Re: Transition Training

Lonny M. Regan (mach0_at_ibm.net)
Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:40:28 -0700

Bake53_at_aol.com wrote:
>
> Lonny,
> Thanks for your note on Trasition Training. I saw the same transition woes
> by some of our senior Captains when I was on the L-1011 at Eastern. I am the
> Chief of Standards and Training at NationsBank Corporation. All of our
> aircraft have glass and FMS of one sort or another. I hear the same
> "transition talk" when our folks move to new or different equipment. It must
> be a universal mindset against change. I think the Airbus discussion
> describes it best.
>
> This all illuminates the need for more formalized training on the
> automation/human interface. The lack of this type of training has been a
> shortcoming of our training programs. AQP seems to be headed in that
> direction. I continue to implement those relevant concepts and use the
> information gathered here.
>
> I see the most improvement when the use of automation becomes an actual part
> of CRM although the use of automation hardware is viewed basically as a
> technical skill. My thoughts are that if the program contains the elements to
> develop skills necessary to manage the automation and the people using it,
> then previous glass/advanced avionics experience is not an issue. I would
> appreciate any techniques or interventions you' ve found to be of value to
> advanced technology aircraft crew training at your shop.
>
> John Baker
> (704) 388-4151 phn
> (704) 359-8943 fax

Hello John & thanks for your "Transition Training" post of 4/9/97! During an informal
chat with one of our human factors facilitators a few weeks ago, I learned that our
very successful Introduction to Automation course (we know it as IA2 or IA Squared)
will go away as our fleet goes AQP. The biggest problem I detected was not with our
pilots learning automation, but was with experienced pilots already flying with
automation having a hard time letting go of the procedures learned on a previous
airplane and always trying to compare what we do on the MD-11 and why when it worked
beautifully on the B-767 or MD-88 perhaps.

I really can't get into an in depth discussion on why Mc Donnell Douglas did this or
that; we can't redesign it! I want to teach the way Delta operates the MD-11. Our
pilots consistently state they love the MD-11 (when training is complete) and admit
that it really can do more than perhaps the B-767!! My question again then, is why do I
have to spend hours on many days trying to convince pilots in Transition Training that
the automation and procedures on the MD-11 is very safe, logical and pilot friendly?
They bid the aircraft by choice, I put my heart into my work and always give 100%, and
Delta has purchased the finest training devices money can buy - what's the problem??

I have previously stated that many times it is earier for me to train a pilot just off
the "steam gauges" with no background on automation but maintaining a very POSITIVE &
ENTHUSIASTIC ATTITUDE then one off a previous "electric jet" that just won't let go of
the previous airplane, dump previous "specific" procedures and learn the new airplane.
This does not only apply to the MD-11 of course - I have seen this with pilots off the
MD-88, transitioning to the B-767/757 as well!!

John, perhaps the key word is "ATTITUDE"???????????

Regards-

Lonny