Sim Vs Actual
Thread Starter
Sim Vs Actual
Question for those out there who fly corperate, EMS, Offshore or whatever.... and utilise the services of a separate entity (FSI for eg.) for their training.
While I enjoy the junket in Florida and the great training there I really miss doing an auto, cat A reject etc... on the aircraft.
Here is a question for you guys.....
If both donks (eng) stopped how prepared do you think you would be to pull off the auto without damage to the aircraft?
Forget arguing about where and how high etc...just say 1000agl and surrounded by reasonable fields. What about how far you can glide and judging the choice of that landing area? Do you rate yourself highly?
I personally figure I have a 60 to 70 percent chance of getting away with it.........that might be ambitious.
While I enjoy the junket in Florida and the great training there I really miss doing an auto, cat A reject etc... on the aircraft.
Here is a question for you guys.....
If both donks (eng) stopped how prepared do you think you would be to pull off the auto without damage to the aircraft?
Forget arguing about where and how high etc...just say 1000agl and surrounded by reasonable fields. What about how far you can glide and judging the choice of that landing area? Do you rate yourself highly?
I personally figure I have a 60 to 70 percent chance of getting away with it.........that might be ambitious.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Steve
I'm surprised your company doesn't practice autos and rejects; it is really a basic requirement.
Full EOLs in twins is no different to singles, max range still needs min rrpm and range speed, etc and the ability to select and reach a landing spot. You would be surprised how many pilots in wheeled helicopters forget to lower their wheels or simulate blowing their floats if over water. These days I believe most companies won't do full EOLs in the larger twins for economic reasons but should still practise to recovery.
All types of TO and LDG rejects should be practised. Certainly all the guys I've endorsed have done plenty whether on or offshore.
I'm surprised your company doesn't practice autos and rejects; it is really a basic requirement.
Full EOLs in twins is no different to singles, max range still needs min rrpm and range speed, etc and the ability to select and reach a landing spot. You would be surprised how many pilots in wheeled helicopters forget to lower their wheels or simulate blowing their floats if over water. These days I believe most companies won't do full EOLs in the larger twins for economic reasons but should still practise to recovery.
All types of TO and LDG rejects should be practised. Certainly all the guys I've endorsed have done plenty whether on or offshore.
On most medium twins I have flown untill now, full autorotation is simply not allowed by the RFM...I honestly believe that pratice autorotation with engine recovery does the trick with this type of helicopters.
Besides this, we must keep in mind we are not immune from a full loss of power even when flying a twin.
Besides this, we must keep in mind we are not immune from a full loss of power even when flying a twin.
I loved the C+ sim at FSI WPB but do not believe its fidelity is good enough to replace doing OEI training (and power recovery autos) in the actual machine. True, there are some "emergencies" that can only be done in the sim , namely (and particularly) tail rotor malfunctions.
I think the best option is a combination of training in the sim (say every couple of years) plus training in the actual aircraft at least annually.
For those of you who know "Mr. S76" (RK) ...he agrees 100% with the above.
I think the best option is a combination of training in the sim (say every couple of years) plus training in the actual aircraft at least annually.
For those of you who know "Mr. S76" (RK) ...he agrees 100% with the above.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're over optomistic Steve. I think its highly unlikely that one could dead stick a 76 without doing some damage.
I think unless you had a firm (paved) surface to land on you would either rip the gear off on a running landing or punch the gear up into the wheel wells on a zero speed.
My $.02 worth.
I think unless you had a firm (paved) surface to land on you would either rip the gear off on a running landing or punch the gear up into the wheel wells on a zero speed.
My $.02 worth.
Thread Starter
Peter:
I certainly agree. I also have noted that flying the sim away from an OEI departure at 10500lb after a Cat A T/O is a doddle compared to the aircraft at well under that weight. If you think the C sim is average ...... get back in the A. I did enjoy chasing that 737 and flying under the Brookland Bridge thou.....
IHL: .....yeah you are probably right...but us young fellas rate ourselves eh!
One other aspect of the dedicated FSI training is that guys are just not spending enough time on the aircraft. Lets consider that you are flying 300hrs a year EMS. Not a lot. 150hrs of this is the other guy with his hands on the stick and you are the switch bitch.
That totals about 100 landings and take offs that you do in a year. Take away the 3hrs of VFR and IFR training and I predict a further reduction in hands on ability.
I already have issues with cojoes arriving 30 to 40 ft above helipad, unable to contain a rate of decent and overshooting easy approaches. I don't think that sending them to the sim is going to help make my job any easier.
I certainly agree. I also have noted that flying the sim away from an OEI departure at 10500lb after a Cat A T/O is a doddle compared to the aircraft at well under that weight. If you think the C sim is average ...... get back in the A. I did enjoy chasing that 737 and flying under the Brookland Bridge thou.....
IHL: .....yeah you are probably right...but us young fellas rate ourselves eh!
One other aspect of the dedicated FSI training is that guys are just not spending enough time on the aircraft. Lets consider that you are flying 300hrs a year EMS. Not a lot. 150hrs of this is the other guy with his hands on the stick and you are the switch bitch.
That totals about 100 landings and take offs that you do in a year. Take away the 3hrs of VFR and IFR training and I predict a further reduction in hands on ability.
I already have issues with cojoes arriving 30 to 40 ft above helipad, unable to contain a rate of decent and overshooting easy approaches. I don't think that sending them to the sim is going to help make my job any easier.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada/around
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76,
You yourself know very well the damage done during training that has pushed your own employer to seek training on sims rather than the aircraft itself.
Part of the difference in performance between the sim and the actual aircraft in performing these maneuvers has to do with the fact that during training OEI limits are not used, only twin-engine limits and with a margin of protection to boot. Also, the variety of scenarios that can be attempted is more limited.
Annual recurrent in the sim protects the revenue generating aircraft from the damaging effects of training and can be well supported by line-training captains that spend their time ensuring that everyone is thinkig about what they learned on a daily basis. More than half the battle in an emergency is having a plan of attack, rather than being caught by surprise daydreaming. Training should not be happening only once a year but you don't need a dedicated aircraft beating up the circuit to do it.
In addition, I believe I know who you work for and they have a nasty habit of hiring the lowest time co-jo's they can find to ensure the lowest possible wages. One must have some hands-on experience to generate the skills in the first place. This is no slander against the co-pilots, rather the company the uses their eagerness to put them in aircraft they are not adequately prepared for.
You yourself know very well the damage done during training that has pushed your own employer to seek training on sims rather than the aircraft itself.
Part of the difference in performance between the sim and the actual aircraft in performing these maneuvers has to do with the fact that during training OEI limits are not used, only twin-engine limits and with a margin of protection to boot. Also, the variety of scenarios that can be attempted is more limited.
Annual recurrent in the sim protects the revenue generating aircraft from the damaging effects of training and can be well supported by line-training captains that spend their time ensuring that everyone is thinkig about what they learned on a daily basis. More than half the battle in an emergency is having a plan of attack, rather than being caught by surprise daydreaming. Training should not be happening only once a year but you don't need a dedicated aircraft beating up the circuit to do it.
In addition, I believe I know who you work for and they have a nasty habit of hiring the lowest time co-jo's they can find to ensure the lowest possible wages. One must have some hands-on experience to generate the skills in the first place. This is no slander against the co-pilots, rather the company the uses their eagerness to put them in aircraft they are not adequately prepared for.
Helo Teacher
Quote
You yourself know very well the damage done during training that has pushed your own employer to seek training on sims rather than the aircraft itself.
Unquote
Helo Teacher.....your quote above !!
UNFAIR !!
Due to the understandable practice of companies not wishing to publish details of their incidents/accidents (litigation etc) we of the "great unwashed" , do not know all the details of that particular "training auto that went very wrong".
Simulator is great but as the ONLY training device , it is greatly lacking in its handling qualities compared to the actual aircraft. Conversely a properly trained TRAINING PILOT with an actual aircraft can still NOT simulate ALL emergencies...the SIM + AIRCRAFT combo is the only way to go.
I think that operator you mentioned , may have swung too hard the other way. There was a time that getting a Sim slot with that operator was damn nigh impossible.
I once worked with another Canadian IFR operator and watched as pilots gradually lost manipulative skills thru lack of realistic OEI training. That company also had a leaning away from "throttle pulling" and towards the Sim.
While on the subject of properly trained TRAINING PILOTS. I am always amazed that , unlike the Brit system , a Canadian training pilot does NOT undergo any formal training prior to assuming his duties as a "throttle puller". Okanagan , many years ago , tried to rectify this by insisting that Training Pilots must do an instructor's course. Unfortunately the good intent fell thru the cracks with the take over.
Perhaps that company you mentioned is fixing the wrong end of the bus.
.
Quote
You yourself know very well the damage done during training that has pushed your own employer to seek training on sims rather than the aircraft itself.
Unquote
Helo Teacher.....your quote above !!
UNFAIR !!
Due to the understandable practice of companies not wishing to publish details of their incidents/accidents (litigation etc) we of the "great unwashed" , do not know all the details of that particular "training auto that went very wrong".
Simulator is great but as the ONLY training device , it is greatly lacking in its handling qualities compared to the actual aircraft. Conversely a properly trained TRAINING PILOT with an actual aircraft can still NOT simulate ALL emergencies...the SIM + AIRCRAFT combo is the only way to go.
I think that operator you mentioned , may have swung too hard the other way. There was a time that getting a Sim slot with that operator was damn nigh impossible.
I once worked with another Canadian IFR operator and watched as pilots gradually lost manipulative skills thru lack of realistic OEI training. That company also had a leaning away from "throttle pulling" and towards the Sim.
While on the subject of properly trained TRAINING PILOTS. I am always amazed that , unlike the Brit system , a Canadian training pilot does NOT undergo any formal training prior to assuming his duties as a "throttle puller". Okanagan , many years ago , tried to rectify this by insisting that Training Pilots must do an instructor's course. Unfortunately the good intent fell thru the cracks with the take over.
Perhaps that company you mentioned is fixing the wrong end of the bus.
.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is easy to understand why any operator wouldn't want full touch down autos in a heavy twin to become the norm for training.
It isn't really necessary to use the aircraft when the same can be done in the sim to a level whereby at least the occupants wouldn't be injured. Who cares, if the aircraft is damaged in the unlikely event it happened for real? So much would depend on the touchdown area anyway.
There have been some examples of a full touch down auto in a heavy twin, notably the Bristow Super Puma in 1995 that had a lightening strike on the tail rotor causing the need to auto into the North Sea.
I did see a video recently which showed the S-92 undergoing full touchdown autos for certification. Certainly no wheels ripped off or undercarriage going up therough the sponsons, looked ok to me. Maybe Nick would be able to post it for us?
LE
It isn't really necessary to use the aircraft when the same can be done in the sim to a level whereby at least the occupants wouldn't be injured. Who cares, if the aircraft is damaged in the unlikely event it happened for real? So much would depend on the touchdown area anyway.
There have been some examples of a full touch down auto in a heavy twin, notably the Bristow Super Puma in 1995 that had a lightening strike on the tail rotor causing the need to auto into the North Sea.
I did see a video recently which showed the S-92 undergoing full touchdown autos for certification. Certainly no wheels ripped off or undercarriage going up therough the sponsons, looked ok to me. Maybe Nick would be able to post it for us?
LE
Autorotations in twins.
Touchdown with both throttles still retarded is risky and was dropped by Okanagan years ago but they did do them.
Touchdown with both throttles full forward is OK but a little artificial. What are we aiming for with the auto ?
For my money (IFR Offshore) , I want the guys to get practice at the entry and then the checks on the way down ie into wind , gear , floats etc etc) Trying to reach a particular spot (offshore) is not as important an issue.
If you dont get the entry right then it is all a bit academic. Surprising how many pilots fixate on the N2 instead of the Nr and also surprising how uncomfortable some of the entries are when pilots have not done them for a while. ie lousy airspeed control , poor Nr control , skid ball out the side of the aircraft.
At the bottom ??.....well we know that it is surviveable even if it is screwed up.
I have been doing (IFR) autos in the S76 from 3,000 feet and simulating sea level at 1000 feet. Power recovery ie both throttles returned to fly/full forward is confirmed no later than 1500 feet.
I once had a line training pilot pull both throttles on me in a 76 in the climb. It was bloody horrible and is a NO NO now. Pierre , you know of whom I speak.
Touchdown with both throttles still retarded is risky and was dropped by Okanagan years ago but they did do them.
Touchdown with both throttles full forward is OK but a little artificial. What are we aiming for with the auto ?
For my money (IFR Offshore) , I want the guys to get practice at the entry and then the checks on the way down ie into wind , gear , floats etc etc) Trying to reach a particular spot (offshore) is not as important an issue.
If you dont get the entry right then it is all a bit academic. Surprising how many pilots fixate on the N2 instead of the Nr and also surprising how uncomfortable some of the entries are when pilots have not done them for a while. ie lousy airspeed control , poor Nr control , skid ball out the side of the aircraft.
At the bottom ??.....well we know that it is surviveable even if it is screwed up.
I have been doing (IFR) autos in the S76 from 3,000 feet and simulating sea level at 1000 feet. Power recovery ie both throttles returned to fly/full forward is confirmed no later than 1500 feet.
I once had a line training pilot pull both throttles on me in a 76 in the climb. It was bloody horrible and is a NO NO now. Pierre , you know of whom I speak.
sounds like you really need me as your co joe SteveThread Starter
Gentlemen,
I believe that Peter has more the gist of what I am speaking forth.
The experience of the copilot does not always correlates to their ability to adapt to the larger and much faster twin. I think there are plenty of examples to this end in each of our minds.
The problem is the actual ability to know the aircraft through time spent flying it by the seat of your pants.
I am always trying to prompt the low time guys to "strap" the 76 on and take charge. She's a slippery one and if you are not in control it will take its head quite liberally at your expence. To many of them are often passangers in this machine.
Being 100% sim trained you further losing the limited "hands on feel" of the actual aircraft.
I can do a thousand auto's in the sim and still not feel 100% about being successful in the aircraft. I want to have that feeling which only comes by hands on experience. I and my employer should feel secure in the knowledge that faced with a large paddock in an emergency that I will get the aircraft onto the ground in one piece needing only to have the primary cause of the problem fixed and no secondary damage from my flying.
I will be extremely disappointed as a professional pilot, if faced with good odds I b%gger a perfectly OK helicopter through lack of currency.
Heloteacher:
It is one thing to have everyone on the same page for an emergency. We can teach anybody how to read the Emergency Proceedures Checklist. Where we blow it is being able to perform the emergency. I don't think getting the checklist correct and wrecking the aircraft scores well....
I started this thread not because I doubt that we can follow a checklist or memory item but because I just can't see someone who cannot judge an approach to a helipad sorting out an emergency like an OEI to a very restricted area (Eg.) Its not helping by being restricted to Sim training only. It is just disadvantaging the guys.
I also fly with Training Captains (I think thats what you mean by Line Captains?) on a regular basis and not one of them has ever wanted to discuss an emergency while trudging through another hour of straight and level. Often I will prompt them to test me or enter a discussion regarding "what would you do if.....?" Particularily useful for calls at 3am in the morning.
I don't think that many of the TP's know any more than the other pilots. Some of the TP's (go on XNR take a bow.....ya know ya wanna!) are exceptional but most of them have a third or less time on type than half the Captain staff.
What's to learn there besides SOP's??? And what can one TP really gauge on a operational flight once a month (if that) and when half the guys couple up the aircraft thus reducing hands on time to five minutes of approach and ground taxying.
This is a pointless rant.
Our op's won't change in a hurry but it will be interesting to see how pilots cope. We have a decent bunch who will deal with it as best as they can.....IF they can self analyse the impending issue and work within themselve to raise a standard rather than become lazy.
I think Peter has seen it all before and knows there has to be a happy medium. No one direction solves any problems.
Personally, I know I get a lot of satisfaction about jumping in a friends Robbie and banging off autos and full stuck pedals for an hour.
.....Makes me feel like a pilot again.
Thanks to all for your opinions.
PS: WLM - been there done that! get your arse over here!!
I believe that Peter has more the gist of what I am speaking forth.
The experience of the copilot does not always correlates to their ability to adapt to the larger and much faster twin. I think there are plenty of examples to this end in each of our minds.
The problem is the actual ability to know the aircraft through time spent flying it by the seat of your pants.
I am always trying to prompt the low time guys to "strap" the 76 on and take charge. She's a slippery one and if you are not in control it will take its head quite liberally at your expence. To many of them are often passangers in this machine.
Being 100% sim trained you further losing the limited "hands on feel" of the actual aircraft.
I can do a thousand auto's in the sim and still not feel 100% about being successful in the aircraft. I want to have that feeling which only comes by hands on experience. I and my employer should feel secure in the knowledge that faced with a large paddock in an emergency that I will get the aircraft onto the ground in one piece needing only to have the primary cause of the problem fixed and no secondary damage from my flying.
I will be extremely disappointed as a professional pilot, if faced with good odds I b%gger a perfectly OK helicopter through lack of currency.
Heloteacher:
It is one thing to have everyone on the same page for an emergency. We can teach anybody how to read the Emergency Proceedures Checklist. Where we blow it is being able to perform the emergency. I don't think getting the checklist correct and wrecking the aircraft scores well....
I started this thread not because I doubt that we can follow a checklist or memory item but because I just can't see someone who cannot judge an approach to a helipad sorting out an emergency like an OEI to a very restricted area (Eg.) Its not helping by being restricted to Sim training only. It is just disadvantaging the guys.
I also fly with Training Captains (I think thats what you mean by Line Captains?) on a regular basis and not one of them has ever wanted to discuss an emergency while trudging through another hour of straight and level. Often I will prompt them to test me or enter a discussion regarding "what would you do if.....?" Particularily useful for calls at 3am in the morning.
I don't think that many of the TP's know any more than the other pilots. Some of the TP's (go on XNR take a bow.....ya know ya wanna!) are exceptional but most of them have a third or less time on type than half the Captain staff.
What's to learn there besides SOP's??? And what can one TP really gauge on a operational flight once a month (if that) and when half the guys couple up the aircraft thus reducing hands on time to five minutes of approach and ground taxying.
This is a pointless rant.
Our op's won't change in a hurry but it will be interesting to see how pilots cope. We have a decent bunch who will deal with it as best as they can.....IF they can self analyse the impending issue and work within themselve to raise a standard rather than become lazy.
I think Peter has seen it all before and knows there has to be a happy medium. No one direction solves any problems.
Personally, I know I get a lot of satisfaction about jumping in a friends Robbie and banging off autos and full stuck pedals for an hour.
.....Makes me feel like a pilot again.
Thanks to all for your opinions.
PS: WLM - been there done that! get your arse over here!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having done a bunch of FSI recurrencies, and also helped set up those sims, I believe the sim is absolutely the best way to practice most procedures.
1) The actual handling of the 76 family (and most other modern helos) is plain vanilla enough so that very few pilots will mess up a procedure because they can't get the handling right. They will mess it up because they don't know where to look, or they can't recall the proper procedure during the high workload situation. These are the things the sim lets you study and practice so well.
2) Most real flight training can't duplicate the things that actually fail, so you end up pulling back engines in flight and calling it training. What gets us is whacking the ground/'water during complex piloting tasks while in degraded visual situations. Engines don't quit often enough to worry that much about.
3) The big problem with real airplanes for emergency training is that we don't actually get surprised by situations - no pucker factor. It is just not the same when your instructor/buddy asks what you do when a chip light comes on. Try this:
Nick's handy simulator of a simulator :
Make a set of 8 1/2 x 11 (A4) cards with your helo's caution panel copied on them, literally all the possible capsules. Add the basic gages arranged in the array they have on your panel. Make the gages plain circles, with their labels like "#1 Engine Oil Pressure" in the circle. Mount a clip on the panel somewhere you can clip the card without obscuring any real gages (least you block one of those pesky little suckers and it knows, cause it will pick that second to drop to zero!)
On each card, take a red pen and make it an emergency. For example, on one card boldly circle the caution capsule for "Transmission Oil Pressure" and then put a red needle on the TOP gage with that needle pointing straight down. Make a whole set of these cards, one for each possible emergency procedure in the flight manual.
On the next torture session, oops, I mean on your next dual ride, ask your instructor to randomly pick a card, and without saying anything, just mount it on the clip sometime during the flight.
It is amazing how your brain leaps when you see that card. You actually have to read the caution light, scan the gage and Make A Decision! While Flying! Without Time To Think!
1) The actual handling of the 76 family (and most other modern helos) is plain vanilla enough so that very few pilots will mess up a procedure because they can't get the handling right. They will mess it up because they don't know where to look, or they can't recall the proper procedure during the high workload situation. These are the things the sim lets you study and practice so well.
2) Most real flight training can't duplicate the things that actually fail, so you end up pulling back engines in flight and calling it training. What gets us is whacking the ground/'water during complex piloting tasks while in degraded visual situations. Engines don't quit often enough to worry that much about.
3) The big problem with real airplanes for emergency training is that we don't actually get surprised by situations - no pucker factor. It is just not the same when your instructor/buddy asks what you do when a chip light comes on. Try this:
Nick's handy simulator of a simulator :
Make a set of 8 1/2 x 11 (A4) cards with your helo's caution panel copied on them, literally all the possible capsules. Add the basic gages arranged in the array they have on your panel. Make the gages plain circles, with their labels like "#1 Engine Oil Pressure" in the circle. Mount a clip on the panel somewhere you can clip the card without obscuring any real gages (least you block one of those pesky little suckers and it knows, cause it will pick that second to drop to zero!)
On each card, take a red pen and make it an emergency. For example, on one card boldly circle the caution capsule for "Transmission Oil Pressure" and then put a red needle on the TOP gage with that needle pointing straight down. Make a whole set of these cards, one for each possible emergency procedure in the flight manual.
On the next torture session, oops, I mean on your next dual ride, ask your instructor to randomly pick a card, and without saying anything, just mount it on the clip sometime during the flight.
It is amazing how your brain leaps when you see that card. You actually have to read the caution light, scan the gage and Make A Decision! While Flying! Without Time To Think!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Steve.
I have to say though "how quickly we/you forget"
You were the new kid on the 76 some (few) years ago and almost begged to be sent to FSI.
ALL the training is valuable it's just about getting the maximum value out of it. The ground at the bottom of the auto will probably have as much to do with the results as anything else.
Remember the priority are to walk away from the auto and (secondary) to cause minimum damage!
Just another suggestion Steve. "Maybe you would learn more by doing it yourself"
I have to say though "how quickly we/you forget"
You were the new kid on the 76 some (few) years ago and almost begged to be sent to FSI.
ALL the training is valuable it's just about getting the maximum value out of it. The ground at the bottom of the auto will probably have as much to do with the results as anything else.
Remember the priority are to walk away from the auto and (secondary) to cause minimum damage!
Sounds like just the project for my copilot tomorrow Nick.
Nick,
"Without time to think!" Gee, if I get a Generator light....or an inverter light....door open light....or any other myriad of lights and/or problems.......do I really need to leap into action...throwing switches...grabbing the checklist from its holder...barking orders and commands at the NFP ? Or....if we analyze the "gotta do something right now" emergencies....we find very few events that demand that "immediate" reaction without benefit of "Thinking".
I suggest....that fly...think....decide....do....is usually a better choice than .....decide...do.....think...fly.
If a tail rotor gearbox and associated bits depart the aircraft.....I can see an 'immediate" action being required....or if I hear sounds that suggest a cast iron failure involving the main transmission....or bright billowing flames licking about the thing I hang my wallet too.....then yes...."immediate" actions might just be the thing. Otherwise.....punch the clock...fly the aircraft....decide what is wrong....develop a plan....initiate the plan...deal with the problem.
"Without time to think!" Gee, if I get a Generator light....or an inverter light....door open light....or any other myriad of lights and/or problems.......do I really need to leap into action...throwing switches...grabbing the checklist from its holder...barking orders and commands at the NFP ? Or....if we analyze the "gotta do something right now" emergencies....we find very few events that demand that "immediate" reaction without benefit of "Thinking".
I suggest....that fly...think....decide....do....is usually a better choice than .....decide...do.....think...fly.
If a tail rotor gearbox and associated bits depart the aircraft.....I can see an 'immediate" action being required....or if I hear sounds that suggest a cast iron failure involving the main transmission....or bright billowing flames licking about the thing I hang my wallet too.....then yes...."immediate" actions might just be the thing. Otherwise.....punch the clock...fly the aircraft....decide what is wrong....develop a plan....initiate the plan...deal with the problem.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you go, SASless, reading what I wrote! Gee...
What I meant was a hyperbole, a purposely exaggerated statement to express a point about the perception a pilot has while flying, where workload makes everything come too fast. To an unprepared or inexperienced pilot it feels like you don't have time to think!
I am glad you brought up the subject, because leaping to "solutions" is the biggest problem with pilot error accidents. If the pilot keeps the rotor in the green, and preserves altitude, all else can wait a bit for serious reflection.
OK, you can go back to the football game!
What I meant was a hyperbole, a purposely exaggerated statement to express a point about the perception a pilot has while flying, where workload makes everything come too fast. To an unprepared or inexperienced pilot it feels like you don't have time to think!
I am glad you brought up the subject, because leaping to "solutions" is the biggest problem with pilot error accidents. If the pilot keeps the rotor in the green, and preserves altitude, all else can wait a bit for serious reflection.
OK, you can go back to the football game!
Nick,
Knowing your position on these issues...from several debates in the past....I knew you what were trying to say....is that sitting in the crewroom with flashcards or the RFM and going over procedures is one thing....but really doing them with all the distractions and stress in the cockpit while flying can be a much different thing. I was just doing a bit of Pprune fishing.....could see the cork bobbing for a flash just before it went down with a big "Ka-sploosh" sound.
I do read everything you write.....and agree in most cases....which scares me knowing you were both CAV and a Cobra Pilot. But then we know about CAV guys! Since you guys have trouble tying boot laces....I reckon that is why the Tanker Boot was invented.
Knowing your position on these issues...from several debates in the past....I knew you what were trying to say....is that sitting in the crewroom with flashcards or the RFM and going over procedures is one thing....but really doing them with all the distractions and stress in the cockpit while flying can be a much different thing. I was just doing a bit of Pprune fishing.....could see the cork bobbing for a flash just before it went down with a big "Ka-sploosh" sound.
I do read everything you write.....and agree in most cases....which scares me knowing you were both CAV and a Cobra Pilot. But then we know about CAV guys! Since you guys have trouble tying boot laces....I reckon that is why the Tanker Boot was invented.