Accurate Look at Checkrides?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accurate Look at Checkrides?
It seems to hit the nail close to the head... I still hate 'em, and some of the check airman seem to have their own agendas at times... Ahh.. The life we chose...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._bet_your.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._bet_your.html
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if this is an obivious statement - but outside of the Colonies we Drivers are required to be in the Sim for either an LPC/OPC every 6 months regardless of whether we have 2, 3 or 4 stripes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Many carriers and aircraft in the U.S. have approved Advanced Qualification Programs and need only one sim check a year. It's a bit of a stretch for a long haul pilot in my opinion. Like ETOPS, if your company starts pranging planes on a regular basis, the feds can take it away.
See: http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/aqp/
See: http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/aqp/
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could I please ask why, in the last 5 years or so, any sembelance of "T" ie training seems to have been completely lost when talking about the use of the simulator; now all "C" and 
all training.
The greatest, greatest tool for showing what can go wrong in so many ways (ie training) and all it's used for is as an instrument of fear (checking.)
Correct me if I'm wrong but sim's were largely/partly developed to stop airlines doing excessive things in real aircraft during training and then wondering when things didn't QUITE go as expected aircraft pranged and crew died??
Are we all so **** hot these days we don't need any more training after the initial sim training?
Surely better to check pilots on the line for proficiency and use the sim to show a whole stack of unexpected scenarios??
I would call that a far beter use of resources but what the would I know - I'm just a driver who could benefit from some broader training, luckily I'm the only one!! 
all training.The greatest, greatest tool for showing what can go wrong in so many ways (ie training) and all it's used for is as an instrument of fear (checking.)
Correct me if I'm wrong but sim's were largely/partly developed to stop airlines doing excessive things in real aircraft during training and then wondering when things didn't QUITE go as expected aircraft pranged and crew died??
Are we all so **** hot these days we don't need any more training after the initial sim training?
Surely better to check pilots on the line for proficiency and use the sim to show a whole stack of unexpected scenarios??
I would call that a far beter use of resources but what the
would I know - I'm just a driver who could benefit from some broader training, luckily I'm the only one!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is indeed what most decent companies in the UK do, although doubtless there are a few exceptions - certainly all three major jet airlines I have worked for has used the the sim for "Training with a capital 'T' and testing with a little 't'".
It's a shame that not everyone always sees the positive aspects of the experience - I'd much rather get it wrong in the sim than in the jet (and I've done both!).
It's a shame that not everyone always sees the positive aspects of the experience - I'd much rather get it wrong in the sim than in the jet (and I've done both!).
Guest
Posts: n/a
The JAA recurrent check program is too full of bull, and too prescriptive.
Mandatory Circling Approaches are a waste of time for a start. I haven't done one in anger since I stopped flying turbo-props, and I think I could hack it if it ever became necessary. It should be a training option to practice them now and again. But there they are on the program, eating up precious time.
The commercial pressures and cutbacks at airlines means minimal time/money for real training.
Just "get the legalities done" as quickly and cheaply as possible is the bean-counters primary goal.
Any extra time allocated to training is a joke, and merely pays lip service to the concept.
How often have you seen a sim bomb out, and the LOFT dropped from the detail?
Mandatory Circling Approaches are a waste of time for a start. I haven't done one in anger since I stopped flying turbo-props, and I think I could hack it if it ever became necessary. It should be a training option to practice them now and again. But there they are on the program, eating up precious time.
The commercial pressures and cutbacks at airlines means minimal time/money for real training.
Just "get the legalities done" as quickly and cheaply as possible is the bean-counters primary goal.
Any extra time allocated to training is a joke, and merely pays lip service to the concept.
How often have you seen a sim bomb out, and the LOFT dropped from the detail?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain K
I may have once agreed with your view on mandatory circling aproach practice but when I read this FSF report (below) at the time I look at it a little differently now. Admittedly many simulators' visuals are still not good enough to conduct circling practice in limiting conditions but there are so many aspects to consider when planning one in absolute minumums (i.e not just circling in reasonable conditions with only the wind out of limits for the instrument runway) that the practice is worth it for the briefing alone---almost.
Worth a read to absorb some of the very easy and some not so easy traps to fall into.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Starbear it sounds to me like the crew involved were under trained, not under checked.
I'm not familiar with the Korean re-current check system. Do they demand a circling approach on every renewal?
If yes - well it didn't prove much!
If no - perhaps a session in training circling approach risks would've helped avoid the accident?
Probably no time for it in the sim though - as usual.
I'm not familiar with the Korean re-current check system. Do they demand a circling approach on every renewal?
If yes - well it didn't prove much!
If no - perhaps a session in training circling approach risks would've helped avoid the accident?
Probably no time for it in the sim though - as usual.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not familiar with the Korean re-current check system. Do they demand a circling approach on every renewal?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards circling approaches, the small carrier I work for does 'em quite often, sometimes to cat D minimums....yes, in a wide body jet.
Great fun.
As for training and checking, I've done this for quite some time, and quite frankly, if during the 'checking' part, if the maneuver is not quite done to spec, the 'training' then starts, and another go at checking follows.
Seems like a reasonable approach to me
The idea is to pass the guys, not fail 'em, and any checker who thinks otherwise, ain't worth a hill of beans.
Period.
Great fun.
As for training and checking, I've done this for quite some time, and quite frankly, if during the 'checking' part, if the maneuver is not quite done to spec, the 'training' then starts, and another go at checking follows.
Seems like a reasonable approach to me
The idea is to pass the guys, not fail 'em, and any checker who thinks otherwise, ain't worth a hill of beans.
Period.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the saying goes...
My company's training philosophy:
We go to sim, not to prove ourselves, but to IMprove ourselves.
Train the way we fly...fly the way we train.
My own philosophy regarding 'training' and busts, etc:
I expect the guys to know 'normals' inside and out...but stuff we don't do everyday (like V1 cuts, emergency descents, RTOs, etc., etc.), I expect to see some rough edges...so, that's why we go to sim...to polish out these rough edges.
However, when a guy shows up for sim who doesn't know basic aircraft limitations, or can't do a normal takeoff (SID, etc.), can't fly a basic ILS with standard callouts, etc...well, this guy will have problems passing the sim ride.
Also, the sim scenarios need to realistic...and chosen to provide a valid exercise in using emergency checklists, crew coordination, CRM, etc. It does no use to have multiple, non-related failures (ostensibly, just to see how people will react).
So, in training, my 'agenda' is to pick a scenario that will require CRM, good crew coordination, good coordination with ATC and cabin crew, an a solid demonstration of the execution of emergency procedures.
Example: engine fire with failure after takeoff from a mountainous airport in a third-world country.
How I run such a scene...let the guys go...do as well or as poorly as they will do...then, talk about it, go back and do it again, slowly...one step at a time. If time permits, do it a third time...letting the guys go....just to let everythig learned 'sink in'.
The result, we all learn something...and, we leave the box competent to handle such a situation.
There are other example scenarios that I like to run...similar to above...that, again, require thought, planning, coordination, CRM, and proper emergency checklist execution.
And, again, we polish out the rough edges.
The objective is to be a better pilot coming out of the sim, than when we went in the sim.
PantLoad
We go to sim, not to prove ourselves, but to IMprove ourselves.
Train the way we fly...fly the way we train.
My own philosophy regarding 'training' and busts, etc:
I expect the guys to know 'normals' inside and out...but stuff we don't do everyday (like V1 cuts, emergency descents, RTOs, etc., etc.), I expect to see some rough edges...so, that's why we go to sim...to polish out these rough edges.
However, when a guy shows up for sim who doesn't know basic aircraft limitations, or can't do a normal takeoff (SID, etc.), can't fly a basic ILS with standard callouts, etc...well, this guy will have problems passing the sim ride.
Also, the sim scenarios need to realistic...and chosen to provide a valid exercise in using emergency checklists, crew coordination, CRM, etc. It does no use to have multiple, non-related failures (ostensibly, just to see how people will react).
So, in training, my 'agenda' is to pick a scenario that will require CRM, good crew coordination, good coordination with ATC and cabin crew, an a solid demonstration of the execution of emergency procedures.
Example: engine fire with failure after takeoff from a mountainous airport in a third-world country.
How I run such a scene...let the guys go...do as well or as poorly as they will do...then, talk about it, go back and do it again, slowly...one step at a time. If time permits, do it a third time...letting the guys go....just to let everythig learned 'sink in'.
The result, we all learn something...and, we leave the box competent to handle such a situation.
There are other example scenarios that I like to run...similar to above...that, again, require thought, planning, coordination, CRM, and proper emergency checklist execution.
And, again, we polish out the rough edges.
The objective is to be a better pilot coming out of the sim, than when we went in the sim.
PantLoad
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mandatory Circling Approaches are a waste of time for a start. I haven't done one in anger since I stopped flying turbo-props, and I think I could hack it if it ever became necessary.
Obviously not had to land a widebody at POP runway 08 on a wet and windy night.
Obviously not had to land a widebody at POP runway 08 on a wet and windy night.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In airlines with a good training philosophy, the sim is also used for Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) training. This is treated purely as a real time route flying scenario. It is videoed and debriefed on its CRM lessons. Pure training and no checking. It is carried out at least once a year.
