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

[Mickey Mouse]

We all monitor EICAS 1 and 2 continuously, still waiting on the gouge.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

I just spoke with a friend who had training two weeks ago. She shared some training information with me regarding some focus items this year.

-There is a strong focus on MX procedures and documentation. For example, items deferred but not on release, or items on release but not in can. Any MX before takeoff should be coordinated and documented properly. Read the FOM
-There is also a focus on CDR procedures (Coded Departure Routes). We received a bulletin on this last year and a Tech briefing. The Tech Briefing is under the documents tab. Hunt for it. It’s dated June 2012 under CRJ, not that gay little ERJ thing.
-GEN Fail in flight, APU is second GEN for CAT2, if needed
-FLAP FAIL caution and MX reset procedure
-FMS deferral, green needle flight with Holding along the route, review all holding entries, hold timing for altitude, wind correction, Use of NAV Sector page on FMS is recommended. Calculate descents without FMS to meet alt restrictions.
-Runway changes and CDR issuance, check fuel needed, re brief legs on FMS, re run before takeoff check, make sure you have numbers and reset t-off speeds if needed.
-GEAR Disagree in flight. Run QRH and recycle gear until it drops. Follow the damn QRH fool.
-CAT 2 approach procedures, and ILS PRM procedure, Attention all users page, No CAT 2 to ATL 26R
-OIL PRESS warning message in flight, Engine Shutdown not required under certain conditions, read the damn QRH carefully, fool.

This information is reliable but don’t take my word for any of this, prepare for anything.

 

[Flyer1015]

Hahaha nice. Do you talk to each airplane before you fly and ask her what failures she may expect to give you today on your flight out of ATL?

What's the point of AQP if you already know beforehand what emergencies you will have? The point is to not know, JUST as you wouldn't know on the line flying a regular passenger flight. That's the thing with real life emergencies, they happen and usually without giving you a heads up at the gate.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Hahaha nice. Do you talk to each airplane before you fly and ask her what failures she may expect to give you today on your flight out of ATL?

What's the point of AQP if you already know beforehand what emergencies you will have? The point is to not know, JUST as you wouldn't know on the line flying a regular passenger flight. That's the thing with real life emergencies, they happen and usually without giving you a heads up at the gate.

Hell, if that's true, then let's not train anything from day 1 indoc and onward. We will learn far more if happens to us without preparation, right?

 

[Mickey Mouse]

The best safety device in any airplane is a well trained pilot, especially if it's me...

 

[say again]

Hell, if that's true, then let's not train anything from day 1 indoc and onward. We will learn far more if happens to us without preparation, right?

Yeah, sounds like a fantastic idea!

 

[say again]

The best safety device in any airplane is a well trained pilot, especially if it's me...

A well-trained pilot doesnt need info spoon fed to them. Get in the sim and take care of the task at hand. I don't see why people need to know what to expect before hand.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Let’s examine two different scenarios. Scenario Number 1 contains a pilot who has no pre-knowledge of the focus abnormalities in the current AQP year. Scenario Number 2 contains a pilot who has some pre-knowledge of the focus abnormalities in the current AQP year.

In scenario number 1, the pilot has no pre-knowledge of the focus abnormalities and goes into training expecting anything, just like flying the line. The pilot encounters 1 of 4 focus abnormalities. The pilot either performs a satisfactory response to the abnormality or does not. If the pilot does perform a satisfactory response, then they already knew it and learned nothing from AQP. Also, since they had no knowledge of the other 3 focus scenarios they never studied those focus abnormalities, so they learned nothing about those either.

In scenario number 2, the pilot has some prior knowledge of the focus scenarios, so the pilot studies all potential procedures and issues related to the abnormalities. Basically, there is an intense focus and examination of the “focus abnormalities” from the pilot regarding the issues. The pilot with prior knowledge is better prepared and ready to receive practical application training in the SIM, without adverse stimuli from unfamiliar or ambiguous QRH guidance. The bugs have already been worked out. That doesn’t mean the pilot should get the script before going to the SIM. However, a thorough review of potential AQP focus abnormalities during ground would be extremely beneficial to instilling the desired training goals. That way, every pilot gets the benefit of preparing for the event, not just the girls or guys banging the training department guys, or pilots who had a network of friends who shared their training sessions. If some pilots get the scenarios and focus abnormalities before the event, then so should the rest of us.

Pilots with prior knowledge of potential focus abnormalities may not perform well anyway. The training department is very skilled in determining who meets the minimal criteria for operating on the line. They have no problem removing substandard pilots from line flight. They do it all the time. The ASA training department is second to none.

 

[COOPERVANE]

I agree, but some really like to feel like they are a super-pilot.

 

[Flyer1015]

Hell, if that's true, then let's not train anything from day 1 indoc and onward. We will learn far more if happens to us without preparation, right?

No. Everybody is trained initially, the type rating and IOE. There needs to be the base level training. Once you pass IOE and are released on the line, you gain experience. When you come back for training, do the same stuff you always do in your previous occupation(s) preparing for a PT or PC. Know your profiles, limitations, memory items, review systems, and be familiar with QRH and where to find stuff.

Since when does an emergency flying the line in real life ever come with a prior heads up? That's why it's called an emergency, it's urgent and unexpected. Honestly, if you need to be spoon fed sim information prior to AQP, you're in the wrong line of work. Our work is defined as hours of boredoom punctuated by seconds of sheer terror. You seem to want to know what that terror part means in a simulator before you go in. How about real life? From the sounds of it, I don't think you've had a real life emergency. I've had an engine failure right after takeoff in a light piston twin. It isn't fun, it wasn't fun, I had no idea it was going to happen, but I dealt with it and landed safely in one piece.

Scenario 1 is real life. Scenario 2 sounds like a cheater who isn't sure of himself and wants the gouge.

 

[Flyer1015]

A well-trained pilot doesnt need info spoon fed to them. Get in the sim and take care of the task at hand. I don't see why people need to know what to expect before hand.

Exactly! Well stated. Just like real life, you get in the airplane and take care of the task at hand. When abnormality and/or emergencies come up, you take care of them based on sim training and experience.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

No. Everybody is trained initially, the type rating and IOE. There needs to be the base level training. Once you pass IOE and are released on the line, you gain experience. When you come back for training, do the same stuff you always do in your previous occupation(s) preparing for a PT or PC. Know your profiles, limitations, memory items, review systems, and be familiar with QRH and where to find stuff.

Since when does an emergency flying the line in real life ever come with a prior heads up? That's why it's called an emergency, it's urgent and unexpected. Honestly, if you need to be spoon fed sim information prior to AQP, you're in the wrong line of work. Our work is defined as hours of boredoom punctuated by seconds of sheer terror. You seem to want to know what that terror part means in a simulator before you go in. How about real life? From the sounds of it, I don't think you've had a real life emergency. I've had an engine failure right after takeoff in a light piston twin. It isn't fun, it wasn't fun, I had no idea it was going to happen, but I dealt with it and landed safely in one piece.

Scenario 1 is real life. Scenario 2 sounds like a cheater who isn't sure of himself and wants the gouge.

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.

 

[Trcb777]

We've all had days where a flight or a round trip feels like a loft. To me, is always seems easier and goes smoother when its for real. It seems that during training, crews can get caught up and worrying about what they think the instructor wants to see and hear. That can lead to running the wrong qrh checklist or over thinking everything. Real world issues seem to go smoother and there's usually ample time to deal with the situation.

I do think that the training dept. wants or at least doesnt care the aqp info out there. The AQP is tailored to the airline and the know issues, so if the info is out there, pilots will focus and study on their own at the focused issues. Actually a brilliant idea intentional or not. So now you have an entire pilot group looking and multiple scenario's even though they will only deal with one during the actual training event. Pretty good bang for you buck.

Most of this AQP is not the seconds of sheer terror but more the "gotcha" items like runway changes at last minute, deferred items, maintenance issues, paper work, speed restrictions, desend via's, etc. There will also be a system malfunction to work through.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

It's essentially an evaluation of whether or not our pilots can operate in spite of the operation itself.

While most real airlines are practicing engine-out driftdowns over the Himalayas, we're still trying to figure out if our mechanics have signed the paperwork and dispatch hasn't forgotten an alternate.

Just another dAy at ASA...

 

[Mickey Mouse]

No. Everybody is trained initially, the type rating and IOE. There needs to be the base level training. Once you pass IOE and are released on the line, you gain experience. When you come back for training, do the same stuff you always do in your previous occupation(s) preparing for a PT or PC. Know your profiles, limitations, memory items, review systems, and be familiar with QRH and where to find stuff.

Since when does an emergency flying the line in real life ever come with a prior heads up? That's why it's called an emergency, it's urgent and unexpected. Honestly, if you need to be spoon fed sim information prior to AQP, you're in the wrong line of work. Our work is defined as hours of boredoom punctuated by seconds of sheer terror. You seem to want to know what that terror part means in a simulator before you go in. How about real life? From the sounds of it, I don't think you've had a real life emergency. I've had an engine failure right after takeoff in a light piston twin. It isn't fun, it wasn't fun, I had no idea it was going to happen, but I dealt with it and landed safely in one piece.

Scenario 1 is real life. Scenario 2 sounds like a cheater who isn't sure of himself and wants the gouge.

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.