X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:50:10 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3100709 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:51:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.96; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 8QNt1a00E0QuhwU59SqodK; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:50:48 +0000 Received: from mjr ([71.233.32.130]) by OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 8Sqj1a00D2oTP2X3NSqoc9; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:50:48 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=30vL5gnL1Y8A:10 a=vOf2QIqDhnMA:10 a=sNrQ7p2c1qy3lW1LRTQA:9 a=OCqaSjSc1VumiZxdWnsA:7 a=RzEytgFo-Q45xVgKWiXg-sRWHRoA:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=PY_nUBzzzZgA:10 a=mTSj_vI2_d4D3zZ911gA:9 a=s5OMyvS0L6AObDGQrhoA:7 a=snqWovjkSUJrBAkBd3nliEzgBrUA:4 a=cvn8laQl214A:10 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-Original-Message-ID: <001001c90a4b$772f8e00$8220e947@mjr> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Training (Engine Out Practice) X-Original-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:52:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C90A29.EFDC5120" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1933 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1933 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C90A29.EFDC5120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [LML] Training (Engine Out Practice)Not me. I think it's unnecessary and risky. The winds will be a bigger variable = than the difference between idle and cut off. My Lyc 360 routinely has = hot restart issues too. I'd look foolish making an off airport landing = while practicing emergency procedures. I've done it in a cub. Once I let my header tank run dry up at 10,000 ft. I wanted to = calibrate the fuel gage and see how much altitude would be lost before = restart. I lost over 3000 ft before it would run smoothly again. Mark Ravinski 1445 hrs ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jeffrey Liegner, MD=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:55 PM Subject: [LML] Re: 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.=20 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 =AD HOW to fly them. = However, I caution that using a generic or even an =B3inaccurate=B2 = 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=B9t represent actual aircraft flying (we call those = =B3commotion=B2 instead of motion simulators). All of these items can = very easily result in negative training and a sense of =B3I=B9ve = practiced that=B2 when the reality of what may happen in the aircraft = will be vastly different from what the simulator indicated =B3should=B2 = happen or feel like. This is particularly relevant to the experimental world. Simulation = of a Citation jet is a challenge =AD 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 =AD single vs. dual bus, engine choice, props, extended wing = tips or not, back-up alternator or not, fuel system differencesS Example =AD 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=B9s what you=B9d 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=B9ve 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=B9s a reason for it =AD 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=B9t have = that training option. It=B9s 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. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C90A29.EFDC5120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [LML] Training (Engine Out Practice)
Not me.
I think it's unnecessary and = risky.  The winds=20 will be a bigger variable than the difference between idle and cut = off.  My=20 Lyc 360 routinely has hot restart issues too.  I'd look foolish = making an=20 off airport landing while practicing emergency procedures.
I've done it in a cub.
Once I let my header tank run dry up at = 10,000=20 ft.  I wanted to calibrate the fuel gage and see how much altitude = would be=20 lost before restart.  I lost over 3000 ft before it would = run=20 smoothly again.
 
Mark Ravinski
1445 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Jeffrey=20 Liegner, MD
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 = 2:55=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Training = (Engine Out=20 Practice)

How many pilots are practicing engine out procedures by actually = shutting=20 down the engine (in a controlled environment, over the airport, with = time to=20 restart)?  I have  (with and without an instructor).

Jeff L.
LIVP


Good=20 point Matt.
 
One=20 thing a simulator MIGHT be good for, however, would be simulating = engine=20 failure.  Have a friend sit with you through multiple takeoffs = and=20 landings and periodically surprise you. 
 
No it=20 wouldn't be perfect, but it just MIGHT train people into PUSH = instead of=20 PULL.
 
Bill=20 Reister
Atlanta

From: Matt=20 Hapgood [mailto:matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu]
Sent: = Monday, August=20 25, 2008 12:08
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: RE:=20 [LML] Training
PC based training software can be = an=20 excellent way to maintain proficiency with respect to instrument = procedures=20 ­ HOW to fly them.  However, I caution that using a generic = or even=20 an =B3inaccurate=B2 training device or simulator to practice = emergency maneuvers=20 and aircraft systems procedures can be worse than doing = nothing. =20 Improperly modeled systems, inaccurate or poorly implemented = aerodynamic=20 models, or motion cues that don=B9t represent actual aircraft flying = (we call=20 those =B3commotion=B2 instead of motion simulators).  All of = these items=20 can very easily result in negative training and a sense of =B3I=B9ve = practiced=20 that=B2 when the reality of what may happen in the aircraft will be = vastly=20 different from what the simulator indicated =B3should=B2 happen or = feel=20 like.
 
This is particularly relevant to = the=20 experimental world.  Simulation of a Citation jet is a = challenge ­=20 there are a few different avionics packages and a few different=20 engines/performance variants.   At the end of the day it = takes=20 several different multi-million $ simulators to cover the Citation=20 range.  For our experimental planes the variability is HUGE = ­=20 single vs. dual bus, engine choice, props, extended wing tips or = not,=20 back-up alternator or not, fuel system differences=8A
 
Example ­ if someone were to = model the=20 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=20 training on if you flew a steam gauge, short mount 320 with fixed = pitch=20 prop?  I would go so far as to say that emergency procedures, = stalls=20 and low-altitude engine out practice would be almost meaningless = given the=20 variability in how these aircraft will act/perform.
 
And that=B9s what you=B9d want a = simulator to do=20 for you if you were going to spend the time, money and effort to = simulate=20 anything.  I would be very concerned about negative training = and trying=20 to figure out what would and would not transfer.
 
Experimentals are wonderful.  = I love=20 mine.  But we=B9ve kinda screwed the pooch when it comes to=20 training.  And the sad truth is that as experimental aircraft = get=20 faster and more complex the training needs to keep up, and as = defined by the=20 circumstances it cannot.  Recognize that the Lancair Ovation or = the=20 Epic experimentals are exceeding the performance of certificated = aircraft=20 for which the insurance industry has basically mandated=20 advanced/simulator-based training.  If you want to fly a = Citation, a=20 Kingair or a anything in that performance envelope your insurer will = require=20 simulator/advanced FTD training.  And there=B9s a reason for it = ­=20 history and statistics have shown that this type of training = dramatically=20 reduces accidents.  The Ovations and EPICs are in that category = of=20 performance yet the pilot doesn=B9t have that training option.  = It=B9s a=20 recipe for disaster.
 
Matt
 
 
 
 
 
From: Lancair Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ted = Noel
Sent:=20 Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:50 PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Training
 
Airline pilots now train in sims = due to the=20 cost of flying giant aluminum clouds. My local FBO has a Motus = Motion Sim,=20 but it doesn't have any Lancairs in its repertoire. But for a 172, = it's $100=20 per hour cheaper, and it's tougher than the real thing. If you're = proficient=20 in it, you're ready.
 

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C90A29.EFDC5120--