Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

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

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
N4niner206 said:
All of these questions about AQP posted on here...Don't you guys talk to each other online at all???
Click to expand...

No, we don't talk on the all-male chat rooms. We have families and stuff to tend to. How about you post them or shut up. We want to be prepared for training and perform well, just like all the pilots who get the scenarios from their friends or family in the training department. The company should actually train all potential abnormalities that may occur on any LOE scenario. That is proper flight training. Until they train the scenarios or make them available to the pilot group, we will play this unnecessary game of fishing for information; especially the pilots who have AQP in January, when the scenarios are not well known. Last year, there were a few abnormalities in the AQP session that were never trained, for example, stuck throttle. Instead of watching the crew fumble around the QRH for 20 minutes and screw it up, it would be more efficient to learning to teach the optimal procedures before presenting the condition. By the way, this forum is online, Jackass
 
Last edited:
I wish someone had the balls to post them on this thread. If I get them, I will do it. I am still a Certified Flight Instructor. It's a professional obligation to my brethren.
 
Clutch said:
I think he meant "on the line" but in his extremely limited wisdom he typed "online".
Click to expand...

I appreciate the translation. Even if it was meant in the context of "on the line", that is a limited pool of individuals to get AQP gouge information from, especially for pilots who only do naps and such. Those pilots may only interact with 3 other dudes or gals per month. The gouge needs to be disseminated more evenly and equitably. If the LOE AQP training event was not a jeopardy event, then I wouldn't care, but since it is, it needs to be approached and administered correctly and fairly. The company provides oral exam guides on the company website, and the old proficiency checks were common knowledge. This new AQP event should not be any different. I don't see the value in experimenting with pilot evaluations, particularly when the playing field is not level.
 
So, you want to "practice" an "emergency" so you'll "perform well" handling an emergency that you've "practiced" to see if you'd actually "perform well" when you are required to handle an ACTUAL emergency that arises unexpectedly and suddenly with your life and 52 (at least) others possibly hanging on the successful outcome of the way you handle something you have not "practiced"?

Sounds like a really solid plan...
 
ohplease! said:
So, you want to "practice" an "emergency" so you'll "perform well" handling an emergency that you've "practiced" to see if you'd actually "perform well" when you are required to handle an ACTUAL emergency that arises unexpectedly and suddenly with your life and 52 (at least) others possibly hanging on the successful outcome of the way you handle something you have not "practiced"?

Sounds like a really solid plan...
Click to expand...


:beer:
 
ohplease! said:
So, you want to "practice" an "emergency" so you'll "perform well" handling an emergency that you've "practiced" to see if you'd actually "perform well" when you are required to handle an ACTUAL emergency that arises unexpectedly and suddenly with your life and 52 (at least) others possibly hanging on the successful outcome of the way you handle something you have not "practiced"?

Sounds like a really solid plan...
Click to expand...

Precisely. Emergencies and scenarios that an airmen is familiar with and well practiced and trained for will have more favorable outcomes during actual passenger service. That's why we train engine fires, engine failures, and smoke events, as well as other abnormalities. Presenting novel and unfamiliar abnormalities during a simulator testing session is a hit and miss evaluation. It's not optimal training in a $600 an hour simulator. Furthermore, pilots who have had the luxury of being briefed and informed of the AQP scenarios will perform differently than pilots who have not been informed. This fact alone invalidates the entire evaluation of the airmen's reaction the the AQP abnormality or "Threat Condition", because some pilots know what's coming and the others do not. Therefore, the training department should train or at least provide a briefing of all potential abnormalities for the AQP scenarios in the interest of an accurate evaluation of the pilot group, and also to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the abnormality or threat and an optimal pilot response.
 
In other words, you can't evaluate a pilot's reaction to an "unexpected emergency", when half of them are expecting it and the other half are not expecting it. Also, the pilots who know and expect the specific AQP abnormalities have also been informed of the instructors preferences for handling the abnormality.
 
Last edited:
You should expect that anything can happen. If it's in the checklist, it can happen. And other scenarios that you are trained for. ie windshear, should also be expected. There shouldn't be any "unexpected emergencies", they should be a surprise.
 
say again said:
You should expect that anything can happen. If it's in the checklist, it can happen. And other scenarios that you are trained for. ie windshear, should also be expected. There shouldn't be any "unexpected emergencies", they should be a surprise.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point, completely.
 
I like not knowing what's coming. It's more fun that way and you learn a lot more.

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk 2
 
Yes, you are. You are merely stating the intention of the AQP program and it's evaluation objective. That is fine, if it were a valid program administered without prior knowledge of the specific abnormalities that were impending. However, that is not the reality of the program. Last year, toward the end of the year, I observed a gradual universal awareness among the pilot group of all four of the AQP scenarios, whereas earlier in the year (2012) the awareness of the AQP gouge was very sporadic. Many pilots early in the year went into the simulator not knowing the abnormalities. This fact alone invalidates the evaluation of pilots who had no prior knowledge of the abnormalities. I have no problem with evaluating pilots on their handling of "unexpected" emergencies and abnormalities. The problem is that some pilots know what to expect and others do not. Some pilots know the AQP scenarios because they have friends or family in the training department, some know them because they have a network of other pilots who have shared their training sessions and they have compiled a gouge. Other pilots do not have any AQP gouge. The reasons are varied. They may be new to the company. They may not have any established network. They may have AQP in January, when there is no compiled gouge (except for people with friends or family in training department). This fact invalidates the validity of pilot evaluations for AQP abnormalities. The intentions of the AQP program are noble, but the administration is severely flawed. If even one pilot knows the "unexpected event", then everyone should know, and the training department should facilitate that process. Now let's post some fk'n gouge.
 
Mickey Mouse said:
In other words, you can't evaluate a pilot's reaction to an "unexpected emergency", when half of them are expecting it and the other half are not expecting it. Also, the pilots who know and expect the specific AQP abnormalities have also been informed of the instructors preferences for handling the abnormality.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can't evaluate a pilot groups reaction to an emergency when they know its coming, know what's coming and have practiced how to handle it. That's like handing out the answer key to the final prior to exam day. EVERYONE should make a 100 and the "weak links" would not be detected and strengthened properly (i.e. retrained) before going on line and flying your family or mine around the countryside.

If you're so worried about failing a check ride, get the ******************** out of this game because even YOU know you're not up to standards. There are no tricks here. Nobody is trying to fail you. Go to"school"and take the opportunity to learn and find out where your weaknesses are (if you have any...most of us have some) and work on that area to get better.

The entire traveling public will be better for it.
 
ohplease! said:
Actually, you can't evaluate a pilot groups reaction to an emergency when they know its coming, know what's coming and have practiced how to handle it. That's like handing out the answer key to the final prior to exam day. EVERYONE should make a 100 and the "weak links" would not be detected and strengthened properly (i.e. retrained) before going on line and flying your family or mine around the countryside.

If you're so worried about failing a check ride, get the ******************** out of this game because even YOU know you're not up to standards. There are no tricks here. Nobody is trying to fail you. Go to"school"and take the opportunity to learn and find out where your weaknesses are (if you have any...most of us have some) and work on that area to get better.

The entire traveling public will be better for it.
Click to expand...
Yawn......................
 
ohplease! said:
Actually, you can't evaluate a pilot groups reaction to an emergency when they know its coming, know what's coming and have practiced how to handle it. That's like handing out the answer key to the final prior to exam day. EVERYONE should make a 100 and the "weak links" would not be detected and strengthened properly (i.e. retrained) before going on line and flying your family or mine around the countryside.

If you're so worried about failing a check ride, get the ******************** out of this game because even YOU know you're not up to standards. There are no tricks here. Nobody is trying to fail you. Go to"school"and take the opportunity to learn and find out where your weaknesses are (if you have any...most of us have some) and work on that area to get better.

The entire traveling public will be better for it.
Click to expand...
Actually, upon further reading, you made my point for me.
 
Mickey Mouse said:
Gosh, you are so awesome! You are an excellent pilot and your passengers are extremely safe in your hands. Please continue to excel.
Click to expand...


Hahahahaha!! You seriously need some help in the sarcasm category..lame. Now I see why you need gouge (and Im sure you don't see it) to be able to pass a checkride. Sad really, but the best of luck in your career. :beer:
 
say again said:
Hahahahaha!! You seriously need some help in the sarcasm category..lame. Now I see why you need gouge (and Im sure you don't see it) to be able to pass a checkride. Sad really, but the best of luck in your career. :beer:
Click to expand...

The beer smileys are so cute. They provide a great accent to your statement. Best of luck to you too, even though you don't need it.
 
LAST year, the training department Stated on numerous occasions that they wanted all of the scenarios to circulate around and become common knowledge. It was their view that the more we talked about the scenarios, the more prepared we would be on-line. I also agree. Get you thinking About potential abnormalities months before you go to the scenario, not just the week before.

This year, it seems to be more hush-hush. I'm not sure why.
 
COOPERVANE said:
LAST year, the training department Stated on numerous occasions that they wanted all of the scenarios to circulate around and become common knowledge. It was their view that the more we talked about the scenarios, the more prepared we would be on-line. I also agree. Get you thinking About potential abnormalities months before you go to the scenario, not just the week before.

This year, it seems to be more hush-hush. I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

Their thinking is absolutely correct. It reinforces the training along the whole process. Maybe it seems hush hush right now because it's early in the year. We'll see what happens.
 
good lord.... i just wanted a little gouge. not discuss the merits of getting gouge vs not getting it. If you dont want it, then why not just ignore the thread and move on.
 
I knew the gouge last year and as soon as they gave me the city pair I knew exactly what was coming. I still learned more than any PC from previous years. The instructor even commented on the fact that he was happy to see we knew the gouge and had prepared so well for it.

Deapite some of its flaws, AQP is far superior than the scripted mind numbing PC's.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom