Generally agree, however, some machines can be a "handful", esp on one engine, that may require a few seconds of "two hands". Better then, IMO, to hit TOGA, feel the throttles advancing than push 'em up and hope TOGA engages while temporarily hands off.

With tailored procedures, we do look at balked landing, but other than for the validation in the sim, I have not seen it practised. While we do validate EO procedures in the ac, we do not validate balked.
What I will say is balked performance is typically dismal, especially in the conditions that were at Dubai. You had very hot temperatures, with the ac bleeds on, max flaps, landing thrust, all with windshear conditions.
Forget all of the rubbish on the certified climb gradients, the conditions at Dubai were far different, and if you look at BCOP, you would probably see double digit climb grades under those conditions.

I fly the B744 and in my airline we used to do a lot of checking of those 'canned' manoeuvres and very little training of more likely 'events'. To be fair to the airline though, it's hands were tied by our government regulator. Thankfully reason has prevailed and we have now moved to an 'Evidence Based Training' (EBT) philosophy where there is still some essential checking, but a lot more realistic training based upon topical events. Of particular note my last simulator session included the following training sequence:
Since this is one of the first of our EBT sequences, that suggests that this is an area that is causing some issues. I suspect following the EK accident we will be revisiting this training sequence.

Bleve, interesting sim work! You with Rocky's group?

I think it would be very interesting for pilots to actually work these scenarios on the actual ac. I can certainly attest to the performance and abilities of the ac in conditions. I think it would surprise most to see how the ac actually performs with engine out. The flight val would simply 'simulate' EO by pulling one engine to idle, and that was enough, let alone a dead one, not windmilling.

Underfire, that is a silly idea. First, it would cost a bomb, and second, you'd probably end up pranging a good number of aeroplanes. That is exactly why Sims were invented. The problem here is not the difference between Sim and aeroplane, it's that the Sims are not being used properly.

Totally agree. Most airline training/checking is driven by the regulatory requirements. In some areas those requirements haven't changed since the 1960s or earlier. Some regulators need a good kick up the rear to bring them into the 21st Century!


It would be interesting but it's never going to happen, for the reasons Capn Bloggs stated.

Certainly agree, as I stated, it would be interesting. On the validation flights, the check pilots, many of them the respected airlines chief, were surprised with the ac performance with these validations activities, such going EO anywhere close to the DA. Even calling for a GA at the DA and not busting the 50 foot momentary descent.

As noted in the posts, why there many comments from pilots on this forum referencing ac certification performance is the issue. Certification performance has nothing to do with actual performance.

Qatar Airways has gone the 'Evidence Based Training' route this year.
So far, I think it's a welcome change. Same training sequence as Bleve
has talked about. From what the TRE said, they will move farther away from conventional checking, and concentrate on events that are happening around the industry.

BDD

Emirates, Cathay Pacific, Virgin Australia, and Qatar Airways have gone EBT.

EBT has been outlined since 2010...ICAO even has a doc 9995 http://www2010.icao.int/SAM/Document...%209995.en.pdf



good to see it is finally making some ground.

I would not rule that out completely. Especially in a bounce the accelerations felt in the sim are not the same you feel in an aeroplane, there simply is not enough space around the sim to do the movement necessary to fully simulate this. People are different, some are more optical oriented, some are more motion sensitive. Although an IFR pilot should be able to ignore both and just work according to instrument indications, in fact especially in a sritical situation you may fall back to your subconsciousnous trained reflexes, and the sim may just train you to feel the wrong thing, finally confusing a bounce with positive climb.
Additionally the criteria used to evaluate sim checks may not be very useful in real life, many feel under time pressure in sim checks, feel they get better marks if they react quicker, are afraid to get poor marks if they carefully analyse the situation. This trained immediate response may not be useful in rare events.

The problem is not the difference between sim and aeroplane, the problem is not to understand this difference and what this means. It is perfectly fine that the sim is not 100% like a real aeroplane, your landing yesterday was not 100% like that today, this is life. We schould just not make the sim the standard.

I do think the regulators are way behind the times. At CX, some of the Recurrent Training (RT) sessions were more about getting through the 'required items' than any kind of real training or consolidation. Also, if the 'box ticking' were to include some more complex requirements then more pilots would fail checks and that would start to cost Airlines money ( heaven forbid!). "Profits are our Number One priority" rules as usual.

BA have been training LOFT (Line Orientated Flight Training) for quite a few years now, each tailored to specific flight critical and flight safety events that have occurred in the industry over the previous few years. Over-runs, deep landing, high altitude jet upsets, fires, jammed flaps/slats, single engine hot and high, go-arounds etc. etc. etc.

Personally I think it is an excellent tool. Day 1 is LOFT and day 2 is looking at all of the scenario's that have been deemed critical by the CAA and the training department.

Whilst all of the above is a welcome departure from the 'tick box' exercises that used to be run they still don't allow time for consolidation. When there is time at the end of the sim the likelyhood of the crew 'requesting' to look at certain scenarios is slim. Whether that be jeopardy, time, fatigue or rostering I don't know but it is extremely rare to get a crew to agree on some form of extended training under a 'look and see'.

It all comes down to cost. What is the risk factor of having an accident like the Emirates flight at Dubai? Does it run within the remit of the insurance cover? Is the cost of insurance change less than that required to increase the training remit?

Welcome to the world of the spreadsheet airline!

I totally agree. Many years ago, Nicosia departure on a hot day, British built three engined aircraft (can't mention the actual type) with water injection, having got airborne we climbed away at around 200ft/min. Took almost ten minutes to get to 2000 feet!

A week later at the end of two days on the sim we had finished early and that well known phrase "that's it gentlemen, anything else you would like to practise?" was uttered by the Training Captain.

I suggested we set up the sim for the Nicosia departure of a week earlier and complete the take-off. Once airborne, throttle the engines back to give 200 ft/min, noting the rpm's/thrust. Then complete the exercise again with an engine failure after V1 but setting the thrust levels recorded from the previous take-off on the two remaining engines.

Perhaps, realising the consequences of such an exercise the training captain declined the request.

"Head in the sand" approach? Stick to all the standard sim check exercises and ignore the real world? Most certainly yes!

Is there a T word ban on here as well!!!! :eek:

:E

The performance described by Woodpecker sound pretty sprightly for a Trislander. :O

"Many years ago, Nicosia departure on a hot day, British built three engined aircraft (can't mention the actual type) with water injection, having got airborne we climbed away at around 200ft/min. Took almost ten minutes to get to 2000 feet!"

Early 747's on a hot day out of LHR were still struggling upwards below gliders around Birmingham IIRC

JAL B777 go-around after touchdown & spoiler deployment.

https://www.facebook.com/FlyingHuman...1329647440071/

That JAL B777 Go-Around was scary.

Maybe looked scary, but they kept the pitch attitude until full thrust before pulling up and waited with the gear, just as the book says.

An they finally had climb power.