X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:48:23 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc1-s8.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.80] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3094137 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:42:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.80; envelope-from=gt_phantom@hotmail.com Received: from hotmail.com ([10.12.232.169]) by bay0-omc1-s8.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:41:30 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:41:30 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: Received: from 24.248.74.254 by COL0-DAV31.phx.gbl with DAV; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:41:25 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [24.248.74.254] X-Originating-Email: [gt_phantom@hotmail.com] X-Sender: gt_phantom@hotmail.com From: "GT-Phantom" X-Original-To: References: Subject: RE: [LML] Training X-Original-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:41:28 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <009701c90781$711b4d00$1e273e0a@thunderlap> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0098_01C9075F.EA09AD00" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckHgAOlzzUs1l+RRiCodtQZ4URjrAAAQ/9g In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2008 13:41:30.0423 (UTC) FILETIME=[7228EC70:01C90781] X-Original-Return-Path: gt_phantom@hotmail.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C9075F.EA09AD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good point Matt. One thing a simulator MIGHT be good for, however, would be simulating engine failure. Have a friend sit with you through multiple takeoffs and landings and periodically surprise you. No it wouldn't be perfect, but it just MIGHT train people into PUSH instead of PULL. Bill Reister Atlanta _____ From: Matt Hapgood [mailto:matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:08 To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: RE: [LML] Training 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 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ted Noel Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:50 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Training Airline pilots now train in sims due to the cost of flying giant aluminum clouds. My local FBO has a Motus Motion Sim, but it doesn't have any Lancairs in its repertoire. But for a 172, it's $100 per hour cheaper, and it's tougher than the real thing. If you're proficient in it, you're ready. ------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C9075F.EA09AD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good=20 point Matt.
 
One=20 thing a simulator MIGHT be good for, however, would be simulating engine = failure.  Have a friend sit with you through multiple takeoffs and = landings=20 and periodically surprise you. 
 
No it=20 wouldn't be perfect, but it just MIGHT train people into PUSH instead of = PULL.
 
Bill=20 Reister
Atlanta

From: Matt Hapgood=20 [mailto:matt.hapgood@alumni.duke.edu]
Sent: Monday, August = 25, 2008=20 12:08
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: RE: [LML]=20 Training

PC=20 based training software can be an excellent way to maintain proficiency = with=20 respect to instrument procedures – HOW to fly them.  However, = I caution=20 that using a generic or even an “inaccurate” training device = or simulator to=20 practice emergency maneuvers and aircraft systems procedures can be = worse than=20 doing nothing.  Improperly modeled systems, inaccurate or poorly=20 implemented aerodynamic models, or motion cues that don’t = represent actual=20 aircraft flying (we call those “commotion” instead of motion = simulators). =20 All of these items can very easily result in negative training and a = sense of=20 “I’ve practiced that” when the reality of what may = happen in the aircraft will=20 be vastly different from what the simulator indicated = “should” happen or feel=20 like.

 

This=20 is particularly relevant to the experimental world.  Simulation of = a=20 Citation jet is a challenge – there are a few different avionics = packages and a=20 few different engines/performance variants.   At the end of = the day it=20 takes several different multi-million $ simulators to cover the Citation = range.  For our experimental planes the variability is HUGE – = single vs.=20 dual bus, engine choice, props, extended wing tips or not, back-up = alternator or=20 not, fuel system differences…

 

Example=20 – if someone were to model the following:

 

Lancair=20 LNC2

no=20 header tank

IO-360=20

Long=20 mount, big tail

constant=20 speed 2-blade prop

dual=20 bus with glass panel

 

Is=20 that what you would want to base your training on if you flew a steam = gauge,=20 short mount 320 with fixed pitch prop?  I would go so far as to say = that=20 emergency procedures, stalls and low-altitude engine out practice would = be=20 almost meaningless given the variability in how these aircraft will = act/perform.=20

 

And=20 that’s what you’d want a simulator to do for you if you were = going to spend the=20 time, money and effort to simulate anything.  I would be very = concerned=20 about negative training and trying to figure out what would and would = not=20 transfer. 

 

Experimentals=20 are wonderful.  I love mine.  But we’ve kinda screwed = the pooch when=20 it comes to training.  And the sad truth is that as experimental = aircraft=20 get faster and more complex the training needs to keep up, and as = defined by the=20 circumstances it cannot.  Recognize that the Lancair Ovation or the = Epic=20 experimentals are exceeding the performance of certificated aircraft for = which=20 the insurance industry has basically mandated advanced/simulator-based=20 training.  If you want to fly a Citation, a Kingair or a anything = in that=20 performance envelope your insurer will require simulator/advanced FTD=20 training.  And there’s a reason for it – history and = statistics have shown=20 that this type of training dramatically reduces accidents.  The = Ovations=20 and EPICs are in that category of performance yet the pilot = doesn’t have that=20 training option.  It’s a recipe for = disaster.

 

Matt

 

 

 

 

 

From: Lancair = Mailing=20 List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ted = Noel
Sent:=20 Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:50 PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML]=20 Training

 

Airline=20 pilots now train in sims due to the cost of flying giant aluminum = clouds. My=20 local FBO has a Motus Motion Sim, but it doesn't have any Lancairs in = its=20 repertoire. But for a 172, it's $100 per hour cheaper, and it's tougher = than the=20 real thing. If you're proficient in it, you're=20 ready.

 

------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C9075F.EA09AD00--