Originally Posted by
BEagle
EASA has dumbed down most twin jet training to the extent that asymmetric work is normally restricted to a FFS.
But the RAF does not have an intermediate ME trainer such as the Seneca or DA42 on which students learn asymmetric work, neither are RAF pilots taught to the minimum levels required for mere people-tube co-pilots or MPL applicants - so I sincerely hope that their training is to the higher standards required to operate Atlas / C-103J / C-17 / Poseidon / Sentinel / Sentry or Voyager in a tactical environment.
For the next generation of RAF ME pilots, it is crucial that 'live' asymmetric training is not restricted to a simulator for ab initio training.
EASA have not "dumbed-down" asymmetric training. Regulations have evolved to place the training/checking activity into the most appropriate environment, with due regard for safety and realism. For jet aircraft, actual asymmetric flight in a qualified Level D FFS gives much better quality training than simulating asymmetric flight in an aeroplane. The instructor can fail the engine suddenly, at the most challenging moment and accompanied by the correct thrust decay, warnings, sounds and vibration. Setiing the obvious safety argument aside, this gives much better training than in airborne environment where instructor (slowly) closes a thrust lever and then uses a significant proportion of their capacity safeguarding against the expected critical mistakes, rather than monitoring student performance. I have no relevant knowledge of turboprops but, from what I remember, some sort of residual thrust would usually have to be applied to "simulate" the feathered propeller. The efficacy of such an approxination is less likely to be accurate than manufacturer-approved, certified data that drives the simulator response.
Of course, the RAF do some different things with their aircraft, but the principles of V1 cut, OEI approaches and landings are the same as in commercial aviation. If you can deal with an OEI go-around in a 737-800, you can deal with an engine failure at low level in a P8. If a Level D sim is available, I cannot see a valid argument that justifies the additional risk of conducting live "tactical" training scenarios involving asymmetric flight.