Sim Vs Actual
Thread Starter
Hello Staitman,
I have always appreciated the quality of training at FSI....even as a kid watching my old man go through it.
You seem to have completely missed my point in this thread. Its nothing to do with FSI's level of training just the missed opportunities on the aircraft. FSI is superb.
I was no keener than every other pilot to get to FSI but it was never going to happen through ESSO. So how can you say I "begged" to get a trip there? That's a huge exaggeration.
At any rate; since I have been a couple of times now I realise why you spent more of your time planning what rental car to hire, arguing the missus into business class, upgrading your hotel room (while trying figure out how to make ESSO pay for it all) than studying for the course.
Then again: after flying 10000hrs along the same parallel east to west, west to east, maybe I would be more interested in the excursion out of the "truman zone" than the job too....
I have always appreciated the quality of training at FSI....even as a kid watching my old man go through it.
You seem to have completely missed my point in this thread. Its nothing to do with FSI's level of training just the missed opportunities on the aircraft. FSI is superb.
I was no keener than every other pilot to get to FSI but it was never going to happen through ESSO. So how can you say I "begged" to get a trip there? That's a huge exaggeration.
At any rate; since I have been a couple of times now I realise why you spent more of your time planning what rental car to hire, arguing the missus into business class, upgrading your hotel room (while trying figure out how to make ESSO pay for it all) than studying for the course.
Then again: after flying 10000hrs along the same parallel east to west, west to east, maybe I would be more interested in the excursion out of the "truman zone" than the job too....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Steve
Going back to your basic question of how prepared I would be for a double engine failure in a twin.
I would say that I would be much better prepared for this at the end of an intensive simulator session than I would be a few months later just before such a session.
If you can get them the simulator sessions are of tremendous value.
I have just come back from one and I know there is nothing you can do with your own aircraft without breaking it that can replicate it as much as a Sim.
The drive failure scenario is the best...you cannot do that in your aircraft in practice but you can in the Simulator. If you can just keep up every opportunity you have to go to a simulator to prepare you for the worse then do it.
All the best
Going back to your basic question of how prepared I would be for a double engine failure in a twin.
I would say that I would be much better prepared for this at the end of an intensive simulator session than I would be a few months later just before such a session.
If you can get them the simulator sessions are of tremendous value.
I have just come back from one and I know there is nothing you can do with your own aircraft without breaking it that can replicate it as much as a Sim.
The drive failure scenario is the best...you cannot do that in your aircraft in practice but you can in the Simulator. If you can just keep up every opportunity you have to go to a simulator to prepare you for the worse then do it.
All the best
Thread Starter
Airtoday,
Yes, I agree the driveshaft failure and all the tailrotor stuff is excellent. It is nice to get all that under control in the sim.
The last session was a riot with Emmet (been there shot that, got the medal to show for it
) and Mike (shake de chicken legs....) Moran. Two great operators with a lifetime of stories and experience to teach.
I only wish I was booked a little further into the canuk winter.... mid 20's in temp is a nice change during January here
Yes, I agree the driveshaft failure and all the tailrotor stuff is excellent. It is nice to get all that under control in the sim.
The last session was a riot with Emmet (been there shot that, got the medal to show for it
) and Mike (shake de chicken legs....) Moran. Two great operators with a lifetime of stories and experience to teach. I only wish I was booked a little further into the canuk winter.... mid 20's in temp is a nice change during January here
just coming back from WPB ....to me the hairising one is the "collective drive case" on the "76" ... training in these conditions is an outsdanding asset.
I just wish to go back at FSI on a regular basis, but that another story!
I just wish to go back at FSI on a regular basis, but that another story!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76 and other ppruners:
I truly value the simulator as a training tool, very important for modern training but I caution against one very important limitation:
The training sims have absolutely no validity when you go beyond the normal flight envelope. By that I mean that you can be easily fooled into thinking that if the sim does a certain thing, that is the true behavior of the aircraft. Nothing can be more wrong.
The validation of the sim never covered its response to tail rotor failures other than validating the procedures as written in the flight manual. Those who note excellent fly-away capability while starting from a high hover, for example, might be rudely surprised at how the real aircraft behaves in a real tr failure. Similarly, it tells you nothing valid when the rotor goes beyond or below the green arc. Same for airspeed, and power, load factor and sideslip.
In short, the sim is a sim, not an aircraft, and it is a sim that only provides answers to questions within the normal flight envelope. This is true of all training sims, regardless of what the builders may say.
The Sikorsky test pilots coined the desease "Simulitus" to describe those who believe everything a sim tells them. For your own protection, imagine the sim to be a window that looks out on a vast painting. In the normal flight envelope, the painting is quite real, and can be trusted to guide you effectively. Beyond that boundary, it is probably crap, but beguiling and convincing crap.
I truly value the simulator as a training tool, very important for modern training but I caution against one very important limitation:
The training sims have absolutely no validity when you go beyond the normal flight envelope. By that I mean that you can be easily fooled into thinking that if the sim does a certain thing, that is the true behavior of the aircraft. Nothing can be more wrong.
The validation of the sim never covered its response to tail rotor failures other than validating the procedures as written in the flight manual. Those who note excellent fly-away capability while starting from a high hover, for example, might be rudely surprised at how the real aircraft behaves in a real tr failure. Similarly, it tells you nothing valid when the rotor goes beyond or below the green arc. Same for airspeed, and power, load factor and sideslip.
In short, the sim is a sim, not an aircraft, and it is a sim that only provides answers to questions within the normal flight envelope. This is true of all training sims, regardless of what the builders may say.
The Sikorsky test pilots coined the desease "Simulitus" to describe those who believe everything a sim tells them. For your own protection, imagine the sim to be a window that looks out on a vast painting. In the normal flight envelope, the painting is quite real, and can be trusted to guide you effectively. Beyond that boundary, it is probably crap, but beguiling and convincing crap.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were I the owner of a company that used twin engine helicopters, I would not allow twin engine idle or twin engine off touchdown autorotative training. I would allow twin engine idle or twin engine off autorotative descent training with a power recovery at an appropriate altitude by trained and designated instructors.
The risk of losing a helicopter in a touchdown autorotative training incident would be unacceptable to me.
Roy G Fox (Chief Safety Engineer BHTI) wrote a paper published by the Flight Safety Foundation in August 1991 entitled "Measuring Safety in Single- and Twin-Engine Helicopters". A worldwide study of Bell civil and military turbine helicopter accidents (1970-87) concluded that 3 % of fatal accidents in twin engine helicopters were due to an engine related initiating cause. The percentage of all twin engine helicopter airworthiness related fatalities was 25%. The difference may be related to the complexity of twin engine helicopters (non-linear complex systems).
Human error is implicated in 70 to 80% (88% of fatal helicopter accidents) of all civil and military accidents in aviation.
Simulators and task trainers have proven useful for training pilots to handle non-linear complex failures and reducing human error. Particularly fuel management tasks that can cause a dual engine flameout and weather related tasks that reduce weather related loss of aircraft. Simulation is, in my opinion, the only safe method to safely train to respond to various tail rotor failures and drive system emergencies.
As for Nick's comments regarding recognition and reaction times in a task loaded situation, a UK CAA study showed that a task loaded pilot can require as much as 4 seconds to detect and react to an emergency. In a non-task loaded environment the time can be less than 2 seconds.
Teaching emergency procedures when a pilot is not task loaded can lead to a very optimistic belief in the efficacy of that training.
The risk of losing a helicopter in a touchdown autorotative training incident would be unacceptable to me.
Roy G Fox (Chief Safety Engineer BHTI) wrote a paper published by the Flight Safety Foundation in August 1991 entitled "Measuring Safety in Single- and Twin-Engine Helicopters". A worldwide study of Bell civil and military turbine helicopter accidents (1970-87) concluded that 3 % of fatal accidents in twin engine helicopters were due to an engine related initiating cause. The percentage of all twin engine helicopter airworthiness related fatalities was 25%. The difference may be related to the complexity of twin engine helicopters (non-linear complex systems).
Human error is implicated in 70 to 80% (88% of fatal helicopter accidents) of all civil and military accidents in aviation.
Simulators and task trainers have proven useful for training pilots to handle non-linear complex failures and reducing human error. Particularly fuel management tasks that can cause a dual engine flameout and weather related tasks that reduce weather related loss of aircraft. Simulation is, in my opinion, the only safe method to safely train to respond to various tail rotor failures and drive system emergencies.
As for Nick's comments regarding recognition and reaction times in a task loaded situation, a UK CAA study showed that a task loaded pilot can require as much as 4 seconds to detect and react to an emergency. In a non-task loaded environment the time can be less than 2 seconds.
Teaching emergency procedures when a pilot is not task loaded can lead to a very optimistic belief in the efficacy of that training.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76,
I think I DO recall you begging for FSI. Sitting in the phone corner, winding Doc up after lunch.
If you weren't begging for fsi for coeys, how did you fill in all those daily visits to the Chief Pilots office?????
Nothing personal, why you nofor ringen me.
SBS
I think I DO recall you begging for FSI. Sitting in the phone corner, winding Doc up after lunch.
If you weren't begging for fsi for coeys, how did you fill in all those daily visits to the Chief Pilots office?????
Nothing personal, why you nofor ringen me.
SBS
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was no keener than every other pilot to get to FSI but it was never going to happen through ESSO. So how can you say I "begged" to get a trip there? That's a huge exaggeration.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of sims, John Farley (Harrier Test Pilot, columnist in the UK's Flyer magazine) reckons they're a great tool when used within the flight envelope, but he goes even further than Nick does in stressing their limitations - he believes they should freeze as soon as the established envelope is exceeded, just so no-one is fooled into thinking they can pull really extreme manouvres (sorry, manouvers).
For my part, I used to try autos with Microsoft FS2000 from 1000' over Meigs. At the bottom, you could keeping pulling in pitch and float at least a quarter of the length of the runway. Now I know the 206 has a high-inertia MR, but...
For my part, I used to try autos with Microsoft FS2000 from 1000' over Meigs. At the bottom, you could keeping pulling in pitch and float at least a quarter of the length of the runway. Now I know the 206 has a high-inertia MR, but...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR failures Nick
First of all, don`t get personal on this webpage folks.
Only good things can come out of sim. training. You will sometimes crash in a sim., but you`ll walk away from it and you have learned from it. It`s also cheaper to "crash" than the real thing or find weaknesses in your own or others skills.
CRM is also an important factor to be checked in a sim. Don`t forget to use all your available resourses fellow captains!
Nick, being the walking database you are, do you have any info on TR controll and drive failures during different stages of flight where the pilots have made a "successful" landing? I`m interrested in knowing what happened and what they did to controll it.? Not much on the web, or in any books for that matter. FM manuals are good tools, but are neves really tested on this subject.
I guess Vietnam most have been more or less a "test" ground for these types of failures.
Only good things can come out of sim. training. You will sometimes crash in a sim., but you`ll walk away from it and you have learned from it. It`s also cheaper to "crash" than the real thing or find weaknesses in your own or others skills.
CRM is also an important factor to be checked in a sim. Don`t forget to use all your available resourses fellow captains!
Nick, being the walking database you are, do you have any info on TR controll and drive failures during different stages of flight where the pilots have made a "successful" landing? I`m interrested in knowing what happened and what they did to controll it.? Not much on the web, or in any books for that matter. FM manuals are good tools, but are neves really tested on this subject.
I guess Vietnam most have been more or less a "test" ground for these types of failures.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpt : its been a couple of years since I have flown a 76.
I don't recall nor do I recall hearing of "collective drive case" failure.
My last trip to FSI was 2001 and I don't recall any of the Instructors mentioning it either.
Now just because I don't recall doen't mean it doesn't exsists.
Please fill me in.
I don't recall nor do I recall hearing of "collective drive case" failure.
My last trip to FSI was 2001 and I don't recall any of the Instructors mentioning it either.
Now just because I don't recall doen't mean it doesn't exsists.
Please fill me in.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilico, I can tell you that now in FS2004 they've done away with autorotation entirely. If you fail the engine, the rotors spin down and stop, then you fall out of the sky.
Give me X-Plane any day - get a full set of flight controls, calibrate it to your preference, get a wraparound display, and you've got your own part task trainer at home. Flight models are far superior to Microsoft. If you don't mind poor visuals and no real ATC, it is well worth looking into.
Give me X-Plane any day - get a full set of flight controls, calibrate it to your preference, get a wraparound display, and you've got your own part task trainer at home. Flight models are far superior to Microsoft. If you don't mind poor visuals and no real ATC, it is well worth looking into.
Thread Starter
Hi IHL,
I assumed that cpt was referring to the collective to yaw coupling and the resultant of pushing the right pedal to the floor during a tail rotor emergency.
Hope all is well,
Steve
I assumed that cpt was referring to the collective to yaw coupling and the resultant of pushing the right pedal to the floor during a tail rotor emergency.
Hope all is well,
Steve
