PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Below the GS at SFO again (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/520020-below-gs-sfo-again.html)

Coagie 28th Aug 2013 21:15

AirRabbit, I think you have something there with the use of the simulator. When I thought of the Cherokees or 172's, I was thinking, in many cases, simulator time is at a premium, and simulators and their use, may be actually, more expensive to the bean counters, than small piston aircraft. I could be wrong. The simulator, would be a more accurate representation of the dynamics of the aircraft the big jet pilot flies, than a Cherokee, etc.. Maybe designing simulator testing, using your common sense approach, as a triage, to separate out, only the pilots that have lost their edge (and maybe some newbies, that never had it), could actually cut down on total simulator time, as only the pilots, who need it, would have remedial simulator training. AirRabbit, your approach may be the best way. That is, working within the framework, that's already there, and making meaningful changes. The KISS method rides again! Bravo!:ok:

DozyWannabe 29th Aug 2013 17:23

@Coagie

There's a practicality consideration though - namely that there are only so many simulators in the world, but there are a hell of a lot more single-engined trainers.

Also, I think focusing on hand-flying finesse is only one facet of the issue. Another biggie for me is the situation whereby recurrent training at ATPL level can assume familiarity with the basics, when those basics can atrophy without revision. As an example, I'm thinking in terms of the airline industry focusing so hard on stall prevention training that those techniques supplant stall recovery training, which many pilots hadn't practiced since their PPL days.

Coagie 29th Aug 2013 21:05


There's a practicality consideration though - namely that there are only so many simulators in the world, but there are a hell of a lot more single-engined trainers.
I figured that. Just wasn't sure of myself.

Auberon 30th Aug 2013 23:22

Well, it looks like no one could really answer why the charted visual procedures crossed the bridge at or above 1900, so they've been changed to cross at or above 1800.

But there's still a discrepancy between the charted visual and instrument procedures. The charted visuals cross MENLO at or above 5000, while the instrument procedures cross MENLO at or above 4000.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1309/00...GE_VIS28LR.PDF
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1309/00...OE_VIS28LR.PDF


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:38.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.