..............okies 'dash' I'll reverse my post:ok:
Only ever had a quick go at the Pro 21 in a B350, very flash brudda:ok:

The old clunker B200 Sim at the Ansett Sin Center ought to be used as a testing platform for any pilot looking for any job, if ya can fly that thing on one donk at night(obviosuly) & not get a little sweaty under da arm pits then yr a candidate for the space shuttle:)!

Wmk2

Apologies, all of the operators I mentioned except RFDS Queensland Section.

I think the vast majority of us can all see the training benefits from completing (well almost) aircraft endorsements in a simulator. Personally I have no problem with this at all.

I do however have issues with the thought process/wording of CAO 82.0 subsection 7, and how its requirements apply to 'operators that are require to have a check and training organisation under CAR 217'.

Putting the obvious safety benefits aside for a moment, I'll use an example to illustrate the problems.

Two companies exist, both currently operating B200s charter only. Their only training/checking requirements at the moment are for annual 20.11 emergency procedures training, and to have a CIR renewal each year. Company A decides that it also wishes to operate Caravans IFR, and therefor sets up a CAR 217 C&T organisation as required by the current regs. Suddenly all their B200 drivers are now also required to complete two training sessions and two checks in the Ansett sim at a significant cost. For North QLD/NT/WA operators, the costs of this are even higher. Company B can continue to operate their B200 without this requirement, whilst flying the exact same work as company A.

How can a companies B200 training/checking requirements be dependent on what/how they operate other aircraft?

If it is decided that there is such a benefit to sim training/checking (and I think we all agree there is), shouldn't it be applied to either how that particular type is operated, or since we are moving away from the charter/RPT distinction, apply it to the type regardless of the operation?

Currently all that is being achieved is some operators are being forced to comply with higher requirements, and others aren't.

P.S. If I've misinterpreted this part of CAO 82.0, then please ignore everything I have just said.:)

All of our new Kingairs show 9 pax on the CofA and from my understanding are exempt from the requirement (if we so choose). However why would we? The standard of endorsement (from what I have experienced) is far higher from the sim (even the old clunker), than us poor buggers who had to do it 'old school'! ;)

I will look into it further just to make sure.I am told the CAE B350 sim in Melbourne is not able to be re-configured as a B200 and never will be able to, which I find a little bizarre.

PS: Love the new B350 sim, just like the 'real thing'! :ok:

Costs less, better training, safer. Not seeing the downside here.

In the past I was quoted $12500+ for a b200 endo at a simulator operator here in OZ

Are the three take off and landings in the actual aircraft going to be removed from the requirements of the endorsement?

If so this may reduce the cost somewhat which would be great as the above figure is way over the top.

I understand the B350 initial issue Sim course (Melb). is around $25K.

As I'm too lazy this morning to check with CAE myself, is this true?.

Gretzky makes a good point. The playing field should be level for all operators of the type. If CASA continue to allow double standards then operators will always opt for the lesser and cheaper if they can.
$12500 for a full simulator course reflects the cost of quality training. I doubt that it would be any less less at Flight Safety in the USA. And there is still a requirement to do a few circuits in the real aeroplane, so there is unlikely to be any change out of 15 grand for this type rating.
But, compared with a hot section on a turbine engine, or a landing gear overhaul, a mere drop.
There will always be those who think that they can operate turbines on a piston budget. Same characters usually have lots of nice words in their training manuals and on their websites about how good their standards are. Time for them to walk the talk.

Cat B sim only. Meaning the fidelity on the runway (take off run to touchdown run) is not available. So if someone criticises the pilot for having trouble with the simulator before lift off and after touch down, it is unfair and unwarranted since the sim is designed that way.

"I am told the CAE B350 sim in Melbourne is not able to be re-configured as a B200 and never will be able to, which I find a little bizarre."

HH,

B300 different electrical system

An A330/340 sim can be reconfigured by changing the throttle quadrant, surely a B200/350 sim can be reconfigured by changing the lower/overhead panels. Then all that is required is a change to the flight model.

I understand there are sims available that can be interchanged between Kingair types, unfortunately the one we have available in Australia is not one of those.

The fun part becomes where it was ordered as an interchangeable sim, but delievered as a 350 only sim. There are rumours of January 2014, there are also rumours that there's enough work for a second Kingair 200 sim to go next to the current 350 sim. So maybe a compensation deal will be worked out.

So if you do a 350 endo, will the energency procures be satisfied for the 200 type, seeing as you get the priviledges for everything bar a C90 with a 350 endo? (CAO 40.1.0)

Will it be similar to the US system where all ME is covered, but you have to do a conversion course for insurance?

Howard Hughes. The POH etc have nothing to do with seating capacity referred to in the regs. It specifically states, "the seating capacity on the Type Data Certificate." This of course has no relativity to logic.

Groggy

Not strictly correct. A CAR 217 T&C does not cover aircraft below 5700kg unless the operator asks and CASA approves.

"maximum certificated passenger seating capacity" (CAO 82.0.7.1) would mean what if in the Type Certificate.

Maybe someone in FF thought that a King Air was only certified for 9 pax, so they decided on 10 pax as the magic number without checking the Type Certificate.

So if you are a charter or awk operator with 14 seats in a B200, you are not required to have a 217 T&C organisation. You certainly do have an advantage over the bloke next door who operates an IFR C208 and B200s.

Another not so well thought through CAO amendment.

So if you do the Flightsafety course in the US (Level D sim) post April 1, do you still need to do the circuits in the aircraft to get the endorsement on your Aus licence? Surely not.

"Surely not" my ass. CASA will impose whatever conditions they see fit, no matter how schmick the simulator. If it is an initial multi turbine endorsement, my bet is they will still want the circuits. Just to be sure, to be sure.

I'll raise ya Wally, try flying that bloody metro sim at Ansett with both donks going at night :p

Well no wonder it is so difficult! The sim wasn't meant to fly on two engines! :E

True true Cap'n :cool: