BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
The real catch here is that the simulator must accurately reflect the
performance and handling of the aircraft under the circumstances.
A link back to Mike Borgelt's comment on the RAAF doing the double
asymetric training in large aircraft (particularly the P-3 Orion since
it regularly stooges around with #1 engine shut down). The RAAF was
doing the double asymetric training in aircraft as the simulators
they had for P-3, C-130 and B-707 did not accurately reflect what
happened in reality with stall and spin.
On a side note, the US Navy very recently had a P-3 nearly spin in
from 6,000 ft. #1 engine was shut down for loiter. #2 started to
develop vibrations and was being shut down. #1 was being restarted.
Airspeed was well below minimum controllable. Pilot in command started
a left hand turn (into the dead engines) to get away from active
Canadian airspace. Aircraft departed into left hand spin. Pilot in
command applied full right rudder but did not retard throttle for #3
and #4 engines. Aircraft recovered from spin after Flight Engineer
got #1 engine going and applied max power to #1. Recovery height was
quoted as 75 ft.
Pilot in command was a military QFI.
On Thu 11/09/08 4:56 PM , "Texler, Michael"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
Perhaps Tom Wilksch's idea of using a simulator should be given some
serious thought (airlines have been doing that for years!).
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring [2]
Links:
------
[2]
http://webmail.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flists.internode.on.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
