Sim Checks - Horror Stories?
Sounds like the same checker that asked me why I was using my finger to select v/s on a 747-400 MCP.
‘It’s called a THUMBWHEEL for a reason!”
My skipper commented we must have done ok if that was the only feedback he could give us.
‘It’s called a THUMBWHEEL for a reason!”
My skipper commented we must have done ok if that was the only feedback he could give us.
Or maybe the checker that demanded to see my second pair of glasses as it states I must carry a second pair on my medical certificate. He wasn’t impressed that I only had a spare pair of corrected sunglasses. I did point out that I didn’t think I would need them in the Sim.
Last edited by hunterboy; 11th Apr 2019 at 16:24. Reason: Clarification that my second pair of glasses were corrected sunglasses....
Sounds like the same checker that asked me why I was using my finger to select v/s on a 747-400 MCP.
‘It’s called a THUMBWHEEL for a reason!”
‘It’s called a THUMBWHEEL for a reason!”
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, you wouldn’t be in possession of a valid medical if you weren’t meeting the Restriction imposed by it to carry a second pair. This would the render your flying license invalid, preventing a check (certainly the case with an LPC), no?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, there is no requirement to have a valid medical for an LPC in the sim. The TRE is required to formally remind the candidate after (s)he has passed that they may not exercise the privileges until they have renewed their medical. Interestingly, also true of a check in the aircraft for single pilot types, since legally with the examiner as PiC the candidate is not a required member of the crew!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this is another Horror Stories , because at my last LPC the TRE refused to let me enter the sim , my medical was due the next days , but his words where that the sim is exactly like the real airplane , you can’t enter it and “ fly “ if your medical is expired.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The conduct of an LPC is clearly outlined in standards doc 24, many national authorities are very strict on the conduct of tests and especially multiple failures, the bottom line if you feel that the conduct of the LPC was genuinely was unfair then you are fully entitled to submit a formal complaint, any physical abuse, touching, gender humiliation will all most certainly result in the suspension of authority to conduct tests, remember the examiner is aurthorised by the national authority and NOT the company, so a compliant to authority will lead to a company/authority investigation.
I would suggest that all pilots read standard doc 24 ( all EU authorities use basically the same document) the CAA (UK) are the lead authority and much of standards around the world are based on their expertise.
That things go go wrong with rostering/ crew mix is inevitable when dealing with sim planning and sometime the instructor/examiner is messed around every bit as much the guys/girls in the front.
Remember the evexaminer doesn’t fail you....you and I mean you should only fail if YOU fail to reach the required standard to excercise the privileges of your licence.
Most larger companies will have at least one “arsehole” and I’ve known people go sick rather than be checked by them, in pilot training management we see this trend very quickly, but we can’t act unless we get complaints, we can’t exactly go to said TRE and ask why pilots go sick rather than be checked with them, we should not interfere with their judgement, for that is a slippery slope, again remember the TRE authorisation is from the authority not the company.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At which point you should ask him to demonstrate the nosewheel steering
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be the same checker I had for my initial LST on the 747-400....or are they all briefed to make life extra stressful in that company? I was asked to present my second pair of glasses which as far as my understanding goes is not required in the sim, only in an aircraft. I offered to shoot out to the car park after the session to prove I owned a second pair but that was not good enough apparently. He had to call the training dept at the end of the session, saying he was unwilling to sign me off. Surprise surprise he was ordered to stop being pedantic and get the paperwork completed.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: WILTSHIRE
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be the same checker I had for my initial LST on the 747-400....or are they all briefed to make life extra stressful in that company? I was asked to present my second pair of glasses which as far as my understanding goes is not required in the sim, only in an aircraft. I offered to shoot out to the car park after the session to prove I owned a second pair but that was not good enough apparently. He had to call the training dept at the end of the session, saying he was unwilling to sign me off. Surprise surprise he was ordered to stop being pedantic and get the paperwork completed.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
v interesting stories and sad that some feel the need to bully sim candidates, it really isn’t necessary and achieves only negative training/checking.
The conduct of an LPC is clearly outlined in standards doc 24, many national authorities are very strict on the conduct of tests and especially multiple failures, the bottom line if you feel that the conduct of the LPC was genuinely was unfair then you are fully entitled to submit a formal complaint, any physical abuse, touching, gender humiliation will all most certainly result in the suspension of authority to conduct tests, remember the examiner is aurthorised by the national authority and NOT the company, so a compliant to authority will lead to a company/authority investigation.
I would suggest that all pilots read standard doc 24 ( all EU authorities use basically the same document) the CAA (UK) are the lead authority and much of standards around the world are based on their expertise.
That things go go wrong with rostering/ crew mix is inevitable when dealing with sim planning and sometime the instructor/examiner is messed around every bit as much the guys/girls in the front.
Remember the evexaminer doesn’t fail you....you and I mean you should only fail if YOU fail to reach the required standard to excercise the privileges of your licence.
Most larger companies will have at least one “arsehole” and I’ve known people go sick rather than be checked by them, in pilot training management we see this trend very quickly, but we can’t act unless we get complaints, we can’t exactly go to said TRE and ask why pilots go sick rather than be checked with them, we should not interfere with their judgement, for that is a slippery slope, again remember the TRE authorisation is from the authority not the company.
Recurrent sim in small-ish bizjet. Takeoff on 12000' runway - TODR is approx 3500'. Attempt to rotate at VR to find elevator is jammed. Abort the takeoff and come to comfortable stop with at least 6000' remaining.
Sim examiner: "Are you allowed to abort after V1?"
Me: "If the aircraft doesn't fly, and I'm on a 12,000' runway, I don't go flying."
Sim examiner: "You should have rotated using the stab trim and conducted the "stuck elevator" checklist airborne."
Me: "We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one - how does that sound?"
Sim examiner: "Are you allowed to abort after V1?"
Me: "If the aircraft doesn't fly, and I'm on a 12,000' runway, I don't go flying."
Sim examiner: "You should have rotated using the stab trim and conducted the "stuck elevator" checklist airborne."
Me: "We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one - how does that sound?"
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: far from home
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recurrent sim in small-ish bizjet. Takeoff on 12000' runway - TODR is approx 3500'. Attempt to rotate at VR to find elevator is jammed. Abort the takeoff and come to comfortable stop with at least 6000' remaining.
Sim examiner: "Are you allowed to abort after V1?"
Me: "If the aircraft doesn't fly, and I'm on a 12,000' runway, I don't go flying."
Sim examiner: "You should have rotated using the stab trim and conducted the "stuck elevator" checklist airborne."
Me: "We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one - how does that sound?"
Sim examiner: "Are you allowed to abort after V1?"
Me: "If the aircraft doesn't fly, and I'm on a 12,000' runway, I don't go flying."
Sim examiner: "You should have rotated using the stab trim and conducted the "stuck elevator" checklist airborne."
Me: "We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one - how does that sound?"
Absolutely ridiculous!!
You are within your rights to modify or change any existing procedure or checklist as you see fit in an emergency, by stopping you just averted one.
In the aircraft I fly, a valuable discussion was had about V1 based on different flap settings.
For example, a flap 0 departure has a v1 about 10ktsi faster than a typical flap setting for departure.
if I had an engine failure or safety of flight, would I not stop safely on runway remaining having aborted above one V1, but below the higher V1 for a flap 0 departure.... of course I would.
I would have done the same as you, there’s not really much else you can do!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a malicious TRE but a bizarre one nonetheless. Happened in one of Europe’s biggest airlines about 15 years ago:
EDI - LTN... suspicious package found. Bomb goes off - rapid depressurisation, loss of system b hydraulics and elev pitot fail. Landed at NCL and stopped on runway.
First of question of debrief - “Why did you call Mayday when a Pan would have sufficed”... I kid you not! 😂
EDI - LTN... suspicious package found. Bomb goes off - rapid depressurisation, loss of system b hydraulics and elev pitot fail. Landed at NCL and stopped on runway.
First of question of debrief - “Why did you call Mayday when a Pan would have sufficed”... I kid you not! 😂
The other one which springs to mind is V1, rotate, engine falls off. Ecam Xmas tree :-)
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of my Airbus command upgrade few years ago...
Crossbleed start, Cold weather ops with 'actual' de-icing and cold weather altimetry corrections, contaminated runway take off, weather avoidance and TCAS RA, autothrust become inop due EIU fault, red bomb warning in cruise, cargo door open and cabin rate climbing, explosive decompression - emergency descent, eng failure in descent, divert, hold, procedural ILS, slat/flap jam during approach, go-around, fuel imbalance, land, loss of braking, ATC advise fluid leaking from aircraft.
Engine start fault, gear not uplocked after take off - recycled ok, engine vibration & shutdown, return to land, flap fault, go-around, no radar - procedural only, hold, glideslope failure go-around, hold, VOR/DME approach, land.
Autopilot inop, V1 cut, fire not out, massive fuel leak, ILS failed on final in IMC, tight vector downwind, APU fire on final, evacuate on runway.
IDG inop with MEL, take off, cargo door open (indication only), other IDG fails, APU GEN fails, electrical emergency, loss of pressurisation, hold, divert, direct law landing.
A bit over the top but it was good going on line knowing you can deal with all this **** and have a solid system in place to stay on top of what ever comes along.
Crossbleed start, Cold weather ops with 'actual' de-icing and cold weather altimetry corrections, contaminated runway take off, weather avoidance and TCAS RA, autothrust become inop due EIU fault, red bomb warning in cruise, cargo door open and cabin rate climbing, explosive decompression - emergency descent, eng failure in descent, divert, hold, procedural ILS, slat/flap jam during approach, go-around, fuel imbalance, land, loss of braking, ATC advise fluid leaking from aircraft.
Engine start fault, gear not uplocked after take off - recycled ok, engine vibration & shutdown, return to land, flap fault, go-around, no radar - procedural only, hold, glideslope failure go-around, hold, VOR/DME approach, land.
Autopilot inop, V1 cut, fire not out, massive fuel leak, ILS failed on final in IMC, tight vector downwind, APU fire on final, evacuate on runway.
IDG inop with MEL, take off, cargo door open (indication only), other IDG fails, APU GEN fails, electrical emergency, loss of pressurisation, hold, divert, direct law landing.
A bit over the top but it was good going on line knowing you can deal with all this **** and have a solid system in place to stay on top of what ever comes along.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sim world: I had a return with a 'small' tech problem and advised (sim) ATC of the 'problem'. Some jabbering on 'R/T' during the approach between 'ATC' and a 'runway inspection vehicle'. Sent around as the vehicle had not vacated the runway in time. Debrief: "You should have declared that you required an assured landing to ensure that the runway was clear for you."
The real world: Broke off an approach due to a technical matter that needed a bit more consideration, ATC wanted to know what assistance we needed. None needed, just a slightly different landing with no adverse performance considerations at all. They said they would advise tower and they would ensure greater spacing for traffic following us. Landing was a non-event but ATC couldn't have been more helpful.
Maybe some TREs are just trying to prove that they don't really know the real world?
However, over the last couple of years I have had some of the best TREs that I've ever had with excellent training value. They do exist!
The real world: Broke off an approach due to a technical matter that needed a bit more consideration, ATC wanted to know what assistance we needed. None needed, just a slightly different landing with no adverse performance considerations at all. They said they would advise tower and they would ensure greater spacing for traffic following us. Landing was a non-event but ATC couldn't have been more helpful.
Maybe some TREs are just trying to prove that they don't really know the real world?
However, over the last couple of years I have had some of the best TREs that I've ever had with excellent training value. They do exist!
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question would be “what were the rest of his operating skills like?”. I made the comment because you appeared to have picked the one part of the check or training where it could be expected that a new pilot straigjt from flight school would be better than someone who has spent years in the right than left seat of an airliner.
Like the guy you were talking about I have in excess of 25 years in the left seat of multicrew airliners ranging from turbo props to 737 variants. In that time I have had to deal with and manage flap failures, gear malfunctions, pressurisation issues, smoke emergencies, trim failures, numerous diversions, medical emergencies and one engine shut down in a jet. But I have never seen both flight directors fail and both autopilots fail at the same time, except once before the days of RVSM and PBN when we dispatched with an aircraft in that state to get it to maintenance. The raw data ILS, in my possibly wrong opinion, is the least likely scenario to be faced now days in the real world.
Not being able to fly a raw data ILS possibly shows a correct attitude to SOPs
you shouldn’t have to practice in the aeroplane for the simulator, it’s supposed to be the other way around.
It's attitudes like this that make it crystal clear that drone airliners are absolutely coming, and we are in the shaky transitory period where the hardware isn't good enough to handle every situation, but neither are we. The relay baton is being fumbled.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on the facts of the reality we live in, I'm just nothing the absurdity that they are such. I'm in the US and at my airline the SOP is not nearly as restrictive as what I read about on here wrt. European airlines, but the everyday company culture might as well be. I see it every day too.
Last edited by Vessbot; 11th Apr 2019 at 16:50.
Only half a speed-brake
We're not overly restrictive here. only BA mandates AP on at all times. True, switching FDs OFF on a daily basis would stand out.
W.r.t. the ILS generations' clash, no need to be so PC. MAN ILS should be achievable at all times. Might not be nice, or even inside the check standards on the first attempt in daring conditions, but the second one ought to end with a controlled landing from minima.
Less than that is inadequate - get up to speed in the remaining session time, and figure out how to show up abler on your next visit. 90% of people do, mostly just by staring at or behind the FDs during daily ops.
W.r.t. the ILS generations' clash, no need to be so PC. MAN ILS should be achievable at all times. Might not be nice, or even inside the check standards on the first attempt in daring conditions, but the second one ought to end with a controlled landing from minima.
Less than that is inadequate - get up to speed in the remaining session time, and figure out how to show up abler on your next visit. 90% of people do, mostly just by staring at or behind the FDs during daily ops.