QF A330 CIRCUITS at AV
 

Just curious with anyone who works for QF this A330 doing circuits at AV right now, would this be base training? Attached https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....51bfdb956b.png

Qantas circuits at Avalon always seem more like holding patterns. Right back to the 70's. Ansett, TAA and IPEC would belt around the circuit whilst QF would disappear out of view.

500ft circuits while avoiding the chicken sheds or dumbbells when the wind was all cross during S/O fo F/O endorsement were not holding patterns!

Right then. Must have missed that. Went to school next to Avalon and it was neat to watch as a kid. Enjoyed base training in jets there years later in a pointless exercise considering simulator fidelity. Must admit, simulator is more difficult than real life, 500 ft circling approaches seemed a breeze with all the visual cues. In the simulator it was more a computer game but then again, that may have been because the requirement was to be on one engine. Seeing co-pilots these days struggle on two engine visual approaches I can just imagine the pilot shortage ( in Asia especially ) if these elemental skills still needed to be demonstrated.

Gnadenburg, from personal experience I can say that it's about removing the "gee whiz" factor from your first aircraft flight usually the next morning.
No matter how good the sim, and they really do have excellent fidelity, an aircraft is different mentally. A big plus is that you get to hack the jet around like you will rarely do on line ops.

That is correct.

Gnadenberg- is that a wind up?
Simulator easier than real life- how much koolaid have you had intravenously?

Back in the GoDs, I recall 5 hours of circuits at Avalon in the 747-200.

Air NZ don't on the jet fleet. First landing is with pax on board.

My error.
I should have asked why do you think the sim is harder than real life?

Obvious to anybody who does recurrents in the sim, and flies the aircraft...

Obviously that's not the question.
The question is why the sim is harder for base training (see the Title thread) than real life.
And yes, cyclics in the sim are not easy.

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.

The A350 differences/ TR course takes this path. Retrofitting to the legacy types would be beneficial.

CASR 61.775 suggests that does not apply in Australia, unless you know of a different reference?

Engine out is on the money - it's about trainer pilot utilisation, although like Keg says aircraft availability is now limiting.