Ab-initio Training - Piston analog vs Jet EFIS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ab-initio Training - Piston analog vs Jet EFIS
Over the last few years, our company has had many debates with different training providers (some operated by major carriers) about the inherent value of training new crew hires on a single engine turbofan equipped EFIS platform. Carrier bound ab-initio pilots are still trained in piston powered analog environments virtually everywhere in the world.
We must be honest and say that the proponents have no experience in flying line aircraft, but after reading the many pages in here that refer to what appears to be concern about situational awareness, CFIT and the many causes of it, and the man-machine interface, would it not be appropriate to move ab-initio training away from single piston analog to high-bypass EFIS?
In perhaps an overly simplistic view, we believe that if the intent is to train a pilot for line service, would it not be better to be trained from the first hour on engines and systems that are relevant to the technology that they are going to be required to operate?
We must be honest and say that the proponents have no experience in flying line aircraft, but after reading the many pages in here that refer to what appears to be concern about situational awareness, CFIT and the many causes of it, and the man-machine interface, would it not be appropriate to move ab-initio training away from single piston analog to high-bypass EFIS?
In perhaps an overly simplistic view, we believe that if the intent is to train a pilot for line service, would it not be better to be trained from the first hour on engines and systems that are relevant to the technology that they are going to be required to operate?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Put simply, if you can't fly the simplest aircraft with the most straightforward kit, and you don't have enough situational awareness to fly raw data with few or no toys, then you don't have a chance with full EFIS kit and all the bells and whistles.
No - keep the training on clockwork, simple aircraft. When they can handle that, give them the fun stuff.
No - keep the training on clockwork, simple aircraft. When they can handle that, give them the fun stuff.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't know if you're familiar with the Phoenix FanJet - it's a combination of clockwork simplicity and what is current technology. The standard aircraft is equipped with Primus 1000, and primary analog instrumentation - VOR/DME etc. co-located. Control input is cable and pulley, although FBW is under consideration for one carrier. Other than that, the primary difference is the immediate introduction of the trainee to high-bypass ops in a primary category trainer designed to emulate as closely as possible airliner flight profiles and speeds .
Most of this has been a result of increasing requests for some way to "speed up" ab-initio training, and deliver a candidate who is already "EFIS'd", and has the "jet reflex". Do you think that a combination of clockwork coupled with current technology would shorten the timeline without compromising the basics?
Most of this has been a result of increasing requests for some way to "speed up" ab-initio training, and deliver a candidate who is already "EFIS'd", and has the "jet reflex". Do you think that a combination of clockwork coupled with current technology would shorten the timeline without compromising the basics?
