Deep Thoughts: Pre-employment simulator checks

[Hiboglossi]

Maybe a certain large ACMI carrier would have an extra 767 flying around if they had a sim eval as part of the interview.

Considering that pilot made it through an entire initial Sim training course at that carrier, I find it hard to believe a sim evaluation in the interview would have prevented that accident.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Did you read what the instructors at the previous employer had to say about his sim sessions?

I read the whole report. I second @Yakob above.

 

[Kingairer]

Considering that pilot made it through an entire initial Sim training course at that carrier, I find it hard to believe a sim evaluation in the interview would have prevented that accident.

He had multiple failures though right? That would be the red flag.

 

[Hiboglossi]

Did you read what the instructors at the previous employer had to say about his sim sessions?

Apparently the instructors, APDs and check airmen at the ACMI carrier were happy enough with his performance that he was able to make it to the line. I don't know how initial training there works, but it's presumably at least 7 sims sessions. I'm very skeptical that a sim evaluation in an interview would uncover something that wouldn't show up during the 28+ hours in the sim during initial training. I can see the argument that a sim evaluation would filter out pilots who might end up washing out during sims, but the idea that it would filter out pilots who can make it through initial training but would be dangerous on the line seems absurd.

Now my understanding is that he lied on his application to the ACMI carrier so they didn't know about all of his training issues at previous carriers, but a sim evaluation wouldn't do anything about that.

He had multiple failures though right? That would be the red flag.

Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with a sim evaluation. As I understand it he lied on his application/ PRIA paperwork and in the interview. A sim evaluation wouldn't reveal that he lied, considering he made it through initial sims after he got hired.

 

[mikecweb]

If someone can't make it through training, then a interview sim may have been valuable. If someone makes it through training and shouldn't have, that's a training department issue.

 

[smack300]

Honestly, they should do a few radio calls and see how people talk. If you say "With you" or "Got 'em on the fish finder!" you are immediately told no thanks.

 

[Chief Captain]

Apparently the instructors, APDs and check airmen at the ACMI carrier were happy enough with his performance that he was able to make it to the line. I don't know how initial training there works, but it's presumably at least 7 sims sessions. I'm very skeptical that a sim evaluation in an interview would uncover something that wouldn't show up during the 28+ hours in the sim during initial training. I can see the argument that a sim evaluation would filter out pilots who might end up washing out during sims, but the idea that it would filter out pilots who can make it through initial training but would be dangerous on the line seems absurd.

Now my understanding is that he lied on his application to the ACMI carrier so they didn't know about all of his training issues at previous carriers, but a sim evaluation wouldn't do anything about that.



Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with a sim evaluation. As I understand it he lied on his application/ PRIA paperwork and in the interview. A sim evaluation wouldn't reveal that he lied, considering he made it through initial sims after he got hired.

I recall what the instructors at the previous company said. Honestly don't recall what the 767 instructors had to say. Word on the street is that he was no Chuck Yeager.

 

[Hiboglossi]

Honestly don't recall what the 767 instructors had to say.

They must not have have had anything too bad to say considering he made it through training. Which is why I'm skeptical that a sim evaluation would have kept them from hiring him.

 

[roundout]

They must not have have had anything too bad to say considering he made it through training. Which is why I'm skeptical that a sim evaluation would have kept them from hiring him.

It’s been a year or more since I read the report, but didn’t the person in question get multiple extra sim sessions? They were definitely talking about him. Whether his gross incompetence would’ve gotten caught on a pre-employment sim ride? ‍ who knows.

 

[Chief Captain]

It’s been a year or more since I read the report, but didn’t the person in question get multiple extra sim sessions? They were definitely talking about him. Whether his gross incompetence would’ve gotten caught on a pre-employment sim ride? ‍ who knows.

Have a look at section 1.2.2.1 of the report. They more than “spoke” about him.

 

[Chief Captain]

They must not have have had anything too bad to say considering he made it through training. Which is why I'm skeptical that a sim evaluation would have kept them from hiring him.

Read section 1.2.2.1 of the report- which deals with his training history on the 767, and tell me if you really feel a screening sim wouldn’t have caught this person.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Read section 1.2.2.1 of the report- which deals with his training history on the 767, and tell me if you really feel a screening sim wouldn’t have caught this person.

I don’t know what you people aren’t getting here. He passed 7 similar sessions, a checkride, and IOE. The idea that an interview sim ride would have done anything to prevent this is downright delusional.

 

[SurferLucas]

I don’t know what you people aren’t getting here. He passed 7 similar sessions, a checkride, and IOE. The idea that an interview sim ride would have done anything to prevent this is downright delusional.

That’s where I’m going to call BS. Pre-job sim ride, the company has next to zero invested in the person. After they’ve been hired, the company has money tied up in it, and wants to see a return on that investment.

I’ve seen it first hand where someone got to OE that shouldn’t have gotten out of the sim…on 3 diff occasions. Each one was being forced through the cracks by the company. (Each had a diff reason for being pushed through, story for beers). Let’s just say one was in the same vein as Atlas, and it left with a very poor opinion of those in higher positions.

If you don’t think this happens, you’re downright delusional.

One of our very own JC members had a flight with this FO, and had an issue with/filled out an FO eval on him.

He had documented training issues at every shop he flew at/tried to fly at. He was an accident looking for a place to happen.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

That’s where I’m going to call BS. Pre-job sim ride, the company has next to zero invested in the person. After they’ve been hired, the company has money tied up in it, and wants to see a return on that investment.

I’ve seen it first hand where someone got to OE that shouldn’t have gotten out of the sim…on 3 diff occasions. Each one was being forced through the cracks by the company. (Each had a diff reason for being pushed through, story for beers). Let’s just say one was in the same vein as Atlas, and it left with a very poor opinion of those in higher positions.

If you don’t think this happens, you’re downright delusional.

One of our very own JC members had a flight with this FO, and had an issue with/filled out an FO eval on him.

He had documented training issues at every shop he flew at/tried to fly at. He was an accident looking for a place to happen.

While I don’t disagree with that, I also don’t think that any of these issues would be discovered in a basic sim ride for an interview which usually consists of nothing more than some attitude instrument flying and a precision approach. If someone couldn’t do that, then they wouldn’t have passed training.

 

[ppragman]

That’s where I’m going to call BS. Pre-job sim ride, the company has next to zero invested in the person. After they’ve been hired, the company has money tied up in it, and wants to see a return on that investment.

sunk cost fallacy had always been dangerous and lurking under the surface.

He had documented training issues at every shop he flew at/tried to fly at. He was an accident looking for a place to happen.

to be clear I am in favor of sim evaluations prior to hiring someone… but if the training department is getting everyone through by hook or crook, and the LCA don’t bounce a guy who sucks, and numerous captains write up this guy… and he still is allowed to get through and keep flying, arguably a more rigorous sim ride prior to hire won’t help?

What’s to stop the sim ride from becoming s bogus • session that’s dumbed down to not require any skills?

The atlas crash makes me more skeptical of the internal company culture - which permeates both the HR department and the training department. If getting hot bodies in seats takes priority over being safe there’s literally nothing you can do to prevent these sorts of accidents.

 

[SurferLucas]

While I don’t disagree with that, I also don’t think that any of these issues would be discovered in a basic sim ride for an interview which usually consists of nothing more than some attitude instrument flying and a precision approach. If someone couldn’t do that, then they wouldn’t have passed training.

This was passed along to me, with a “this is from that persons file”, and it’s from someone I trust.

I honestly think that a simple “hey, show me steep turns/basic manoeuvring in this XXX sim” might have gotten him in over his head.

There are lots of “shoulda/woulda/coulda” when planes crash due to incompetence of people who’s butts aren’t in seats on day to day basis.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

This was passed along to me, with a “this is from that persons file”, and it’s from someone I trust.

I honestly think that a simple “hey, show me steep turns/basic manoeuvring in this XXX sim” might have gotten him in over his head.

There are lots of “shoulda/woulda/coulda” when planes crash due to incompetence of people who’s butts aren’t in seats on day to day basis.

I ain’t buying it, so we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

 

[Hiboglossi]

I ain’t buying it, so we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

Even if it's real, I'm not sure how much it really means, considering he did go on to pass training. So presumably those issues were corrected by the check ride.

 

[form810]

Have em fly a sim, preferably for a simple airplane - make the profile public and give them a little bit of time to learn to fly it before they fly the profile. They don’t even have to do approaches - but an ILS would be good. But simple stuff like “can you maintain altitude within 100’ as you fly this profile” is good - that’s 100 times harder in the sim than the airplane so it’s a good indicator for their scan - which is arguably the basis for all the cognitive stuff. But have them fly a profile of some sort.

Better if you can start collecting data from people - if you’re interviewing 50 a day, make a game out of it, come up with some objective way to score the sim, then make a leaderboard and follow up longitudinally. You should coordinate with the training department on this. In a few months (depending on how long training is) you’ll have good data about whether the people who score better do better in the real sim. If they do, add more complexity to your sim eval.

If you want to test procedure knowledge you can do that orally. having them do it in a PCADT or whatever isn’t realistic because you have time to brief it before hand, in the airplane you’ll have automation etc.

But yeah, if they can’t be bothered to put in the time to practice and read up on the profile that’s probably the best indication that they may not belong in your operation. The flying skills can be taught, but someone who’s motivated to be there will take the time to practice or at least try.

This is good. Not even a real airplane, but still a good methodology. Tests, properly understood, should determine where folks are at now, so that appropriate training can get those folks to where an organization wants them to be in the most efficacious fashion.

Test results can also be used to add "honor" points that serve to invidiously distinguish one candidate from another. But if that is done without a commensurate increase in pay/seniority/rank/opportunity, it's a moot game; a fools errand. In other words, a waste of time and money, which is all one can ever hope to grab in a grabbing-hands-grab-all-they-can S/U grading situation.

 

[Chief Captain]

While I don’t disagree with that, I also don’t think that any of these issues would be discovered in a basic sim ride for an interview which usually consists of nothing more than some attitude instrument flying and a precision approach. If someone couldn’t do that, then they wouldn’t have passed training.

So, on top of:
-takeoff and landing performance and airplane systems
-difficulty in completing normal procedures
-unsatisfactory performance in CRM, threat and error management, nonprecision approaches, steep turns, and judgment
-nervous, had “very low” situational awareness, overcontrolled the airplane, did not work well with the other
pilot, omitted an emergency checklist during an abnormal event, and exceeded a flap speed
-not thinking ahead, and, when he realized that he needed to do something, he often did something inappropriate, like push the wrong button

...when the poop hit the fan, he wasn't even competent at attitude instrument flying on the day it mattered most.

All the above were comments from his 767 training. That same section of the report gets even worse (if you can believe it) when they spoke to the instructors at the regionals.

You don't think a pre-employment sim ride would've caught some of this? That guy shouldn't have been any closer to an airplane than at an airshow.