Command Training - fair play or brutalisation?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Command Training - fair play or brutalisation?
Last year's almost frantic recruiting of pilots into Australia's domestic airlines has happily led to more command upgrades. But is "happily" always the right description? Your number comes up to try out for the left seat. The pressure is on to see how many multiple, mostly unrelated and highly unlikely scenarios are piled on the command candidate to “test” if he is the Right Stuff.
Never mind that in a hundred lifetimes any of these multiple scenarios all combined in two hours of flying would never happen. One check pilot warned the pilot “under training” that the object was to deliberately over-load the candidate during the simulator training sessions leading up to the final pass/fail test so that the final session is just a breeze through. I know of check pilots who get bored in simulators especially if the pilot under training is doing well. Time then to throw in a few tricks to see how the student copes now? If he copes then a few more winds of the screw should test his mettle.
It is clear that many of the multiple and unrealistic scenarios thrown at the command candidate in the simulator are the invention of some instructors who mistakenly think that the more the candidate is stressed, the point will be reached where he spits the dummy (wrong attitude, mate – you failed) or, desperate to pass, he is forced to agree with everything that is said by the instructor at de-briefing in the hope of currying favour
As one long serving Ansett check captain told his students before putting them up for a final line check “Take whatever he says on the chin – never disagree with the check captains comments even though he may be obviously factually wrong – and smile a lot. Only when you leave the briefing room allow yourself the pleasure to say under your breath “up yours you bastard”.
What a sad reflection of the training methods served up by some incompetent check pilots and worse still, go unnoticed by their training departments.
It is a fact of airline life that occasionally the wrong personalities are given the check captain job. The flaws in their personalities are to be seen well before they are elevated to this position of power. However, seniority and the right contacts among management ensure these warning signs are overlooked or disregarded..
“Brutalising.” Check the word in dictionary. It says: “...to degrade”. And piling on repeatedly unlikely combinations of in-flight scenarios until the candidate finally makes a “mistake” – (meaning a difference of personal opinion between check pilot and candidate) and the candidate is then smacked down on the hate sheet (progress report). That is brutalizing and degrading.
Once upon a time this writer flew for a British 737 operator. The routes covered holiday destinations in Europe, the Middle East and West Africa. Any pilot who has flown the European scene knows well the complexities of ATC in foreign states, the sheer volume of aircraft movements and of course the weather patterns from snow to ice and low visibility approaches. In contrast, and with the rare exception, Australian weather is good and routes almost dead boring while same accents make radio life so easy. Flying in Australia is a breeze compared to Europe.
A first officer was rostered for two command training sessions in the simulator before undergoing one week of line training with a minimum of 15 sectors in the left seat. That was duly completed and his command check was from London to Turkey and back on one night. He was awarded his four stripes after a total training time of two weeks. . The new captain turned out to be one of the most competent pilots I have crewed with. I asked the chief pilot why such a short training period for this candidate compared with a typical training period of three to six months in Australian airlines.
He was astonished at the seemingly excess of flight time time and simulator training sequences in Australia. He added that that this candidate was already an experienced B737 first officer with over 2000 hours on type in the European scene. . He had been assessed steadily by his captains throughout his time of over two years along with regular written comments by his captains on his competence as first officer. This included his personal qualities. Therefore, the chief pilot said, when all the comments were put together, management had a very good idea of this pilot’s ability to be a captain. He went on to say that if management did not know what he was like after two years on the line, then we don’t know our job. In simple terms, all he needed now was practice at taxiing from the left seat and generally left seat handling with all the decision making commensurate with coping with European conditions. His simulator training included a command instrument rating conducted in the left seat and the standard non-normals associated with an IR. There was no complicated double or triple jeopardy scenarios as these were both undesirable and un-productive.
What a stark contrast to the Australian method of brutalizing candidates for command which does nothing to graduate a pilot as a better captain but on the contrary, can and has, left some candidates with intense dislike of simulators and lasting memories of poor quality “training”that he wouldn’t want to wish on anyone. Of course Australian airlines are not the only ones to pursue this manner of upgrade training. But is it really necessary to bash unrealistic multiple scenarios to produce a competent captain? I think not
Never mind that in a hundred lifetimes any of these multiple scenarios all combined in two hours of flying would never happen. One check pilot warned the pilot “under training” that the object was to deliberately over-load the candidate during the simulator training sessions leading up to the final pass/fail test so that the final session is just a breeze through. I know of check pilots who get bored in simulators especially if the pilot under training is doing well. Time then to throw in a few tricks to see how the student copes now? If he copes then a few more winds of the screw should test his mettle.
It is clear that many of the multiple and unrealistic scenarios thrown at the command candidate in the simulator are the invention of some instructors who mistakenly think that the more the candidate is stressed, the point will be reached where he spits the dummy (wrong attitude, mate – you failed) or, desperate to pass, he is forced to agree with everything that is said by the instructor at de-briefing in the hope of currying favour
As one long serving Ansett check captain told his students before putting them up for a final line check “Take whatever he says on the chin – never disagree with the check captains comments even though he may be obviously factually wrong – and smile a lot. Only when you leave the briefing room allow yourself the pleasure to say under your breath “up yours you bastard”.
What a sad reflection of the training methods served up by some incompetent check pilots and worse still, go unnoticed by their training departments.
It is a fact of airline life that occasionally the wrong personalities are given the check captain job. The flaws in their personalities are to be seen well before they are elevated to this position of power. However, seniority and the right contacts among management ensure these warning signs are overlooked or disregarded..
“Brutalising.” Check the word in dictionary. It says: “...to degrade”. And piling on repeatedly unlikely combinations of in-flight scenarios until the candidate finally makes a “mistake” – (meaning a difference of personal opinion between check pilot and candidate) and the candidate is then smacked down on the hate sheet (progress report). That is brutalizing and degrading.
Once upon a time this writer flew for a British 737 operator. The routes covered holiday destinations in Europe, the Middle East and West Africa. Any pilot who has flown the European scene knows well the complexities of ATC in foreign states, the sheer volume of aircraft movements and of course the weather patterns from snow to ice and low visibility approaches. In contrast, and with the rare exception, Australian weather is good and routes almost dead boring while same accents make radio life so easy. Flying in Australia is a breeze compared to Europe.
A first officer was rostered for two command training sessions in the simulator before undergoing one week of line training with a minimum of 15 sectors in the left seat. That was duly completed and his command check was from London to Turkey and back on one night. He was awarded his four stripes after a total training time of two weeks. . The new captain turned out to be one of the most competent pilots I have crewed with. I asked the chief pilot why such a short training period for this candidate compared with a typical training period of three to six months in Australian airlines.
He was astonished at the seemingly excess of flight time time and simulator training sequences in Australia. He added that that this candidate was already an experienced B737 first officer with over 2000 hours on type in the European scene. . He had been assessed steadily by his captains throughout his time of over two years along with regular written comments by his captains on his competence as first officer. This included his personal qualities. Therefore, the chief pilot said, when all the comments were put together, management had a very good idea of this pilot’s ability to be a captain. He went on to say that if management did not know what he was like after two years on the line, then we don’t know our job. In simple terms, all he needed now was practice at taxiing from the left seat and generally left seat handling with all the decision making commensurate with coping with European conditions. His simulator training included a command instrument rating conducted in the left seat and the standard non-normals associated with an IR. There was no complicated double or triple jeopardy scenarios as these were both undesirable and un-productive.
What a stark contrast to the Australian method of brutalizing candidates for command which does nothing to graduate a pilot as a better captain but on the contrary, can and has, left some candidates with intense dislike of simulators and lasting memories of poor quality “training”that he wouldn’t want to wish on anyone. Of course Australian airlines are not the only ones to pursue this manner of upgrade training. But is it really necessary to bash unrealistic multiple scenarios to produce a competent captain? I think not
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with what you have written but would like to add that not all Australian Airlines operate the same way. However that attitude does seem to stem from some of the the once employees of one of our now deceased operators.
Elsewhere in the world it is much tougher.
I do and you're wrong.
Content of command training exercises is irrelevent; so long as the requirement for the given student's breaking point is exposed, teased, pushed further and then polished.
ANY training should be based on achieving a set outcome and level of proficiency. If the candidate has excess capacity and extra training time is available, sure let him extend himself. But the standard is the standard and if he achieves it, he passes.
Deliberately driving people to some kind of breaking point is negative in the extreme and nothing but willy-waving macho BS.
Pussies like you children are an embarrassment to our profession
Last edited by Wizofoz; 26th Oct 2008 at 16:39.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame that the people like our good friend the Colonel seem to be over compensating for other inadequacies. I have known a few like him and two of them have died through their own foolishness at the controls.
See girls and boys its men like the good Colonel that walk the walk, talk the talk and are made of the right stuff come with big balls, smoke a cigar, fly through thunderstorms with no radar, land in zero zero visiblity, overweight not a problem it will fly because I said it will and reserve fuel well thats only for girls and men that need Viagra!
Now the good Colonel should cast his mind back over the years and remember accidents like the Westwind into Botany Bay, Tamair's Metro accident while doing V1 cuts at night time(knowingly approved by the local CASA guy), the Viscount at Mangalore doing assymetric training and a few other very close calls and a few lucky escapes by operators along the way!
No doubt the Colonel sits down everynight an reads another chapter in the Walter Mitty training manual for big bad tough captains.
Now the good Colonel should cast his mind back over the years and remember accidents like the Westwind into Botany Bay, Tamair's Metro accident while doing V1 cuts at night time(knowingly approved by the local CASA guy), the Viscount at Mangalore doing assymetric training and a few other very close calls and a few lucky escapes by operators along the way!
No doubt the Colonel sits down everynight an reads another chapter in the Walter Mitty training manual for big bad tough captains.
Now I may be wrong here, and Stationair8, your examples are every bit as relevent today as they ever were (I have personally lost friends in some you have mentioned), but I feel the Colonel may be winding a bit?
If he's not...
If he's not...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: bum**** alabama
Age: 23
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KURTZ
The Colonel is correct in every sense. The benign Australian environment is hardly the place to train competent commanders of aircraft.
Basically, Australian aviators need to harden up. They have had it too good for too long. Aviation in Australia could be be likened to a sheltered workshop. Easy monotonous work done by protohumans.
Simple. GO THE COLONEL
ps: V1 cuts in metros were the norm across the industry. Just because one usless idiot f.cked it up, why should the rest of us lose this invaluable training experience. An absolute disgrace the industry and the impotent regulator in this country.
Basically, Australian aviators need to harden up. They have had it too good for too long. Aviation in Australia could be be likened to a sheltered workshop. Easy monotonous work done by protohumans.
Simple. GO THE COLONEL
ps: V1 cuts in metros were the norm across the industry. Just because one usless idiot f.cked it up, why should the rest of us lose this invaluable training experience. An absolute disgrace the industry and the impotent regulator in this country.
ANY training should be based on achieving a set outcome and level of proficiency. If the candidate has excess capacity and extra training time is available, sure let him extend himself. But the standard is the standard and if he achieves it, he passes.
Deliberately driving people to some kind of breaking point is negative in the extreme and nothing but willy-waving macho BS.
Deliberately driving people to some kind of breaking point is negative in the extreme and nothing but willy-waving macho BS.
The reason for this is that it is now out of fashion, indeed illegal as far as I can tell, to assess character - and it's very close cousin, behaviour under great stress and uncertainty. The result has been that highly qualified and "competent" complete @rseholes have been promoted into management positions that they would never, ever, be allowed to fill were an assessment of their character and reputation performed. The results of this practice are splattered in red ink over corporate balance sheets, and I'd hate to see the practice applied in aviation.
At least when people were promoting from the shop floor or via the old school tie, it was easy to avoid promoting ****s because you identified them very early on by their behaviour in multiple episodes over perhaps Five to Ten years - and in these episodes there was no way for them to know their behaviour was being continuously assessed by their peers. Hence no possibility of masking behaviour. You could thus form a fairly accurate assessment on how they might behave in a variety of situations based on past performance.
The concept of which T.M. complains - "stress testing" people in a simulator and in a debrief afterwards is simple, elegant and highly effective in my opinion to assess character. For all T.M knows, the simulator test wasn't actually the axis of the "test" at all, the "test" may well have been his response to the highly critical debriefing afterwards or his response to the improbable combination of failures experienced in the simulator, or his response as pilot flying to a seemingly (but deliberately) stupid, insolent or otherwise unpleasant co pilot. That's what character is about, not passing technical competency tests.
Some, but not all, of what is sometimes called "bastardisation" in the military is actually character testing. The long march with no food to the supposed truck with your rations that doesn't turn up. The "bridge building" exercise where your soldiers have been deliberately briefed to screw everything up. Who complains first? Who has the hissy fit? What is this person's weak point? Who makes the best of what is happening - it's all observation under stress and pressure.
T.M's weakpoints appear to be a refusal to engage with the process as it stands and an inability to accept criticism and analyse it. I mean I get get criticised by people less than half my age, but do I arc up? They are talking to me because they wish to help me in one way or another. I have to have a flight review shortly and if the examiner doesn't make my life absolute hell for an hour or more I'll feel short changed.
Last edited by Sunfish; 26th Oct 2008 at 21:12.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both sides of this subject is to some degree disturbing to read. How the hell did we get to this point with some shocking beliefs about CMD training? There are always 2 sides/beliefs to any 'story' but sheeeez have we really gotten down to this low level of so called professionalsim?
Look most of us did it the hard way, started out green flew SE old 'hacks' & learnt along the way. The one single thing in aviation that can NEVER be taught/controlled is the personalities of an individual. You can make 2 planes behave exactly the same, not so humans, there in lies the challenge of a good sim instructor. As 'Sunfish' mentioned people coming up from the 'shop floor' would have had their personalities noticed well before 'cmd' was offered & hence there ought to be little need to show up a candidates flaws by way of finding his 'breaking point' which benifts nobody. And that doesn't mean it's only in aviation either. Some slip thru the 'net' like Darth @ QF purely by being cunning but they too usually show their true colours along the way as we have seen in his case.
There's some awfully big d*ck waving goes on in a sim.
Simulators are good for two things, to show the arrogance of some & the failures of others.
'Krusty34' I hope yr right there, wind-up alert!
CW
Look most of us did it the hard way, started out green flew SE old 'hacks' & learnt along the way. The one single thing in aviation that can NEVER be taught/controlled is the personalities of an individual. You can make 2 planes behave exactly the same, not so humans, there in lies the challenge of a good sim instructor. As 'Sunfish' mentioned people coming up from the 'shop floor' would have had their personalities noticed well before 'cmd' was offered & hence there ought to be little need to show up a candidates flaws by way of finding his 'breaking point' which benifts nobody. And that doesn't mean it's only in aviation either. Some slip thru the 'net' like Darth @ QF purely by being cunning but they too usually show their true colours along the way as we have seen in his case.
There's some awfully big d*ck waving goes on in a sim.
Simulators are good for two things, to show the arrogance of some & the failures of others.
'Krusty34' I hope yr right there, wind-up alert!
CW
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done the RAAF bit. And the Airline bit and the regulator bit and now run an aviation outfit I totally aggee with Tee Emm and his/her supporters.
I recall several years ago checking out on the first B-767 at United Airlines where I was involved in a major project, the company hired EDUCATORS to review the training as was being practised at the time. These educators were highly qualified, sum wqith Phd's and other high grade "stuff" that I could never aspire to achieve.
A massive change and turnaround occurred where classroom instructors became real trainers ............not checkers. And the Simulator and aircraft trainers actually trained NOT CHECKED.............the checking came later as it should have.
Suddenly there was a new breed of let's become real trainers and develop lessons to enable the "students" to become trained to real world scenarios.
I recall when FMS's and FMC's were introduced and line captains would not dispatch with one FMC inoperative..... the aircraft being certified for operation with both FMC's inoperative but the training had not covered that.
So action was taken to cover that and otehr issues and guess what..................MEL relief was accepted as it was clear that an equivalent level of safety had been introduced and the crews retrained ............FOR REAL WORLD situations.
So often "Captain God" sitteth on the left side of the flight deck and you-know-who sat on the right...................or in the simulator the Trainer.............(the pseudo checker) was there asking "look-how-smart-I-am-questions" and loading the simulator to pressure cooker status.
Now isn't that a great learning atmosphere?
So Colonel, methinhs you have forgotten, or never have been taught, correctly and that is probably why you have the attitude you have now............the brutaliser who uses the flight deck or four bars as a status symbol and probably believe your crew menbers and students (if you have any) think you are the guru of aviation.
I suggest you are the gorilla of the industry and I wonder how you might perform on new technology if presented to you now in the manner you seem to support.
Here endeth the sermon.
I recall several years ago checking out on the first B-767 at United Airlines where I was involved in a major project, the company hired EDUCATORS to review the training as was being practised at the time. These educators were highly qualified, sum wqith Phd's and other high grade "stuff" that I could never aspire to achieve.
A massive change and turnaround occurred where classroom instructors became real trainers ............not checkers. And the Simulator and aircraft trainers actually trained NOT CHECKED.............the checking came later as it should have.
Suddenly there was a new breed of let's become real trainers and develop lessons to enable the "students" to become trained to real world scenarios.
I recall when FMS's and FMC's were introduced and line captains would not dispatch with one FMC inoperative..... the aircraft being certified for operation with both FMC's inoperative but the training had not covered that.
So action was taken to cover that and otehr issues and guess what..................MEL relief was accepted as it was clear that an equivalent level of safety had been introduced and the crews retrained ............FOR REAL WORLD situations.
So often "Captain God" sitteth on the left side of the flight deck and you-know-who sat on the right...................or in the simulator the Trainer.............(the pseudo checker) was there asking "look-how-smart-I-am-questions" and loading the simulator to pressure cooker status.
Now isn't that a great learning atmosphere?
So Colonel, methinhs you have forgotten, or never have been taught, correctly and that is probably why you have the attitude you have now............the brutaliser who uses the flight deck or four bars as a status symbol and probably believe your crew menbers and students (if you have any) think you are the guru of aviation.
I suggest you are the gorilla of the industry and I wonder how you might perform on new technology if presented to you now in the manner you seem to support.
Here endeth the sermon.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent post Tee Emm. I've come across both types of check captains and the guy/gal intent on training and teaching people gets the results in the end.
Pushing people to a breaking point is actually called bullying and can land one in a lot of trouble.
...and then on the other hand you might find a captain or effo that might not direct his complaint through the official channels and decide he/she has had enough and express his/her feeling through boxing.
I know of a few captains that have said they've been close to this point.
In the end the company suffers because bloggs goes somewhere where bullying is not tollerated and training is promoted.
Pushing people to a breaking point is actually called bullying and can land one in a lot of trouble.
To improve your command potential Colonel Kurtz recommends: Boxing.
I know of a few captains that have said they've been close to this point.
In the end the company suffers because bloggs goes somewhere where bullying is not tollerated and training is promoted.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both of you clueless snivelling GA puppies need a spinal brace.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A37575" I think yr right there, has to be a wind up as another has suggested, nobody could be that ignorant!
Still the subject has hit a raw nerve or two, just goes to show that it's (subject content) is on pretty much everybody's mind.
CW
Still the subject has hit a raw nerve or two, just goes to show that it's (subject content) is on pretty much everybody's mind.
CW
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
It is amazining how many opinions there can be, wind up not withstanding.
Any Operator has a responsibility to ensure his crews in all seats are well trained, suitably monitored via the Check and Training process and suitably assessed via a hopefully transperant process for command.
This leads to the "standard" of the assessment.
There is THE standard, covered in the CAOs
The desired standard MAY well be in excess of this in some areas, very difficult to define
There is then the "standard" that particular Checkers/Trainers may wish you to acheive,
IT IS THE MANNER OF ACHIEVING THAT "SO CALLED STANDARD" which usually causes all the grief for Canditates and Employers
That is why it is SO BLODDY IMPORTANT to chose the right people for that task, regrettably it is not a science, frought with nepotism, incompetence and poor judgment in far too many cases.
"Any questions from you "blogs" will indicate a lack of knowlege" is a clasic I was presented with in a VERY large Asian carrier during my training.
In hindsght, it was a lack of confidence, knowlege and ability of my trainer which needed to be addressed, I survived BUT it was no fun. not pretty to watch but got done in the end
When the training was over, the learning began!!!
Command is very difficult to teach, it is usually in the person if it exists and needs to be fine tuned via an ever changing way. Test their mental and physical abilities by all means in an educational manner, expose them to any Operational difficulties know to the area, operator or Aircraft type by all means in a constructive and learning manner. Logical sequenced failures in systems, coupled with "thinking" exercises to expose the thinking process of the canditate to assist in suitable operational outcomes should be the norm.
You can't train for the reverser operating at high speed and high altitude (Lauder), you can cause the failures of many things, it is in the execution of these tasks where you assess the competance of you Commanders.
And having done ALL that some will be good and some wont.
That's the fun of having humans to deal with, not computers a la Qantas in WA which appear to have failed as well???
have fun out there
Any Operator has a responsibility to ensure his crews in all seats are well trained, suitably monitored via the Check and Training process and suitably assessed via a hopefully transperant process for command.
This leads to the "standard" of the assessment.
There is THE standard, covered in the CAOs
The desired standard MAY well be in excess of this in some areas, very difficult to define
There is then the "standard" that particular Checkers/Trainers may wish you to acheive,
IT IS THE MANNER OF ACHIEVING THAT "SO CALLED STANDARD" which usually causes all the grief for Canditates and Employers
That is why it is SO BLODDY IMPORTANT to chose the right people for that task, regrettably it is not a science, frought with nepotism, incompetence and poor judgment in far too many cases.
"Any questions from you "blogs" will indicate a lack of knowlege" is a clasic I was presented with in a VERY large Asian carrier during my training.
In hindsght, it was a lack of confidence, knowlege and ability of my trainer which needed to be addressed, I survived BUT it was no fun. not pretty to watch but got done in the end
When the training was over, the learning began!!!
Command is very difficult to teach, it is usually in the person if it exists and needs to be fine tuned via an ever changing way. Test their mental and physical abilities by all means in an educational manner, expose them to any Operational difficulties know to the area, operator or Aircraft type by all means in a constructive and learning manner. Logical sequenced failures in systems, coupled with "thinking" exercises to expose the thinking process of the canditate to assist in suitable operational outcomes should be the norm.
You can't train for the reverser operating at high speed and high altitude (Lauder), you can cause the failures of many things, it is in the execution of these tasks where you assess the competance of you Commanders.
And having done ALL that some will be good and some wont.
That's the fun of having humans to deal with, not computers a la Qantas in WA which appear to have failed as well???
have fun out there
Some great stuff here, from everyone but the Colonel. If he is just a wind-up troll, he really should find some other children go play with and stop bothering the grown ups. If he is serious, he doesn't belong any where near a real life student, and wouldn't be a commander I would be keen to fly with (actually, the applies WHICHEVER is true.)
Sunfish,
Hear what you are saying, but we are talking about TRAINING, not SELECTION or PROMOTION. The processes I've been through for employment at various airlines have indeed involved proving the ability to deal with stress and have resnoble applicable inter-personal and managerial skill, as well as technical competence. Any good training system will include something similar in assessing Whether an F/O is ready for an upgrade as well.
We are then talking about the best way to TRAIN an individual to acquire a new set of skills. Not best done under duress or undue mental load. Once those skills are established, showing the ability to manage under a realistic (and even in an enlightened training program, that will mean possible but a REAL bad day) scenario is all part of the package.
But putting people under extreme stress by coming up with stupid scenarios "Because I can" is part of a previous generation of "Real Men". You might as well teach candidates to juggle chain-saws- the skills acquired are just as relevant.
Smoka-
Erm- We're mainly talking Sim training here. I'm in Dubai and its 32 and sunny here, same as yesterday. But it will be a cold snowy day in London for my Sim students tonight!!
There will always be someone (and it doesn't make them a f***wit) who will make an error. After all, if this is something everyone gets right first time, why train for it? If making that mistake means a fiery death, an alternate way of training that skill must be found.
Grey beard,
What you said
Sunfish,
Hear what you are saying, but we are talking about TRAINING, not SELECTION or PROMOTION. The processes I've been through for employment at various airlines have indeed involved proving the ability to deal with stress and have resnoble applicable inter-personal and managerial skill, as well as technical competence. Any good training system will include something similar in assessing Whether an F/O is ready for an upgrade as well.
We are then talking about the best way to TRAIN an individual to acquire a new set of skills. Not best done under duress or undue mental load. Once those skills are established, showing the ability to manage under a realistic (and even in an enlightened training program, that will mean possible but a REAL bad day) scenario is all part of the package.
But putting people under extreme stress by coming up with stupid scenarios "Because I can" is part of a previous generation of "Real Men". You might as well teach candidates to juggle chain-saws- the skills acquired are just as relevant.
Smoka-
Erm- We're mainly talking Sim training here. I'm in Dubai and its 32 and sunny here, same as yesterday. But it will be a cold snowy day in London for my Sim students tonight!!
There will always be someone (and it doesn't make them a f***wit) who will make an error. After all, if this is something everyone gets right first time, why train for it? If making that mistake means a fiery death, an alternate way of training that skill must be found.
Grey beard,
What you said
"When the training was over, the learning began!!!"
Greybeard, you have hit the nail on the head - as usual!
My attitude to command training is that the candidate should be challenged but needs to come out the other end confident in his/her own ability to manage any non-normal scenario in a systematic fashion.
No amount of sim training is going to cover every possible scenario, and Boeing comment in the front of their QRH that no list of non-normal checklists will cover every circumstance.
So a pilot needs to be able to assess a problem or problems and if it is not covered exactly by a checklist then determine what the best course of action is. In essence command training is about training decision making.
My company sets a limit of two MEL's predeparture, One minor failure and one major failure after dispatch. This is realistic and gives the trainee enough to manage without it becoming unrealistic. (There is of course some scenarios, eg Bombs going off, Volcanic Ash, that will cause multiple system failures.)
Three LOS exercises (3 x 4hr sim) and a check should be sufficient to get a trainee up to a level of confidence so that he can go out on the line and begin learning. (..the harder stuff like how to manage cabin crew fighting or passengers having heart attacks!)
It is disappointing to hear that there is trainers out there who load trainees to snapping point. I don`t see any benefit in that in the modern airline world or even in a GA operation.
Greybeard, you have hit the nail on the head - as usual!
My attitude to command training is that the candidate should be challenged but needs to come out the other end confident in his/her own ability to manage any non-normal scenario in a systematic fashion.
No amount of sim training is going to cover every possible scenario, and Boeing comment in the front of their QRH that no list of non-normal checklists will cover every circumstance.
So a pilot needs to be able to assess a problem or problems and if it is not covered exactly by a checklist then determine what the best course of action is. In essence command training is about training decision making.
My company sets a limit of two MEL's predeparture, One minor failure and one major failure after dispatch. This is realistic and gives the trainee enough to manage without it becoming unrealistic. (There is of course some scenarios, eg Bombs going off, Volcanic Ash, that will cause multiple system failures.)
Three LOS exercises (3 x 4hr sim) and a check should be sufficient to get a trainee up to a level of confidence so that he can go out on the line and begin learning. (..the harder stuff like how to manage cabin crew fighting or passengers having heart attacks!)
It is disappointing to hear that there is trainers out there who load trainees to snapping point. I don`t see any benefit in that in the modern airline world or even in a GA operation.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel Kurtz and those supporting him must be winding us up... because nobody who knows anything about the subject would agree with him.
Yes, Oz/NZ is a sleepy little aviation backwater with a sad record of arrogance when it comes to accepting the progress that has been made in aviation training and psychology in the last 20 years. If the good colonel knew anything about anything, he/she/it would know that the "load the trainee until they lose it" approach has long been discredited in modern airline training. There may be a few old ex-military die-hards that still try and work to that concept, but any enlightened and knowledgeable trainer would know that such methods don't work in the context of modern training. Any pilot can be loaded up until they fail, it isn't even particularly difficult if that is your object. But it isn't training in any sense of the word. I have occasionally loaded up a particularly good student in the sim to see just how "good" they were, but never in a sim detail where such fun and games could impinge on their future prospects!
Similarly, Sunfish's view of "stress testing" revealing character is similarly flawed. Character is not measurable by any single form of stress testing as it is way too complex to be wholly revealed by that method - try checking the dictionary for a definition of "character". It isn't what you think it is.
Yes, Oz/NZ is a sleepy little aviation backwater with a sad record of arrogance when it comes to accepting the progress that has been made in aviation training and psychology in the last 20 years. If the good colonel knew anything about anything, he/she/it would know that the "load the trainee until they lose it" approach has long been discredited in modern airline training. There may be a few old ex-military die-hards that still try and work to that concept, but any enlightened and knowledgeable trainer would know that such methods don't work in the context of modern training. Any pilot can be loaded up until they fail, it isn't even particularly difficult if that is your object. But it isn't training in any sense of the word. I have occasionally loaded up a particularly good student in the sim to see just how "good" they were, but never in a sim detail where such fun and games could impinge on their future prospects!
Similarly, Sunfish's view of "stress testing" revealing character is similarly flawed. Character is not measurable by any single form of stress testing as it is way too complex to be wholly revealed by that method - try checking the dictionary for a definition of "character". It isn't what you think it is.
Tee Emms' original post is excellent, and reflects my own experience of the European scene. Smoka also makes some good points - why are we scared of a bit of real asymmetric in types not properly supported by simulators? In that regard it's CASA that are the pussies.
As for compound emergencies when the guy on the panel is playing smart-arse with 'impossible' scenarios, I like to give them a bit of it back. Something like "this is not covered in any checklist, so no more rooting around in the QRH - gear down, full flap, we are landing NOW". Refuse any instruction from the back end of the sim to go around, be prepared to bust the wx minima if he cranks it down- do whatever it takes to get it on the deck. If he makes it impossible to land by blocking the runway and you are fuel critical, land it on the taxiway. If you are not fuel critical, pick somewhere you know is not in the simulator data base and head off in that direction - these guys hate that ****!
Provided you pull it off without crashing the simulator, Capt Check-Smart-Arse has little comeback, because the regulations and most ops manuals have a get out of jail clause somewhere for extenuating circumstances where the commander has the right to do whatever it takes etc. etc. On the other hand, you'd better NOT crash!
As for compound emergencies when the guy on the panel is playing smart-arse with 'impossible' scenarios, I like to give them a bit of it back. Something like "this is not covered in any checklist, so no more rooting around in the QRH - gear down, full flap, we are landing NOW". Refuse any instruction from the back end of the sim to go around, be prepared to bust the wx minima if he cranks it down- do whatever it takes to get it on the deck. If he makes it impossible to land by blocking the runway and you are fuel critical, land it on the taxiway. If you are not fuel critical, pick somewhere you know is not in the simulator data base and head off in that direction - these guys hate that ****!
Provided you pull it off without crashing the simulator, Capt Check-Smart-Arse has little comeback, because the regulations and most ops manuals have a get out of jail clause somewhere for extenuating circumstances where the commander has the right to do whatever it takes etc. etc. On the other hand, you'd better NOT crash!