Narrative:

I recently completed the B737 [recurrent training] event and feel it is necessary to point out the shortcomings in this fleet's recurrent training program. The [maneuvers check] itself contains too many maneuvers to complete within the allotted time. For example; despite taking a very short 5 minute break during the 4 hour sim period; we were barely able to complete the entire [check ride]; despite pushing quickly and successively through each required segment. During the pre-brief; the [instructor] mentioned several times that there were many tasks to complete (both evaluation and train to proficiency) and that it has been a challenge to finish within the planned time. At no time did either I or my sim partner require additional training; so that was not a contributing factor. When we got to the category (CAT) 3 approaches; the [instructor] pre- positioned us at 1000 feet on the ILS. This did not permit completion of the precision approach briefing guide. Day two was the [line-oriented training]; which was given in a [fixed base trainer]. This was the first time I have ever taken a [recurrent training] event in a non-motion simulator. As usual; the [instructor] briefed that the event should occur in the same realistic way as any line flight; however; there were a few caveats. First; the visual display is skewed for one of the pilots. The [instructor] explained that only one pilot would have a visual that was the actual straight ahead view; while the other pilot's view would be skewed. He also explained that he would move the view; as necessary; so the flying pilot had the accurately depicted view as it would exist if we were actually flying the airplane or full flight simulator. Second; the ftd does not have the current ACARS 2.0 software loaded; but rather ACARS 1.0; which was phased out of the 737 fleet. In addition; the ACARS printer does not work in this particular [fixed base trainer]. That would require the pilot who initiates ACARS requests to notify the [instructor] whenever initiating an ACARS request; so he could hand us the torn off slips of paper with ATIS/fwm/takeoff data; etc; etc. I first noticed the skewed visual display during taxi out; as my right-side visual display appeared as if the aircraft was crabbed 30 degrees to the right. This later became an issue during the crosswind landing; when the non-flying pilot could not effectively determine if the proper wind correction had been applied. The ACARS requests were also a distraction; as we had to recall ACARS 1.0.after completion of the [line-oriented training]; the [instructor] offered to use the remaining device time to practice the engine failure on final approach maneuver. After performing several of these; it became even more obvious that the use of a fixed base training device for [this training] is inadequate. In closing; both days of training were disappointing from an expectation basis. While the instructors provided quality training to the best of their abilities; the syllabus and [fixed base trainer] were substandard. I respectfully request feedback from the fleet regarding the following questions:how does the fleet determine an adequate amount of simulator/device time is budgeted for completion of all the assigned tasks/maneuvers?does the fleet have a quality control plan implemented through which it assesses [training] on a routine basis both for content and volume? Is it the intent for the [line-oriented training] to be as realistic as possible for a line flight? If so; how does the fleet expect the [line-oriented training] to be realistic if it is given in a device which does not closely replicate flying the actual airplane on the line?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 First Officer reported his concerns with what he sees as an inadequate recurrent training program at his airline.

Narrative: I recently completed the B737 [recurrent training] event and feel it is necessary to point out the shortcomings in this fleet's recurrent training program. The [maneuvers check] itself contains too many maneuvers to complete within the allotted time. For example; despite taking a very short 5 minute break during the 4 hour sim period; we were barely able to complete the entire [check ride]; despite pushing quickly and successively through each required segment. During the pre-brief; the [instructor] mentioned several times that there were many tasks to complete (both evaluation and train to proficiency) and that it has been a challenge to finish within the planned time. At no time did either I or my sim partner require additional training; so that was not a contributing factor. When we got to the Category (CAT) 3 approaches; the [instructor] pre- positioned us at 1000 feet on the ILS. This did not permit completion of the Precision Approach Briefing Guide. Day two was the [line-oriented training]; which was given in a [fixed base trainer]. This was the first time I have ever taken a [recurrent training] event in a non-motion simulator. As usual; the [instructor] briefed that the event should occur in the same realistic way as any line flight; however; there were a few caveats. First; the visual display is skewed for one of the pilots. The [instructor] explained that only one pilot would have a visual that was the actual straight ahead view; while the other pilot's view would be skewed. He also explained that he would move the view; as necessary; so the flying pilot had the accurately depicted view as it would exist if we were actually flying the airplane or full flight simulator. Second; the FTD does not have the current ACARS 2.0 software loaded; but rather ACARS 1.0; which was phased out of the 737 fleet. In addition; the ACARS printer does not work in this particular [fixed base trainer]. That would require the pilot who initiates ACARS requests to notify the [instructor] whenever initiating an ACARS request; so he could hand us the torn off slips of paper with ATIS/FWM/Takeoff Data; etc; etc. I first noticed the skewed visual display during taxi out; as my right-side visual display appeared as if the aircraft was crabbed 30 degrees to the right. This later became an issue during the crosswind landing; when the non-flying pilot could not effectively determine if the proper wind correction had been applied. The ACARS requests were also a distraction; as we had to recall ACARS 1.0.After completion of the [line-oriented training]; the [instructor] offered to use the remaining device time to practice the engine failure on final approach maneuver. After performing several of these; it became even more obvious that the use of a fixed base training device for [this training] is inadequate. In closing; both days of training were disappointing from an expectation basis. While the instructors provided quality training to the best of their abilities; the syllabus and [fixed base trainer] were substandard. I respectfully request feedback from the fleet regarding the following questions:How does the fleet determine an adequate amount of simulator/device time is budgeted for completion of all the assigned tasks/maneuvers?Does the fleet have a quality control plan implemented through which it assesses [training] on a routine basis both for content and volume? Is it the intent for the [line-oriented training] to be as realistic as possible for a line flight? If so; how does the fleet expect the [line-oriented training] to be realistic if it is given in a device which does not closely replicate flying the actual airplane on the line?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.