Originally Posted by
JimEli
Many times, the requirements dictate the un-reality. For example, what is the purpose of evaluating these maneuvers in a simulator: (1) inflight fire and smoke removal (unless the simulator uses an actual smoke generator), (2) emergency descent (a fixed-wing thing), (3) auto with a power recovery (unless evaluating for a required maintenance maneuver), (4) ditching (for an operator operating in the desert?), (5) emergency evacuation (the doors rarely open), (6) CRM in the SP cockpit (but it must be covered in depth), (7) wake turbulence avoidance, (8) maximum performance takeoff (when we can’t even get a consensus on what the maneuver is), or (9) a DME arc approach on an IPC (one time, back in ’85, I flew one with an engine fire, low fuel, etc.). The FAA requirements in many ways are archaic.
For example, with weather being a factor in nearly all HAA accidents, when was the last time a 297 ride really checked your ability to evaluate it and make a decision?
One Hundred Freaking percent on the money!
As once a simulator instructor/examiner with experience in the major industry fields told me, he was often frustrated by the requirements of checking the same boxes regardless of whether the pilot/trainee is flying EMS, SAR /hoist, firefighting/slinging, Oil& Gas support or a corporate weenie.
Each operator should be responsible enough to generate its own dedicated program and the simulation industry should have more instructors/examiners who actually understand the related what if scenarios.
Yes, the all important 61.58 still requires to abide by the PTS, but soon there are going to (hopefully) be changes with the FAA moving to a different set of standards.
Having instructors who have never even seen the aircraft they train hurts quality of training and credibility.
As far as someone in previous posts mentioning lack of realism for T/R malfunctions and emergency procedures, try doing a loss of thrust or a realistic binding in a helicopter.
Show me an NG overspeed in a helicopter with a FADEC or EEC controlled engine in a helicopter that is not the actual malfunction.
We are talking about training through exposure here.
Simulation is valid enough for EASA to warrant use of it mandatory for some aircraft, and for the NTSB to generate a safety notice back in 2014 for the lack of it.