Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.

How would you know fjukwit?



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.



Nope.


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. =

No, it isn't.

I've flown sims of the same type as the airplanes I fly.


Sims that cost more than the actual airplanes in some cases. And they
are in no way superior for teaching anything. They're a handy tool for
procedures and no more.



Fjukkwit

Bertie