Originally Posted by
drunk_pilot
These specific operations would make V1 cuts in the sim not only relevant, but required.
As a point of interest, Raisebeck also provide FAR 25 data that operators can choose to comply with if they wish whilst operating below 5700kg.
DP et al,
The point Centaurus and myself are trying to make is so called "Level D" simulators (ICAO Level 7 FSTD), and whether they are really are Level D. Particularly if they are "Made In Australia".
I seriously question the "V1 cut" simulation as being in anyway near accurate, compared to the real aeroplane . This whole nonsense of conjuring up phantom V1s is just a silly, and sadly, peculiarly Australian.
---- quite simply, pilots should not have to put their license and job on the line by being required to demonstrate an uncertified manoeuver in an unqualified device ---- or the aeroplane.
Some time ago, CASA actually "approved" a desktop device, and not even a good one, for "initial and recurrent asymmetric " (whatever the actual wording was, among a lot of things) with the pilot seats being PVC garden chairs sitting on the floor. In fact, at the time it was not the only "approved simulator" on that airfield where the pilot seats were PVC garden chairs -- one "rock and roll" devices was even advertised as "full motion".
Neither of the above complied with any known standard for a "simulator", barely a FTD.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
1) All such an STC re. increased weight (that I have seen) does is allow operation at that weight, it does not necessarily imply FAR 25 certification of the rest of the performance.
2) Complying with CAO 20.7.1b climb gradients ( or the increased weight STC) does not suddenly produce a V1 and related data.
3) Raisebeck data cannot be used on an aircraft that has not been subject to the relevant STC mods., I hope it is understood that such data cannot be used in another aeroplane.