Easyjet don't 'give' anything. EASA mandate that pilots with no previous relevant experience must perform 6 take-off and landings in the aircraft before the rating can be issued. For pilots with relevant experience, this is reduced to 4 or (if the ATO and Operator have the right approvals) it may be replaced with Zero Flight Time Training. Good as modern sims are, no-one is (yet) ready to accept the risk of letting cadets do ZFTT.

However, the signicant risk of conductng 'live' asymmetric training on a twin-jet does not justify the marginal gain in skills/experince over. doing it synthetically. Even the 'right' instructor can't prevent the live engine failing at the most inopportune moment, so any actual asymmetric training has to bounded with significant safety margins. If the sim allows realistic practice of a V1 cut, is there any additional value in doing it in the aircraft with a safety margin that means the 'failure' is not initated below say 500' aal? If there is no suitable sim (Jetstream T1), then clearly there is no alternative, but if the Phenom has a Level D sim why take unnecessary risk?

Is Phenom coming with a Level D sim? If it is, I really hope that its full capabilities are understood and exploited, with the training sessions being regarded as equal in value and importance as the flying sorties.

BP, do please remember that easyJet copilots will have had at least some previous asymmetric time on aircraft such as the Seneca or DA42 - whereas RAF ME students will not. So they must surely be given at least some asymmetric training on the Phenom; not a V1 cut at MTOM, but certainly some asymm handing, asymm approaches and go-arounds at training weights.

Way back when I first flew the VC10, we had a very basic sim. So pretty well all asymm training was done on the aeroplane. Such as a simulated 3-e t/o with a further failure once the landing gear had been raised, followed by the FI throttling back the 2 live engines 'to simulate Nairobi on a hot day'. Barking mad and very risky in today's culture. But when the improved simulators arrived, student captains only did one brief double asymm exercise in the aircraft. 3-e work was also reduced to the minimum deemed safe and we even did IRTs in the box later on. Which was a $od as the box lacked the upgraded aircraft instrumentation - no FMS RDU, for example.

High risk asymm should really only be taught / practised in a FFS, but at least some ab initio asymm work must still be flown in the aircraft.

BEagle,

I do see your point about initial exposure to asymmetric flight. But simulated OEI in a twin-jet (even a small one) when close to the ground is not something that I regard as prudent, or necessary if a simulator is available. It could go horribly wrong if an engine quits on an OEI go-around. Perhaps they have picked the wrong aircraft.

The MPL scheme does not involve any live asymmetric training; it is all done in simulators. And it seems to produce first officers that are perfectly acceptable to Easyjet who, I happen to know, have high standards.

Of course, RAF training has many necessary differences from civil, but I don't agree at all that military pilots have, or need, any greater skill in handling asymmetric conditions than airline pilots. That said, I have no knowledge of airborne delivery, so ithere may be some nuance of turboprop flying when low/slow and dropping stuff that I haven't appreciated. I do know that a 737 can be a handful when OEI and that MPL cadets are coping, despite the lack of MEP class experience.