Articles?Studies About Trainig in Real AC vs Sim

[zipper]

Hi All,

I'm looking for articles/studies about companies doing more training in real aircraft vs simulators after recent incidents such as the Asiana crash at SF. I'd be grateful if someone pointed me in the right direction.

[goingnowherefast]

This is the first I've heard about this trend. Simulators are generally better because you can practice more dangerous manoeuvres without risk of dying. Eg. V1 cuts where brakes can catch fire and usually people crash on their first initial PPC.

Not to mention a 777 costs how many $100,000/hr and a simulator is probably less than a $1000/hr for direct operating costs.

[ahramin]

Hi zipper, you'll have a tough time finding any such studies or articles because there aren't any companies doing it.

[lownslow]

I worked for a company that flew planes that cost about as much per hour as sim time does and we elected to use the sim. The ability to give more dangerous situations and follow them all the way to their conclusion was absolutely worth it and made significantly better pilots.

[zipper]

I though that I read somewhere that industry was starting to do more training in the A/C as a result of Asiana/AF447. It looks like I was wrong.

[valleyboy]

Training in an aircraft is almost next to useless given the restriction on what you can and can't do in an aeroplane these days. Because one could hurt themselves and others airborne training has been reduced to the level that a check ride is not come even close to accessing pilot knowledge and abilities. There is no "startle" factor and nothing happens unexpectedly. It's like learning to ballroom dance and have all the moves down pat and not worrying to be asked to tango. All advanced aircraft training must be done in simulators. It's the only way to teach the nasty stuff without loss of life and limb.