V1 Cuts in the SIM. WHY?

[Grogmonster]

I am wondering why CASA and some Instructors insist that V1 cuts are required during your Instrument Proficiency check in the SIM in any aircraft below 5700kg? If you do your IPC in the aircraft you don't do a V1 cut, and nor should you, however if you are given a V1 cut during your simulator IPC and you muck it up you have failed. I fully get why they are demonstrated and taught during training especially for transport category aircraft above 5700kg but for smaller aircraft that are not designed to FAR Part25 I just don't get it. Perhaps someone can clear this up for me? Remember the scenario I am asking about is in the simulator during your IPC in aircraft below 5700kg.

Groggy

[LeadSled]

I am wondering why CASA and some Instructors insist that V1 cuts are required during your Instrument Proficiency check in the SIM in any aircraft below 5700kg? If you do your IPC in the aircraft you don't do a V1 cut, and nor should you, however if you are given a V1 cut during your simulator IPC and you muck it up you have failed. I fully get why they are demonstrated and taught during training especially for transport category aircraft above 5700kg but for smaller aircraft that are not designed to FAR Part25 I just don't get it. Perhaps someone can clear this up for me? Remember the scenario I am asking about is in the simulator during your IPC in aircraft below 5700kg.

Groggy

Groggy,
That wonderful combination of Australian ignorance and arrogance ---- that you can fail a "sequence" for which the aircraft is not certified, not capable, and I will bet the simulator does not meet ICAO standards for such a sequence, anyway. Indeed, you can fail such a "sequence" in a "approved simulator" that is still operating on dispensations for FSD-1.

It's got nothing to do with a proper demonstration of competence, and everything to do with the attitude that "checking" is about jumping through "hoops of fire" --- because, just because!!

Indeed, you can lose your AOC for refusing to comply with any demand, in the aircraft as well, whether the aircraft is certified for the demanded maneuver.

---- even if somebody has to die, from time to time, as a result.

After all "Safety Is Our First Priority".

What "wonderful" standards and attitudes records we have.

Tootle pip!!

[Centaurus]

Instrument Proficiency check in the SIM in any aircraft below 5700kg
As a matter of interest what was the aircraft (simulator) type you were checked on the IPC? Was it a Category B or Category D (FFS?)

[Tankengine]

V1 cut in sim <5700kg cut the other one and stop? ;)

[Mach E Avelli]

Some misguided people do not really know what V1 is. Some authors of light twin factory publications seem not to, either.
On an IPC in a light twin simulator that reasonably replicates engine out performance, the so called ‘V1 cut’ should be done at take off safety speed. At a lesser speed the candidate would be better to do exactly as would be done in the real aeroplane, i.e. put it back on the ground.
Encouraging candidates to fly simulators outside the certification envelope is negative training and could bite a misguided instructor/examiner on the bum big time at an inquest.

[machtuk]

As most would know V1 only applies to Cat A/C that require balanced field length Ops. Anything less than that the PIC has to be satisfied that if an eng fails at ANY time during the T/Off sequence that a successful stop or return on one engine can be completed safely. By V1 the decision to stop or go should already be made, V1 is NOT the time to decide what to do!

[Centaurus]

Encouraging candidates to fly simulators outside the certification envelope is negative training
Add that to the fact that the fidelity of most simulators for aircraft under 5700 kgs are only valid when airborne and not during the takeoff or landing run. .

[Grogmonster]

Centaurus,

The Simulators I am referring to are CAT D King Air B200 and to expand on the balanced field length discussion the B200 often has the same V1, Vr of 95kts with a V2 that, aside from takeoff weight, can vary widely depending on whether it is fitted with Raisbeck mods or stock standard.

Groggy

[Centaurus]

The Simulators I am referring to are CAT D King Air B200

Interesting. I didn't know there were any Cat D King Air simulators in Australia. What company uses them? Can you legally log circling approaches in them and are they zero flight time approved?

[ZFT]

Interesting. I didn't know there were any Cat D King Air simulators in Australia. What company uses them? Can you legally log circling approaches in them and are they zero flight time approved?
​​​​​​
Ansett Maroochydore have a CASA level D qualified FFS according to their website

[LeadSled]

Interesting. I didn't know there were any Cat D King Air simulators in Australia. What company uses them? Can you legally log circling approaches in them and are they zero flight time approved?

Centaurus,
Based on my recent experience, it is quite possible that "Cat. D" (ICAO Level 7) as understood by the rest of the world is a bit of a mystery to "the relevant authorities" here in AU.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I thought the KingAir 200 was certified to FAR 23, not including the "Commuter" amendment.

[drunk_pilot]

Centaurus,
Based on my recent experience, it is quite possible that "Cat. D" (ICAO Level 7) as understood by the rest of the world is a bit of a mystery to "the relevant authorities" here in AU.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I thought the KingAir 200 was certified to FAR 23, not including the "Commuter" amendment.

There is at least one aeromedical operator I know of that has an STC to operate the B200 over the 5700kg limit by a few hundred kilos. They are of course required to operate I.A.W CAO 20.7.1B, and crews are provided with an iPad to calculate performance and loading that ensures compliance (provided by APG). These specific operations would make V1 cuts in the sim not only relevant, but required. There are also maitenance implications as a result.

As a point of interest, Raisebeck also provide FAR 25 data that operators can choose to comply with if they wish whilst operating below 5700kg.

[LeadSled]

These specific operations would make V1 cuts in the sim not only relevant, but required.
As a point of interest, Raisebeck also provide FAR 25 data that operators can choose to comply with if they wish whilst operating below 5700kg.
DP et al,
The point Centaurus and myself are trying to make is so called "Level D" simulators (ICAO Level 7 FSTD), and whether they are really are Level D. Particularly if they are "Made In Australia".
I seriously question the "V1 cut" simulation as being in anyway near accurate, compared to the real aeroplane . This whole nonsense of conjuring up phantom V1s is just a silly, and sadly, peculiarly Australian.

---- quite simply, pilots should not have to put their license and job on the line by being required to demonstrate an uncertified manoeuver in an unqualified device ---- or the aeroplane.

Some time ago, CASA actually "approved" a desktop device, and not even a good one, for "initial and recurrent asymmetric " (whatever the actual wording was, among a lot of things) with the pilot seats being PVC garden chairs sitting on the floor. In fact, at the time it was not the only "approved simulator" on that airfield where the pilot seats were PVC garden chairs -- one "rock and roll" devices was even advertised as "full motion".

Neither of the above complied with any known standard for a "simulator", barely a FTD.
Tootle pip!!

PS:
1) All such an STC re. increased weight (that I have seen) does is allow operation at that weight, it does not necessarily imply FAR 25 certification of the rest of the performance.
2) Complying with CAO 20.7.1b climb gradients ( or the increased weight STC) does not suddenly produce a V1 and related data.
3) Raisebeck data cannot be used on an aircraft that has not been subject to the relevant STC mods., I hope it is understood that such data cannot be used in another aeroplane.

[Grogmonster]

Lead,

The level D Sim at Maroochydore is indeed a proper level D made by TRU Simulation of Canada. TRU is a subsidiary of TEXTRON and they make Sims predominantly for the airlines, A340, A350, B737 MAX, etc etc.

Groggy

[Mach E Avelli]

If the manufacturer insists that 95 knots is a true V1/Vr for flap zero takeoff, they are wrong. Vsi at flap zero is about 100 knots.
Vr can’t be less than stall speed, for obvious reasons.
The King Air 200 performance data needs to be revised, or the terms V1, Vr need to be dropped.
Unless it has changed in recent flight manuals, the manufacturer also seems to be confused about Vref versus Vappr.
Couple this with about the worst manufacturer checklist ever devised. Awful aeroplane.

[drunk_pilot]

If the manufacturer insists that 95 knots is a true V1/Vr for flap zero takeoff, they are wrong. Vsi at flap zero is about 100 knots.
Vr can’t be less than stall speed, for obvious reasons.
The King Air 200 performance data needs to be revised, or the terms V1, Vr need to be dropped.
Unless it has changed in recent flight manuals, the manufacturer also seems to be confused about Vref versus Vappr.
Couple this with about the worst manufacturer checklist ever devised. Awful aeroplane.

It was certified as a part 23 aeroplane, 95 knots is not “V1”. The original 200 had a rotate speed of 95 and a speed at 50ft (Vtoss) of 121 in the performance charts. There are no RTOW charts.

But, for the Raisebeck modified aircraft, they published both FAR 23 and FAR 25 performance data. You could choose to use FAR 25 performance data, which provided for a balanced field, but it used a higher V1 of about 104, and came at the cost of TODR.

At at the end of the day, the 200 is held to the same standards as a chieftain in terms of OEI. Obviously, they go a little better, but with the caveat that pilots don’t assume they’re flying a dash 8 in terms of being guaranteed a safe outcome in the event of an engine failure at rotate speed. I don’t think it deserves being written off as an awful aeroplane though. They have good performance, excellent reliability, extremely durable airframe, and a very simple fuel system. They problems they have tend to be from a lack of understanding of the certification requirements, the lack of exposure to OEI at 95 knots (done safely in a simulator), and possibly a bit of overconfidence from it’s 2 engine performance (IMHO).

[601]

Back last century we would often be asked by Examiners what was "V1" in a C310 when doing our IR renewals. This, I presume was their method of determining the speed at which they would fail an engine. I would reply that "the C310 did not have such a speed published".
"However, if we are given 04 (old BN) I would have a decision speed of Nkts or if we are given 13 I would have a decision speed of Nkts".
However, the speed I nominated was not below Vtoss.

On 04 I could close the live engine and land. On 13 you may have to accept an overrun.

[megan]

From the Reisbeck supplementPart 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations require only the all engines operating distance over a 50-ft. height be presented for take-off distance. Along with the FAA-approved optional performance in this subsection, we include for your information Accelerate-Go, Accelerate-Stop, Climb Limited Weight, Net Climb Gradient, and other information generally tailored to FAR Part 25. For data not shown in this section, refer to Section V of the Beechcraft POH.
ALTERNATE RAISBECK BALANCED FIELD LENGTHS
There is increasing world-wide acceptance of FAR Part 25 safety standards in the smaller turboprop and turbojet
Corporate and Airline fleet. Raisbeck Engineering offers its fully Raisbeck-Equipped 200/B200 aircraft with equivalent FAR Part 25 Balanced Field Lengths, tailored to FAA Advisory Circular, AC25-7.
Take-off field length requirements for flaps UP and APPROACH may be drawn from this subsection as an alternate to the standard enhanced Raisbeck take-off performance detailed in the previous subsection.
Some of the more important FAR Part 25 requirements utilized to calculate performance in this subsection are as follows:
● Decision speed (V1) is faster than engine failure speed (VEF) by the demonstrated pilot engine-failure recognition time, plus one-second.
● If continuing take-off:
-rotation speed (VR) must be faster than 1.05 VMCG
-Speed at 35 feet altitude (V2) must be faster than 1.2 Vs
-Speed at 50 feet altitude (V50) is considerably faster than 1.2 Vs
● If aborting take-off
-brake application may not begin until V1, (see decision speed, above)
-Throttle-Chop may not begin until demonstrated pilot brake application time plus one second.
-No propeller reverse of any type may be utilized to contribute to the stopping distance.FAR 25 charts included in manual. Can post copies if anyone requires, ask for which one.FLAPS UP EQUIVALENT FAR PART 25 TAKE-OFFS
BALANCED FIELD LENGTHS
TAKEOFF DISTANCE
TAKEOFF AND BALANCED FIELD LENGTH SPEEDS
CLIMB – TWO ENGINES
CLIMB – NET GRADIENT
FLAPS APPROACH EQUIVALENT FAR PART 25 TAKE-OFFS
BALANCED FIELD LENGTH
TAKEOFF DISTANCE
TAKEOFF AND BALANCED FIELD LENGTH SPEEDS
CLIMB – TWO ENGINES
CLIMB – NET GRADIENT

[Mach E Avelli]

Thanks for the detailed Raisbeck info, Megan. Interesting.
So...am I right in deducing that the Raisbeck aircraft can suffer an engine failure at, say 93 knots, pilot recognises this by V1 a second or so later, so is committed to go, then rotates at, say 96 knots and achieves 1.2 Vs of 120 knots by 35 feet? 121 knots conveniently being both blue line and the 1.20 margin over stall speed. Or have Raisbeck increased Vr to something a bit safer like 105 knots?
Either way it seems a helluva split between V1 and V2, more in keeping with a medium sized transport jet.
Just curious.

[Car RAMROD]

Thanks for the detailed Raisbeck info, Megan. Interesting.
So...am I right in deducing that the Raisbeck aircraft can suffer an engine failure at, say 93 knots, pilot recognises this by V1 a second or so later, so is committed to go, then rotates at, say 96 knots and achieves 1.2 Vs of 120 knots by 35 feet? 121 knots conveniently being both blue line and the 1.20 margin over stall speed. Or have Raisbeck increased Vr to something a bit safer like 105 knots?
Either way it seems a helluva split between V1 and V2, more in keeping with a medium sized transport jet.
Just curious.



I think you might be working with the wrong stall speed Mach.

Some numbers below for you from my Raisbeck manual.

Raisbeck FAR25 alternate balanced field length numbers, sea level 20deg Celsius, mtow:
flap up
V1- 104
Vr- 104
V2- 111
V50- 117

flap approach
V1- 98
Vr- 98
V2- 100
V50- 105


Also from the Raisbeck manual is a section on the "Basic Beechcraft POH/AFM Performance" which includes the following info:
"the use of the basic POH/AFM performance is approved with the following changes to the speed schedule (note no changes in the basic distances are required):

Takeoff dist, flap app (mtow):
Rotation- 94
50ft- 106

Accelerate-go, flap app (mtow):
Vr- 94
V2- 106

[Mach E Avelli]

Thanks, those numbers seem more like it.
Old King Air AFM chart shows clean stall 100 knots at MTOW, but assume Raisebeck tweaks that slightly?
Using old King Air Vr of 95 triggered stall warning on occasion with flap zero. Had an engine failed right there I imagine things would get interesting on the side where there was no longer any prop wash.
It was probably this that had many pilots prefer to take off with flaps approach, maybe not appreciating the degraded second segment performance with one engine out - or not really caring about it.
I have only flown a part-Raisbeck conversion once or twice, so was not aware of the enhanced speed schedule with the full Monty fit.
Back to the OP’s concern though, the two simulators here in Oz are (as far as I know) more representative of bog standard King Airs, so cutting an engine at 95 knots and expecting it to fly away could be what bothered him/her.

[LeadSled]

Lead,

The level D Sim at Maroochydore is indeed a proper level D made by TRU Simulation of Canada. TRU is a subsidiary of TEXTRON and they make Sims predominantly for the airlines, A340, A350, B737 MAX, etc etc.

Groggy

Groggy,
Thanks for that, a good development to have that available.
Having asked around on the subject of Kingair 200 etc, it would seem that performance information is still around, from Australian "certification" of old, particularly takeoff data from the old Australian AFM. This includes a package supplied by the Beechcraft agents of the day, to meet "Australian" rules.
I would remind anybody still using such data, that the supporting legislation was repealed in 1998, and all such "Australian" certification rendered invalid, so beware, you must be using a valid AFM.
Tootle pip!!

PS: I concur about terrible OEM checklists,(also noted on the Essendon crash thread) but if you want to use something different, make certain you have gone through the processes to have it approved as a substitute for the OEM checklists. Insurance companies can get very stroppy about this.

[Grogmonster]

LeadSled,

FYI the data set used for programming the SIM comes from a current model King Air that is fitted with a very large number of sensors and a data gathering suit that would dwarf the average PC. It is then flown through a number of pre programmed flights by a test pilot during which all the data is recorded. Somehow, in a process beyond my knowledge, that is then transferred into the simulator software package. Australian, read CASA, input is limited to observing that the simulator flys and replicates the actual aircraft during all the various flight regimes. Hope that helps.

Groggy

[LeadSled]

LeadSled,

FYI the data set used for programming the SIM comes from a current model King Air that is fitted with a very large number of sensors and a data gathering suit that would dwarf the average PC. It is then flown through a number of pre programmed flights by a test pilot during which all the data is recorded. Somehow, in a process beyond my knowledge, that is then transferred into the simulator software package. Australian, read CASA, input is limited to observing that the simulator flys and replicates the actual aircraft during all the various flight regimes. Hope that helps.

Groggy
Groggy,
I am not referring to the sim, sorry if I haven't been clear enough.

What I am referring to is "CASA Approved" data that came from the old Australian certification, which was all repealed in 1998, but is still being used to this day, in "CASA Accepted" FCOMs.
Indeed, I get the impression that at least two FOIs don't understand, or don't accept, that such "data" no longer has legal standing, and they do not have a legal head of power to make it otherwise. In fact, I think they believe they can do whatever they like, including demanding/directing "V1 cuts", in aircraft no so certified.

As to engineering data packages that pass muster for ICAO 5 thru' 7 (Cat D) there are several acceptable methods to develop such a package, what you describe is, in essence, one of them.

Tootle pip!!

[Ramjet555]

First, I remember one senior pilot who had "flipped" several twins doing engine failures on take off old timers
will know who I'm referring to.

I had my first real introduction to repeated V1 cuts in the Flight Safety King Air 200 simulator.
You learn that V2 is a minimum speed. If the engine goes bang at the exact speed at max weight
your V2 needs to be increased to get it to climb, retain directional control
to take it through those imaginary goal posts at the end of the runway.

You program the sim to fail exactly at V2. The sim is the only way it can be practiced
on the runway safely. It's probably the most important task you can practice in a sim.

[Propsforever]

I have only been in the B350 Sim from FS and in a BE30 Sim in Pori Finland.

But as most of my KA experience is on the B200, i can tell you one Thing:

Mach A Velli is completly right with his Suggestions regarding the B200 and V1 Cuts.
I decided Long time ago, to take off only Flaps Appr. on Rwys shorter than 1500m and to decide case to case, when shorter than 2000m.
If you rotate even at a 100kts a bit to energeticly, you will have the Stall warning coming on. Imagine loosing one Engine at this Moment.....
It will cost you 1% of SE Climb Gradient to have flaps App, but the Stall Speed is lowered to 90Kts, so at least the ship will fly.
We never ever rotated below 100KTs. Then with Flaps app your V2 is 106KT, wich is a mere 6 kts to accelerate from VR. This will reduce your Go distance a lot.

Just to memorize: AGD is the longest T/O Distance in a B200: Isa SL@ 12500lb= 7000ft 0-flap or 4800ft App flaps ASD is around 3400ft.
Just once more "IF" you loose an engine at V1 clean, you Need over 2200m to get over an 11m obtstacle going 121kts. Good Fun eeh!

I know that a B200 is certified to FAR23, but that doesnt imply i have to try to kill myselve and my Pax, trying the impossible, We tried at least as often as possible to operate while using FAR25 T/O Performance as a base.
We were send to a few Airports where we knew, that far25 wouldnt work. But according to the rules we where legal....