X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:55:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com ([208.47.184.3] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3097722 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:53:14 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.47.184.3; envelope-from=liegner@embarqmail.com X-Original-Return-Path: X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=lOWHGoYcyPoA:10 a=pCOlyddzlf4A:10 a=52Pqhe_6Ulzk-5_LIYcA:9 a=sZZTUObD2S-mmhyiUyMA:7 a=-1Gpiu8i8VAhYqgr0rTasS4c1SwA:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=uL3qOuNcMWcA:10 a=oDX3krWaIYrApPOYRqcA:9 a=fyn7fIeMxwcJty8agPYA:7 a=b85jj5IJtZ-1D4FRVj1cjPzkP7EA:4 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp08.embarq.synacor.com smtp.user=liegner@embarqmail.com; auth=pass (LOGIN) Received: from [76.6.57.200] ([76.6.57.200:10179] helo=[172.16.1.2]) by mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.1.28 r(22594)) with ESMTPA id 29/D0-12734-68196B84; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:52:39 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: liegner@embarqmail.com@pop.embarqmail.com X-Original-Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:50:13 -0400 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" From: "Jeffrey Liegner, MD" Subject: RE: [LML] Training (Engine Out Practice) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-992198118==_ma============" --============_-992198118==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit How many pilots are practicing engine out procedures by actually shutting down the engine (in a controlled environment, over the airport, with time to restart)? I have (with and without an instructor). Jeff L. LIVP >Good point Matt. > >One thing a simulator MIGHT be good for, however, would be >simulating engine failure. Have a friend sit with you through >multiple takeoffs and landings and periodically surprise you. > >No it wouldn't be perfect, but it just MIGHT train people into PUSH >instead of PULL. > >Bill Reister >Atlanta > > >From: Matt Hapgood [mailto:matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu] >Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:08 >To: lml@lancaironline.net >Subject: RE: [LML] Training > >PC based training software can be an excellent way to maintain >proficiency with respect to instrument procedures - HOW to fly them. >However, I caution that using a generic or even an "inaccurate" >training device or simulator to practice emergency maneuvers and >aircraft systems procedures can be worse than doing nothing. >Improperly modeled systems, inaccurate or poorly implemented >aerodynamic models, or motion cues that don't represent actual >aircraft flying (we call those "commotion" instead of motion >simulators). All of these items can very easily result in negative >training and a sense of "I've practiced that" when the reality of >what may happen in the aircraft will be vastly different from what >the simulator indicated "should" happen or feel like. > >This is particularly relevant to the experimental world. Simulation >of a Citation jet is a challenge - there are a few different >avionics packages and a few different engines/performance variants. > At the end of the day it takes several different multi-million $ >simulators to cover the Citation range. For our experimental planes >the variability is HUGE - single vs. dual bus, engine choice, props, >extended wing tips or not, back-up alternator or not, fuel system >differencesŠ > >Example - if someone were to model the following: > >Lancair LNC2 >no header tank >IO-360 >Long mount, big tail >constant speed 2-blade prop >dual bus with glass panel > >Is that what you would want to base your training on if you flew a >steam gauge, short mount 320 with fixed pitch prop? I would go so >far as to say that emergency procedures, stalls and low-altitude >engine out practice would be almost meaningless given the >variability in how these aircraft will act/perform. > >And that's what you'd want a simulator to do for you if you were >going to spend the time, money and effort to simulate anything. I >would be very concerned about negative training and trying to figure >out what would and would not transfer. > >Experimentals are wonderful. I love mine. But we've kinda screwed >the pooch when it comes to training. And the sad truth is that as >experimental aircraft get faster and more complex the training needs >to keep up, and as defined by the circumstances it cannot. >Recognize that the Lancair Ovation or the Epic experimentals are >exceeding the performance of certificated aircraft for which the >insurance industry has basically mandated advanced/simulator-based >training. If you want to fly a Citation, a Kingair or a anything in >that performance envelope your insurer will require >simulator/advanced FTD training. And there's a reason for it - >history and statistics have shown that this type of training >dramatically reduces accidents. The Ovations and EPICs are in that >category of performance yet the pilot doesn't have that training >option. It's a recipe for disaster. > >Matt > > > > > >From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf >Of Ted Noel >Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:50 PM >To: lml@lancaironline.net >Subject: [LML] Training > >Airline pilots now train in sims due to the cost of flying giant >aluminum clouds. My local FBO has a Motus Motion Sim, but it doesn't >have any Lancairs in its repertoire. But for a 172, it's $100 per >hour cheaper, and it's tougher than the real thing. If you're >proficient in it, you're ready. > --============_-992198118==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit RE: [LML] Training (Engine Out Practice)
How many pilots are practicing engine out procedures by actually shutting down the engine (in a controlled environment, over the airport, with time to restart)?  I have  (with and without an instructor).

Jeff L.
LIVP


Good point Matt.
 
One thing a simulator MIGHT be good for, however, would be simulating engine failure.  Have a friend sit with you through multiple takeoffs and landings and periodically surprise you. 
 
No it wouldn't be perfect, but it just MIGHT train people into PUSH instead of PULL.
 
Bill Reister
Atlanta

From: Matt Hapgood [mailto:matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:08
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: RE: [LML] Training
PC based training software can be an excellent way to maintain proficiency with respect to instrument procedures ­ HOW to fly them.  However, I caution that using a generic or even an ³inaccurate² training device or simulator to practice emergency maneuvers and aircraft systems procedures can be worse than doing nothing.  Improperly modeled systems, inaccurate or poorly implemented aerodynamic models, or motion cues that don¹t represent actual aircraft flying (we call those ³commotion² instead of motion simulators).  All of these items can very easily result in negative training and a sense of ³I¹ve practiced that² when the reality of what may happen in the aircraft will be vastly different from what the simulator indicated ³should² happen or feel like.
 
This is particularly relevant to the experimental world.  Simulation of a Citation jet is a challenge ­ there are a few different avionics packages and a few different engines/performance variants.   At the end of the day it takes several different multi-million $ simulators to cover the Citation range.  For our experimental planes the variability is HUGE ­ single vs. dual bus, engine choice, props, extended wing tips or not, back-up alternator or not, fuel system differencesŠ
 
Example ­ if someone were to model the following:
 
Lancair LNC2
no header tank
IO-360
Long mount, big tail
constant speed 2-blade prop
dual bus with glass panel
 
Is that what you would want to base your training on if you flew a steam gauge, short mount 320 with fixed pitch prop?  I would go so far as to say that emergency procedures, stalls and low-altitude engine out practice would be almost meaningless given the variability in how these aircraft will act/perform.
 
And that¹s what you¹d want a simulator to do for you if you were going to spend the time, money and effort to simulate anything.  I would be very concerned about negative training and trying to figure out what would and would not transfer.
 
Experimentals are wonderful.  I love mine.  But we¹ve kinda screwed the pooch when it comes to training.  And the sad truth is that as experimental aircraft get faster and more complex the training needs to keep up, and as defined by the circumstances it cannot.  Recognize that the Lancair Ovation or the Epic experimentals are exceeding the performance of certificated aircraft for which the insurance industry has basically mandated advanced/simulator-based training.  If you want to fly a Citation, a Kingair or a anything in that performance envelope your insurer will require simulator/advanced FTD training.  And there¹s a reason for it ­ history and statistics have shown that this type of training dramatically reduces accidents.  The Ovations and EPICs are in that category of performance yet the pilot doesn¹t have that training option.  It¹s a recipe for disaster.
 
Matt
 
 
 
 
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ted Noel
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:50 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Training
 
Airline pilots now train in sims due to the cost of flying giant aluminum clouds. My local FBO has a Motus Motion Sim, but it doesn't have any Lancairs in its repertoire. But for a 172, it's $100 per hour cheaper, and it's tougher than the real thing. If you're proficient in it, you're ready.
 

--============_-992198118==_ma============--