ASA AQP--- if you know the scenarios, please PM me

[Flyer1015]

If I might interject...
Any good pilot could solve an actual emergency like this on a line flight and get a successful outcome. Maybe several different successful outcomes. The problem with AQP is they want you to come to a specific outcome that is predetermined in their lesson plan. In real life the only failure of an emergency situation is if you die. in the sim, they can fail you for not doing it the way they think you should. After reading the above scenarios they are using at ASA, it sounds like a lot of nitpicky, gotcha haha, type of stuff. Have there really picked all the low hanging fruit over there? Are their pilots really that good? It almost looks like they are setting people up to fail with overly complex scenarios. So I don't blame them from wanting the gouge. Flyer, you work at VA, not ASA, so I think you should just MYOB and let them do what they think they need to. The primary goal of annual training is to get it over with. Anybody who says differently is either lying or isn't a line pilot.

ASA owns the regional section of this forum. To the point people would start a thread like "Schedules aren't out and they're overdue!" and then when someone asks what airline is this, the response is duh ASA!

"Get it over with"

Never in my career have I viewed my sim as a get-it-over-with event. I go in as prepared as I can (systems, memory items, limitations, QRH and FCOM review). But I am there to learn, PT or PC. IMO, it's all about the attitude. The examiner will know right away what kind of attitude you have and how you deal with a sim event. By preparing and treating it as a learning event (without any ego or attitude) I've had a 100% success rate so far. I think the problem are the ones who need the gouge beforehand for a sim. That automatically gets red bells to go off.

 

[Flyer1015]

You'll have to use another example, Hot dog. You had extensive training in {engine failures on take-off} before your emergency happened. You also had a lot of training on engine failures before you were tested on it. Now if you said Thrust Reverser Unlocked on both engines simultaneously, on take-off, at night, with 3 hours sleep the night before, that would be intriguing, but I still wouldn't be impressed. Regardless of the outcome, I would just sum it all up as an outcome of the training that particular pilot received.

Extensive training? Sure, as 200 hr pilot on the required night cross country flight in the middle of the night. And this is light twins we're talking about, where the FAA certification does NOT require a positive rate of climb trend to certify single engine flight. That stuff is for the big boys in Part 121. For GA light twins, the manufacturer just has to show a rate. It could be very well negative, as was my case. Try skimming around trees because you aren't climbing, it isn't fun. I'd say at best, the twin was able to hold altitude barely, considering the relatively full fuel load it had.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Private Pilot Practical Test Standards
FAA-S-8081-14B

The FAA requires that all private pilot practical tests be conducted in
accordance with the appropriate private practical test standards and
the policies set forth in the Introduction. Applicants shall be
evaluated in ALL Tasks included in each Area of Operation of the
appropriate practical test standard, unless otherwise noted.

Section 2: Private Pilot – Airplane Multiengine Land and Multiengine Sea

X. Emergency Operations ......................................................111
Task A: Emergency Descent (AMEL and AMES) ..............111
Task B: Engine Failure During Takeoff Before VMC
(Simulated) (AMEL and AMES)............................111
Task C: Engine Failure After Lift‐Off (Simulated)**********
(AMEL and AMES) ...............................................111
Task D: Approach and Landing with an Inoperative
Engine (Simulated) (AMEL and AMES)................112
Task E: Systems and Equipment Malfunctions
(AMEL and AMES) ...............................................113
Task F: Emergency Equipment and Survival Gear***************
(AMEL and AMES ................................................114

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Extensive training? Sure, as 200 hr pilot on the required night cross country flight in the middle of the night. And this is light twins we're talking about, where the FAA certification does NOT require a positive rate of climb trend to certify single engine flight. That stuff is for the big boys in Part 121. For GA light twins, the manufacturer just has to show a rate. It could be very well negative, as was my case. Try skimming around trees because you aren't climbing, it isn't fun. I'd say at best, the twin was able to hold altitude barely, considering the relatively full fuel load it had.

It sounds like your training may have been incomplete in multiengine airplanes. Anyway, I am glad it worked out for you .

 

[BOX OFFICE]

Wait. The FAA releases the lesson plan before a checkride? THAT'S CHEATING!

 

[COOPERVANE]

Some people like to tell everyone they are gods gift to aviation. And then judge anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's been this way on FI since the beginning.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

The "Top Gun", "Right Stuff", mentality gets old. Thankfully, most of the pilots I work with understand this type of thinking is sophomoric.

 

[Flyer1015]

The "Top Gun", "Right Stuff", mentality gets old. Thankfully, most of the pilots I work with understand this type of thinking is sophomoric.

How is it "top gun" or "right stuff" to say that you should go into a AQP scenario like you would a real flight, not knowing what/when something was going to happen? Tomorrow you may step on an airplane and face a terrible problem. Are you going to complain that no one gave you heads up on the predicament you now face?

As for PTS standards, they exist for checkrides to issue licenses/certificates/ratings. It is done that way so no one pilot can beotch about having unfairly been busted on something beyond what the book requires.

But for recurrent training scenarios, you are already a qualified pilot. Everyday you fly an airplane with passengers without knowing what problems you may face. You walk into a real airplane without knowing what may happen during the course of the flight, in terms of emergencies or abnormalities.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

As for PTS standards, they exist for checkrides to issue licenses/certificates/ratings. It is done that way so no one pilot can beotch about having unfairly been busted on something beyond what the book requires.

But for recurrent training scenarios, you are already a qualified pilot. Everyday you fly an airplane with passengers without knowing what problems you may face. You walk into a real airplane without knowing what may happen during the course of the flight, in terms of emergencies or abnormalities.

Did you get a study guide before your initial check at Virgin? Oral exam prep? How about the form for a pro check that shows all the items to be completed? Did you really go into your first pro check not knowing what to expect? Or did you study all the maneuvers ahead of time? That's cheating!

Flyer, quit being a moron. Anyone who has ever flown a sim knows that it has very little resemblance to actual line flying. It's a procedure trainer. Passing a checkride does not make you a good line pilot and vice versa. It's an evaluation.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

How is it "top gun" or "right stuff" to say that you should go into a AQP scenario like you would a real flight, not knowing what/when something was going to happen? Tomorrow you may step on an airplane and face a terrible problem. Are you going to complain that no one gave you heads up on the predicament you now face?

As for PTS standards, they exist for checkrides to issue licenses/certificates/ratings. It is done that way so no one pilot can beotch about having unfairly been busted on something beyond what the book requires.

But for recurrent training scenarios, you are already a qualified pilot. Everyday you fly an airplane with passengers without knowing what problems you may face. You walk into a real airplane without knowing what may happen during the course of the flight, in terms of emergencies or abnormalities.

The FAA disagrees with you. We are not qualified pilots when we go into recurrent training. We actually will dequalify if we do not go to recurrent every year. That's why the company puts all those red exclamation points all over our schedules. The FAA understands that pilots need to review abnormalities and emergency procedures on a regular basis in the interest of optimal safety. So in that spirit, I say let's do some damn training; and if we are evaluating something, make an assessment with high validity across the pilot group. If an assessment is a jeopardy event, the company must ensure that the assessment is administered with utmost integrity and equity. I have no problem being tested on anything, but the yardstick being used to measure me better be the same yardstick used to measure everyone else. If one pilot has prior knowledge of the focus abnormalities, then I get them too. If it weren’t a jeopardy event, then I wouldn't care at all. The company can solve this issue a few different ways. The first way is to brief and discuss all potential focus abnormalities that may occur during SIM training. This briefing can be done during ground school. That's actually good flight instruction. The second way is to create an LOE script that contains 500 different potential abnormalities. That way, the LOE keeps it integrity with an unknown abnormality for every crew. The moment the event becomes a job jeopardy event it must be administered equally, because the previous crew that the SIM instructor evaluated had the focus abnormalities, and you are being measured against them. I know far too many excellent pilots who have had unfair SIM evaluations due to ambiguous preparation or rogue instructors. Thus far, I have been extremely fortunate in my airline career during training events. Some of the training events I had prior knowledge of the focus abnormalities, others I did not. When I compare the two, I understand how wrong it is to set up an unsuspecting pilot for a rare abnormality that his colleague in the prior SIM had full knowledge of. Let me be clear, it's not wrong to set up all pilots for unknown abnormalities in the SIM. It's wrong to set up some, but not others. That is the current LOE training program. Its intentions are good, but its administration is severely flawed.