03-29-2019, 08:14 PM
Feely – Touchy? Tin Hat?
CG – “I want to know why it is acceptable to "practice" EFATO at 400 feet in Australia when the UK and USA insist on 3000 feet.”
Some aircraft; of which I have a little more than a nodding acquaintance, are grossly misrepresented in the ‘Grand-Fathered’ simulator approvals. In fact, recently I have flown three individual simulators which, IMO, are so far removed from ‘reality’ that apart from ‘systems’ and procedural training, they are as far as it is possible to get from ‘the aircraft’.
As said; they are great for sorting multi crew operations into a routine and a thinking pattern; fantastic for analysing a series of lights and warnings; very good at demonstrating how one failure can lead to another etc & etc. No quarrel with any of that, indeed I would support the notion that ‘Sim’ training is cost effective and valuable. But, it is not the end of the Rainbow. Not by a long march.
Much depends on the Sim operator. There are some who will ‘tick-a-box’ and, provided the client company is happy with this outcome, then all is well. No come-back in the event of an accident. Then, you have operations in the class of Flight Safety; these guys are good. Their simulators and their tech support is fantastic; their Sims as close as possible to ‘reality’ and they can talk to the FAA about what’s best and fairest. If the world followed the FS ethic and philosophy, I would not be banging on here. Alas…
The ‘quality’ is not in the ‘movement’ or the ‘visuals’ the quality is based on the amount of expense the provider is prepared to go to in order to achieve a realistic flight envelope. The ‘low end’ provider will take the data fro one test flight envelope as use that as the ‘base’ for the software. Folk like FS will take (pay for) all the flight envelope data they can get and spend as much time and money as they can on getting the aircraft simulator ‘right’. Small things. like synchronising the visuals with movement is incredibly time and money consuming.
Many don’t care about the accuracy of simulation. They want pilots in and out in the shortest time acceptable at minimum cost. The oldest and most hoary of faery tales s “just get it done in the Sim” we’ll teach you fly the aircraft later. Qualified – Oh yes. Safe? Well that would depend on reliability and Lady Luck.
There is defined ‘gap’ between be legally qualified and operationally competent in some ‘training’ programmes.
There exists a confusion within official minds that the Sim can make for a ‘safer’ pilot. This notion will only be tested when pilots begin to say the magic word “No”. Or in my case “No Way” to some of the outlandish demands of CASA FOI who expect an aircraft to behave in exactly the same fashion as the Sim.
Back in the day – even Qantas required that any qualifying check was conducted ‘in the aircraft’. No so much today – but Sim’s have improved, particularly at airline level so this, in a controlled environment is acceptable. Down stream, from top class airlines – things are not so cut and dried. Therein lays the quandary.
For example – the Conquest Negative Torque System (NTS). If the engine is not sensing ‘negative torque’ then the system will not (Categorically) work – it cannot. Therefore, simply simulating an engine failure will produce a ‘worst case’ scenario i.e. a propeller at full flight fine pitch – as in a barn door on one side. The rate of speed wash off is well documented in the certification data, along with the ‘sloppy’ low speed aileron/ elevator effectiveness. Cool in the Sim;-but in real life? Seriously? Once again CASA’s legal arse end covered – the bodies are of no significance. Lord have Mercy…
Toot – toot.
CG – “I want to know why it is acceptable to "practice" EFATO at 400 feet in Australia when the UK and USA insist on 3000 feet.”
Some aircraft; of which I have a little more than a nodding acquaintance, are grossly misrepresented in the ‘Grand-Fathered’ simulator approvals. In fact, recently I have flown three individual simulators which, IMO, are so far removed from ‘reality’ that apart from ‘systems’ and procedural training, they are as far as it is possible to get from ‘the aircraft’.
As said; they are great for sorting multi crew operations into a routine and a thinking pattern; fantastic for analysing a series of lights and warnings; very good at demonstrating how one failure can lead to another etc & etc. No quarrel with any of that, indeed I would support the notion that ‘Sim’ training is cost effective and valuable. But, it is not the end of the Rainbow. Not by a long march.
Much depends on the Sim operator. There are some who will ‘tick-a-box’ and, provided the client company is happy with this outcome, then all is well. No come-back in the event of an accident. Then, you have operations in the class of Flight Safety; these guys are good. Their simulators and their tech support is fantastic; their Sims as close as possible to ‘reality’ and they can talk to the FAA about what’s best and fairest. If the world followed the FS ethic and philosophy, I would not be banging on here. Alas…
The ‘quality’ is not in the ‘movement’ or the ‘visuals’ the quality is based on the amount of expense the provider is prepared to go to in order to achieve a realistic flight envelope. The ‘low end’ provider will take the data fro one test flight envelope as use that as the ‘base’ for the software. Folk like FS will take (pay for) all the flight envelope data they can get and spend as much time and money as they can on getting the aircraft simulator ‘right’. Small things. like synchronising the visuals with movement is incredibly time and money consuming.
Many don’t care about the accuracy of simulation. They want pilots in and out in the shortest time acceptable at minimum cost. The oldest and most hoary of faery tales s “just get it done in the Sim” we’ll teach you fly the aircraft later. Qualified – Oh yes. Safe? Well that would depend on reliability and Lady Luck.
There is defined ‘gap’ between be legally qualified and operationally competent in some ‘training’ programmes.
There exists a confusion within official minds that the Sim can make for a ‘safer’ pilot. This notion will only be tested when pilots begin to say the magic word “No”. Or in my case “No Way” to some of the outlandish demands of CASA FOI who expect an aircraft to behave in exactly the same fashion as the Sim.
Back in the day – even Qantas required that any qualifying check was conducted ‘in the aircraft’. No so much today – but Sim’s have improved, particularly at airline level so this, in a controlled environment is acceptable. Down stream, from top class airlines – things are not so cut and dried. Therein lays the quandary.
For example – the Conquest Negative Torque System (NTS). If the engine is not sensing ‘negative torque’ then the system will not (Categorically) work – it cannot. Therefore, simply simulating an engine failure will produce a ‘worst case’ scenario i.e. a propeller at full flight fine pitch – as in a barn door on one side. The rate of speed wash off is well documented in the certification data, along with the ‘sloppy’ low speed aileron/ elevator effectiveness. Cool in the Sim;-but in real life? Seriously? Once again CASA’s legal arse end covered – the bodies are of no significance. Lord have Mercy…
Toot – toot.