Aircraft systems study tips

jrh

Well-Known Member
What are some techniques or methods you use for studying aircraft systems prior to getting a new type, or even preparing for recurrent?

Lately I've worked with a string of pilots who have really struggled when it comes to understanding systems on more than a rote level for the aircraft we fly.

One of them asked me how to study for scenario-based questions. For example, they are perfectly competent to read the manual and rattle off operating limitations or list which systems are hydraulic versus electric.

But as soon as they are faced with a question like, "Let's say you are faced with an electrical fire and need to turn off both GENs and use EMER bus, how will this affect the pressurization system? How about ice protection system?" They are completely lost. They read the manual, but they're not understanding the deeper interaction between systems because that level of understanding is not explicitly discussed in the manual.

I suggested going through a cockpit poster and looking at every switch/annunciation and asking themselves how much they know about what happens each time the switch is flipped or light turns on/off. If they don't have any idea, look it up. Also, think through the specific failure modes possible, like if a particular component fails, will it affect anything outside of its own system? Of course if you get stuck on something, ask around with the more knowledgeable captains until you get it figured out.

What other methods work well for your studying?
 
121 seems to be dumbing it down more and more. AA doesn’t do a systems class. Very crappy distance learning modules and really no way to go through scenarios like you described.

That's interesting. I'm working and am a check airman under 135. Maybe I'm expecting too much?

I have always steered clear of a "build the plane" philosophy during my checkrides, or so I thought. I understand that most of the time, a pilot will simply refer to an abnormal checklist and get on the ground.

But I also don't think it's too much to ask to get some basic understanding of interactions, like if you're in ice or at night and a system fails, quickly knowing what remains. Checklists won't cover every scenario. Am I turning in to a grumpy old man?
 
That's interesting. I'm working and am a check airman under 135. Maybe I'm expecting too much?

I have always steered clear of a "build the plane" philosophy during my checkrides, or so I thought. I understand that most of the time, a pilot will simply refer to an abnormal checklist and get on the ground.

But I also don't think it's too much to ask to get some basic understanding of interactions, like if you're in ice or at night and a system fails, quickly knowing what remains. Checklists won't cover every scenario. Am I turning in to a grumpy old man?
@CoffeeIcePapers is right...I've been through 5, 121 training programs (2 of them for upgrade) and AA's was stupid easy (granted I was prior typed) Frontiers was more in depth BUT they are also training pilots with WAY less experience. (in some/most cases no Jet experience)

BUT yes, they won't cover the 1 out of every 1000 training scenario ...you learn those in recurrent (or at least suppose to) They want to train the decision making skills and have the technical knowledge/training learned along the way.
 
When I went through ITU on the MD-11, we had a true systems class (plus online LMS training) and at the end took a computerized systems exam.

767 ITU was a little different. They moved to AST, Advanced Systems Training, where you sit in a touch-screen cockpit trainer and run through actual flight scenarios, manipulating systems. Occasional failures are given and scripted systems questions were asked along the way. The validation was a simulated flight in the procedures trainer with scripted systems questions throughout.

I wasn't a giant fan of the AST way of doing things. I did like seeing the systems operate as various malfunctions happened, etc, but I HATED the lack of standardization between the instructors. It wasn't until the 3rd out of 4 events that a standard script was used. Unfortunately, that seems to be a big issue on this particular fleet. Lots of individual ways of doing things and TONS of "tech-cedures"...not so on the MD-11.

I was already typed on the airplane and had tons of other Boeing experience, so everything came back to me fairly quickly.
 
That's interesting. I'm working and am a check airman under 135. Maybe I'm expecting too much?

I have always steered clear of a "build the plane" philosophy during my checkrides, or so I thought. I understand that most of the time, a pilot will simply refer to an abnormal checklist and get on the ground.

But I also don't think it's too much to ask to get some basic understanding of interactions, like if you're in ice or at night and a system fails, quickly knowing what remains. Checklists won't cover every scenario. Am I turning in to a grumpy old man?
No, I agree with your method. I think scenario based training is great. Spirit had a lot of scenario based questions on the oral exam. They used the same crappy distance learning as AA, but gave us a good study guide to prepare for questions like you would ask.
 
My factory MX training has always been system based for obvious reasons. These have always been for private jets, they'll provide a computer with interactive animated schematics for electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic systems but the computers stayed at the schoolhouse. Each time I'd come home with a big, heavy bag of books with "FOR REFERENCE ONLY" printed on every page and it was all just a copy of the simplified diagrams and introduction to every chapter in the AMM that I already had access to. I guess my suggestion would be to get them access to the AMM, they don't need access to the WDM, the SRM or the IPC. There's a lot of info there that might help.
 
What are some techniques or methods you use for studying aircraft systems prior to getting a new type, or even preparing for recurrent?

Lately I've worked with a string of pilots who have really struggled when it comes to understanding systems on more than a rote level for the aircraft we fly.

One of them asked me how to study for scenario-based questions. For example, they are perfectly competent to read the manual and rattle off operating limitations or list which systems are hydraulic versus electric.

But as soon as they are faced with a question like, "Let's say you are faced with an electrical fire and need to turn off both GENs and use EMER bus, how will this affect the pressurization system? How about ice protection system?" They are completely lost. They read the manual, but they're not understanding the deeper interaction between systems because that level of understanding is not explicitly discussed in the manual.

I suggested going through a cockpit poster and looking at every switch/annunciation and asking themselves how much they know about what happens each time the switch is flipped or light turns on/off. If they don't have any idea, look it up. Also, think through the specific failure modes possible, like if a particular component fails, will it affect anything outside of its own system? Of course if you get stuck on something, ask around with the more knowledgeable captains until you get it figured out.

What other methods work well for your studying?
You might come up with an expanded study guide. Whatever they are doing now is based on what material they are presented with to study and it sounds like they can handle that. You are asking for more. Give it to them. When I was at brown we had some "unofficial study guides" that was info passed on after guys went through an oral. It expanded on the company provided learning in an "unofficial" but helpful way to fill in the blanks. You might consider that some of the stuff you are asking is outside the box of what they have studied but feel they should know it or deduce it. Just make your own study guide of outside the box stuff and give it to them. It's a win win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrh
What are some techniques or methods you use for studying aircraft systems prior to getting a new type, or even preparing for recurrent?

Lately I've worked with a string of pilots who have really struggled when it comes to understanding systems on more than a rote level for the aircraft we fly.

One of them asked me how to study for scenario-based questions. For example, they are perfectly competent to read the manual and rattle off operating limitations or list which systems are hydraulic versus electric.

But as soon as they are faced with a question like, "Let's say you are faced with an electrical fire and need to turn off both GENs and use EMER bus, how will this affect the pressurization system? How about ice protection system?" They are completely lost. They read the manual, but they're not understanding the deeper interaction between systems because that level of understanding is not explicitly discussed in the manual.

I suggested going through a cockpit poster and looking at every switch/annunciation and asking themselves how much they know about what happens each time the switch is flipped or light turns on/off. If they don't have any idea, look it up. Also, think through the specific failure modes possible, like if a particular component fails, will it affect anything outside of its own system? Of course if you get stuck on something, ask around with the more knowledgeable captains until you get it figured out.

What other methods work well for your studying?
Are you familiar with "spaced repetition systems?" Shortly before I got sick and ended up out of the cockpit I learned a brand new airplane (the twin otter, which isn't complex, but is kind of weird - hyrdaulic flaps in a light twin? wtf?). Anyway, I used Anki and SRS to learn it, and I've never learned limitations and EPs faster, then to learn about the company I put together a bunch of scenario based questions. Spaced repetition is a little nerdy, but it works, I use it for everything now and am constantly adding cards to my decks in grad school. If I could go back in time and teach myself one thing in life, I would have taught myself this.

I would have also provided it to all the people I trained. SRS is awesome, it's like a cheat-code for learning. If you want me to walk you through it or whatever, it's not super crazy, but the apps out there are kind of annoying. I'll get you all set up just send me a pm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrh
Are you familiar with "spaced repetition systems?" Shortly before I got sick and ended up out of the cockpit I learned a brand new airplane (the twin otter, which isn't complex, but is kind of weird - hyrdaulic flaps in a light twin? wtf?). Anyway, I used Anki and SRS to learn it, and I've never learned limitations and EPs faster, then to learn about the company I put together a bunch of scenario based questions. Spaced repetition is a little nerdy, but it works, I use it for everything now and am constantly adding cards to my decks in grad school. If I could go back in time and teach myself one thing in life, I would have taught myself this.

I would have also provided it to all the people I trained. SRS is awesome, it's like a cheat-code for learning. If you want me to walk you through it or whatever, it's not super crazy, but the apps out there are kind of annoying. I'll get you all set up just send me a pm.

I'd never heard of SRS until reading this post. Went down the rabbit hole of learning about it and it does sound pretty cool. It certainly has lots of potential for teaching new hires company-specific material as well, such as SOPs and GOM/OpSpec info.

The only reason I probably won't pursue it right now is because I don't have the time to develop decks to study.

Is it common to buy decks on a given topic? That's the one way I might make time to develop decks on the Citations I fly, if there were actually a demand to monetize it in some way for pilots worldwide flying these Citations.

I see several replies regarding study guides, and I think that will be my near term solution. I already have a study guide put together and people do ok-ish with learning it. I even include many scenario based questions, but give little or no answers on those, assuming the pilot will dig into the info on their own since they know the question is coming. They probably need more explicit guidance in those areas.

Does anyone know if the sim centers like FlightSafety have changed training philosophies in recent years, similar to the 121 world? I got typed in these planes seven years ago and felt like it was very thorough, similar to what I'm describing here. Of course that was also in an era when most pilots getting typed were coming from a much deeper background of professional flying. I don't know if it's the background of lower time pilots, changed training philosophies, or what, but it seems like everyone coming out of the initial type training these days has a more surface level knowledge. I'm regularly scratching my head like, "They didn't cover that during your FSI training? What was your checkride like?"
 
Are you familiar with "spaced repetition systems?" Shortly before I got sick and ended up out of the cockpit I learned a brand new airplane (the twin otter, which isn't complex, but is kind of weird - hyrdaulic flaps in a light twin? wtf?). Anyway, I used Anki and SRS to learn it, and I've never learned limitations and EPs faster, then to learn about the company I put together a bunch of scenario based questions. Spaced repetition is a little nerdy, but it works, I use it for everything now and am constantly adding cards to my decks in grad school. If I could go back in time and teach myself one thing in life, I would have taught myself this.

I would have also provided it to all the people I trained. SRS is awesome, it's like a cheat-code for learning. If you want me to walk you through it or whatever, it's not super crazy, but the apps out there are kind of annoying. I'll get you all set up just send me a pm.

I'd like to know more about this.

Got a recommended starting point?
 
Sounds a bit like what Sheppardair use - although agreed scenario based thinking outside the box is tricky if you don't realise the box exists...

Would Austin Collins approach assist at all? not system specific but a good handrail for part 135... Austin's Very Easy Guides
 
I'd never heard of SRS until reading this post. Went down the rabbit hole of learning about it and it does sound pretty cool. It certainly has lots of potential for teaching new hires company-specific material as well, such as SOPs and GOM/OpSpec info.

The only reason I probably won't pursue it right now is because I don't have the time to develop decks to study.

Is it common to buy decks on a given topic? That's the one way I might make time to develop decks on the Citations I fly, if there were actually a demand to monetize it in some way for pilots worldwide flying these Citations.
Most of the decks are hand-made and shared. I do not think there's a market currently for that, but for good flashcards I would absolutely pay and in a perfect world there would be. There may not be yet, but I think you're ahead of the curve. The applications are as varied as you can think of and you can build scenario based questions, but you'd have to do a lot of them... at least that is what I did. I

But really, the real power for me was in learning systems, then I created some cards describing various systems failures to ask questions. Make sure each card only has 1 thing on it at a time if you can... but they're very powerful. The original use case is language and they say, "you have to write your own cards to learn" - I do not believe that is always true, it just takes a little more time. I downloaded the 1000 most common Spanish words a month or so before I went to Spain last summer and basically was able to carry on a casual conversation from when I got there with limited prior experience speaking Spanish. You need at least a month or two to learn something out of your wheelhouse (like if I was going to learn chemistry or something), but I knew some basic stuff about Spanish and how languages work in general.

In systems for something like you're describing, I would do something like this for the 1900 (and bare with me I haven't flown it in over a decade):

Front of card:

If you have a short on the ______ bus you will lose the flaps, instrument lighting, prop synchrophaser, the control over the R bleed various fuel sensors and crossfeed among other things (AFM 7- whatever)

Back of card:

Left Generator Bus

You drop these into your deck and just follow the schedule. You can schedule extra, but I haven't found it really helps, you're not going to learn well by cramming, you just need to be reminded every now and then. You can tweak the refresh rate if you think you need more, but I haven't found that that makes it more effective.

If you want to be a major nerd, you can do things like:

Front of card:

Draw the electrical system

Back of card:
<a simplified diagram>

This works for some people, but you have to do it when you see the card. The key to me (and your approach may be different) is to phrase the cards as a question, or a fill-in-the-blank, and just religious do them. I do them every morning when I wake up. The anki App on iphone is expensive (it's like $20 or something) but it's worth it because you never have to pay for it again. There are people selling subscriptions, don't do that. The app is pretty old-school, but it's good and you can sync your cards in a free online repository.
I'd like to know more about this.

Got a recommended starting point?
So, of course you can read above, I first discovered this in early 2020 when I read this article:


That article is... very comprehensive and an excellent place to start, but I find that I do not necessarily need to make my own cards, it just takes me longer to learn stuff where I don't make my own cards. Still, I wrote all my cards for the TwinOtter then just knew the airplane about 3 weeks later. It was very cool.

Now I use this to study. I put all my notes and things I learn into a shared deck called "big deck energy" that does the heavy lifting and if I have to learn something quick, I put it in a separate deck for a few weeks before merging it into the main deck.


Sounds a bit like what Sheppardair use - although agreed scenario based thinking outside the box is tricky if you don't realise the box exists...

Would Austin Collins approach assist at all? not system specific but a good handrail for part 135... Austin's Very Easy Guides

The AVEG documents are straight up amazing. I always recommend them. For how to use anki for scenario based training, I'd say do this:

Front of card:

<failure condition>

Back of card:
<things to consider>

For example, you would probably learn a lot if you made these cards just by war-gaming a bunch of hypotheticals and throwing them into the deck. I could totally see something like using a few cards to tie together the topics in your head.


Front of card:

Pilot Windshield Heat is MEL'd.

Back of card:
Flight in known icing is prohibited.


Front of card:

The pilot windshield heat is on the ______ bus

Back of card:
Left generator bus (remember, left-side is pilot side)

You haven't really described a scenario but by putting both cards into the system you have made the (obvious) connection in a scenario based training situation. If you lose the left gen bus you're going to lose the pilot windshield heat, and you've tied that to "FIKI prohibited." Then when you do SBT and lose the left gen bus, and the • sim instructor starts throwing ice on the airplane the connection of "oh, I need to do something" will be a natural leap.

Like I said, if anyone is interested in this, I'll happily help you out just pm me, if you are in anchorage and interested, I'll even show you how I have my setup handled over some beers when I'm done with grad school here in the next few weeks. For me at least, spaced repetition has been a game changer. The key is you must do it every day. I just burn through my cards in the morning and add them as I see fit.

Also, I often throw in some cards that aren't even questions. I throw in things like, "reflect on this quote from this book" or whatever. In that way this tool has enriched my life:

Here's a look at the web interface for my cards (I've done them on my phone I just haven't pushed the cards I've studied yet):

1713552032661.png

Going into big deck energy, here's one that I periodically see:

Front of card:
Reflect on this quote by Tolstoy from war and peace.

Back of card:
"They say: sufferings are misfortunes," said Pierre. 'But if at once this minute, I was asked, would I remain what I was before I was taken prisoner, or go through it all again, I should say, for God's sake let me rather be a prisoner and eat horseflesh again. We imagine that as soon as we are torn out of our habitual path all is over, but it is only the beginning of something new and good. As long as there is life, there is happiness. There is a great deal, a great deal before us.

I usually mark it "read" but if I want to refresh how often I see it, I'll mark it incorrect, but I do take a minute to think about it. It's nice.

Most of the questions I have for math stuff look like this:

Front of card:

What’s an ultra fast way to calculate the eigenvalues of 2x2 matrices?

Back of card:

v = m +- sqrt(m^2 - p) where m is the mean of the trace of the matrix and p is determinant of the matrix m.

You can embed LaTex in these cards, sometimes I do sometimes I don't.
 
I used what I learned studying aircraft systems when I went back to school. Or more accurately used how I learned AC systems.

The kids accused me of witchery or a dark pact of some kind.

Generally speaking, and believe it or not, the old FAA Instructor’s Manual wasn’t without useful advice. Move up the learning pyramid. Memorize the important stuff, so you can build on that as you move up the levels of learning.
 
I used what I learned studying aircraft systems when I went back to school. Or more accurately used how I learned AC systems.

The kids accused me of witchery or a dark pact of some kind.

Generally speaking, and believe it or not, the old FAA Instructor’s Manual wasn’t without useful advice. Move up the learning pyramid. Memorize the important stuff, so you can build on that as you move up the levels of learning.
DC electricity is straightforward and logical.

AC is witchcraft. I got good at it during my airframe electrical systems class, but that’s pushing 20 years ago and I proceeded to never work on aircraft AC electrical systems.
 
DC electricity is straightforward and logical.

AC is witchcraft. I got good at it during my airframe electrical systems class, but that’s pushing 20 years ago and I proceeded to never work on aircraft AC electrical systems.

Fear not. I got a C+ in “EE for non-majors”. The lab was straight out of Dr Frankenstein’s Zillow account.

Your assessment is correct. AC is in league with the dark side.
 
DC electricity is straightforward and logical.

AC is witchcraft. I got good at it during my airframe electrical systems class, but that’s pushing 20 years ago and I proceeded to never work on aircraft AC electrical systems.
My experience has been very similar, I was able to recite the formulas and figure the requirements on paper in school. Once I ventured out into the world I learned that almost everything on an aircraft runs on DC. If an airplane has an alternator the energy generated will go immediately into a transformer/rectifier that'll turn that wild AC into a very calm DC source that won't upset the avionics. There's a reason for this, straight up DC generators are less efficient, require more MX and they're dirty (the carbon dust from the brushes inevitably wearing makes a mess). Some airplanes have both, a Hawker has a DC starter/generator for everything on the airplane except windshield heat, it has an alternator on both engines just for the windshields. Another is the G-IIs and non AC G-IIIs, Spey engines leak oil "always", they're like radials. Mixing carbon dust and turbine oil is in the mix for the deepest stains your wife never got out. If you like to get dirty, I mean real dirty, do an engine change on a G-II, your work clothes will likely be ruined and it'll take a couple of weeks for your hands to finally look clean even if you wore gloves. At least that's been my experience.
 
One thing I’m suprised no one has mentioned yet is to review every QRH procedure. Every possible light, annunciator, caution message, warning message, non-message failures like cracked windshields etc. it’s a great way to familiarize yourself with exactly what procedures exist in the QRH, and also to have a general working knowledge of what is going on so when it actually happens you have an idea. It can also help to piece together systems knowledge. I would say it’s definitely important to have a basic understanding of your aircraft’s systems before diving into the QRH so you can really apply your systems knowledge and build more complex information in your mind.

It was ironic I had actually just been reviewing non-EICAS message QRH procedures for my aircraft not to look long before *BANG* had a windshield crack on me. Since it was fresh I was already familiar with the procedure so it was better for me to understand system consequences (windshield heat / integrity, speed limitations, pressurization, altitude limitations etc.) and form a game plan while working through all the issues.

Also in a previous plane I flew there was a nefarious caution message that if uncorrected (isolating the faulty bleed system) in 30 seconds would lead to a warning message and loss of all pressurization requiring an emergency descent. Unless you knew where that QRH procedure was and had it down cold there was no way you’d get to the corrective action before it began depressurizing the airplane. With certain MELs I was aware of this and would have the QRH procedure tabbed and ready to go as well as briefed in case it did happen.

For non QRH planes I think it would be prudent to review all abnormal and emergency procedure checklists. Then beyond that find scenarios that are not covered by those checklists and dig into systems and think through the problem. Likely a good idea to then come with questions ready for when training begins if you aren’t so lucky to get an in person systems class.

There is certainly way more to studying systems, but on a more applicable level these are techniques to study that I have found very helpful.
 
Back
Top