Matt your reference to "Negative Training" is a good and thought provoking point.  However, as I read the post on the number of accidents year after year the question remains what is to be done.  Friends don't let friends fly into thunderstorms or fly without current and appropriate training.  I have received lots of sim time on catastrophic fire, engine loss, hydraulic loss, dual electrical bus failures, runaway batteries and I would not propose giving that up.

 

It has now been a few years since I attended HPAT training in Redmond.. (a most rewarding experience).  I am casually concluding that #1 - Insurance companies are the problem (Cause it can't be us).  The savings for such real and positive training needs to be more financially significant.  #2 - The cost of insurance for those who do not seek and complete HPAT/ sim or qualified and frequent currency should be prohibitively expensive to the more casual pilots to cover the losses to the many who remain.  #3 - As a group, more needs to be done to create a fraternal posting of individuals who occasionally run off the reservation. #4 - I remain supportive that proper sim training has a valued place in helping to reduce a tragic fact. #5 - A frank and frequent review of facts and trends by this make and model remains a sobering experience.  My hat is off to Jeff for his hard work and tireless efforts to inform.

 

If indeed, a significant pool of the accident victims are from purchase of OBAM aircraft to which they are not the builder of record, then I ask "What is this group proposing".  The example of the wealthy individual with the Skyraider is endemic across the Exhibition Warbird community where you don't even need to be a builder/repairman or knowledgeable to maintain its airworthiness.  Of course only a stupid owner would do such a thing but boy do I have a lot of stupid, close friends.  Each year I fly a little more cautiously and continue to too lose too many of those I considered friends.

 

Still wondering what is a group to do?

 

Waiting for the FAA to drop the Policy Shoe on the 51% rule in November.

 

John Cox

Do not Archive

 

 

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 “inaccurate” 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 don’t represent actual aircraft flying (we call those “commotion” instead of motion simulators).  All of these items can very easily result in negative training and a sense of “I’ve practiced that” when the reality of what may happen in the aircraft will be vastly different from what the simulator indicated “should” 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 that’s what you’d 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 we’ve 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 there’s 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 doesn’t have that training option.  It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

Matt