Encounters with combination of non-normal scenarios during LOFT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Test
Age: 35
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Encounters with combination of non-normal scenarios during LOFT
Hi there,
What are some of the interesting non-normal combination you encountered during your LOFT aka Line Oriented Assessment?
The one interesting I could think of is PACK L and an engine failure R. Several considerations to think about
What are some of the interesting non-normal combination you encountered during your LOFT aka Line Oriented Assessment?
The one interesting I could think of is PACK L and an engine failure R. Several considerations to think about
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Where do these so called Simulator Instructors come from??
They need to be taken behind the boy's toilets and given a reality check.
I have 5,000 hours of that kind of work, never needed to be such an A*&^H876 to get the job done and the experience was a learning one for the candidate.
Glad to be well out of that kind of BS
They need to be taken behind the boy's toilets and given a reality check.
I have 5,000 hours of that kind of work, never needed to be such an A*&^H876 to get the job done and the experience was a learning one for the candidate.
Glad to be well out of that kind of BS
THR LVR fault on the A320 combined with an engine shutdown on the other side. When you select Flap 1 it sets the Thrust on the good engine to IDLE, makes life interesting :-), only ever seen it as part of a training exercise to highlight the fault.
Many moons ago, so don't flame me
Let's say, you are departing with a MEL SFCC 1, or 2 inop.
Inflight, you have a blue or yellow hydraulic failure.
You do the ECAM, STATUS, Suggesting SLATS/FLAPS SLOW (!)
Starting the approach, either Slats or Flaps don't move, depending which hydraulic system and SFCC affected.
Last edited by gearlever; 12th Mar 2020 at 15:45. Reason: Clarification
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An approach in alternate law (DC ESS or something vaguely similar, no Capt PFD or ND) where the instructor* threw a reactive windshear in literally as the gear went down.
I spotted the "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" simultaneously with the thrust levers hitting the TOGA detent, but it required full forward stick and several full turns of the trim wheel to fix. PM thought outside the box and retracted the gear anyway, which restored alt law.
* he blamed the pre-programmed lesson plan. It really shook me up and I still feel annoyed 8 years later that he didn't appear to have any clue of the effect it had on us.
I spotted the "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" simultaneously with the thrust levers hitting the TOGA detent, but it required full forward stick and several full turns of the trim wheel to fix. PM thought outside the box and retracted the gear anyway, which restored alt law.
* he blamed the pre-programmed lesson plan. It really shook me up and I still feel annoyed 8 years later that he didn't appear to have any clue of the effect it had on us.
Think, ask; what is the the goal, whats the purpose of this training; education, skills practice, or ….
Is there value in using a simulator or can some other method be used.
What benefit for the 'student crew', or is this only enhancement of the instructors power to create failure.
Whats the likelihood of encountering such a failure; if remote, then a discussion of factors might be sufficient.
Better to spend time in avoiding a stall during high workload operations, or remember to calculate landing distance required in conditions worst than given.
Non-normal involves those situations which differ from expectation, not the likely outcome of improbably failures.
Focus on situations with significant opportunity for human variation, not a combination of technical malfunctions.
Is there value in using a simulator or can some other method be used.
What benefit for the 'student crew', or is this only enhancement of the instructors power to create failure.
Whats the likelihood of encountering such a failure; if remote, then a discussion of factors might be sufficient.
Better to spend time in avoiding a stall during high workload operations, or remember to calculate landing distance required in conditions worst than given.
Non-normal involves those situations which differ from expectation, not the likely outcome of improbably failures.
Focus on situations with significant opportunity for human variation, not a combination of technical malfunctions.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slat system 1+2 failure is a lot of training value failure. With this Failure you get in Alt Law without protection which is different from reduced protection. You will loose on PFD S, F speeds, no speed trend arrow and display of VLS with VSW is missing. It requires good raw data flying with selected speed targets. Since trend arrow is not there loss of speed cannot be pre empted, requires frequent scan of speed. Since there is no stall protection if speed decreases towards VLS(which is not displayed) the aircraftwill not pitch down but will trim into stall. Good exercise to go back to basics.
Last edited by vilas; 12th Mar 2020 at 17:21.
