Originally Posted by
KRviator
It's all well and good to say that 'proper' operators and the airlines will use a sim for riskier operations, and that is a valid claim when a suitable simulator is available...Most times, for GA anyway, this is simply not the case. That is the unfortunate reality, whether or not it is liked.
KR,
If it is good enough for organisations like Qantas to prohibit a range of exercises at night, not limited to asymmetric, when an actual aircraft is used, ii's good enough for me.
In the case of major airlines, I know the record that resulted in the introduction of such restrictions, and all these aircraft were/are FAR 25 or equivalent aircraft, not FAR 23 or earlier CAR light aircraft standards.
So it should be very clear what I am saying, and I repeat, any candidate for any test, in an actual aircraft, who is invited to conduct asymmetric exercises at night should refuse.
The fact that accidents happen in daylight is irrelevant, and as for crash mentioned at Darwin, people should acquaint themselves with the detailed causes ---- indeed, I would go so far as to say it "was caused" by unnecessarily risky training demands by CASA. I have a strong suspicion that similar, but not identical demands played a dominant role in the Renmark loss. Our steady death toll on asymmetric training/checking in Australia speaks for itself.
It is a nonsense to suggest that the additional risks of carrying out such training at night is trivial, and should be ignored.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Gupta, I just mentioned two night asymmetric training accidents that came immediately to mind, but we are not short of night accidents in GA aircraft.