Shirl writes:

We were talking about GA, and how often we, in GA, practice engine-out
emergencies. We were not talking about airliners. The degree of danger
in intentionally practicing them in a small aircraft vs. in an airliner
is not the same.

What is the difference in danger level?

What is "second nature" when you are safely sitting on the ground in a
simulator is not always second nature when you're in a real airplane in
flight, or further, in a real airplane in a real in-flight emergency.

Not true. The great value of simulation is that it can create reflexes and
familiarity that are extremely useful for handling real-world emergencies.
Pilots practice emergencies so frequently in the simulator that they
automatically do all the right things when such emergencies occur in real life
.... and that's the whole idea behind the simulator practice.

Those who cannot suspend disbelief for a simulation often have other problems
that may interfere with being a safe pilot. Those who say "it's just a
simulation" and dismiss every sim exercise in consequence also tend to be the
ones who dismiss procedures, checklists, and regulations because they don't
see immediate, life-threatening danger in doing so. Incidentally, this
correlates with low intelligence, although that's not the only cause
(testosterone can do it, too).

In-flight simulated engine failure may not be exactly like the real
thing, either, but it's a lot closer than any simulator.

Again, not true. Accurate simulations are much more like the real thing, in
addition to being safer.

Hire a CFI if you aren't sure how to do it. In-flight engine-out
practice wouldn't be part of the private pilot curriculum if it is so
dangerous that no one should ever practice it.

Maybe, although the curriculum used to include spin practice, too, until it
became clear that it was more dangerous than it was worth.

Duh--that's the whole point! FLYING is dangerous and potentially
expensive if not handled correctly. That's why pilots practice various
things to stay as proficient as possible and why regulations re pilot
currency and periodic review exist.

And they practice a lot of this in simulators.

Football practice may not be the same as the actual game, either, but
that's how players train. In-flight simulated engine failure practice is
as close to "the real thing" as possible without actually shutting down
the engine in flight ...

A good on-the-ground simulator can provide a more realistic experience than
any safe real-world attempt to simulate the situation.

No, a simulator wouldn't be "ideal". Can you learn useful emergency
skills in a simulator? Yes. Is it an ideal substitute for practicing
them in a real airplane while you're actually *in the air*, FLYING the
plane, making decisions, etc.? No.

YES, it is. That's why simulators are used. They are safer, more convenient,
and more faithful to the real thing (because simulating in a real aircraft to
the same degree of realism is much too dangerous).

To my knowledge, you can't satisfy
the emergency portion of the private pilot checkride in a simulator; it
must be done in an actual airplane...while in flight!

Regulations don't always keep up with the real world.

Cessna 140. It was mechanical, not pilot error. And yes, he landed
safely. Point is, after 30 years, he thought the odds were small, too,
but thankfully, he was well prepared.

If it took 30 years, the odds were indeed small.

I personally don't think the wear-and-tear on the engine
in an occasional engine-out practice outweighs the value to me in
maintaining some level of proficiency by going through the drill
periodically in the airplane I fly (not in a rental that may react
differently).

But if you mess up on the drill, you might be killed.

Of course not.

Why "of course"? When an engine is out, it stops running completely, and
that's very different from an engine that is idling. For an accurate
simulation, you need to shut the engine down completely. If this isn't done,
the simulation is flawed, and potentially dangerous in that it doesn't teach
the right things.

This is where a simulator on the ground helps. In that simulator, you really
can simulate a total engine failure, safely and accurately.

Do airports actually crash a plane to train emergency
personnel how to react in an actual crash? It's true that a simulated
engine failure *in an airplane* with the engine at idle is not quite the
same as an *actual* engine failure ... but the practice (at idle) in a
small aircraft is much closer to what you would actually feel and
experience than a simulator.

Not true ... the simulator is superior. However, I don't think there are many
top-level simulators for small aircraft.