"he Gave Me Absolute Stick In The Sim"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"he Gave Me Absolute Stick In The Sim"
A recent posting suggested that a training captain was good at his job because he gave the candidate, ' absolute stick in the sim'.
I just wonder what other Ppruners think of this approach to the simulator?
Should pilots be given absolute stick in the simulator or should the simulator be continuation training, conducted in a non- intimidatory atmosphere?
Should pilots fear the simulator or should it be made a more comfortable experience?
Do simulators bring the best out of candidates or the worst out of trainers!?
Your views please?
I just wonder what other Ppruners think of this approach to the simulator?
Should pilots be given absolute stick in the simulator or should the simulator be continuation training, conducted in a non- intimidatory atmosphere?
Should pilots fear the simulator or should it be made a more comfortable experience?
Do simulators bring the best out of candidates or the worst out of trainers!?
Your views please?
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit, I used to give stick when I first became a check flight engineer but changed my views with experience. LOFT training has made the job a lot easier but anybody failing mandatory items twice was up for further training. I have seen people destroyed in the simulator and a friendly approach definitely brings better results.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simulators are very expensive tools. A good training captain will have his/her candidates leave a simulator session refreshed, better prepared, and having learned something for use in their everyday operation on the line. If he/she can achieve that in a well planned and efficiently executed session then so much the better.
Those individuals, who test their candidates to death, try and catch people out, or program unrealistic and excessive exercises are wasting their time, the candidate’s time, and the company’s time. They neither provide effective training, nor inspire their candidates with confidence and expertise. If these people are on some kind of inflated ego trip then perhaps they should take up management.
Make good use of your simulators, and enjoy the training.
Those individuals, who test their candidates to death, try and catch people out, or program unrealistic and excessive exercises are wasting their time, the candidate’s time, and the company’s time. They neither provide effective training, nor inspire their candidates with confidence and expertise. If these people are on some kind of inflated ego trip then perhaps they should take up management.
Make good use of your simulators, and enjoy the training.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: on this planet
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well lets describe it with the slogan of a famous
airline training facility "A well TRAINED pilot is the best safety device in an aircraft".
I think this says all!
Have you ever compared your impression of a sim check. If you don't know how it all started and what you all did, there was too much in this. But if you can remember most of the ride, you had space to remember all the things you did and you would be able to evaluate these things for use in future events.
airline training facility "A well TRAINED pilot is the best safety device in an aircraft".
I think this says all!
Have you ever compared your impression of a sim check. If you don't know how it all started and what you all did, there was too much in this. But if you can remember most of the ride, you had space to remember all the things you did and you would be able to evaluate these things for use in future events.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know that you're really having a rough sim session when you go for a wizz at 1/2 time and mid-way through you realize that the 'trough' is equiped with tap handles and a mirror. 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any pilot can be given a hard time in a simulator, even the most experienced trainer can be reduced to trashing the aircraft eventually. And just what do we gain from such an experience? Nothing at all, indeed we have wasted an expensive opportunity to learn, be trained and leave feeling that the whole episode was truly worthwhile.
A pity that some so called 'Trainers' feel that such a method is the only part of their repetoire that gets results. How very delusional and wrong they are!
A pity that some so called 'Trainers' feel that such a method is the only part of their repetoire that gets results. How very delusional and wrong they are!
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: West Wales
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had the very good fortune to do most of my many years of simulator with first-class trainers. Within the scope of the brief, they have tailored the detail to keep sufficient pressure on the crew to extract maximum continuation training value from the exercise. If I leave the box feeling fairly weary but with a sense of accomplishment and having learnt a little new something, I go home a happy bunny. Like everyone else, I've had the odd session I'd prefer to forget but, by and large, I enjoy the simulator! Maybe I've been at the game too long.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, after the recent debate on another very contentious issue, (one side of which twosides started), wouldn’t another one here, perhaps called “Trainers (not!) I Have Known” lead to some interesting posts? (And some very informed guesses as to who the post-ers are NOT naming.)
In my mind’s eye, I can see just about every man who was ever a FO in my current airline chomping at the bit to tell “their” horror story about a certain gent who will remain nameless who just lurrrrved giving ridiculously unlikely multiple failures to the point where the average bloke didn’t know whether was coming or going – and to endorse Capt H. Peacock’s excellent post, I’d say not one of them (make that “us”!) came out of those sessions having learned a damn thing. Sim with this gent was a survival exercise, certainly not a learning experience. Unfortunately, this gent put the brakes, and in some cases, the total kibosh on more than one man’s career, some would say undeservedly in more than a few cases. (I suspect there’s been one or more such people at some time in the checking and training department of just about every airline in the world.)
HotDog followed the well-trodden path in that many new checkies try to re-invent Aviation in their first few months on the panel and some can be a bit OTT. Thankfully, most settle down pretty quickly as HotDog says he’s done.
It’s a fine line any checkie/trainer walks at the best of times. On the one hand, you want the trainee to walk away feeling that he’s learned something and is better equipped to face an unusual situation on the line than he was when he walked into the sim. On the other, you don’t want him to go away feeling that he didn’t test or hone his own abilities just a bit, or he might as well have stayed home. A good checkie knows where to draw this line for each and every individual – and that line varies from personality to personality, and finding it is the real skill.
Having worn both hats, I think there can be times when “the wrath of Khan” approach can be a positive learning experience – but that’s ONLY at the end of a session when the guy’s (that should be “ guys’ ” plural) have done a better than average job and you’re left with a spare half hour. That’s when I would sometimes give a crew a horror scenario, but not before telling them that the Renewal was over and this was to be looked on purely as “fun”. Most guys, when they knew the pressure wasn’t on them in such an exercise, came away very happy to have been given the exposure to something unusual.
I think the whole business of Training/Checking can be encapsulated in one sentence. “If the trainee/candidate doesn’t come out of the sim session feeling that he or she has learned something, the trainer/checkie is the one who’s failed.” Another way of saying it is “big T, little C is the best mix by far”.
In my mind’s eye, I can see just about every man who was ever a FO in my current airline chomping at the bit to tell “their” horror story about a certain gent who will remain nameless who just lurrrrved giving ridiculously unlikely multiple failures to the point where the average bloke didn’t know whether was coming or going – and to endorse Capt H. Peacock’s excellent post, I’d say not one of them (make that “us”!) came out of those sessions having learned a damn thing. Sim with this gent was a survival exercise, certainly not a learning experience. Unfortunately, this gent put the brakes, and in some cases, the total kibosh on more than one man’s career, some would say undeservedly in more than a few cases. (I suspect there’s been one or more such people at some time in the checking and training department of just about every airline in the world.)
HotDog followed the well-trodden path in that many new checkies try to re-invent Aviation in their first few months on the panel and some can be a bit OTT. Thankfully, most settle down pretty quickly as HotDog says he’s done.
It’s a fine line any checkie/trainer walks at the best of times. On the one hand, you want the trainee to walk away feeling that he’s learned something and is better equipped to face an unusual situation on the line than he was when he walked into the sim. On the other, you don’t want him to go away feeling that he didn’t test or hone his own abilities just a bit, or he might as well have stayed home. A good checkie knows where to draw this line for each and every individual – and that line varies from personality to personality, and finding it is the real skill.
Having worn both hats, I think there can be times when “the wrath of Khan” approach can be a positive learning experience – but that’s ONLY at the end of a session when the guy’s (that should be “ guys’ ” plural) have done a better than average job and you’re left with a spare half hour. That’s when I would sometimes give a crew a horror scenario, but not before telling them that the Renewal was over and this was to be looked on purely as “fun”. Most guys, when they knew the pressure wasn’t on them in such an exercise, came away very happy to have been given the exposure to something unusual.
I think the whole business of Training/Checking can be encapsulated in one sentence. “If the trainee/candidate doesn’t come out of the sim session feeling that he or she has learned something, the trainer/checkie is the one who’s failed.” Another way of saying it is “big T, little C is the best mix by far”.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thankfully, this style of "training" has pretty much disappeared in the U.S. over the past couple of decades from my experience.
There are still a few idiots in every training department but feedback forms and union pressure do seem to help weed these folks out of the building. Of course, we've all seen the people who are Godzilla as a sim instructor but can't fly their way out of a paper bag on the line.
Also, as mentioned above, LOFT style training emphasizes realism instead of obscure stuff like holding on NDB bearing intersections.
The British style base check and instrument check format is quite artificial and antiquated compared to LOFT in my opinion but I realize that some folks love to dwell in detail. U.S. training emphasizes practical aspects over theoretical trivia. Do they still ask the color of the light in the laser gyros on the UK (or JAA) written exam?
There are still a few idiots in every training department but feedback forms and union pressure do seem to help weed these folks out of the building. Of course, we've all seen the people who are Godzilla as a sim instructor but can't fly their way out of a paper bag on the line.
Also, as mentioned above, LOFT style training emphasizes realism instead of obscure stuff like holding on NDB bearing intersections.
The British style base check and instrument check format is quite artificial and antiquated compared to LOFT in my opinion but I realize that some folks love to dwell in detail. U.S. training emphasizes practical aspects over theoretical trivia. Do they still ask the color of the light in the laser gyros on the UK (or JAA) written exam?
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a good article from the 737 information site about this topic. Here is the link http://www.b737.org.uk/sim_instructor.htm
Having been trained by good instructors I have also been on the receiving end of this particular type of bad one and in my opinion NO, they do not make good instructors or professional pilots. When you're being screamed at and abused verbally and even sometimes physically, tell me, can you fly? Can you learn? This kind of teaching and training is Old School. Think about CRM and better teaching skills. I've seen someone develop a phobia of flying with this kind of instructor pilot to the point of him not even being able to concentrate when sitting in the same room as the person. It's not funny and that's just not the way to learn or be trained.
Oh, the 'happy ending' is that this particular instructor pilot has toned down alot and improved on his temper and patients. Also there is no more physical abusive contact. This was after formal complaints were lodged.
Having been trained by good instructors I have also been on the receiving end of this particular type of bad one and in my opinion NO, they do not make good instructors or professional pilots. When you're being screamed at and abused verbally and even sometimes physically, tell me, can you fly? Can you learn? This kind of teaching and training is Old School. Think about CRM and better teaching skills. I've seen someone develop a phobia of flying with this kind of instructor pilot to the point of him not even being able to concentrate when sitting in the same room as the person. It's not funny and that's just not the way to learn or be trained.
Oh, the 'happy ending' is that this particular instructor pilot has toned down alot and improved on his temper and patients. Also there is no more physical abusive contact. This was after formal complaints were lodged.
Last edited by QNH1013; 3rd Apr 2002 at 15:40.
I first got in a simulator in 1962 and it would be fair to say that we didn't have many Instructors in those days but we had lots of Destructors. Visits to the simulator were to be avoided if at all possible and certainly only an idiot would volunteer to go along if there was a spare slot up for grabs.
It took nearly 10 years (in my case) for the tide to start turning and for people to realise that simulators could actually be more useful as an invaluable training aid than they were as a very expensive means of taking people apart for no good reason.
Needless to say, I ended up in the back of simulators and I made a vow that I would not go down the Destructors path. In this I think I have been quite successful. Last week I was told by the guys on the receiving end that they had learnt a lot and the captain said "Thank you for making it painless". Don't get the wrong idea - I made them work hard.
I boggle at how much money has been wasted over the years to no effect. I have been a TRI/TRE (TRE/IRE in old money) for many years so I have a pretty shrewd idea of how much simulators cost. The present one is around £400 per hour. We do two slots per crew every 6 months so has it ever occurred to any of you Destructors that might still be out there what you are costing your company?
I don't know when Airbubba had his UK experience but I have to tell him that I did my first LOFT slot in a UK simulator in 1974. I have been with my present company for 14 years and we have always done LOFT training. I was also at one time an FAA Check
Airman and lots of folk on the other side of the Pond used to express surprise that we were already doing LOFT over on the other side of 30W.
Finally, I always find that a "heavy debrief" is the place to make your feelings heard!
"Softly, softly catchee monkey"!
It took nearly 10 years (in my case) for the tide to start turning and for people to realise that simulators could actually be more useful as an invaluable training aid than they were as a very expensive means of taking people apart for no good reason.
Needless to say, I ended up in the back of simulators and I made a vow that I would not go down the Destructors path. In this I think I have been quite successful. Last week I was told by the guys on the receiving end that they had learnt a lot and the captain said "Thank you for making it painless". Don't get the wrong idea - I made them work hard.
I boggle at how much money has been wasted over the years to no effect. I have been a TRI/TRE (TRE/IRE in old money) for many years so I have a pretty shrewd idea of how much simulators cost. The present one is around £400 per hour. We do two slots per crew every 6 months so has it ever occurred to any of you Destructors that might still be out there what you are costing your company?
I don't know when Airbubba had his UK experience but I have to tell him that I did my first LOFT slot in a UK simulator in 1974. I have been with my present company for 14 years and we have always done LOFT training. I was also at one time an FAA Check
Airman and lots of folk on the other side of the Pond used to express surprise that we were already doing LOFT over on the other side of 30W.
Finally, I always find that a "heavy debrief" is the place to make your feelings heard!
"Softly, softly catchee monkey"!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good old twosides - as well balanced as ever - a chip on both shoulders!
OK so you took lessons on being a complete prat and got an A* - take the comment in context is the lesson you either missed, ignored or weren't bright enough to absorb!
The comment was made regarding a command ASSESSMENT ergo it was a check ride, not a CT ride. It was designed to put the prospective commander through the hoops to discover if he/she was up to the job. The training had been completed.
We all know that you failed your command check, so just get off the guy's back.
OK so you took lessons on being a complete prat and got an A* - take the comment in context is the lesson you either missed, ignored or weren't bright enough to absorb!
The comment was made regarding a command ASSESSMENT ergo it was a check ride, not a CT ride. It was designed to put the prospective commander through the hoops to discover if he/she was up to the job. The training had been completed.
We all know that you failed your command check, so just get off the guy's back.
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The absolute WORST hours of my flying career were spent, in the sim, shovelling desperately for some poor guy who couldn't do it any more. This clinical exercise was conducted, on two consecutive nights, between midnight and 0400, by an up and coming young training captain. Just to add to the fun, I'd been advised, several weeks beforehand, that I was the "Bog-Standard Joe" in the frame for all this. The execution was duly carried out and the unfortunate person departed the company. Unfortunately for me, due to the shambles of the check, it was deemed, quite correctly, that I had been unable to demonstrate my competence and my operational certificate was withdrawn. I went home, spewed down the toilet, and prepared myself for the re-run of MY check (my career now on the line mark well) and subsequently passed. However, it provided a new and enlightening view of what could be perpetrated with flight simulators!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sydney,NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are at least two issues here.
If it is a check ride hoops must be jumped.
If it is training obviously more latitude and input can be given.
Most sim sessions have both components incorporated now days.
Importantly, whether it is a check or training session there is no excuse not to put the candidate at ease. The session may be a tough one, putting the candidate at ease during the brief can raise his performance.
Please let us all not forget, there are times questions must be answered and standards met, usually when some one thinks they have been hard done by, they have been found wanting.
If it is a check ride hoops must be jumped.
If it is training obviously more latitude and input can be given.
Most sim sessions have both components incorporated now days.
Importantly, whether it is a check or training session there is no excuse not to put the candidate at ease. The session may be a tough one, putting the candidate at ease during the brief can raise his performance.
Please let us all not forget, there are times questions must be answered and standards met, usually when some one thinks they have been hard done by, they have been found wanting.
Moderator
I had the interesting experience of working on a short term contract for an airline which, in respect of the particular Type, tended towards "heavy" training. Our little group worked hard to put the crews at ease ... with the result that we tended to get more work and a higher standard at the end of the day from the individual pilots.
It is so evident, sitting in the back, that a pilot who is reasonably relaxed and finding the experience enjoyable (or, at least, not threatening) can concentrate on the learning and practising tasks without having to "worry" that the guy in back might think unkindly about a "mistake" ... if a good standard were presupposed, then we wouldn't have any need for endorsements etc. at all.
The check bits are a little different as the hoops need to be jumped through to get a tick in the relevant box for licencing purposes. If the pilot has a problem, it is addressed with a bit more practice and the standard brought back up to where it needs to be. In the check environment, how many of us can contrast the instructor who put the crew at ease as against the tyrant .... ? .. and with whom would be prefer to be working ?
In the occasional situation where a qualified line pilot consistently is down on standards, then that situation may need to be addressed by the standards organisation. For the majority of pilots, though, the individual is trying his/her hardest to do a good job and doesn't need someone to criticise .. he/she is his/her most demanding critic ......
It is so evident, sitting in the back, that a pilot who is reasonably relaxed and finding the experience enjoyable (or, at least, not threatening) can concentrate on the learning and practising tasks without having to "worry" that the guy in back might think unkindly about a "mistake" ... if a good standard were presupposed, then we wouldn't have any need for endorsements etc. at all.
The check bits are a little different as the hoops need to be jumped through to get a tick in the relevant box for licencing purposes. If the pilot has a problem, it is addressed with a bit more practice and the standard brought back up to where it needs to be. In the check environment, how many of us can contrast the instructor who put the crew at ease as against the tyrant .... ? .. and with whom would be prefer to be working ?
In the occasional situation where a qualified line pilot consistently is down on standards, then that situation may need to be addressed by the standards organisation. For the majority of pilots, though, the individual is trying his/her hardest to do a good job and doesn't need someone to criticise .. he/she is his/her most demanding critic ......
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 6th Apr 2002 at 22:02.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having given instruction and sim checks over the last 6 years, I can only offer this. If an instructor cannot personally work the problem to a successful completion, it has no business being included. I want my students to leave the sim with more confidence than they came in with. Even if they crash, I will teach them how I worked the problem, so they may come out of it alive if it happens to them. The operative word is "TRAINING CAPTAINS", so train them. I have taken rides in the UK with multiple failures. It's ridiculous. You can fail anyone if you want to.
"So many buttons, so little time"
"So many buttons, so little time"
Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay ladies and gentlemen.
There can be the Training Captain who hops from system to system giving a single failure, which would very quickly overload the trainees and become counter productive, or.... Are we talking about consequential failures as the direct result of an incorrect action or procedure?
When someone does take an incorrect course of action and then subsequently sorts out the b*****'s muddle that can result a lot will be learnt. Intervention by the Training Captain may be counter productive. After all, there are not many fire engines with 2,000ft of hose-pipe so if a landing can be achieved all's well. A lot will be achieved in terms of understanding the consequential effects of system failures and CRM.
Nobody has mentioned how a Training Captain feels when he watches a person failing to reach the required standard. An awful lot of thought goes into an exercise and the debrief is just as important as a learning tool to the trainer as well as the candidate. The exercise can be "fine-tuned" and perhaps put into the lesson plans to be freely available to colleagues or on the other hand quietly binned. A good time to try a new exercise is with a fellow Training Captain so there are two inputs from the training side.
Personally I used to feel very upset if I had to recommend that a pilot be refused promotion. Could I have restructered the exercise in any way? The answer, after quiet reflection, has been no. I think people must know in their own mind if they are up to required standard and work very hard to stay well above it. Those that fall by the wayside know in the back of their minds what went wrong.
That's my two-pennies worth.
MP
There can be the Training Captain who hops from system to system giving a single failure, which would very quickly overload the trainees and become counter productive, or.... Are we talking about consequential failures as the direct result of an incorrect action or procedure?
When someone does take an incorrect course of action and then subsequently sorts out the b*****'s muddle that can result a lot will be learnt. Intervention by the Training Captain may be counter productive. After all, there are not many fire engines with 2,000ft of hose-pipe so if a landing can be achieved all's well. A lot will be achieved in terms of understanding the consequential effects of system failures and CRM.
Nobody has mentioned how a Training Captain feels when he watches a person failing to reach the required standard. An awful lot of thought goes into an exercise and the debrief is just as important as a learning tool to the trainer as well as the candidate. The exercise can be "fine-tuned" and perhaps put into the lesson plans to be freely available to colleagues or on the other hand quietly binned. A good time to try a new exercise is with a fellow Training Captain so there are two inputs from the training side.
Personally I used to feel very upset if I had to recommend that a pilot be refused promotion. Could I have restructered the exercise in any way? The answer, after quiet reflection, has been no. I think people must know in their own mind if they are up to required standard and work very hard to stay well above it. Those that fall by the wayside know in the back of their minds what went wrong.
That's my two-pennies worth.
MP
