Twin Wasp

Any sim training (that is going to count for anything) would be under 142. There is no 91 training in an approved sim.

E2CMaster

Mine was 142, and it was initial training in a new type. My big beef with the Fed was the chatter in the back and that he was sucking up inordinate amounts of the instructors time during the sim when I had questions.

The instructor was great, he took a lot of time after the normal debrief to go over things that he would have pointed out if he didn't have to spend half the sim period doing things for the Fed.

JohnBurke

How many questions can one ask during a sim session? I think that over a one or two week course the most I've ever asked is one or two. The sim isn't the place to be asking questions; that's usually done before or after. By the time you get to a 737, it's generally accepted that you're not there to learn how to fly.

E2CMaster

Stuff like is it better to take all rudder trim out on final, is x normal for this plane, and little things that I was asking about the autopilot and FMS that weren't intuitively obvious.

I ask lots of questions in training. That's why it's called training and not evaluating.

Yoda2

I ask questions as well... Regarding the 737, one I didn't need to ask was why it was important to stow the hand crank trim handles when not in use!

PerfInit

references:

49 USC 44701
14 CFR 142.29

Yoda2

Even in view of all the input, I still believe an inspector has no right to even be in the Sim during a TRAINING session. I believe it can be detrimental. I would like to see a focus group study to prove my point. This might be a good project for an aviation student to take on at one of the aviation colleges. This situation is NOT like a school principal observing from the back of the classroom. Whenever I have asked an FAA inspector if they are here to help me they invariably say no. So unlike the principal, they should not be considered your "Pal" at least in this instance. Again, there are alternate methods and pathways available to gauge an instructors performance, than piggy backing on a paying customers time, money and training experience. This needs to stop. Especially in view of our government wasting a trillion dollars on fighter jets that will likely be outdated before becoming fully operational; we need to spend more on these inspectors that already have a hard enough job to do in keeping us safe. I don't think a little more Sim time would be too much to ask in view of all this.

PerfInit

If the instructor conducting the training session is an autorized instructor under 14 CFR, such as Part 142, the FAA does have the right under Title 49 USC to observe the Instructor or evaluator performing their duties.

Per FAA Order 8900.1, The ASI must maintain a "quiet professional" demeanor and observe, take notes, and then debrief the Instructor at the end of the training session. The presence of an ASI should not induce a distraction to the training taking place. The ASI is expected to exercise good judgement and discretion at all times.

There is a way to address this issue with the "distracting" ASI either directly, or to the ASI's supervisor THRU the training center's manager.

This episode being discussed is the exception rather than the norm in my opinion. There are thousands of sim sessions observed by the FAA annually. Most observations take place with no adverse "distraction" related issues whatsoever.

Yoda2

In view of all this I'm still saying it's wrong. We, as a country, have tons of rules and regulations that we are supposed to abide by. Many of them were not thought through, and were passed anyway. Look at the Affordable Care Act. "We need to pass it before we can read it..." "No more expensive than your cell phone bill..." All the CFR's come from or through these same people. Yes, many FAR's are written in blood and for good reason; though others are ineffective and antiquated while still others just seemed like good ideas. I would really like to see some aviation students officially study this and make me eat my words. And BTW, How do we know the majority of these events take place with no distractions? Let's get some scientific proof. Lacking this proof, both viewpoints would have to be considered just that, viewpoints.

JohnBurke

You're still wrong, no matter how much you believe otherwise. You can continue to argue about what you think ought to be right, but it won't change the fact. You're wrong. You understand this, don't you?