The instructor involved with the Duchess practice engine failure (mixture cut) fatal crash was quite experienced with over 30,000 hours and the Boeing 767 Air Canada captain in the left seat of that Duchess undergoing the instrument rating renewal was less experienced with only 16,000 hours...
So now about this "realistic training scenario, managed risk with a well trained and competent instructor"?
Well said sheppey, that is also reinforced by this comment in Annex A of the Mandatory Simulator NFRM/NPRM, by none other than the regulator:
COMMENT 1.2
Some respondents proposed adding wording to allow training and checking to occur in the aircraft provided the exercise had been conducted by all pilots in a simulator in the preceding 12 months.
CASA Response
CASA is firmly of the view that where a qualified STD is available for aircraft of this size, this should be used for all training and checking activities. The ATSB has reported that the training captain of the aircraft involved in an accident in Darwin in March 2010 had undergone training and checking in a flight simulator, however the actions by the training captain in simulating an engine failure in the actual aircraft during the accident flight was not consistent with the training received during the simulator course. This suggests that doing one session of training and one check per year in an STD (with the subsequent session/check in an actual aircraft) does not satisfactorily address the risk of conducting non-normal exercises in an actual aircraft.
.....and this
COMMENT 3
One respondent believes that mandating simulator training for check and training captains but not for recurrent line pilot training recognises that, check and training captains who are simulator recurrent in recovery from non-normal exercises in a simulator can be expected to handle non-normal exercises in the aircraft better than pilots undertaking an initial endorsement. The respondent believes the safety risk case is very strong to support the above.
CASA Response
CASA is firmly of the view that where a qualified STD is available, this should be used for conversion training. The ATSB has reported that the training captain of the aircraft involved in an accident in Darwin in March 2010 had undergone training and checking in a flight simulator, however the actions by the training captain in simulating an engine failure in the actual aircraft during the accident flight was not consistent with the training received during the simulator course.
Contrary to the respondent’s view, this suggests that having only training and checking captains undergo simulator training does not satisfactorily address the risk of conducting non-normal exercises in an actual aircraft.