Error chain in Sim situations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Error chain in Sim situations
Hello all,
Out of interest rather than anything else. I guess time in the sim is limited so perhaps this is not a possiblity but it occurred to me that a lot of accident/incident reports refer to the chain of events that lead up to an event. I wondered if you ever practice this in sim situations, for example, late passenger equals missed slot, time pressure increases, sudden change of take off runway/SID, different clearance once airborne etc etc. and then a technical problem requiring immediate resolution.
Perhaps this kind of stuff is dealt with in recurrent training anyway? I'd be interested in whether any of you do this or think it would be worthwhile.
Regards,
GB.
Out of interest rather than anything else. I guess time in the sim is limited so perhaps this is not a possiblity but it occurred to me that a lot of accident/incident reports refer to the chain of events that lead up to an event. I wondered if you ever practice this in sim situations, for example, late passenger equals missed slot, time pressure increases, sudden change of take off runway/SID, different clearance once airborne etc etc. and then a technical problem requiring immediate resolution.
Perhaps this kind of stuff is dealt with in recurrent training anyway? I'd be interested in whether any of you do this or think it would be worthwhile.
Regards,
GB.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could have phrased that better.
What I was getting at was that in most cases all those little things that occur everyday aren't followed by a technical failure such as engine failure after takeoff.
I was just wondering whether the sim scenario starts with the failure after a completely trouble free taxi/ takeoff etc. Would including those things in the simulator session lead to a different level of pressure/stress when the technical failure occurs.
Cheers.
What I was getting at was that in most cases all those little things that occur everyday aren't followed by a technical failure such as engine failure after takeoff.
I was just wondering whether the sim scenario starts with the failure after a completely trouble free taxi/ takeoff etc. Would including those things in the simulator session lead to a different level of pressure/stress when the technical failure occurs.
Cheers.
Moderator
That's one of the aims of routine LOFT sequences ... to introduce some of the "normal" pain-in-the-butt things which occur and bedevil us in line operations.
The crew is given the opportunity to explore different management strategies and observe which are more successful in handling such things. Of course, this is linked critically to a "sensible" approach to making "mistakes" in the safe environment of the simulator.
The crew is given the opportunity to explore different management strategies and observe which are more successful in handling such things. Of course, this is linked critically to a "sensible" approach to making "mistakes" in the safe environment of the simulator.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The kind of scenario you suggest is very much like a Command Assessment sim ride and those are being done all the time - I remember one candidate, (who had been a captain before), never even got off the ground, had he tried to do so he would have surely failed! Just about everything that could go wrong did and as his flying ability was not in doubt he got a whole shed load of other problems and as he reached the holding point the APU failed, in this scenario it was essential equipment, (he was dispatching under the MEL), and he rightly returned to the gate, passed!
The scenario which includes late pax boarding, a tight slot, change of runway is common and is only a test of how one handles it, rest assured if you miss your slot you are not going to be allowed to sit there in the sim for two hours waiting for a new one! The test is to see if you accept that you have missed it and ask for a new one at an appropriate time rather than rush, rush and taxy at 30kts etc. Again, the change of runway, do you tell ATC you need to re programme the FMC and re-brief and require a slot extension or give your F/O a hard time and bully him/her into rushing an unchecked revision etc? It is all a matter of getting the priorities right, you are, after all, a long time dead!
It is quite possible to do a complete Assessment or just a routine LOFT exercise without any technical failures, a favourite is the 'bomb on board' that requires an immediate diversion with half the country 'socked out' in fog! Did you select a bolt hole at briefing that was showing suitable landing weather? did you load enough fuel?
My most recent experiences in the sim have not been ones where the pressure was piled on prior to take off with a major technical failure immediately after take off, during six monthly base checks, only an engine start problem perhaps.
As mentioned above, the scenario that you suggest, Groundbased, is usually reserved for Command Assessment and LOFT exercises though different companies will vary.
The scenario which includes late pax boarding, a tight slot, change of runway is common and is only a test of how one handles it, rest assured if you miss your slot you are not going to be allowed to sit there in the sim for two hours waiting for a new one! The test is to see if you accept that you have missed it and ask for a new one at an appropriate time rather than rush, rush and taxy at 30kts etc. Again, the change of runway, do you tell ATC you need to re programme the FMC and re-brief and require a slot extension or give your F/O a hard time and bully him/her into rushing an unchecked revision etc? It is all a matter of getting the priorities right, you are, after all, a long time dead!
It is quite possible to do a complete Assessment or just a routine LOFT exercise without any technical failures, a favourite is the 'bomb on board' that requires an immediate diversion with half the country 'socked out' in fog! Did you select a bolt hole at briefing that was showing suitable landing weather? did you load enough fuel?
My most recent experiences in the sim have not been ones where the pressure was piled on prior to take off with a major technical failure immediately after take off, during six monthly base checks, only an engine start problem perhaps.
As mentioned above, the scenario that you suggest, Groundbased, is usually reserved for Command Assessment and LOFT exercises though different companies will vary.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There Are No Desperate Situations, Only Desperate People.
I am always mentally prepared to go the full length of the contractual duty time for each flight, which is a fixed number of hours, depending on whether it's a domestic or international sector.
If all the delays can be accommodated without exceeding that duty time, then the flight can begin, otherwise it would be time to go to the hotel.
It's hardly a stressful decision. Either one can or can't complete a flight within the regulated duty periods.
To be sure, I'm always planning and expecting a missed approach at every destination, and a diversion to the alternate airport, so as to preclude at least one "surprise" event.
As to whatever else may happen: I don't worry in advance!
If all the delays can be accommodated without exceeding that duty time, then the flight can begin, otherwise it would be time to go to the hotel.
It's hardly a stressful decision. Either one can or can't complete a flight within the regulated duty periods.
To be sure, I'm always planning and expecting a missed approach at every destination, and a diversion to the alternate airport, so as to preclude at least one "surprise" event.
As to whatever else may happen: I don't worry in advance!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Duncan BC Canada
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundbased
Sorry I blew your question off. Thankfully others have given you some good answers. I forgot that the only dumb question is the one you don't ask. I don't think the normal annoyances of everyday life are a safety issue as long as you keep your cool and do your job.
Cheers
Ralph
Sorry I blew your question off. Thankfully others have given you some good answers. I forgot that the only dumb question is the one you don't ask. I don't think the normal annoyances of everyday life are a safety issue as long as you keep your cool and do your job.
Cheers
Ralph
Moderator
.. aye and there's the rub .... put enough little dramas together and, without sufficient training exposure, some pilots (or equivalent in other fields) will be found wanting. The more the guys get to play with such things .... the better they are prepared to handle the real world problems ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
The simulator should be used for the purpose it was designed - and that is to teach pilots to fly a certain aircraft type.
Because the simulator is expensive to operate, the syllabus of training should only include realistic situations where actual hands-on flying is required - not hours on automatic pilot and heads down reading MEL's and checklists. By realistic I don't mean double and triple jeopardy events that are statistically insignificant and that in the simulator are more often and not used to brutalise the hapless crew. That is not training - that is idiocy.
Unfortunately the simulator is frequently used as a Shakespearian stage where mythical strange and exotic scenarios are dreamed up by equally Shakespearean directors and you get some poor bastard nailed to the wall before the aircraft leaves the ground. This is not training - but a sheer waste of valuable simulator time.
If CRM/LOFT acting is required as part of some zealot's syllabus, then use a proper classroom with a paper tiger on the wall and instant access to a coffee machine while the crew ponder the systems and the MEL. It is a damned sight cheaper, too.
Because the simulator is expensive to operate, the syllabus of training should only include realistic situations where actual hands-on flying is required - not hours on automatic pilot and heads down reading MEL's and checklists. By realistic I don't mean double and triple jeopardy events that are statistically insignificant and that in the simulator are more often and not used to brutalise the hapless crew. That is not training - that is idiocy.
Unfortunately the simulator is frequently used as a Shakespearian stage where mythical strange and exotic scenarios are dreamed up by equally Shakespearean directors and you get some poor bastard nailed to the wall before the aircraft leaves the ground. This is not training - but a sheer waste of valuable simulator time.
If CRM/LOFT acting is required as part of some zealot's syllabus, then use a proper classroom with a paper tiger on the wall and instant access to a coffee machine while the crew ponder the systems and the MEL. It is a damned sight cheaper, too.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Hudson, we must beg to differ.
Command Assessments are a classic example of generating as near as possible a life like scenario and then seeing how the candidate copes, hoping that all the previous hours of classroom training and being rostered with training captains as a pre cursor to command training will now come to the fore.
Should they not cope then obviously more training is required and they gain from the benefit that having been through the system before they now have a better idea of what to expect at their next go.
I agree wholeheartedly that the simulator should never be used as 'The Sword of Damocles' but unless your training organisation has a fully functional fixed base trainer then the simulator will have to be used to assess competence of pilots to operate and not just learn the systems.
Command Assessments are a classic example of generating as near as possible a life like scenario and then seeing how the candidate copes, hoping that all the previous hours of classroom training and being rostered with training captains as a pre cursor to command training will now come to the fore.
Should they not cope then obviously more training is required and they gain from the benefit that having been through the system before they now have a better idea of what to expect at their next go.
I agree wholeheartedly that the simulator should never be used as 'The Sword of Damocles' but unless your training organisation has a fully functional fixed base trainer then the simulator will have to be used to assess competence of pilots to operate and not just learn the systems.
A good point from a ‘desperate’ Glue Ball by not worrying in advance.
However I hope that he and others do think about potential error chains in advance.
Good simulation (equipment and instructor) can help develop resistance to the pressures that lead to errors, but often the equipment is lacking, the instructor limited in scope (knowledge of incidents or imagination), or insufficient time due to the constraints of the regulatory hoops that have to be jumped through every 6 months.
Has anyone got any good ideas / examples of how to generate the realistic pressure of daily operation; time constraint, press-on-itis? Like the cabin evacuation trials where payment is made to the first ones out, will sufficient incentive be given by an early finish in the simulator (with free beer) where the crew completes the exercise quickly?
However I hope that he and others do think about potential error chains in advance.
Good simulation (equipment and instructor) can help develop resistance to the pressures that lead to errors, but often the equipment is lacking, the instructor limited in scope (knowledge of incidents or imagination), or insufficient time due to the constraints of the regulatory hoops that have to be jumped through every 6 months.
Has anyone got any good ideas / examples of how to generate the realistic pressure of daily operation; time constraint, press-on-itis? Like the cabin evacuation trials where payment is made to the first ones out, will sufficient incentive be given by an early finish in the simulator (with free beer) where the crew completes the exercise quickly?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting to see how the captain game has changed throughout the years. 13 years ago, an experienced first officer that I had often flown with was next on the list for a command.
He was promptly given one simulator session in the left seat to get him used to operating from that seat - usual emergencies etc but none of the CRM mumbo jumbo that is a highly lucrative cottage industry now. He had natural good manners and commonsense so already was blessed with CRM skills.
Then he flew left seat with a training captain on ten busy sectors of IT flying and got his command. The chief pilot made the point that if after three years of flying as a first officer with the company, that the trainers did not know if this first officer was command material or not , then there was something fundamentally flawed wrong with the training system.
And that is my point. Surely as each first officer picks up experience on type, there comes a day when he is ready for the left seat on the obvious basis that captains have been watching his flying for one, two, three, or fifteen years. Then why more "training" ad nauseum in the simulator to prove that beyond all doubt he is the right stuff. Very expensive and superfluous training is often a significent factor in an operator's bottom line.
He was promptly given one simulator session in the left seat to get him used to operating from that seat - usual emergencies etc but none of the CRM mumbo jumbo that is a highly lucrative cottage industry now. He had natural good manners and commonsense so already was blessed with CRM skills.
Then he flew left seat with a training captain on ten busy sectors of IT flying and got his command. The chief pilot made the point that if after three years of flying as a first officer with the company, that the trainers did not know if this first officer was command material or not , then there was something fundamentally flawed wrong with the training system.
And that is my point. Surely as each first officer picks up experience on type, there comes a day when he is ready for the left seat on the obvious basis that captains have been watching his flying for one, two, three, or fifteen years. Then why more "training" ad nauseum in the simulator to prove that beyond all doubt he is the right stuff. Very expensive and superfluous training is often a significent factor in an operator's bottom line.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson, training may be expensive but it is never, I repeat never superfluous.
I'm sure you and I have both flown with F/Os who were near perfect and 99.9% will transition easily to the left hand seat without a hiccup but that still leaves a small number that suddenly discover that when all the responsibility rests on their shoulders their ability to make rational decisions, fly the aircraft and command a crew goes out the window. Surely far better to discover this in a sim, (and be able to correct it with further training), than assume that previous line flying experience as an F/O is all that is needed to assume the role of commander and then be proved wrong?
As an F/O one may show all the attributes of a captain but until the total responsibility comes to rest on their shoulders they have not been completely and properly tested. Even in operators with the most advanced training systems there will always, unfortunately, be a few command course failures.
I'm sure you and I have both flown with F/Os who were near perfect and 99.9% will transition easily to the left hand seat without a hiccup but that still leaves a small number that suddenly discover that when all the responsibility rests on their shoulders their ability to make rational decisions, fly the aircraft and command a crew goes out the window. Surely far better to discover this in a sim, (and be able to correct it with further training), than assume that previous line flying experience as an F/O is all that is needed to assume the role of commander and then be proved wrong?
As an F/O one may show all the attributes of a captain but until the total responsibility comes to rest on their shoulders they have not been completely and properly tested. Even in operators with the most advanced training systems there will always, unfortunately, be a few command course failures.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have come rather late to multi-crew aircraft, after about 11,000 hours of mostly single-pilot operation with a lot of two-crew in single-pilot types (Twin Otter, King Air) thrown in.
The LOFT sessions with some rather minor failure that requires me to work through CRM issues are far more challenging than just poling around on one engine with no autopilot and half the systems dead. I know how to fly the airplane; what I have to work at is working productively with that guy in the other seat.
We had a session with an electrical failure that meant the man in the right seat had to fly while the man in the left (in command) was left with almost nothing to work with (dead displays, no comms, no intercom). That was a real eye-opener. No dramas, just a lot of quiet pressure to come up with a solution.
Working through an MEL, following SOPs and figuring out how to complete the trip legally and safely is definitely worthwhile training in my opinion, and something that should be done in the sim and not in the classroom. Maybe it's only 10% handling and 90% procedures but the pressure only comes on in the sim, and handling the pressure is what I need to practise.
The LOFT sessions with some rather minor failure that requires me to work through CRM issues are far more challenging than just poling around on one engine with no autopilot and half the systems dead. I know how to fly the airplane; what I have to work at is working productively with that guy in the other seat.
We had a session with an electrical failure that meant the man in the right seat had to fly while the man in the left (in command) was left with almost nothing to work with (dead displays, no comms, no intercom). That was a real eye-opener. No dramas, just a lot of quiet pressure to come up with a solution.
Working through an MEL, following SOPs and figuring out how to complete the trip legally and safely is definitely worthwhile training in my opinion, and something that should be done in the sim and not in the classroom. Maybe it's only 10% handling and 90% procedures but the pressure only comes on in the sim, and handling the pressure is what I need to practise.
Hudson - You might call me a "Shakespearean Director", but my aim is not to "nail some poor bastard to the wall"!
For my well qualified and experienced customers who know well how to fly the aircraft, I and they, enjoy exploring difficult situations involving a real-life, but intensified, combination of aircraft problems and what we might call LOFT type problems.
For my junior and inexperienced people, I stick to "how best to fly the a/c or deal with the malfunction".
And that would be my point: The sim is flexible enough that the TRAINING it offers can be adapted to the individual using it. Sim instructors should be (and in my experience usually are) creative and imaginative with the training they offer.
For my well qualified and experienced customers who know well how to fly the aircraft, I and they, enjoy exploring difficult situations involving a real-life, but intensified, combination of aircraft problems and what we might call LOFT type problems.
For my junior and inexperienced people, I stick to "how best to fly the a/c or deal with the malfunction".
And that would be my point: The sim is flexible enough that the TRAINING it offers can be adapted to the individual using it. Sim instructors should be (and in my experience usually are) creative and imaginative with the training they offer.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chuks says "...but the pressure only comes on in the sim, and handling the pressure is what I need to practise."
But the "pressure in the sim" is always artificial, because in the sim you always know that you won't get killed.
But the "pressure in the sim" is always artificial, because in the sim you always know that you won't get killed.
Moderator
I'm not sure that I follow the subtleties of your logic ..
(a) clearly the sim is artificial as it is a bunch of computer gadgets doing their thing in the background and we all hate computers ( .. although, after 10 minutes or so, it gets more than real enough for me ..)
(b) you would prefer "real" pressure, fail to achieve the desired goal, and become dead in the process ?
Practice in the sim may not guarantee a successful outcome in the real world but surely it puts you way ahead of the game compared to the guy who hasn't had the opportunity to play in the sandpit first ?
If it's good enough for the TP fraternity to play in the box for a lot of hours before having a look at the real toy first up these days then doesn't that give the rest of us a clue ... ?
(a) clearly the sim is artificial as it is a bunch of computer gadgets doing their thing in the background and we all hate computers ( .. although, after 10 minutes or so, it gets more than real enough for me ..)
(b) you would prefer "real" pressure, fail to achieve the desired goal, and become dead in the process ?
Practice in the sim may not guarantee a successful outcome in the real world but surely it puts you way ahead of the game compared to the guy who hasn't had the opportunity to play in the sandpit first ?
If it's good enough for the TP fraternity to play in the box for a lot of hours before having a look at the real toy first up these days then doesn't that give the rest of us a clue ... ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I definitely go along with this one...
By the way, Hudson, telling from the way you express yourself, you are one of the pilots that think that handling our toy and knowing the procedures wil take us to the destination. Sure, but which one? Ever been reading accident statistics? Ever considered the FACT that around 80% of accidents happen with a healthy aeroplane and and a crew very well capable of flying?
Interesting, how small the angle of vision can get, after some years of lucky nothing happening (or coping with a limitted strategy). Why in the world would any pilot feeling responsible for what he's doing abandon options for handling any situation on board (and in life...)
CRM is the third table-leg. Mastering what and how to fly (technical) as well as knowing and doing what's in the books (procedural) are the two other legs. I'd never even try to use a table with two legs...
Harry
By the way, Hudson, telling from the way you express yourself, you are one of the pilots that think that handling our toy and knowing the procedures wil take us to the destination. Sure, but which one? Ever been reading accident statistics? Ever considered the FACT that around 80% of accidents happen with a healthy aeroplane and and a crew very well capable of flying?
Interesting, how small the angle of vision can get, after some years of lucky nothing happening (or coping with a limitted strategy). Why in the world would any pilot feeling responsible for what he's doing abandon options for handling any situation on board (and in life...)
CRM is the third table-leg. Mastering what and how to fly (technical) as well as knowing and doing what's in the books (procedural) are the two other legs. I'd never even try to use a table with two legs...
Harry
