Originally Posted by BizJetJock
Several of the above posts demonstrate the misunderstanding that causes this problem. All the "Dead leg/Live leg/Stamp on floor" stuff is for after you have the aircraft nicely under control using the correct rudder.
Exactly.
I don't understand this problem of "recognising yaw" that has been discussed. Twin piston, twin turboprop, and twin and four engine turbojet, sim and aircraft, the yaw at low speed/high thrust is immediate and easily detectable with reference to heading information etc from primary flight instruments.
Australian regs allow up to initial 20 degree swing off required heading and subsequent 5 degree heading/tracking tolerance for EFATO. Even a cruddy 30yo BAe146 sim with a 286 microprocessor running the show could model that sufficiently well. I should say -- if you could fly it in the sim, you could fly it on the line!
Is there a problem in other types?
I wonder if the problem is not more to do with expectancy, and/or a scripted approach to dealing with proficiency checks?
Eg: one of our ports used in sim exercises has an immediate left turn through 120 degrees at 400' AGL or departure end of the runway. A lot of fellows imagined that they would get a failure of No 4 - outer engine on the outside of the turn. That would be the "hardest", obviously the checkie would set that up, for sure
Fun and games ensue when the checkie fails No 1.
