Originally Posted by
BTDTB4
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
Yeah, I remember the UA-744 “incident” … it was a long-haul out of SFO, headed “down under,” with the FO flying. Just after takeoff (but the term, “just after,” isn’t fully explained) there was a problem with the #3 engine. Not much information was available specifically but it’s thought that the engine experienced a compressor stall, and apparently the FO shut it down. (OK – insert opinion here - there have been engine compressor stalls that have been quite dramatic and some so dramatic that they warranted shutting down the engine, but, as a routine procedure? … come on!..) maybe that would have been warranted, but … none-the-less, instead of maintaining coordinated flight by using those terribly-difficult-to-use, and dangerous-to-use, flight controls on the floor – called rudder pedals – when the airplane yawed to the right (with Numbers 1, 2, and 4 at TO power and number 3 gone, that’s what the airplane is supposed to do) the FO deftly applied left down aileron to correct. (!) Yeah, my thoughts exactly! Stuck the roll control spoilers into the breeze (just as that flight control application is supposed to do…), the airplane slowed, both in airspeed and climb capability (just as you would expect – given those circumstances), the stick shaker started (just as that airplane system is supposed to do…), horns were apparently blaring (just as those airplane systems are supposed to do…) – you’ve seen it all, I’m sure – resulting in just barely clearing the San Bruno ridge (with a bit over 100 feet of air between the aluminum and the rocks – less than ˝ a wing-span). So, who’s at fault for this demonstration of aviation prowess? Of course … it’s the fault of that dastardly piece of hydraulically powered junk passing itself off as an airplane – the simulator! You see, this was a long-haul FO who, by nature of the route structure, wasn’t getting his 3 takeoffs and landings every 90 days, so he completed that requirement in the simulator. The fact that he apparently shut down an engine that just may have coughed a bit and (it is thought) could have, may have, caught up with itself, then cross-controlled that beautiful lady, caused her to almost loose her complexion, and very likely caused the remainder of the flight deck occupants (the PIC and both of the relief crew members) to have to change their shorts, goes essentially to the back burner. Of course we can’t blame the FO – and we certainly can’t blame the company’s training program, as they operate under AQP – so, what’s left? That inanimate structure we all visit regularly, the friggin’ simulator! So, the correction is to send ALL pilots into the simulator more frequently. Makes perfect sense to some; but I truly believe those "some" prefer their Jack Black mixed with Diet Coke and a marshmallow! ................ OK. Sorry. Got carried away.
We’ve had a mix of training folks – but management is still management – and they call the shots. That’s why I’m working so hard (a good share of it on my own time) to make sure we have all the facts. To me, having an AQP program is a blank check for some to trod all over meaningful training for the most part … granted there are some aspects that sound good until you read what they actually allow. When you read, “structured training for each airline’s own operation…” it sounds like something anyone could accept. But what it means is that the training objectives (i.e., piloting standards of performance) can be altered to suit whatever is desired. Some tasks can be substituted for having accomplished “other” tasks that were not accomplished. As an example, I give you those airlines that had been authorized to train on Windshear and never have their crews see Stalls or Approaches to Stall. That one still escapes me! Because Line Oriented training takes a lot of time to accomplish just a few tasks, the time that IS available becomes more critical. Solution? Do less … but don’t describe it that way. Describe it as designating some tasks as “routine” and therefore you should not have to address those tasks during training (…ever again…). Besides, the effect of accomplishing those tasks can be seen during Line Checks given to the Captain. More training time is allocated by doing less, making the Line Oriented approach to training more “do-able” … and … of course, it sounds better to say the training is done in a “realistic, line environment.” Anyone ever play football? Remember blocking practice? Remember training on “hand-offs?” Over and over and over, again! How long would it have taken those players to get their foot work down right if the only time they practiced it was during a real “game-like” scrimmage. Sure, there is a time to “see” that stuff during a “game setting” – so it is with piloting … but learning the basics, reviewing the basics, polishing the basics, is not, and in my view, cannot be, adequately done in a “line environment.” Using that football analogy … I see pilot recurrent training much like “spring” and “pre-season” practice is to football. No one thinks that the star full back forgot how to take a hand-off or forgot how to block. But, there he is, every spring, and every preseason, working on footwork, eye-hand coordination, over and over and over, again. I wonder why? Could it be to sharpen the edge? … to polish familiar feelings? … to examine what he could do better or more easily?
I have an idea! Let’s propose that an AQP program be introduced into professional football. It could be called Advanced Quality Plays. We all know that blocking an on-coming opposing player, trying to get to your team’s ball carrier, is very much like fending off the block of an opposing player trying to keep you from getting to the other team’s ball carrier – we’ll be able to train offense and defense at the same time – look at the time that will be saved! We can also easily see that running to the side lines while keeping your body facing the end-zone, is done exactly the same way when moving to the right AND to the left … one entire direction eliminated … saving even more time. Also, this business of differentiating between the “tackle” and the “guard” positions is much ado about little. Both positions are on the line of scrimmage, both start from the 3-point stance, and both attempt to get into the opposing teams backfield - more savings by training offense and defense simultaneously! More streamlining! More valuable time saved! And, to top it off, ALL of the training would be conducted in “simulated games!” What better way to get prepared to play an actual game?
OK ... Sorry ... AGAIN! Drat ... it seems the issues sometimes "get a life of their own."