|
V1 Cuts in the SIM. WHY?
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 |
Originally Posted by Grogmonster
(Post 10255220)
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 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!! |
Instrument Proficiency check in the SIM in any aircraft below 5700kg |
V1 cut in sim <5700kg cut the other one and stop? ;) |
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. |
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!
|
Encouraging candidates to fly simulators outside the certification envelope is negative training |
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 |
The Simulators I am referring to are CAT D King Air B200 |
Originally Posted by Centaurus
(Post 10256253)
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 |
Originally Posted by Centaurus
(Post 10256253)
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?
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. |
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 10256714)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by drunk_pilot
(Post 10257111)
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. 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. |
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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by Mach E Avelli
(Post 10259779)
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. 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). |
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. |
From the Reisbeck supplement
Part 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. 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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by Mach E Avelli
(Post 10261309)
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. 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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.