![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scared of mid-airs | Frode Berg | Piloting | 355 | August 20th 06 05:27 PM |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
The kids are scared, was Saddam evacuated | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 10:36 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |