Great thread.
Nick makes some great points. I fully agree with his comments about simulators. They are fantastic for procedural training but, like all things, rubbish in equals rubbish out. In other words, the representative ability of the sim is dependant upon the quality of programming. My understanding (Nick will be able to help here) is that an actual aircraft is extensively fitted out with accelerometers, control position indicators, and other data sensors and taken through its paces. The data thus collected is used for the sim program. Accordingly, the quality (like everything else) is dependent upon the budget of the data-gathering phase. Unusual flight conditions are programmed by mathematical extension of collected data and supposition. Therefore, you cannot really "prove" specific reactions to emergencies in the simulator, but the simulation will provide preparation. Nick said something in his article on testing the S92 that is applicable: when faced with actual observed data disagreeing with computed prediction of behavior, the observed data always wins. Also, the lack of vestibular stimulation generated in simulators make them ideal for IFR/Night, Airline type flying (gentle attitude changes and turn rates) and less applicable for low flying, turn and burn stuff, such as autos, tail problems etc, where the pilot includes vetibular clues in his/her effort to control the aircraft.
In response to Arm out the window's excellent post, I would like to add that the practice of bleeding off tail rotor RPM for excessive power pedal problems is, as you say, extremely effective for the UH-1H. However, I have found it to be far less effective on types that actually have a tail rotor that works! For example, in the UH 60 you have to bleed main rotor right off before you see a good reaction (to the point that generators may trip off line). In the B212 (and I presume the B205A1 and maybe the B412), the tail rotor is so effective (at low DAs)that with a decent left pedal stuck forward case, you are unlikely to bleed enough RPM off to help your tail problem before you lose so much main rotor RPM that you risk losing control. This is more so in the IFR B212 that has a form of collective to yaw coupling non-existent in the VFR version.
Forgive me being slightly off the thread topic of the S76.
[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: helmet fire ]