|
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 -----
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.
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 donıt 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 ³Iıve 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 differences
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 thatıs what youıd 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 weıve 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 thereıs 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 doesnıt have that training option. Itıs 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.
|