My wife getting scared

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.

Shirl:
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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
What is the difference in danger level?

You're kidding, right?
The subject had nothing to do with airliners, so I'm not even going to
go there.

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.

To clarify, we are talking specifically about simulated engine failure
practice, not other types of emergencies.

To repeat, yes there is value in simulation. In fact, a person can sit
in an airplane and repetitively simulate his/her own engine failure and
the associated drill and develop almost the same rote level of
automation in their response as they would in a simulator.

But yes, it absolutely IS true that what is second nature *on the
ground* may be different in flight. If a simulator were so real and
accurate that it could teach a person to automatically do "all the right
things", they should be able to complete all the training in a simulator
and then go out and fly the airplane to test standards. Why isn't this
done? Because what may be second nature on the ground in the simulator
may not be second nature in the actual airplane, nor are real world
conditions.

Some level of rote level response is necessary. But handling an
emergency in its entirety may often require more than the rote level
automation learned in a simulator...there will likely be elements of the
emergency that require spontaneous decision making that the sim can't
create. You can't practice those in an in-flight simulated engine
failure, either (because they're case specific), but at least doing the
rote part of the drill in a real airplane and experiencing how that
particular plane reacts with no power won't be a surprise if it is
practiced with some regularity.

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).

That's way off the subject...which has boiled down to practicing
simulated engine failure in a simulator vs. in a real airplane in
flight. I have no interest in debating personal blanket generalizations
or assumptions with no substantiating documentation.

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.

Accurate simulations on the ground are much more like the real thing
than an actual in-flight simulated engine failure? When was the last
time you flew? or experienced "the real thing"? Oh yeah, you haven't
done either, so how would you know which is "much more like the real
thing"? Your claim has no basis.

As for being safer, it's safe to say that flying the sim will always be
safer than flying an actual airplane in the actual sky! ... but that's
not what we're debating.

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.

Spins and engine failures are not the same thing. For one thing, an
engine can fail regardless of what the pilot does.

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.

GA pilots practice "a lot of this" in simulators? For the nth time, we
are not talking about airline pilots.

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.

Until you experience it firsthand, your claims about anything on the
ground being a more realistic simulation of something in flight mean
nothing.

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 what degree of realism are you speaking, specifically?

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.

Huh? Are you suggesting a pilot applicant should be able to satisfy
these requirements in a simulator vs. in an airplane?

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.

That is ONE case, and even after 30 years, the odds weren't small enough
to keep it from happening to him. For others, it happened in the first
year, still others during their training, and some never experience it.
Point is, even with slim odds, it happens, you never know when or to
whom, and there is rarely any way to know in advance -- best thing you
can do is to be as prepared as humanly possible. This might, or might
not, save your life. We obviously don't all agree on how to achieve and
maintain that preparedness, which is fine.

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.

And if we hadn't just practiced a simulated engine-out two weeks prior
to the real thing, we might have messed up the real thing and been
killed.

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.

Wrong. You don't need to shut the engine down completely for the
simulation to have value. We've already established that sitting on the
ground is "safer" than flying a real airplane. An in-flight simulated
engine failure is not exactly the same as a real one...but neither is it
so different that it teaches anything contrary to the rote responses
that should be done or considered in an actual engine failure.

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.

And you know this how? When were you in a real engine failure? When did
you practice simulated engine failure in an airplane to be able to
compare it to a simulator? Stating your opinions as fact don't make them
any more valid than anyone else's.

"Shirl" wrote

You're kidding, right?
You have been sucked in by him, as have many others.

He is not kidding. He is that stupid.

He has not, and never well attempt to fly anything other than a game
simulator.

He is a k00k that thrives off attention like you are giving him. Don't give
him the satisfaction, because it will do no good. You won't make him any
smarter, I guarantee.
--
Jim in NC

Shirl:
You're kidding, right?

"Morgans" wrote:
You have been sucked in by him, as have many others.

He is not kidding. He is that stupid.

He has not, and never well attempt to fly anything other than a game
simulator.

He is a k00k that thrives off attention like you are giving him. Don't give
him the satisfaction, because it will do no good. You won't make him any
smarter, I guarantee.

*nods* Sorry. I'm done.
Shirl

Shirl writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
What is the difference in danger level?

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm calling your bluff, successfully.

The subject had nothing to do with airliners, so I'm not even going to
go there.

See above.

To clarify, we are talking specifically about simulated engine failure
practice, not other types of emergencies.

My comments still apply.

But yes, it absolutely IS true that what is second nature *on the
ground* may be different in flight.

Not for someone who knows how to use a simulator correctly.

Part of a successful simulation is in the mind of the pilot.

If a simulator were so real and
accurate that it could teach a person to automatically do "all the right
things", they should be able to complete all the training in a simulator
and then go out and fly the airplane to test standards. Why isn't this
done?

Regulation lags behind technology, and the technology is only just now
approaching this point.

But I have no doubt that if there were no regulatory barriers, people could
learn to fly airliners in appropriate simulators without any time in a real
aircraft, and then move directly from the sim to revenue flights. And that
day will almost certainly come, in time.

Because what may be second nature on the ground in the simulator
may not be second nature in the actual airplane, nor are real world
conditions.

No--see above. It's not a limitation of simulation so much as a limitation of
acceptance.

But handling an emergency in its entirety may often require more
than the rote level automation learned in a simulator ...

For some emergencies, the best possible response is an automatic, by-rote
response. Engine-out scenarios are close to this.

... there will likely be elements of the
emergency that require spontaneous decision making that the sim can't
create.

Some emergencies leave no time for decision-making.

You can't practice those in an in-flight simulated engine
failure, either (because they're case specific), but at least doing the
rote part of the drill in a real airplane and experiencing how that
particular plane reacts with no power won't be a surprise if it is
practiced with some regularity.

It would not be a surprise after simulation, either.

Accurate simulations on the ground are much more like the real thing
than an actual in-flight simulated engine failure?

Yes.

When was the last time you flew? or experienced "the real thing"? Oh yeah, you haven't
done either, so how would you know which is "much more like the real
thing"? Your claim has no basis.

How often do you practice these things in full-motion simulators?

GA pilots practice "a lot of this" in simulators?

No, GA pilots typically don't practice much at all. That's why they get
killed when bad things happen.

For the nth time, we are not talking about airline pilots.

I'm talking about all pilots. I cannot speak for you.

Until you experience it firsthand, your claims about anything on the
ground being a more realistic simulation of something in flight mean
nothing.

Perhaps they mean nothing to you. But that's what you mean to me, so it works
out. I judge arguments based on their own merits, not their sources.

To what degree of realism are you speaking, specifically?

The highest degree obtainable. For dangerous maneuvers, the highest realism
may only be safely attainable in simulation.

Huh? Are you suggesting a pilot applicant should be able to satisfy
these requirements in a simulator vs. in an airplane?

Sure, why not?

And if we hadn't just practiced a simulated engine-out two weeks prior
to the real thing, we might have messed up the real thing and been
killed.

So you could be killed during the drill or during the real thing. Either way,
you end up dead.

Wrong. You don't need to shut the engine down completely for the
simulation to have value.

Yes, you do. Have you tried this in a multiengine aircraft?

And you know this how?

That's what pilots, instructors, and institutions say about it, and their
arguments are cogent.

Stating your opinions as fact don't make them
any more valid than anyone else's.

The same is true for you, only I don't depend on attacks on your personality
to support my arguments.

With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.

These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.

wrote in news:1192103436.206133.45630@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.

These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.






And they are still only toys tha ape flight.


Bertie

wrote:
With a little research you'll find otherwise qualified pilots use sims
before flying a different type aircraft. I seem to remember some
airlines allow ATRs to learn about a new type on a sim then fly as
first officer. This is a far cry from taking someone with zero time,
however, and offering them any level of control of an airplane.

These sims are elaborate, have operators outside to control the
experience, and cost many happy meals an hour to run.

All true, but again, we weren't talking about airline pilots...we were
discussing how often GA pilots practice simulated engine failures
between BFRs, which then drifted to whether sim engine failure practice
is more/less like "the real thing" than in-flight simulated engine
failure practice. I was referring to single-engine aircraft (though I
don't think I specified that anywhere).

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Shirl writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
What is the difference in danger level?

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm calling your bluff, successfully.


No, you aren't.



The subject had nothing to do with airliners, so I'm not even going
to go there.

See above.

To clarify, we are talking specifically about simulated engine
failure practice, not other types of emergencies.

My comments still apply.


No, they don't.



But yes, it absolutely IS true that what is second nature *on the
ground* may be different in flight.

Not for someone who knows how to use a simulator correctly.

Which certainly wouldn't be you.

In any case it's stil incorrect.


Part of a successful simulation is in the mind of the pilot.



No it isn't, but given the state of your mind I can see how you might
think this.






Stating your opinions as fact don't make them
any more valid than anyone else's.

The same is true for you, only I don't depend on attacks on your
personality to support my arguments.


You don't have arguments.

You have bull****, period.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
I'm talking about all pilots. I cannot speak for you.

There are a lot of things and people you can't speak for,
but you do anyway.