The land of Nod.
“The biblical Nod was a place of anguished exile rather than of peaceful sleep. It is mentioned right at the beginning of the Bible and is located 'East of Eden' and it is where Cain dwelt after being cast out by God after Cain's murder of his brother Abel. The name Nod was chosen with a purpose. 'Nod' (נוד) is the Hebrew root of the verb 'to wander' (לנדוד). The implication is that Cain, being in disgrace, was sent to wander aimlessly.”
And an unmentionable line of investigation for which PAIN has been carefully collecting and compiling anecdotal evidence to support what began as a notion, which is developing into a theory, is well, unmentionable. It will take a little while longer to gather and test enough data to make it stick; but there is no rush. Indeed the data may not make it to report stage – there is no one to send a report to; well no one who could or even would do anything about the situation. It goes something like this:-
There have been some horrific, fatal accidents during crew check and training (C&T) exercises; the Braz in Darwin and the Ross Air event in SA. There have also been some very close calls which have not made the headlines. There is also a body of evidence which, in our opinion demands a deeper look into why experienced, senior C&T pilots with qualified crew have had their lives ended in ‘training’ exercises. At present, it is a tangle of anecdote, complaint and clumsy, half baked arse covering legislation where ‘theory’ and good intentions meet with the pedantic. But, FWIW here are some of the ‘bare bones’.
Simulators for the large commercial aircraft are extremely good and they most definitely provide a sound, solid training and checking regime; no question about it. Then we move down the scale to the less salubrious operations using a lower certification and maintenance standard. Which is fine for systems and procedures training and emergency drills etc. But do they truly represent the aircraft – in flight – in a real emergency. The fact is they do not, not by a long shot. This is where it becomes ‘dangerous’.
Enter the dragon. There are tales that some CASA FOI are insisting that the simulating of Emergencies is done in the aircraft exactly as they are in the Sim. There are also tales of ‘dual systems’ failure being used in real life – for example; a failed Auto feather system and V1 cut at ‘book speeds’. (Figure the chances of an AF failure during the seconds the aircraft is actually at V1 – it less than one second). Fine and dandy in the Sim – but in real life? Seriously. The RAAF lost a 707 through ‘Machismo’ way back and yet in the modern era we hear stories of similar idiot behaviour. Then, we get to the very real differences between a low Cat Sim and the stark realities of EP. I’ll tell you a story which is absolutely true.
A Sim instructor demonstrated an EFATO – from V1. Easy Peasy, his feet neatly tucked away under the seat, one hand on the controls – one on the quadrant. Bang – V1 cut – casually, the rudder trim was spun to full deflection, the engine shut down and without even placing his feet on the rudders, with one hand flying, the other is his lap, the Sim was pedalled about the circuit and landed. I defy anyone to do this in that aircraft. Anyway - one of the Sims candidates turned up for a routine IR/ Base check; was carefully briefed on what was to happen, when and etc. Off they went – the briefed EFATO occurred as discussed. The failed engine was identified and, the rudder trim ‘actioned’ as per Sim training – the left turn onto crosswind was managed from about 40˚ off centreline, the feet came off the unmoving pedals and the aircraft flew a perfect half of a figure of Eight; over the field, cross controlled, fetching up on a right base for the other end of the departure runway. “Taking over” was the call.
P7 Addendum: You forgot to mention the second happened in an aircraft - for real...........
The point of all this ramble is a simple one. There’s stuff you can do in a Sim, without consequence. All great training and provided the Sim is as representative of the aircraft as possible all is well. But; when CASA FOI begin insisting, without a reality check that the aircraft will represent the Sim and expect the same level of safety – then questions must be asked.
Thankfully, one of the great exponents of this thinking has retired from CASA; much to everyone’s relief. I think we have seen enough accidents now to justify an in depth analysis. If only there was somewhere to send it – where someone actually gave a Duck about operational safety as opposed to the ‘legal’ version.
Perhaps the ATSB have stumbled across something along these lines and don’t know what to do with the information; or, where to take it. Resignation the only option for a honourable tin kicker. We’ll never know.
Toot – toot.
“The biblical Nod was a place of anguished exile rather than of peaceful sleep. It is mentioned right at the beginning of the Bible and is located 'East of Eden' and it is where Cain dwelt after being cast out by God after Cain's murder of his brother Abel. The name Nod was chosen with a purpose. 'Nod' (נוד) is the Hebrew root of the verb 'to wander' (לנדוד). The implication is that Cain, being in disgrace, was sent to wander aimlessly.”
And an unmentionable line of investigation for which PAIN has been carefully collecting and compiling anecdotal evidence to support what began as a notion, which is developing into a theory, is well, unmentionable. It will take a little while longer to gather and test enough data to make it stick; but there is no rush. Indeed the data may not make it to report stage – there is no one to send a report to; well no one who could or even would do anything about the situation. It goes something like this:-
There have been some horrific, fatal accidents during crew check and training (C&T) exercises; the Braz in Darwin and the Ross Air event in SA. There have also been some very close calls which have not made the headlines. There is also a body of evidence which, in our opinion demands a deeper look into why experienced, senior C&T pilots with qualified crew have had their lives ended in ‘training’ exercises. At present, it is a tangle of anecdote, complaint and clumsy, half baked arse covering legislation where ‘theory’ and good intentions meet with the pedantic. But, FWIW here are some of the ‘bare bones’.
Simulators for the large commercial aircraft are extremely good and they most definitely provide a sound, solid training and checking regime; no question about it. Then we move down the scale to the less salubrious operations using a lower certification and maintenance standard. Which is fine for systems and procedures training and emergency drills etc. But do they truly represent the aircraft – in flight – in a real emergency. The fact is they do not, not by a long shot. This is where it becomes ‘dangerous’.
Enter the dragon. There are tales that some CASA FOI are insisting that the simulating of Emergencies is done in the aircraft exactly as they are in the Sim. There are also tales of ‘dual systems’ failure being used in real life – for example; a failed Auto feather system and V1 cut at ‘book speeds’. (Figure the chances of an AF failure during the seconds the aircraft is actually at V1 – it less than one second). Fine and dandy in the Sim – but in real life? Seriously. The RAAF lost a 707 through ‘Machismo’ way back and yet in the modern era we hear stories of similar idiot behaviour. Then, we get to the very real differences between a low Cat Sim and the stark realities of EP. I’ll tell you a story which is absolutely true.
A Sim instructor demonstrated an EFATO – from V1. Easy Peasy, his feet neatly tucked away under the seat, one hand on the controls – one on the quadrant. Bang – V1 cut – casually, the rudder trim was spun to full deflection, the engine shut down and without even placing his feet on the rudders, with one hand flying, the other is his lap, the Sim was pedalled about the circuit and landed. I defy anyone to do this in that aircraft. Anyway - one of the Sims candidates turned up for a routine IR/ Base check; was carefully briefed on what was to happen, when and etc. Off they went – the briefed EFATO occurred as discussed. The failed engine was identified and, the rudder trim ‘actioned’ as per Sim training – the left turn onto crosswind was managed from about 40˚ off centreline, the feet came off the unmoving pedals and the aircraft flew a perfect half of a figure of Eight; over the field, cross controlled, fetching up on a right base for the other end of the departure runway. “Taking over” was the call.
P7 Addendum: You forgot to mention the second happened in an aircraft - for real...........
The point of all this ramble is a simple one. There’s stuff you can do in a Sim, without consequence. All great training and provided the Sim is as representative of the aircraft as possible all is well. But; when CASA FOI begin insisting, without a reality check that the aircraft will represent the Sim and expect the same level of safety – then questions must be asked.
Thankfully, one of the great exponents of this thinking has retired from CASA; much to everyone’s relief. I think we have seen enough accidents now to justify an in depth analysis. If only there was somewhere to send it – where someone actually gave a Duck about operational safety as opposed to the ‘legal’ version.
Perhaps the ATSB have stumbled across something along these lines and don’t know what to do with the information; or, where to take it. Resignation the only option for a honourable tin kicker. We’ll never know.
Toot – toot.