Day Three of Recurrent training

The third day of training is referred to as Maneuver Validation (MV). During this simulator period you accomplish a long list of maneuvers  most of which you hope to never see while flying on the line. If a full crew is paired for this period, meaning both a captain and a first officer are going through recurrent training as a pair, then the session will last all of the scheduled four hours. I was by myself for this session, so I was ‘flying’ with an instructor in the left seat acting as my captain. This meant that it would be possible for me to complete all the maneuvers in a two-hour period and there would be no problem with me re-accomplishing any maneuvers that the instructor might like to see flown a little better. We introduced ourselves in the briefing room and the instructor talked a little while about how the session would progress, then we took a last minute break and headed down the stairs to the ‘box.’

Since I was the one being evaluated I was to do all the flying. If I needed to brief an approach or accomplish a checklist I would transfer the aircraft controls over to the captain, do my briefing and then take control again. I could use the autopilot in whatever manner that I felt would help the most. We were going to do most of the maneuvers while flying out of an Asian airport we fly into routinely, so I was familiar with the available approaches.

The weather was set at non-precision approach minimums and off I went.  I was given vectors for the LOC approach landing to the south. Our airline flies VNAV non-precision approaches. The FMS generates a simulated glideslope from what we call a ‘key waypoint,’ very similar to the initial approach fix, down to the MDA at the missed approach point.  If there are intermediate level-offs between the key waypoint altitude and the MDA, the FMS tries to generate a continuous descent that meets all the restrictions. If it cannot, it levels off at the restriction until it can re-establish the descent to the next point or MDA.  I selected the specific approach and entered  it into the flight plan, determined our key waypoint, circled it on the map to remind me where it was and briefed the approach. When I was at the altitude restriction for the key waypoint and cleared for the approach, I selected LOC and placed the MDA+50’ into our altitude selector. The aircraft then intercepted the LOC course and, once past the key waypoint, automatically started to descend on it’s internally-generated glideslope. I monitored the raw data to make sure all was going well and as we got below the clouds and near the missed approach point disconnected the autopilot and made the landing manually.

When you fly internationally you must check and be familiar with the specific flight and approach procedures for the countries that you visit. Each country publishes their exceptions to the ICAO way of doing things. For instance, in the U.S. you must slow to less than 250 knots when flying below 10,000’ MSL. That means that if you are cruising AT 10,000’ you can still fly at 300 knots and be legal. However, in Japan the 250 knots restriction is AT OR BELOW 10,000’, so doing 300 knots at 10,000 feet will get you a violation.  Another change found quite often has to do with the aircraft’s descent below the MDA. In the U.S. when we reach the MDA and MAP and are not able to land, we execute a missed approach. It is acknowledged that if our descent planning has us reaching the MDA and MAP simultaneously (while still in a descent) we may descend below the MDA slightly while changing from a descent to a climb. Not all countries allow the descent below the MDA without the necessary cues to land. To account for the time to transition from a descent to the missed approach climb, we add the extra 50’ to the MDA when flying internationally. It probably wouldn’t be necessary if we used the ‘dive and drive’ method of flying a non-precision approach, but the VNAV method works so well you almost always reach the MDA and the MAP at the same time.

After the LOC approach I made another take-off, lost the right outboard engine and ended up going missed approach (engine-out) from a CAT I ILS approach. As we climbed out, I was again given the engine back and flew on vectors for a little while before I was advised that we had smoke and/or fumes in the cockpit. That required putting on the oxygen mask and smoke goggles, checking in on the intercom to make sure both pilots had operational systems and then starting to run the appropriate emergency checklist. As the captain proceeded through the checklist, I declared and emergency with the ‘controller’ and requested an immediate return to the airport. I was given an initial heading and then cleared for a visual approach.  Putting on the oxygen mask on is something we do quite often. When we are cruising above FL250 and one of us in the front seats gets up for any reason, the pilot remaining at the controls is required to put on the oxygen mask just in case there is a rapid decompression (RD) during the brief time that only one seat is occupied. The smoke goggles are another thing all together. They fit over your head after you put on the oxygen mask. The mask has a little valve near the bridge of your nose that you can open to blow oxygen directly into the goggles and evacuate any smoke that you have trapped in there. I wear glasses, which adds another layer of complexity. My routine usually goes something like this: remove glasses, put on mask, put on glasses, put on goggles, clear goggles, lift goggles, straighten glasses, reseal goggles, clear goggles. My glasses have the progressive lenses, so if they are not on straight the view is blurry. It would be REALLY nice if I never have to use the goggles in an actual emergency. I managed to complete the approach and landing and we simulated an evacuation of the aircraft, accomplishing the appropriate checklists.

The next take-off was made with gusty, strong winds and an ATIS that included the phrase WS +/- 10 kts blo 500’.  As anticipated, I received a windshear warning on departure. I accomplished the appropriate recovery procedure, made my PIREP and continued on the departure procedure. Not long after that a Traffic Alert (TA) appeared on the TCAS, followed a few seconds later by a TCAS Resolution Advisory (RA). The RA coordinates avoidance maneuvers between two TCAS-equipped aircraft, directing each aircraft in a maneuver which will most efficiently avoid the other aircraft.

Those two squares filled, we soon found ourselves at about 15,000’ in cruise. Now at a ‘safe’ altitude I was given a couple of scenarios to fly that tested my ability to recognize and recover from a stall. (Yes, we practice stalls in a 747-400.) From there, through the wonders of simulator flying,  we were positioned on a 10-mile final for runway 28R at KSFO. My instructions were to follow the glidepath down to 1000’ AGL then level off and turn right to aim directly at a mountain.  It was time to see if I knew the procedure for a GPWS terrain warning. Mission accomplished.

At this point, at I had completed all of the required maneuvers to the satisfaction of the instructor. The support pilot who had been working in the left seat than flew a few approaches for currency and we were finished for the day.

Day Four of Recurrent training

The last day of recurrent training is referred to as the LOE or Line-Oriented Evaluation. A check pilot (or two) observes the crew accomplishing a simulated line flight which includes a number of semi-typical malfunctions. Since this aircraft usually has a complement of two crews the LOE is normally conducted with four pilots. Support pilots (instructors) fill in the vacant positions if two full crews are not accomplishing recurrent training at the same time. In our case we had a captain and another first officer in training, for a crew of three. A second support captain was available, however this year’s scenario made his participation not necessary. This year the intent was to evaluate the first officer’s ability to lead the crew. Our airline currently augments long legs with a single captain and three first officers. All of the first officers hold a full type rating in the aircraft and are qualified to occupy the left seat at cruise. (It is a sore spot for some people, because the left seat occupant is accomplishing the duties and assuming the responsibilities of the captain while receiving first officer pay.) In actual operation, if anything major happens (an emergency checklist is accomplished, a situation requires a destination change, a passenger emergency occurs, etc.) the working crew will summon the captain back to the flight deck so that he/she can assume the command duties. In the captain’s absence, however, the person occupying the left seat must be willing and able to do or direct whatever is necessary to keep the flight safe.

This year’s LOE scenario was set up so that the captain would direct the flight until the aircraft reached cruise altitude, then he/she would simulate exiting the flight deck and would be relieved by one of the augmenting first officers. The captain would then be considered unavailable to make decisions that would require immediate action. I happened to be the augmenting first officer this time.

I won’t go into the specifics of the LOE scenario because there are still pilots who have not been through training yet and the exercise is supposed to be a ‘surprise’ with events happening in real time.  (We all know, however,  that if you are approaching the time to take your check ride for any rating you will seek out and quiz anyone who has recently been through the same course, no matter how many beers it takes.)  I’ll just say that there were several instances where the first officer’s ability to make decisions and to lead the crew could be evaluated. Emergency checklists were run, situations were discussed among the crew and with the dispatcher and maintenance control and diverts to nearby airports were accomplished.

When I look back on the flight I can see that there were several things that I could have done better (as usual) but we always found ourselves on the ground (or close to it) safe and sound.

Recurrent training is definitely a pain to go through, but you always come out of it with a better understanding of how the aircraft and crew work together to complete a flight safely.

The presenter was Andy Miller, a veteran presenter of ASF seminars. As would be expected with the first ‘live’ presentation, there were a couple of minor glitches with the audiovisual system and this first run-through went a little longer than scheduled, but overall the night want smoothly.

What the seminar did not cover

The seminar did not attempt to teach the attendees how GPS uses the satellite signals to calculate position. Nor did the seminar  cover the specific button-pushing operations of the various GPS units that are currently available, other than in a very general way.

What the seminar did cover

Information was presented on the utility of  units from handhelds up to the Garmin G-1000 and the progression from area navigation (RNAV) up to today’s latest WAAS approach capabilities. The material was organized in a ‘phase of flight’ sequence. Each phase of a representative flight was related to the steps in GPS operation that would be accomplished during that phase and how those steps would impact the operation of the aircraft or how the GPS unit could be used to increase the situational awareness of the pilot during that phase of the flight. An example would be using the GPS on a VFR  flight when arriving at the destination to provide orientation with the landing runway by programming in a “runway extension.”  Helpful hints like this were supplemented with ‘gotchas,’ GPS quirks or operations which have caused problems for pilots in the past.

The bottom line

The seminar presented non-specific GPS information in a well organized manner reinforced with real-life examples gleaned from actual ASRS and NTSB reports. Though the information was primarily generic in nature, the seminar will be educational for both novice and experienced GPS users. It will be worth your time to attend one of your local seminars.

Attendance at the seminar qualifies for the ground instruction portion of the FAA Wings Pilot Proficiency Awards Program. The AIG aircraft insurance program recognizes the value of attending an AOPA ASF safety seminar by waiving the insurance deductible if you have an accident within 6 months of attending a seminar. An attendance certificate will also be accepted by the FAA as a waiver of any required remedial training.

If you cannot attend one of many presentations of the seminar, you can download the ASF GPS from the Ground Up Safety Advisor brochure in PDF format.

As a bonus at the Reno seminar we were treated to some of the new AOPA safety spots that you may be seeing on TV in the coming months. They are directed at general aviation pilots and use humor to emphasize to the problem areas that are seen in general aviation operations.  Here is one directed at the problems we continue to have with fuel management.

I was inspired by the newest issue of AOPA Pilot magazine. In the January 2009 issue there are at least three articles that either deal with aeronautical decision making or follow a pilot’s thought process as he/she works through an in-flight maintenance or operational issue.

I logged into the AOPA Air Safety Foundation(ASF)  website, accessed the list of  online safety courses and scrolled to the one titled Do the Right Thing: Decision Making for Pilots. It looked interesting, so started progressing through the course.

I was very impressed with the professional presentation of the course material. It is programmed primarily in Flash and is very interactive, using both animations and sound. There are plenty of links to supplementary material related to the course both for additional reading and for downloading. The course is broken down into seven sections. The last section of the course is made up of flight scenarios, three VFR and two IFR. You must complete at least two of the scenarios in order to complete the course, but if you are like me you’ll try all five of them just for the experience. At various points in each scenario you are given decisions to make and provided at least three options for continuing or terminating the flight. Once you make your decision, the flight continues from that decision point using the option that you have chosen. You can later return to that decision point and chose a different path and see how the outcome of the flight will change.

The final section of the course is a quiz consisting of 15 questions covering the material in the course, including the More Info material associated with several of the sections. A passing grade is 80%, so you must get 12 of the questions correct to be awarded the course completion certificate and credit for the Wings program. If you miss more than three questions you may go back and review the course material and retake the test.

Course Problems

Although I thoroughly enjoyed the course and will definitely take more of the ASF courses, I did have a couple of problems with the program.

The first problem appeared when I selected the end of course quiz.  The “loading” symbol appeared in the center of the screen and continued to rotate, indicating that it was downloading the questions, but it stuck in that mode. I tried logging out of the course and then logging back in and re-selecting the quiz but received the same result. The following morning I logged in again and selected the quiz. This time the questions appeared almost immediately. I am going to assume that either my server or the ASF server had a problem that night and it was an isolated incident.

The other problem appeared when I attempted to print my course completion certificate. The course information does not (at least not the parts I read) warn you that you must allow pop-ups for this function to work correctly. My computer is configured to automatically block pop-ups, so the certificate printing process aborted with no way to make it continue. I had noticed that each of the course sections had a link to FAQs, so I re-entered the course and clicked on one of the FAQ buttons in an early section of the course. Within the information found in FAQ there  is a reference and a link to your individual ASF online course transcript. When you access your transcript you can see all of the online courses that you have taken or are taking. If a course has been completed, your test score is shown and you are provided with a link to print or reprint your course completion certificate. Make sure you allow pop-ups, click on the link and the printing process will begin.

Bottom Line

The ASF Online Course Do the Tight Thing: Decision Making for Pilots is well worth your time to complete. The information is presented in a clear, conscise manner and is reinforced with interactive flight scenarios. As a bonus, completion of the course qualifies for the safety seminar portion of the FAA Wings Pilot Proficiency Award Program.

My experiences in 2008 included a move from the flight engineer seat to a copilot seat when the mandatory retirement age was extended. That change generated a commute from west to east rather than to the north because of an airplane change and resulted in additional training and the awarding of a type certificate in my new airplane assignment. On the Part 91 flying side, I started flying my new (old) personal airplane on a more regular basis as I worked the bugs out of my ongoing restoration. As all this developed I found myself taking a more active part in aviation forums and web sites and becoming more visible in an aviation world in which I have been a mostly silent participant for forty years. I decided to stretch my abilities a bit farther and try to do some aviation writing about my experiences, opinions and education which led to this blog.  I am continually amazed at the number of you who continue to visit AroundThePattern to see what I have to say next.  I really appreciate your support and will try not to let you down. After all that, what do I see in my future for next year?  Well…

I do not see my professional aviation situation changing appreciably. I could be wrong, but I believe I have enough seniority to weather the storms I see on the horizon.  I will be content to remain in the position I currently hold and to fly from the base where I am assigned. If my employer has other plans for me, then I will have to re-evaluate my options, including retirement.  On the personal flying  side, there are several things I would like to do this year. Without getting into my perpetual to-do list for the airplane, here are a few of the things on my personal flying resolution list.

1. Take an aviation education course that covers aeronautical decision making and risk assessment.
2. Become more active in the operation of my home airport. Learn who is making the decisions, go to board meetings and make my opinions known.
3. Keep track of the latest attempts by our government’s organizations to remove our freedom to fly and make my feelings known about their proposals by responding to NPRMs and attending public meetings.
4. Introduce at least one new person to the joys of flight, either by taking them for an airplane ride or encouraging/mentoring them in their efforts to obtain a pilot’s license.
5. Go flying for fun at least once each time I am home between airline trips.
6. Attend more aviation events, meet new aviation people and enjoy our freedom of flight.

If I add to these the recurring resolutions of eating better, exercising more and losing weight, then I’m going to have a pretty full year coming up.

What are your aviation plans for next year?

Here’s to a 2009 with blue skies, safe flights and soft landings!

Airline pilots are trained on new aircraft through an extensive program of classroom and simulator-based instruction. This is followed by Initial Operating Experience (IOE) in the actual aircraft on revenue-generating flights while under the watchful eye of an IOE instructor. At the end of the IOE period, the pilot is administered a line check which evaluates his/her performance. If it is satisfactory, the pilot is released to the line to begin flying trips on his/her own. If the pilot has just been trained in the Captain position there are restrictions placed on the pilot’s operations until a specified number of hours have been flown in the new aircraft, in the U.S. this is mandated by  CFR 14, Section 121.652.

Similar restrictions are in place not only for the pilot, but for the airline as a whole, for each individual aircraft and for the specific runway where the airplane will land. In the U.S. the airline must apply to the FAA for certification to operate at the specific weather minimums .  The airline must prove to to the FAA that it can safely operate to Cat I, II or III minimums, as requested,  and have a training program in place to certify their aircrews and aircraft for those minimums.  When the the airline has passed the necessary FAA inspections, the airline’s operating specifications are amended to include these operations and  they may begin conducting flights to those minimums. The aircraft, of course,  must have the required equipment and then must pass various operational maintenance checks on that equipment to be certified to operate at the various instrument approach minimums. If maintenance is later performed on any of the required equipment in an individual aircraft, that aircraft is no longer certified to operate at the lower minimums until the equipment tests required by the airline’s operating specifications have again been performed and the aircraft re-certified. Even if the airplane and pilot are qualified to fly the approach, the runway markings, lighting and airport navigational aids must also be certified capable of providing  the accuracy necessary to land with the specified weather minimums.

Flight crew operations to Cat I minimums are part of the pilot’s standard aircraft checkout. If the particular type of aircraft is certified to conduct operations to Cat II/III minimums, the aircrew must go through additional training specific to those minimums, be deemed qualified to operate at the lower minimums and must then gain operational experience in the aircraft type before full certification is granted. Our airline operates with the restrictions outlined in 121.652, specifying that the captain must have a minimum of 100 hours in the specific type of aircraft before he/she is able to fly approaches to the charted minimums. Until that experience has been obtained, the captain must add 100′ to the charted approach MDA or DA and 1/2 mile to the charted approach visibility. There is a table in our operating manual that identifies the higher minimums when RVR values are specified. For instance, an approach with a minimum visibility of 1800 RVR would be require a higher minimum visibility of 4500 RVR until the captain obtained 100 hours PIC in the aircraft. There is an exemption to these restrictions which is available if the aircraft is certified to Cat II/III minimums and the approach is flown using the autopilot. In effect it says that if the pilot isn’t qualified, but the airplane is,  it is permissible to have  the airplane fly the instrument approach. This would allow a “high minimums” captain to use charted instrument approach minimums for Cat I  or Cat II approaches. The exemption would not be available, however, in a situation where there was weather requiring the use of Cat III minimums. (There is are several additional restrictions for using this method, but it is a possible option.)

The pilot in the article was flying for an airline based in England. He was new to the model of aircraft he was flying and the weather, though forecast to be above his minimums at his estimated arrival time, was below his restricted minimums when he actually arrived at his destination (and apparently was not forecast to improve). His only choices were to find a different destination with weather above his minimums or to return to his departure point. Apparently he had the fuel to return and he made that decision. If he had continued to his destination, conducted the approach and made a successful landing, he would probably  have violated his airline’s operating specifications, probably violated his country’s flying regulations and would then have been subject to the loss of his pilot’s license and his job.

He did what he was supposed to do and he made the international news.