| by |
John Deakin |
 |
|
|
| About the Author ... |
|
John Deakin is a 35,000-hour pilot who worked his way up the aviation food chain
via charter, corporate, and cargo flying; spent five years in Southeast Asia
with Air America; 33 years with Japan Airlines, mostly as a 747 captain; and
now flies the Gulfstream IV for a West Coast operator.
He also flies his own
V35 Bonanza (N1BE) and is very active in the warbird and vintage aircraft
scene, flying the C-46, M-404, DC-3, F8F Bearcat, Constellation, B-29, and
others. He is also a National Designated Pilot Examiner (NDPER), able to give
type ratings and check rides on 43 different aircraft types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
ink is barely dry on my new temporary pilot certificate with "G-IV"
appended as a type rating. This is, of course, the rating for the magnificent
Gulfstream IV. This airplane, more than any other, has become the favorite of
movie stars, "dot.com" billionaires, and those whose time is of very
high value. If you'd like one, it'll cost you about $32,000,000, and you'll
wait about 18 months for delivery. Gulfstream
is building them as fast as they can make them, with about 500 already
operating. I'll tell you a little bit about this airplane later. It's a real
rocket, and I think I'm going to like it very much.
I normally love training, for I look forward eagerly to learning new
things. I'm usually walking on air when the new qualification is complete. For
the first time in my life, that's not true, this time. It has been the most
miserable three weeks of my life, and I'm just glad its over.
Why? I can give you several reasons, but I'm still unsure of how much each
contributed.
I
have admired the Gulfstream lineup for years, and for about the last 10 years,
with age-60 looming, I joked whenever I saw one, "I wouldn't mind a
retirement job on one of those." Proves the old adage, "Be careful
what you wish for…"
I hit the age-60 mark almost two years ago, and chose to move to the right
seat of the 747, remaining with Japan Airlines. (US rules mandate a move to
the Flight Engineer seat to continue past 60, but Japanese/ICAO rules are
different.) That was good to age 63, but as of June 1, my favorite route went
away, and rather than face a base change to Honolulu, the long commute from
Southern California, and a 22 day-per-month schedule, I cast about for an
alternative. To my pleased surprise, a very classy G-IV operator fairly close
by expressed interest in me, a deal was struck, and it was off to school for
me. I looked forward eagerly to it, for I have never flown a glass cockpit,
and I was excited at the possibility of flying an airplane I had so long
admired.
To
my knowledge, there are only two practical ways to get the type rating. You
must go to either FlightSafety
International, or Simuflite
Training International, the two major training centers for many of the
corporate jets. This operator uses Simuflite, so it was off to DFW
(Dallas/Fort Worth) for 21 days. The cost has been in the $50,000 range until
recently, when only one school had the G-IV simulator. Now that both can do
the job, the cost is in the $25,000 range, although prices vary depending on
how many crews an operator sends. By comparison, a 747 type rating can be had
for less than $10,000. We need more competition in the G-IV!
Yes, it is still possible to get the requisite training in the real
airplane, and take the practical test for a type rating in the real airplane
as well, but at several thousand dollars per hour, it wouldn't take long to
exceed even the exorbitant cost of a simulator program. Unfortunately, the FAA
has very stringent additional requirements if you choose to use a simulator
exclusively.
Simuflite was a very mixed bag, to me. Without exception, all the people I
met and worked with were excellent, highly qualified professionals, all highly
experienced, some with real-world experience in the G-IV. All did their very
best, but all were operating under severe limitations that simply ruined the
experience for me, and made the training much less effective than it should
have been.
The
G-IV simulator at Simuflite is excellent, world-class. Visuals are gorgeous,
everything is very realistic, motion is excellent, and while I haven't yet
flown the actual airplane, everyone agrees the simulator flies just like the
real thing. That's a rare tribute from pilots, as most are highly critical of
simulators, hating them with a passion.
Simuflite's physical plant is very nice, a large, airy, spacious modern
building on the west side of the massive DFW airport with well-equipped
classrooms (but without electrical outlets for personal computers, a major
limitation for me).
Computer projection is used extensively, and I lust for some of the
software they use to make some of the presentations. I'd love to put that
software to work in my ground schools for old airplanes!
But that just about ends the nice things I have to say about the training.
Airlines
generally have "CPTs" (Cockpit Procedures Trainers) that are open to
trainees at all hours. These are usually fairly complete simulators, with many
working systems, but without motion. Simuflite has one G-IV cockpit mockup
with backlit color panels, but the only moving control or device is a switch
to turn the lights on behind those panels. It is useful to get accustomed to
the location of the various items, and to practice elementary drills, but it
is utterly useless for any other purpose. That's fine as far as it goes,
airlines have those too.
There is another "cardboard cockpit" (called an "Avionics
Trainer") with black and white images of the panels, a lone FMS
control/display unit on the right side, and a "Display Controller"
on the left side (not really a practical arrangement for solo practice). These
are supposed to be working devices, but they are so quirky, and the computer
malfunctions so often, it's nearly useless. I tried to use this one a lot. I
really did, but found it so frustrating I finally gave up as a non-productive
use of my time. I did get one session of about 40 minutes where nothing
crashed, and I was able to practice programming the FMS on the ground.
Otherwise, every time I tried, I'd just about get it booted up, program it to
the area where I needed practice, and it would crash again, or worse, give me
results not faithful to the real thing. The story is that the vendor went out
of business, left town, and took all manuals, computer source coding, and
information about the "simulator" with them.
They do supply half-size color blowups of the various panels, and by
pinning these up on my hotel room wall, I was able to accomplish far more than
with the mockups.
Simuflite flatly does not allow trainees into the simulators unless there
is an instructor available for the entire time. That is a major limitation, in
my opinion. They are very short of instructors, so the simulators were
basically "off-limits" except for the scheduled sessions. That's a
pity, because they were badly underutilized, empty most of the time during the
day, and always unused at night, when I would have loved to practice with the
motion off. I understand FlightSafety allows such use of their simulators, a
major benefit, in my opinion. There is nothing like some quiet time alone, or
with a training partner, making all the goodies work, exploring the systems,
and seeing the "live results."
There were three sessions scheduled with an instructor in the "paper
cockpits," and since the simulators were open, we were able to use the
real simulators, instead. That was helpful, but I still say that some quiet
time alone in the simulator would have helped immensely.
Roughly
speaking, the first half of the course is ground school, the second half
simulator, then a practice oral and simulator check, and the final day is the
real oral and simulator check. There is some overlap in the middle, but that's
the general idea.
The ground school was ably taught by Bill Horner, an outstanding young man
with an encyclopedic knowledge of the G-IV. He is an excellent instructor, and
I learned a number of little things from him about instruction that I intend
to adopt in my own ground schools. I think he tends to hit the nuts and bolts,
and the details a bit too much for an initial course, but again, that is
probably FAA-driven.
Unfortunately, the FAA has dictated just exactly what must be taught, how
long must be spent on each item, and to what level of detail it must be
explored. The result is that everyone in my class felt like a fire hose had
been stuffed in each ear, and the ocean pumped in, eight hours a day, every
day for the 10 days of ground school. The G-IV is a very complex airplane
(covered later), with many unique systems, and of course it's all stuffed
together into a highly automated environment. Instead of making it easier, the
malfunctions become much more difficult to understand, with many variations.
Most of that ground school went by in a blur, and while Bill was very
patient and willing to take questions, it was very obvious to us that time was
passing, and more time spent further exploring the electrical system would
mean less time available later for other subjects. There is immense pressure
to "move along" throughout the course, and that pressure is felt by
both the instructors and trainees.
I remember clearly towards the end of "Electrical," the class got
very, very quiet, and when Bill asked, "Any questions on
electrical?" the class was silent. I hadn't even learned enough to ask
questions!
We all, by unspoken common consent, allowed passing on to "keep the
schedule," hoping to "get it" with study in the hotel room, or
perhaps learning more about it in the simulator. To some degree, that
happened, but I don't think it's the best way to do it. We all agreed that
after eight hours of intense concentration in class, desperately trying to
understand new and strange systems, we all felt like jelly at the end of the
day, and anything but sleep (and often poor sleep) was impossible. Of the 21
nights I spent there, I had dinner by room service 19 times, and I usually
loathe room service. I was just too pooped to clean up and go out for dinner.
One problem for me (among many) is Simuflite's (and Gulfstream's, I
suppose) unrelenting use of new and complex acronyms right from day one.
"ACBPCU," "DCBPCU", "AHRS," "ASCB,"
"DDRMI," "DBDI," make perfect sense now, but when used
machine-gun style during an explanation of an entirely new system, they are a
bit daunting. There are 504 acronyms listed in the glossary, most of them
invented by Gulfstream, and I'm hard pressed to find one that we didn't have
to use. Bad move, in my opinion, it would be better to use the full term, even
if it does take more space on paper, and half a second longer to say. "DC
Bus Power Control Unit" is ever so much more understandable than "DCBPCU."
School started on a Monday, and by Wednesday I was convinced that I was too
old for this stuff, and seriously considered just dropping out and forgetting
the whole thing. I knew I wasn't getting it, was hopelessly behind, with
little hope of catching up, because the new stuff just kept coming, fast and
furious. In all the training I've done, I've never come close to feeling like
that before. In most courses, I've been able to turn around and help the other
guys in the evening, but not this time. Not even close.
But in looking around, the much younger guys in my class had the same
deer-in-the-headlights look, and some quiet conversations revealed they felt
much the same. Several people who had previously been to both FlightSafety and
Simuflite calmed us down, and said it was always like that for everyone at
both centers, and that no one expected us to "get it all," this was
just a rapid-fire "exposure" to the systems, and if some of it
rubbed off, fine. If not, that was fine, too. Several instructors confirmed
this, more or less, and all assured us constantly that we were on-track. The
constant refrain was "They're just filling squares mandated by the
FAA." Many said that everyone felt there were "peaks" and
"valleys," in the training, or that training was "like a sine
wave." It sure felt that way to me, with deep valleys, and low peaks!
In my opinion, the real training is almost non-existent, almost accidental;
it's mostly an exercise to satisfy the FAA, the real villain in all this. A
secondary villain must be the marketing department at both centers. The
universal refrain was that the instructors are constantly pushed into a
corner, forced to condense, condense, condense, so that the course can be
reduced by just one more day, so that one center can advertise "We do it
in only 21 days, reducing the time your crews take, and saving you
money." Then the other school cuts their course to 20 days, and
advertises that. The customers don't seem to care, so long as their pilot
comes back with the FAA-approved G-IV type rating (or the recurrent sign-off,
with a shorter stay). The people who pay the penalty are the instructors, who
are forced to ram the material down the throats of trainees, and of course
most of all, the trainees, who must take it, and survive, with their jobs on
the line. BAD system, in my opinion.
Can the pilot be honest, come back home and say, "I wasn't properly
trained?" If you think that, wow, do I have a bridge for you! Well, I'll
say it, loud and clear, I was NOT properly trained. I am neither as well
trained as I could have been in the same time period, and I'm a long way from
being as well-trained as I should have been, for that kind of money (or any
kind of money). In theory, people are coming out of that training, and going
on a line flight, with passengers, as captain. In reality, I suspect most
operators do additional training, and I certainly hope I get more, because I
don't feel ready.
There
is one simulator session early on, obviously to give a little familiarity.
With no prior glass experience, I was pretty confused, nothing was where I was
used to it, my scan was destroyed, and even on that first session we had a
couple of failures "to get a head start on the squares." A call
"Watch your airspeed" was completely confusing, because not only did
I not know instinctively where to look, the vertical tape display on a CRT
didn't even look like airspeed, to me! The numbers move, and the index stays
still, and I still say it moves the wrong way. (Gulfstream must agree with me,
because the newer G-V reverses the direction the tape moves. THAT will be fun
for those who are dual-qualified!)
As someone said, "Now I know how a dog must feel, watching
television." The first time I heard that, it was acutely unfunny, but I
must admit, I lost my sense of humor very early on.
I think I could have handled this, if I'd been allowed to hand-fly the
machine for a couple hours, and shoot a couple of hand-flown approaches. That
might have allowed me to develop a scan for all the new instrumentation, find
everything, and start looking in the right place sooner. But there is no time
for that, the very advanced automation is used from the very beginning, and it
is the single biggest training item. It's a wonderful system, but if you don't
program it exactly right, it will betray you in a heartbeat, and often in a
very confusing manner (can you spell "Cali?") Coached through it,
it's very simple to take off, plug in the autoflight, push the right buttons
to make it fly around, intercept an ILS (or any other type of approach) and
watch it fly the approach to 50 feet flawlessly, with utter perfection all the
way. Perfectly smooth, very tight tolerances, it's just awesome. You tell it
the departure airport and runway, the destination, the departure procedure (by
name), the route, the arrival procedure (by name), the landing runway and the
type of approach, and it knows (and flies) the route, with all crossing
altitudes made automatically. It's very seductive!
Before I could really get a handle on normal operations, the abnormals and
emergencies started coming, hot and heavy. At one point, I was flying the
simulator from Boston to New York, at night, in heavy icing conditions for the
first time. We got the anti-icing systems going, but I was none too sure we
were done, and suddenly the left engine's electrical supply system failed.
That's not too bad, the automatic systems work well, all the buses auto-switch
to a secondary power source, mostly the right engine. Then the instructor
failed the right engine, which killed all the electrics from that engine,
leaving only the essential buses powered (I think). At that point, I kinda
lost track of what was failing, and I think another backup system came into
play, leaving most of the panel dead and black. We recovered what we could,
but I think that's the one where we landed hurriedly and left it running, for
the next crew was waiting, and we were late.
"Any questions?"
"Uh, yeah, what was all that?"
It really didn't matter, the squares for "icing," "single
electrical system failure," and "both electrical systems
failure," "engine failure," "Inflight engine
restart," and probably half a dozen others got filled, and that's all
that counts.
Simulator
sessions are only two hours and fifty minutes, split between two trainees, who
swap seats at roughly the mid-point. The first session, it takes about 1.5
hours just to get to the engine start, as the checklist is an extensive
"do-list," with 17 items on the "Cockpit Preflight
Inspection," 102 items on the external and internal preflight, then after
returning to the cockpit, an astonishing 190 items before hitting the first
start switch. MANY of those items involve performing additional steps. It is
the very worst example of the old military-style "do-list" I've ever
seen, anywhere.
Trainees are "encouraged" to develop their own "flows,"
then to use the checklists in a quick manner to make sure nothing was missed.
That's fine, but there is only the most rudimentary suggestion for a proper
flow, and every instructor had his own ideas on how that should be done. The
result is that we were left to develop our own flows, while learning a strange
airplane! I find that outrageous.
Adding to that problem, my question was, "Ok, if I develop my own flow
and use it on the check ride, then back it up with the checklist, will the
examiner accept that?
"Oh, that depends on the examiner."
I went back to the hotel barely fit to drive, after that exchange.
I'm accustomed to four-hour sessions, two for each trainee, so the 1:25
sessions each are done before I'm really started. I can only surmise that the
2:50 sessions are an economic move, allowing a single instructor to do two
full sessions in one day. That makes a savage schedule, where one four-hour
session would be much better for both the trainee and instructor. An hour for
briefing (more is better), four hours in the box, an hour debrief, a half hour
for lunch, and a bit of paperwork makes a full day for an instructor.
The way Simuflite does it, there is a frantic rush to get everything done
and get out of the box for the next crew. Undone items are carried over,
making the next session even more hectic. The 20th day is supposed to be a
practice check ride, with the instructor just watching. Wrong, it was non-stop
instruction, because there were still half a dozen squares that hadn't been
filled, and I was still screwing up everything I tried to do in preparation
for the check ride.
My training partner and I also had something like seven different
instructors, and the same instructor two days in a row only once. There is a
small attempt at standardization, and some similarity between the people, but
not nearly enough. Scheduling for the instructors is a bear, with several of
them going seven and eight days straight, often with more than one simulator
session per day. I understand FlightSafety is much worse at this game. I
actually felt sorry for most of the instructors, for if done well, it is an
intense game. I couldn't do it without burning out, and there are signs of
that with a few of them.
There is some argument for not standardizing everything, in that operators
in the field are doing things their own way, and if SimuFlightSafety enforces
a rigid standard, it will be more confusing in the field, particularly when
trainees come back for recurrent training.
Boeing solved this problem neatly in about 1972, with the introduction of
the 747. They stated loud and clear, "You will fly this airplane OUR WAY,
or we won't sell it to you." The results were wonderful, at least at
Japan Airlines. That was the first time I'd seen or heard of "flows"
backed up by short, "killer item only" checklists, and that system
has worked beautifully for 30 years, to my personal knowledge. It is also
readily adaptable to ALL airplanes.
Could Gulfstream do this? Maybe not, now that there are over 500 G-IVs in
the field. There is also the chance that the dark side would prevail, and it
would be poor standardization, which is worse than none at all. But there is
some evidence that someone back in Savannah knows his way around checklists
and human factors, for the abnormal and emergency checklists are VERY well
done. There are NO formal memory items, and pilots are expected to know enough
to take the obvious immediate actions, while flying the airplane. I can pick
some nits with them, but they are nits. The normal checklists are, I'm told,
written by Simuflite, and they are worthless.
The three weeks wore me down, and for the first time in my life, I was
uncertain, not confident, either in the box, or over passing a check. The
"practice check ride" went so badly, I was devastated, didn't think
I'd ever be a Gulfstream pilot. I've NEVER been like that before. When the
instructor signed me off for the check, I was dumbfounded, and just asked,
"How can you DO that, I didn't do a single thing right, today?"
"You'll be fine."
I was so tired and discouraged at that point, I no longer cared, and
figured if I got a pink slip (would have been my first ever), it just didn't
matter. The nasty thought crossed my mind that perhaps Simuflite needed a few
more "busts" to "look good" for the FAA, and maybe, just
maybe, I was the goat, here. There just didn't seem to be any other
explanation, because I wouldn't have signed me off.
The next morning we met the examiner, one "Dee" Simmonds. Big
bear of a man in his sixties, sharp as a tack, deeply involved with computers,
and very knowledgeable in the G-IV. He gives a check just exactly the way I
like to try and give mine, relaxed, easygoing, explores the issues rather than
pure memory items, and goes out of his way to put everyone at ease. I went
first, figuring I had about an 80% chance of getting a pink slip, really down
on myself, as I had been throughout most of the course. (Yes, that may have
been part of my problem.)
To my utter shocked surprise, the whole checkride went very, very well! I
was very pleased with my own performance in the left seat, and felt I did a
very good job of supporting my training partner when his turn came (as he did
for me). As the first few items went by, my confidence began to grow back, and
by the end, I was very comfortable, and enjoyed the rest of the ride, as I
usually do. Larry Mort also did a fine checkride, and we were both issued the
temporaries. There is no question we met the standards of the PTS, and then
some.
What happened, here?
Did the age factor enter into it? I honestly don't know.
Is the "firehose" training effective? Maybe, for a check ride,
but only time will tell as I get out on the line, and start the "real
training."
Is it the best training that could be done? Clearly, NO! What can be done
to improve it?
First,
foremost, and above all, the FAA needs to get the hell out of the
micro-management business! Let the real professionals set up and manage the
training programs, while lightly monitoring the RESULTS, if they must. The FAA
no longer has the expertise, or the money, or the time to interfere with the
training process (or any other, for that matter). That's good, I'd like to see
the budget cut by 90%, so they can't do more. The FAA is in deep trouble, with
their insane bureaucratic bumbling chasing off all the good people (in all
departments), leaving many drones. The good people who do remain are buried in
BS, and unable to do the right thing, even if they know what that is. Many of
the good ones are very discouraged, and are just trying to get their time in,
so they can retire.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the FAA is the biggest single
impediment to flight safety in existence. We'd all be much better off without
them.
(None of my comments are aimed at working air traffic controllers, who are
every bit as professional as any pilots.)
I believe Simuflite (and FlightSafety) have the expertise to do a good job,
if the FAA were to get out of the way, and marketing was forced into a lesser
role. I attended FlightSafety twice, about 40 years ago, and loved the
experience. But the FAA was nowhere to be seen, in those days.
No matter what it takes, Simuflite must stop this firehose junk. It is NOT
a good way to do it. Trainees should be developing confidence as the course
progresses, not losing it. If something needs to be taught, it should be
taught, and the course should not continue until it is taught.
I just hope I never have to attend another of these high-powered "Type
rating factories."
Be careful up there!
Email this article
