Originally Posted by
BTDTB4
OK... I get the fact that there is some resistance to revisiting the tasks (the vanilla tasks, as you say) that pilots are supposed to know how to do. But, realistically, and not to be argumentative, just trying to get a handle on what you think, what tasks are you going to see in the simulated environment that you “don’t know how to do?” Do I understand you correctly to mean that doing something like an ILS with a crosswind is not something you should have to waste your time doing? I understand from AQP advocates that pilots do all (or most, anyway) of those vanilla tasks during their maneuvers validation session at the start of a recurrent training session. Is this true? And, if it is true, is this necessary or productive?
It's not that I see the vanilla items as a waste of time, there just usually isn't ENOUGH time to do them and still leave room for the targeted training. I've been bouncing around so much here lately between aircraft that I can most recently speak to the initial qualification courses, but our Recurrent (Continuing Qualification, CQ) is set up so that each of these items is covered, just not in the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
To answer "what don't I know how to do?" I will point towards Airspeed Unreliable. Following the AF 330 accident, I went to CQ on the A-320 and a very similar scenario was given to us as a "first-look" item, that is it was not briefed and we were not expecting it. Let's just say I was less than impressed with my performance, and the instructor said he saw pretty much the same result every time he ran that scenario with a fresh crew. We didn't lose control of the aircraft, but it was a mess, and very easily could have ended badly. I consider myself well-prepared every time I step on the aircraft, as I'm sure the AF pilots did. We all KNOW what we're supposed to do, but I have a whole new perspective on that abnormal having seen it, been humbled by it, and then given the opportunity to try it again with a much better result. That in my opinion is very good training, and something I won't forget (hopefully) if I'm every faced with it in the real world.
I think it boils down to spending our training capital (time) in the most effective way, which it seems is the target of your inquiry on here. Neither way is wrong, I just think AQP provides the airline the ability to go above and beyond the standard to address their unique operational threats. Your concern seems to be the airline using AQP to avoid doing certain required maneuvers, and I have found, at least at Northwest and Delta, that it was the exact opposite.