BagelBomber
Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2002
- Posts
- 22
ACA Interested,
I was at ACA for a short period of time recently and went through the CRJ short course program. I was current in the CRJ and had approx. 1000 hours in type. I have recently moved on to a new carrier but enjoyed my short time at ACA. There are some fundamental philosophies that, in my opinion, are flawed. Here are some of my personal observations on the training:
-First, is their philosophy on checklist usage. Most of their checklists are silent and uncommanded. The only way the PF or PIC knows if the checklist has commenced or a specific task has been completed is by one of the last two tasks read aloud, and then "checklist complete"(ie. taxi, descent/approach). The gear and flaps are never confirmed up on the climb checklist and the gear is not confirmed down by both pilots on landing checklist. All training I have ever received or studied has had the PF or PIC command the respective checklist. Additionally, the PNF or FO may then "flow" the checklist followed by reading the tasks aloud. This promotes good CRM between the pilots and if for no other reason provides confirmation on the CVR.
-Second, the practice of utilizing the FO to taxi the aircraft while the Capt starts the remaining engine begs numerous safety concerns. The pushback engine start and subsequent taxi start should be completed by the FO. The FO has no nosewheel tiller for steering and has only 4-6 degrees of steering with the pedals. But, that is not the big concern. The Capt now has his attention inside the cockpit preoccupied with starting the engine on a busy airport with a potentially low-time FO taxiing. One would have to weigh the risks of a low time FO damaging an engine to that of a taxiway or runway incursion. We all know the low-time FO can taxi an aircraft and start a jet engine, but, their decision process may not be adequate at that stage to react in a timely manner while the Capt is concentrating inside. Bottom line is that it puts the Capt in a precarious position.
-Third, the training managers have lost sight of the big picture and concentrate more on the minutia than flying the airplane. This trickles down to the instructors and makes for a difficult training environment. They seem more concerned with the overwhelming number of uncrucial callouts and procedures than flying the aircraft. The instructors seem bullied by two checkairmen who insist on perfection.
Finally, some examples of practices I believe to be inadequate, unsafe, or just plain overkill:
-Clearing turns below 10,000 ft in VMC is a good practice. Not in IMC, holding patterns, Class A airspace, or any combination thereof.
-Not having both pilots in green needles prior to FAF on an ILS is unsafe. It is more important to have backup info on the PNF side than it is to worry about GPS or FMS autotuning concerns outside the FAF. It's an extremely busy time at FAF. Both pilots should switch to green needles upon receiving a radar vector to final.
-Reduce number of unnecessary callouts throughout but particularly on non-precision approaches.
-The descent guidelines/philosophy may sound good on paper, but don't necessarily translate on the line(ie. passenger comfort in a 3000 fpm idle descent to change only 3000 ft altitude)
-Last item verbalized on taxi checklist resembles nothing like what is printed. "Altimeters 29.92 Left, Right, Checked Right."
-The weight and balance/performance sheets and procedures desperately need to be more efficient, on one sheet, and less cumbersome in the cockpit. Writing the same takeoff weights two and three times is unnecessary.
-Prior to the ACARS implementation, the practice of calling in times below 10,000 ft is a violation of sterile cockpit.
Just some observations on my part. I wish everyone at ACA well. The flying was fun and the people I came in contact with were nice. The CRJ is a busy airplane but can be extremely fun to fly.
Good luck.
BB
I was at ACA for a short period of time recently and went through the CRJ short course program. I was current in the CRJ and had approx. 1000 hours in type. I have recently moved on to a new carrier but enjoyed my short time at ACA. There are some fundamental philosophies that, in my opinion, are flawed. Here are some of my personal observations on the training:
-First, is their philosophy on checklist usage. Most of their checklists are silent and uncommanded. The only way the PF or PIC knows if the checklist has commenced or a specific task has been completed is by one of the last two tasks read aloud, and then "checklist complete"(ie. taxi, descent/approach). The gear and flaps are never confirmed up on the climb checklist and the gear is not confirmed down by both pilots on landing checklist. All training I have ever received or studied has had the PF or PIC command the respective checklist. Additionally, the PNF or FO may then "flow" the checklist followed by reading the tasks aloud. This promotes good CRM between the pilots and if for no other reason provides confirmation on the CVR.
-Second, the practice of utilizing the FO to taxi the aircraft while the Capt starts the remaining engine begs numerous safety concerns. The pushback engine start and subsequent taxi start should be completed by the FO. The FO has no nosewheel tiller for steering and has only 4-6 degrees of steering with the pedals. But, that is not the big concern. The Capt now has his attention inside the cockpit preoccupied with starting the engine on a busy airport with a potentially low-time FO taxiing. One would have to weigh the risks of a low time FO damaging an engine to that of a taxiway or runway incursion. We all know the low-time FO can taxi an aircraft and start a jet engine, but, their decision process may not be adequate at that stage to react in a timely manner while the Capt is concentrating inside. Bottom line is that it puts the Capt in a precarious position.
-Third, the training managers have lost sight of the big picture and concentrate more on the minutia than flying the airplane. This trickles down to the instructors and makes for a difficult training environment. They seem more concerned with the overwhelming number of uncrucial callouts and procedures than flying the aircraft. The instructors seem bullied by two checkairmen who insist on perfection.
Finally, some examples of practices I believe to be inadequate, unsafe, or just plain overkill:
-Clearing turns below 10,000 ft in VMC is a good practice. Not in IMC, holding patterns, Class A airspace, or any combination thereof.
-Not having both pilots in green needles prior to FAF on an ILS is unsafe. It is more important to have backup info on the PNF side than it is to worry about GPS or FMS autotuning concerns outside the FAF. It's an extremely busy time at FAF. Both pilots should switch to green needles upon receiving a radar vector to final.
-Reduce number of unnecessary callouts throughout but particularly on non-precision approaches.
-The descent guidelines/philosophy may sound good on paper, but don't necessarily translate on the line(ie. passenger comfort in a 3000 fpm idle descent to change only 3000 ft altitude)
-Last item verbalized on taxi checklist resembles nothing like what is printed. "Altimeters 29.92 Left, Right, Checked Right."
-The weight and balance/performance sheets and procedures desperately need to be more efficient, on one sheet, and less cumbersome in the cockpit. Writing the same takeoff weights two and three times is unnecessary.
-Prior to the ACARS implementation, the practice of calling in times below 10,000 ft is a violation of sterile cockpit.
Just some observations on my part. I wish everyone at ACA well. The flying was fun and the people I came in contact with were nice. The CRJ is a busy airplane but can be extremely fun to fly.
Good luck.
BB
