And......CASA has introduced simple mandatory requirements for simulator training. And yep....lots of squeals from people who should know better saying "but it hasn't got the ACME glass cockpit" and "why can't we do it in the aeroplane like we always did?".
Umm I don't know of any of the old sweats saying this. My experience is that they are big drivers towards using lower level sims for procedural training at the minimum. They are embracing the techonology faster than the regulator.
There have been some good points made in this thread. And they are in line with directions the industry (including sim manufacturers, CASA and training organisations) are moving toward. But if for example the use of some generic AATD was mandated as well as actual aircraft handling......be sure that you're not posting the next day about CASA over-regulating. Same if CASA said you had to use the simulator for a similar type. "Oh the cost!!!"
I don't think CASA saying that an AATD can be used for some functions would be viewed as over-regulation...its what people are calling for!
The problem lies in that fact, that you can use an AATD as much as you like to practice whatever procedure you want, but there is ZERO recognition, when it comes to meeting qualification opbligations. The current regulatory stance forces everyone into the aeroplane, unless in an approved sim.
As an example, when i did my initial Twin ticket, I came home and practised the routines on MS Flightsim. Sure the aeroplane didn't handle or feel like the real thing, but i got to practice (free of charge) the routines/habits that needed to be formed.....money saved for me, lower risk for myself and my instructor as I had the responses down to automatic and I only had to focus on controlling the real aeroplane rather than struggle to recall the next item on the list whilst it tried to roll onto its back.
Recognition of the value of fixed base simulators by CASA needs broadening and recognitioin in the regs.