Airline Pilot Central Forums - View Single Post - What Training/Checking Standard Should Exist

02-07-2012, 08:51 AM

#19

BTDTB4

On Reserve

Joined APC: Nov 2011

Posts: 14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo

That is exactly what we do now at Delta. Our recurrent is 2 consecutive days, 4 hours in the box each day, but each sim session starts with a 90 minute briefing on what we are going to do in the box, and some schooling on what's the hot toppics of the day, then we go do it. As mentioned above, they will always throw in a couple "First Look" maneuvers just to see what happens, they are using these manuevers to collect data, see where the weakness' are, and train accordingly. Then we debrief for 30 minutes (or more) afterwards.

We do all the FAA required manuevers, all the required approaches, the NP, GPS, PRM, VOR/NDB, ILS, etc. with missed approaches, and engine outs, V1 cuts, etc. and every fleet has to do that same stuff. Also stalls and windshear, aborted take offs, etc. When that's done, we take a break, then we do a "Line Oriented Training" event, where you do everything you would on a normal flight.

On this training event, you start from getting in the jet just like you would on the line. You check the log book, might be a write up you have to get signed off, or a procedure you need to comply with (1 pack out for example) then preflighting the cockpit, load the FMS, brief the Flight Attendant (for this you brief the IP, who when playing the F/A role, usually goes by 'Peter in the Rear') then you run checklists, pushback, start, taxi out, take off, fly the SID, everything you would do on a "normal" flight, to a real destination for your specific aircraft.

Then the fun begins. At some point in the flight a situation develops, could be a mechanical, like flaps won't retract past 5. Or it might be a pax issue, a heart attack, the Doctor on board says LAND NOW! But you are overweight, must dump gas, etc. Then the two of you deal with it, all the way to a landing, but the weather is crap, and the ILS is out...so you deal with it, real time, until you are on the ground and the parking brake is set, but then you might have to do an evacuation too...

It's all run in real time, start to finish. Then you get critiqued. They will also film it sometimes, and you get to watch yourself in the de-brief. Great fun that! …

Well, I’m not sure I’d think it “great fun” to watch myself fumble around in a darkened cockpit trying to find my backside with one or both hands, but I DO, very much, appreciate your candid comments. This is exactly the kind of information I was seeking. The irony of it, however, is that what you have described as your recurrent “format” is exactly the kind of application I would like to see our company provide … but interestingly, several of our management believe that this cannot be achieved outside of an AQP authorization. What I described was taken directly from the most recent material published by the Feds in their Supplement to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (they call it an SNPRM) for how they would propose to rewrite the current training and evaluation rules while staying away from AQP. Their proposal calls for recurrent sessions every 9 months (that’s why I was seeking comments on preferences for 6 months, 9 months, or 12 months) likely in response to the NTSB and US Congress reactions to the public outcry for an increase in training after “Colgan.” Clearly, requiring 2 simulator periods on 2 consecutive days every 9 months is an increase in training – but it would also be an increase to have 2 simulator periods on 2 consecutive days every 12 months – and I think that deserves some consideration with respect to “increasing the training” that flight crew members get on a regular basis. And, if I’m reading that material correctly (and I think I am), the program I’ve described (and the program you are apparently living) does not need an AQP authorization to exist!

Perhaps my concern has more to do with what an enterprising airline manager may be able to do with an authorization granted by the FAA. I see no particular benefit to me if such a policy is instituted at my company that allows a lesser level of performance to be met for the individual crew members, disregards a substantial amount of the training that had been seen as “routine,” made easier for a “harry-numb-nuts” to get through the program, trumpets the “modern advances in training application,” while publically (and dramatically) de-riding the necessity to hire “psychologists” to meet the Fed’s requirements for being able to converse in Orwellian “double-speak” and quietly adding up the cost savings of bringing crew members in for training less frequently.

Apparently, it is obvious to some, and actually experienced by others, that having an AQP program does not mandate such an approach – but, from what I’ve seen, AQP certainly doesn’t appear to be focused on stopping it. Several of the programs I’ve researched have had rather major adjustments … first written, then reviewed and accepted, and ultimately “government approved” that actually makes it easier to achieve what is necessary to consider someone “qualified.” Some programs have such differences in authorizations that it’s hard to recognize they are operating under the same rules. In fact, I know a couple of FAA inspectors who attempted to correct some of the “over the top” foolishness that was becoming more evident … unfortunately one guy was actually reprimanded for his actions, and is now no longer assigned to that airline. That is really too bad … for him (as he had a pretty good reputation) and for the industry. The others have apparently either gulped the “Kool-Aid” or have simply moved on to other issues and are waiting for government retirement eligibility.

I believe in this industry and I want to see it made better – not used as a pawn for wealth building for a select few at the top. I am acutely aware that the days of airline pilot “play-boys,” tripping around the world with gorgeous ladies on their arms and keys to their Ferrari in their pocket, without a care or concern – as blithely portrayed on the new TV series “Pan Am” – while probably more fondly remembered than actually lived … but even then … are G-O-N-E … and are gone for good. No problem. That’s not why I am where I am – and it certainly isn’t why I’m doing what I’m doing … and I firmly believe I’m not alone in that attitude.