A "simple, standard" emergency is more likely than a bells and whistles disaster, so of course it's still useful to train them.

There's a place for unscripted scenarios; that's what ATQP and LOE details are for.

An interesting thread.

I concur with the distaste for black hat checkie multi-faceted loading up of the crew - pointless.

However, following on from dweeks' post,

I know one guy who had manual reversion, one engine generator working, the other engine inop, and then the slats/flap were stuck at 1.

his comment brings up a memory.

I was a neophyte 727 FO on my first trip in the sim post checkout. Old greybeard checkie being done by one of his mates in the back seat. Did all the scripted stuff and then the brief was "nil hazard play time". By the time he got back on final, there was very little working. At the final failure, still barely raising a sweat, he casually turned to the FE and politely asked if that worthy might be able to find time to do one or two things for the failure .. and then proceeded to run down the ILS to a nice touchdown. By this stage my jaw was on the floor and to say I was somewhat in awe would be an understatement.

The point of the tale is that there can be some value to be had in a briefed nil hazard environment so that folks might be prepared to extend themselves a little bit with the ability to call time out if necessary. Certainly, as an instructor, I have found that approach to be useful with underconfident trainees who just needed some low stress time to play with the thing and get themselves into the groove, as it were. Likewise, for the talented end of the gene pool, the approach can help to push the trainee to a position well above the required bar.

But, with any pressure associated with "check" time, it doesn't work. One needs to be able to segregate checking, formal training, and informal exposure/practice to best exploit the generally underused capabilities of the sim toys we have available at our disposal.

Just my heretical thoughts, I guess.

John,

I much approve of your heresy. Your three categories are good - checking, formal training, and informal practice.

When there was some spare sim time, I often asked the trainee if there were some things he would like to practice. Sometimes he only wanted to brush up on a particular handling item, other times I suggested we play some games. He would set off on a normal sector, and I would chuck in some unexpected failures, including some fairly bizarre ones. Then we would all learn something about the startle-factor (not that it was called that then), or about how best to prioritise and how best to use the crew, or even (heaven forbid) throw the checklist out of the window and get on the ground ASAP.

If all this was done in a totally non-threatening manner there was much that we could all learn - including me, as the instructor.

In our last sim there was a module on multiple non-normals set up as a training exercise, which was very useful. However, these days, it is difficult/impossible to do anything truly “non-jeopardy” with an instructor in the sim, which is why a lot of people go home instead of utilising leftover time. There is the possibility of arranging a session with someone who is not a TRE/IRE but can work the sim but these opportunities are naturally limited.

FullWings,

That is very sad. Any instructor worth his salt should be willing to carry out some non-jeopardy training and keep his word.

From what I have seen of the plethora of paperwork required of a simulator instructor on completion of a two or four session, he must spend significant time in the simulator writing detailed assessment notes as part of the inevitable regulatory box ticking chores. There is very little time left at the end of a session to fit in non-jeopardy "training." Also, keep in mind that few simulator instructors (or check captains) have the skills to demonstrate and are willing to risk making fools of themselves in front of their students by actually demonstrating a sequence - let alone find the time to do so.

How many times have you seen a simulator instructor demonstrate a dead stick landing from 20,000 ft before handing over to the student to have a go? Or actually demonstrate a manually flown raw data crosswind landing? Answer? Probably never. It is all too easy to sit in the instructor seat in a simulator and carp on driving a student crazy with nit-picking personal opinions. But don't ask him to walk the walk instead of talking the talk.

Also, under the current regulatory framework (UK-EASA), I’m not sure if an instructor is ever technically allowed to ignore what could be termed “poor performance” even if it occurs in in a non-checking or non- formal training scenario. Would be useful someone who operates under this regime to chip in...