement would be for FO upgrade onto the Boeing widebodies there.
JP JP,
Its an ‘across the board’ requirement, regardless of prior experience. I’m also told it’s an Airbus requirement on initial conversion to wide body with no prior narrow body jet time.
QF did away with it on the 767 from around 2006 on - unsure what current requirement would be for FO upgrade onto the Boeing widebodies there.
Understood. That’s what I meant by “qualified”. In order for a pilot to be eligible for a type rating completed solely in a Class D Simulator, they must have held a type rating in a jet before. Plus whatever nebulous flight time and lisencing requirements the regulator requires. True in FAA land and in EASA (I believe). Hence the British Airways cadets requiring an extended training footprint.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter how good or otherwise the sim is, nothing other than real life experience can expose one to “Airbusisms” in a dynamic environment. And that applies to all backgrounds and levels of expertise.
I was making reference to the sim being more difficult in circling scenarios than in real life. Mostly due the extra cues in real life versus the ≈ 80 degree splay or field of vision in a sim.
For circuits, I don't know, the Airbus practice of disappearing downwind in more an abbreviated ILS than a visual flying sequence is not very challenging ( nor efficient ) at all.
With circling, in the olden days, the regulator required a 500 ft single engine night circle off a NPA with 25 kts X-W. 20s downwind, 30 degree bank, don't look at the sim visuals 'till within 20 degree of QDM due lag. It was a computer game. Real life circling was definitely easier thou.
Today, even though the circling exercises easier in the sim ( no failures ), you only demonstrate it once every few years where I am. I find it "harder" than a circling approach into Korea at 4am or a widebody circling approach in Japan with the reduced circling area- due visual cues and sim lag.
Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 19th Dec 2018 at 04:11.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snip
Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit.[/QUOTE]
Good point.
In less than ideal conditions it’s still easy to get around the circuit until you’re on finals, Then it can be a handful, especially in heat, turbulence, crosswind and wind changes.
“Aibusisms” I’m referring to can add to the challenge, including ( but not limited to)...lagging auto thrust, G/S mini, flight controls which seduce the uninitiated into overcontrolling, auto trim that stops late in the approach (ever run out of energy or elevator authority in the flare?), ground effect etc.
The sim can come close to, but never really replicate the real world approach and landing of an A330.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A350 differences/ TR course takes this path. Retrofitting to the legacy types would be beneficial.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understood. That’s what I meant by “qualified”. In order for a pilot to be eligible for a type rating completed solely in a Class D Simulator, they must have held a type rating in a jet before. Plus whatever nebulous flight time and lisencing requirements the regulator requires. True in FAA land and in EASA (I believe). Hence the British Airways cadets requiring an extended training footprint.
Engine out is on the money - it's about trainer pilot utilisation, although like Keg says aircraft availability is now limiting.
