New Training we're doing

[bob_albertson]

I spent all day in the Sim yesterday. Had a great time.

They are adding a lot of new scenarios for us to be training on and I thought sharing a little about a training day (outside of initial hire training) might be something a couple of you might be interested in....

Our training events start off just like any flight lesson that student pilots/pilot's in training are familiar with. We brief the day's events, but we do have the exception that the instructor (checkairmen) gives us the weather that we will be faced with in the sim. We have to go to the sim every 6 months regardless of the position we hold (we as in my company), and yesterday was the last chance for me to get in the sim before I dequalified. It was scheduled that way, LOL.

The sim takes a little getting used to after flying the plane. It doesn't take long to get in the sim groove, but it doesn't take long before you start doing the fun stuff. We have to do V1 cuts, but we were required to do two V1 cuts - one where we rotate as quickly as we can when we reach Vr and the other delay rotation 2 seconds AFTER Vr. Not only is it designed to give you an idea of aircraft handling differences, but it is also a confidence booster to let you know that even on short runways you have plenty of performance (well - as I learned on OEI ops when it's hot outside you get about a 300fpm climb). Then we also have one takeoff where the engine is failed after we are airbone on the climb but the prop does not feather. That requires nearly full rudder and all of the aileron authority (the unfeathered prop generates 6,000lbs of drag).

We still do steep turns in the sim, and it can be a hands off manuver once you get it in the groove. They like to throw in little "gotchas" (some they consider a pass/fail and some they do because they are gathering data for a safety study). An example of one of them is that in order to depart with less than standard t/o minimums we have to have certain runway lights/markings availible or we can't depart. One thing they like to do is turn off the runway centerline lights or put you on a runway with no runway edge markings.

They also have us do single engie Go-Arounds, which for us are probably more difficult than most others because if they have us do it low to the ground we won't have the flight director on and can't use the flight director until we reach a certain altitude on the go around. Of course we get our normal emergancies like a failed generator or a stuck/split flap or even the always popular hydraulic system failure where either the fluid is getting pumped overboard -- you would think that is easy to identify but due to the way our hydraulic system is set up if you have a leak at a particular point you won't be able to tell it very easily, as in it will take some time and having someone to watch the gauges to verify the hunch.

From there we start having fun (at least I enjoy them) with abnormal landings - no flaps, stuck flaps, OEI, OEI w/crosswind, ect.... Since this was a testing event the standard is an OEI landing with a crosswind and typically a stuck flap landing (not to be read as all companies standard ). Our instructor gave me a contaminated runway to land on for my OEI landing with a crosswind (one that has water/slush/snow reported at a certain depth or certain conditions for grooved runways). Since we are in Houston and don't get to experience it much.... he gave me 3" of dry snow on the runway (our min to consider a runway contaminated w/dry snow). To say it was a challenge would be an understatement I think .

We usually finish up with a dual engine flameout and landing on a runway requireing an evacuation (no we don't evacuate the sim ). Once that's done the alarm outside sounds as the sim comes off of motion and the walkway to the sim is lowered into place.

Just thought I'd share that for those who might be interested in a training day at one guy's company. Oh, and if you are wondering we are in the sim for 4 hours at a time. We split duties - 2 hours as pilot monitoring then 2 hours as pilot flying.

I go back to work tonight - Flew home last night so I didn't have to spend my one day off at the Crashpad with nothing to do, LOL... Then after the 2nd I have the 3rd through the 20th off for vacation--- I'm stoked

 

[dell30rb]

What does OEI mean?

The sim work does sound like fun.

 

[bob_albertson]

What does OEI mean?

The sim work does sound like fun.

Oh, sorry about that I didn't proof it well enough I was trying to avoid abbreviations without any explination to go with it. OEI = One Engine Inoperative.

It's fun, but if you have a great checkairmen that knows exactly how to push you then you'll walk out of the sim with two emotions -- Confidence and humility

 

[AggieMike88]

Do they ever permit you to do something that you'd never do in real life?

My dad was a 727 captain for Braniff and told me of a few times in sim training they bust the bilboards on top of the buildings around Love Field, do some crazy approaches, and generally see how much fun (or trouble) they could get into.

 

[Teller1900]

Do they ever permit you to do something that you'd never do in real life?

My dad was a 727 captain for Braniff and told me of a few times in sim training they bust the bilboards on top of the buildings around Love Field, do some crazy approaches, and generally see how much fun (or trouble) they could get into.

Short answer: yes. Very yes.

 

[denverpilot]

Heck, even I've barrel rolled a 747.

But due to government paranoia... that particular sim session - never happened.

 

[RotorAndWing]

We have to go to the sim every 6 months regardless of the position we hold (we as in my company), and yesterday was the last chance for me to get in the sim before I dequalified.

So your company hasn't gone to AQP?

 

[bob_albertson]

So your company hasn't gone to AQP?

Advanced Qualification Procedures? I'm not sure what AQP is.

They have been doing LOSA and FOQA studies so every couple of months we switch between only doing PC's and a few months later only doing PT's. A PT will become a PC if either person requires it, otherwise they are all PT's. This is part of the study they are doing to determine the efficacy of PT sessions. We absolutely love them but management is a little opposed (word is they are starting to see the benefit of a PT). Obviously their intrests have to deal with cost/benefit side of renting a sim and paying an expensive sim instructor (we have our own) for 4 hours when the company doesn't get anything back --- ie, crewmembers good to go for another 6 month.

I don't know what AQP is, but I threw in the stuff above just in case it was
part of any past programs that were/are in use that you might recognize our program as.

What I had on the 31st was a PC

..... I have errrr have heard of guys landing the Saab on an aircraft carrier when they finish early and still have some time left

PC = Proficiency check ... It's like a checkride and you can pass or fail it. Failure could mean you lose your job. We are allowed two failed events (elements if you wil) and still receive a satisfactory (pass) on the PC. Three failures and you get an unsat on the PC

PT= Proficiency training ... This is not a jepordy event but you do go over lots of various things and anything you are not satisfactory on you can train until you have it right or you run out of time. Suck bad enough and the sim instructor can require you to be no longer eligible to fly (pull you off the line) or put you into a monitoring program.

LOSA -Line oriented safety audit
FOQA - flight operations quality assurance

 

[Teller1900]

So your company hasn't gone to AQP?

Not yet. (I used to work for the same company). They've been talking about it for years, but the FAA hasn't signed off on it. It's likely to happen sooner or later as part of an on-going merger, but they've really been dragging their feet on it.

 

[BellyUpFish]

So your company hasn't gone to AQP?

I sure wish we would. It'd be a heck of a lot nicer than doing a PC every 6 months.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I sure wish we would. It'd be a heck of a lot nicer than doing a PC every 6 months.

Yes it is. AQP is train to proficiency and is (typically) once a year vs the old PC/PT every six months.

 

[rotorhead1026]

Yes it is. AQP is train to proficiency and is (typically) once a year vs the old PC/PT every six months.

Two sessions ... maneuvers validation (v1 cuts; stalls; etc.) the first day, then a LOFT on the second. Take the "train to proficiency" with a grain of salt; don't ever show up unprepared.

 

[Matthew]

Speaking of simulators - I was sitting around the airport last weekend listening to a couple of old-timer Air Force and airline captains talking about their training. "We didn't have all the stuff they have these days. Now these guys ride in those electric simulators and don't get to know what it's like to be scared."

 

[rotorhead1026]

Speaking of simulators - I was sitting around the airport last weekend listening to a couple of old-timer Air Force and airline captains talking about their training. "We didn't have all the stuff they have these days. Now these guys ride in those electric simulators and don't get to know what it's like to be scared."

I THINK they were referring to older simulators, not sims in general. I doubt there's anyone flying civilian jets today who hasn't been exposed to a full-motion sim.

The newest sims are electro-mechanical, but I'm sure they'll still go ape$h!t if given a chance.

When I was just starting at Piedmont a check airman broke his arm in a 727 simulator. He was swapping seats during a dutch roll recovery. They were short a captain, so he was trying to run the sim as well as fill a seat - not smart. The problem was pilot technique, but it goes to show you actually can get hurt in one. Indeed, it could just as easily been the guy's neck. Always use the belt and harness, no matter what the instructor says.

 

[Everskyward]

Two sessions ... maneuvers validation (v1 cuts; stalls; etc.) the first day, then a LOFT on the second. Take the "train to proficiency" with a grain of salt; don't ever show up unprepared.

I've noticed in talking to people that recurrent for airline pilots, in general, is much shorter than for corporate/charter pilots. I go to recurrent every six months and for this particular airplane if you are Part 91 it's training to proficiency with three days of sim (2 hours for each pilot). For Part 135 it's the same three days of sim with a full checkride on the fourth day. It's essentially the same checkride as for the type rating only you are allowed to retrain on either two or three maneuvers before you actually bust it. The checkride is usually 2 to 2.5 hours long. The nice part, I guess, is that you get to "warm up" for three days before the checkride but that all adds up to at least 8 hours of flying pilot time in the sim and another 8 if you come with or are assigned a flying partner. Then there's ground school too.

 

[Ted]

I've noticed in talking to people that recurrent for airline pilots, in general, is much shorter than for corporate/charter pilots. I go to recurrent every six months and for this particular airplane if you are Part 91 it's training to proficiency with three days of sim (2 hours for each pilot). For Part 135 it's the same three days of sim with a full checkride on the fourth day. It's essentially the same checkride as for the type rating only you are allowed to retrain on either two or three maneuvers before you actually bust it. The checkride is usually 2 to 2.5 hours long. The nice part, I guess, is that you get to "warm up" for three days before the checkride but that all adds up to at least 8 hours of flying pilot time in the sim and another 8 if you come with or are assigned a flying partner. Then there's ground school too.

It probably depends on who you're dealing with. Your company from what I can tell talking to you and others is a very good one. I've also seen companies that pretty much just want to say you're trained after three touch-and-gos, and some just want to pencil those in.

Airlines probably have an interesting mix in between. They know they can't do the three touch-and-gos, but would rather spend less time training because that's time spent not flying. A lot of companies outside of aviation are that way, too. I read somewhere that you should spend 2 weeks per year on training, regardless of your field. That seems accurate to me.

 

[Matthew]

I THINK they were referring to older simulators, not sims in general.

nah - They were griping that a simulator is nice, and all, but unless you get that fear into you when you know it's real vs simulated, you miss out on a lot. "Back in MY day, when you had an engine fire, at night, in IMC, with total electrical failure, it was REAL, not simulated, and by God you learned how to deal with it!"

 

[rotorhead1026]

nah - They were griping that a simulator is nice, and all, but unless you get that fear into you when you know it's real vs simulated, you miss out on a lot. "Back in MY day, when you had an engine fire, at night, in IMC, with total electrical failure, it was REAL, not simulated, and by God you learned how to deal with it!"

They must have been, what, ninety? Senile, too.

Yeah, you learned to deal with it, or you died. I remember this one well - lived about five miles away ...

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19670330-0

 

[Everskyward]

It probably depends on who you're dealing with. Your company from what I can tell talking to you and others is a very good one. I've also seen companies that pretty much just want to say you're trained after three touch-and-gos, and some just want to pencil those in.

I see what you are saying, but if your company sends you to one of the big sim schools for training that's usually the way it is. It's also pretty expensive. I don't know what 680 recurrent costs but I'm guessing retail price is close to the $10,000 range or more. I know that retail price for initial was up around $30,000.

As far as training goes, I think much of it is driven by the customer and the auditing companies. Many companies will not use you for charter unless you meet certain standards for training and other things (like hours).

 

[Ted]

As far as training goes, I think much of it is driven by the customer and the auditing companies. Many companies will not use you for charter unless you meet certain standards for training and other things (like hours).

Definitely true, and especially if you have a bigger company chartering from you.

The airlines are in an interesting position there. We as customers really have no say over their training, nor would most of the customers even have enough of a clue to understand what any of the training meant. So, the cost motivation is for minimum training as allowable by FAA and that will give acceptable assurance of not crashing. I'm not saying that's what actually happens, but that's the economic argument for any business. In your case, it's a bit simplified since your customer requires more than would be the case for either (as I understand it). I like those kinds of customers.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Two sessions ... maneuvers validation (v1 cuts; stalls; etc.) the first day, then a LOFT on the second. Take the "train to proficiency" with a grain of salt; don't ever show up unprepared.

The way we did it was 1) First Look (essentially a warmup for the PC) then 2) Maneuvers Training, Session 3) Proficiency Check, then 4) LOFT

Our program was a true "train to proficiency" but I can't imagine any professional pilot showing up for a training/checking event unprepared.

 

[Everskyward]

The airlines are in an interesting position there. We as customers really have no say over their training, nor would most of the customers even have enough of a clue to understand what any of the training meant. So, the cost motivation is for minimum training as allowable by FAA and that will give acceptable assurance of not crashing. I'm not saying that's what actually happens, but that's the economic argument for any business. In your case, it's a bit simplified since your customer requires more than would be the case for either (as I understand it). I like those kinds of customers.

Here is a new model for someone to start a company. Be an independent auditor for the airlines and give them some sort of rating. Then the consumer can decide which airline they want to pick. I suspect that this won't work too well because the odds of something happening to you on an airline are slim. Charter had a much worse record percentagewise which is why I think this business model came into existence. As far as the auditing companies go, it's not just the general ones like ARG/US. Some bigger companies will hire an independent auditor to look you over every once in awhile before they put their employees on your airplane. Some audits can be incredibly thorough, up to the point of looking through the snacks and drinks to see if any are past their pull date.

 

[rotorhead1026]

Our program was a true "train to proficiency" but I can't imagine any professional pilot showing up for a training/checking event unprepared.

I can't either, but I've seen it happen. Even though one can't "fail", there is of course a requirement to take additional training if you can't meet standards during the allotted time. I'm pretty sure PRIA would see this as a negative.

 

[Teller1900]

Yes it is. AQP is train to proficiency and is (typically) once a year vs the old PC/PT every six months.

The regional who's program CJC was looking to emulate uses a 9 month rotation, which I thought was a pretty good idea.

I've noticed in talking to people that recurrent for airline pilots, in general, is much shorter than for corporate/charter pilots. I go to recurrent every six months and for this particular airplane if you are Part 91 it's training to proficiency with three days of sim (2 hours for each pilot). For Part 135 it's the same three days of sim with a full checkride on the fourth day. It's essentially the same checkride as for the type rating only you are allowed to retrain on either two or three maneuvers before you actually bust it. The checkride is usually 2 to 2.5 hours long. The nice part, I guess, is that you get to "warm up" for three days before the checkride but that all adds up to at least 8 hours of flying pilot time in the sim and another 8 if you come with or are assigned a flying partner. Then there's ground school too.

In the airline, it was, for the longest time, one 4hr session every six months for captains and every year for FOs. They very recently went to six months for everyone, but still just a single shot 4hr checkride.

At my current shop, it's a three day affair for the sim, plus 2 days for recurrent ground. It's a world of difference.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I can't either, but I've seen it happen. Even though one can't "fail", there is of course a requirement to take additional training if you can't meet standards during the allotted time. I'm pretty sure PRIA would see this as a negative.

Not sure about that, I believe PRIA looks for Pass/Fail.

 

[BellyUpFish]

Not sure about that, I believe PRIA looks for Pass/Fail.

It does, AFAIK and then puts the contestant in some really "quality" watch program.

 

[bob_albertson]

The regional who's program CJC was looking to emulate uses a 9 month rotation, which I thought was a pretty good idea.



In the airline, it was, for the longest time, one 4hr session every six months for captains and every year for FOs. They very recently went to six months for everyone, but still just a single shot 4hr checkride.

At my current shop, it's a three day affair for the sim, plus 2 days for recurrent ground. It's a world of difference.

Do you still have line checks and recurrent ground besides just the sim? It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the sim differences was because airlines do more training/proficiency training over the course of a year than what is required by part 91/135. I know from my day's at Little Rock that you get a "fed ride" to get signed off as a 91/135 type rated PIC. Other then that do you get any "jeopordy" events inbetween the sim?


I was told, but have no first hand info, that PRIA does record everything as pass/fail... Just like if anyone called a previous employer for any words on your behavior all they can legally say is that you were either good or bad and they can't throw in their own opinions of you.


Bob

 

[Teller1900]

Do you still have line checks and recurrent ground besides just the sim? It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the sim differences was because airlines do more training/proficiency training over the course of a year than what is required by part 91/135. I know from my day's at Little Rock that you get a "fed ride" to get signed off as a 91/135 type rated PIC. Other then that do you get any "jeopordy" events inbetween the sim?

We certainly CAN. I think they would like to more, but a) it's difficult to coordinate since our planes are all over the place and have no "base/hub, and b) our check airmen are stretched really thin as it is with a huge amount of training/IOE going on for new hires/new upgrades/normal recurrent. And we're subject to fed rides/ramp checks just the same as 121, but again, because of logistical difficulties, it seems to be much less common (I lost count of the number of line checks/fed rides I had over the years at CJC!).

We do have recurrent ground, as well, though they try to do it in a one off session with the sim (over a 5-7 tour, usually), unlike CJC where it was a separate evolution. I don't think one way is necessarily better, that's just how it works for our scheduling here.

I was told, but have no first hand info, that PRIA does record everything as pass/fail... Just like if anyone called a previous employer for any words on your behavior all they can legally say is that you were either good or bad and they can't throw in their own opinions of you.


Bob

I saw my PRIA records, actually, just a few months ago as a result of changing jobs. It had a record of all my checkrides and medicals (date/certificate applied for) that were reported to the FAA and the result (pass/fail). No explanations, no details...nothing. The whole thing was 4 pages (I've had a medical since 2003). It's a very simple report. Actually, kind of anticlimactic. I was a little disappointed, I thought I was going to learn something cool about myself.

And as far as hiring...they can't even go that far. They can say yes or no you're eligible to be rehired, and that's it. Can't say why you're not, just that you are(n't).

 

[bob_albertson]

We certainly CAN. I think they would like to more, but a) it's difficult to coordinate since our planes are all over the place and have no "base/hub, and b) our check airmen are stretched really thin as it is with a huge amount of training/IOE going on for new hires/new upgrades/normal recurrent. And we're subject to fed rides/ramp checks just the same as 121, but again, because of logistical difficulties, it seems to be much less common (I lost count of the number of line checks/fed rides I had over the years at CJC!).

We do have recurrent ground, as well, though they try to do it in a one off session with the sim (over a 5-7 tour, usually), unlike CJC where it was a separate evolution. I don't think one way is necessarily better, that's just how it works for our scheduling here.




I saw my PRIA records, actually, just a few months ago as a result of changing jobs. It had a record of all my checkrides and medicals (date/certificate applied for) that were reported to the FAA and the result (pass/fail). No explanations, no details...nothing. The whole thing was 4 pages (I've had a medical since 2003). It's a very simple report. Actually, kind of anticlimactic. I was a little disappointed, I thought I was going to learn something cool about myself.

And as far as hiring...they can't even go that far. They can say yes or no you're eligible to be rehired, and that's it. Can't say why you're not, just that you are(n't).

Hey, what are you doing up as late as me? Oh wait, you're on Mountain time now.... Silly Continent hopper .

I've had 3 line checks in the last month - one the Checkairmen wasn't sure why they wanted to bump a passenger so he could do a line check on the CA .

PRIA sounds like a real PITA , actually that is how I heard it was. Just like with company maintained training records - sat/unsat, no room for the instructor to write opinions on those forms. PRIA sounds to be similar in that it's a matter of checking one box or the other and that's it..... If you don't suck or suck less then others your PRIA records are uneventful. If you suck more then others then when you get your copy of your records you'll have a much more eventful meeting with your records .

........ Like the Captain I went in for a PC with. I didn't get to fly because he took too line to finish. He kept getting - well, you know toilet papers . The checkairmen told me I actually did a great job --- You just can't always make someone not dive for the runway and get a GPWS warning then they say ---- I'm visual disregard. All I could say was -- you're not stable go around - repeat what he first said . Until Cobb --- err the checkairmen paused the sim and said hang on there, LOL. You should have seen his secondary stall also -- phenominal, Renslow woulda been proud

Bob

 

[BellyUpFish]

You should have seen his secondary stall also -- phenominal, Renslow woulda been proud

Wow...

 

[Ted]

Here is a new model for someone to start a company. Be an independent auditor for the airlines and give them some sort of rating. Then the consumer can decide which airline they want to pick. I suspect that this won't work too well because the odds of something happening to you on an airline are slim.

Agreed, and I don't worry about my safety on airlines typically. However, I think the bigger reason this won't work is because in the case of airlines, the airlines have a lot more power than the customers. In charter it's the opposite - the customers have lots of power because they can always go to another charter op. In the airlines, you often times only have the one option for who to go with.

Additionally, the airlines almost certainly wouldn't agree to an independent auditor coming in to provide a rating compared to other airlines.

Charter had a much worse record percentagewise which is why I think this business model came into existence.

This is probably true.

As far as the auditing companies go, it's not just the general ones like ARG/US. Some bigger companies will hire an independent auditor to look you over every once in awhile before they put their employees on your airplane. Some audits can be incredibly thorough, up to the point of looking through the snacks and drinks to see if any are past their pull date.

Very interesting. Makes sense. That'd be easy on my plane - what snacks/drinks? We don't allow kibble.

 

[Everskyward]

Do you still have line checks and recurrent ground besides just the sim? It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the sim differences was because airlines do more training/proficiency training over the course of a year than what is required by part 91/135. I know from my day's at Little Rock that you get a "fed ride" to get signed off as a 91/135 type rated PIC. Other then that do you get any "jeopordy" events inbetween the sim?

We get the normal 135.299 line check every 12 months. Where I work there are check airmen for the Lears and the King Airs because we have quite a few Lear and King Air pilots, but for the other airplanes, including the one I fly, we use the FAA. I think it's interesting that the inspector giving the 299 ride doesn't need to know much about the airplane. I think the only requirement is that they have a jet type rating to give a 299 in a jet. It doesn't need to be in that particular type. I guess what they are checking is that you can operate along a route. The type-specific checking is done in the sim. The recurrent training is not just the sim, though. There is a significant classroom portion. I'm guessing 20 hours (one full day and 3 half-days). We also do computer-based training on general subjects once a year which probably takes another full day if you sat down and did it all at once.

I'm not sure what you mean by "jeopardy" events. I guess the FAA could conceivably ask to ride with us on the spur of the moment but that has never happened. For one thing, I think they are pretty understaffed. We also could get ramp checked but in the 11+ years I've been here I've been ramp checked once that I can recall offhand, at some little airport in Nebraska.

On the other hand, if the CP doesn't think you are doing your job right, either because they get complaints or witness it personally they can ask you to take some remedial training and if that doesn't work you're likely to lose your job, but that's a company thing, not an FAA thing.