Tee-Emm,
how can someone who wrote such an intelligent James Reason supporting post as the following have your attitude?
"Most ADI's in today's low cost synthetic trainers, offer full 360 degrees of roll and a pilot can practice unusual attitude recoveries on an el cheapo machine and be a safer pilot for it. Pull through from inverted and any aeroplane will lose considerable altitude in an attempted recovery. A pilot never having been taught to recover from that manoeuvre - or any other extreme attitude - would surely crash if faced with the real event - particularly in IMC.
So, whether you practice recovery on instruments in a 737 flight simulator or an Elite synthetic trainer; or even under the hood in a Cessna 150, the instrument indications would most probably be the same. Better a little knowledge of unusual attitude recovery technique than none at all. And certainly a lot better than reading all about it in a text book, and expecting that to get you out of trouble if you are upside down in the real thing.. "
What you advocate in your post of July 9th is the Reason Model...
Problem identified-training needed-added to training program-reduction in the accident rate.
you've just advocated the Reason model...
What gives?