I disagree, in aircraft is the cost of fuel and the cost of training. Works out to be about the same, but the training quality is way, way, way better.

I just did in aircraft recurrent for my Mits. There is a day of ground school, then 4 hours of flying. I asked for and got my insurance to allow me to basically mix going between Simcom some years and in aircraft some years.

This is a good conversation regarding training. I've not been to FSI but, like the Simcom comments, their reviews from pilots I've read over the years is mixed. One of the other issues that I've experienced with Simcom is that they don't have a sim that replicates the equipment I fly with. I have a dual G600 dual 750 set up with King autopilot. I can choose legacy steam or G1000. I did my initial in the G1000 and I NEEDED in aircraft training to be safe. When I did a recurrent there in February most of the first session and part of the second (of three) I was mostly trying to figure out the damned buttons and where to look for information. Not a high quality "training" experience.

I know that there are lots of similar issues with jet trainers, especially ones that have legacy avionics. Yes, you can do some things more safely in a sim than the plane but there are also things that in a lower quality sim just aren't realistic, perhaps they are in the higher level and quality jet sims.

I've had one in flight emergency in my TBM, a pressurization loss at 31,000. What prepared me for that and the successful outcome was doing it both in a sim but especially in the airplane.

My original point was that getting a type rating, which is on the list of things I want to do (along with my ATP) regardless of what I fly. But so far I've been unable or unwilling to add another 15 days of being out of touch to do it. And I'd only be willing to spend the time if the avionics were a faithful, or near faithful, replication of what I was going to fly.

There are alternatives to SIMCOM and FSI for the type rating and ATP. I trained with a CFI in the Citation before going to a three day school in Florida for the actual school and check ride. You need 25 hours in the plane to fly as PIC anyway, so, I got it before attending the actual school. One can spread out the training time that way to suit one's schedule a bit better. We had $25MM smooth coverage and the insurer was fine with going this other route. It's a matter of what suits you and what your insurer can get comfortable with. More than anything, if one is safety conscious, it's where you get comfortable. I did much more than my insurer required before I was comfortable. Took an instructor on the several more training hops and a trip.

MP-
I think you understand that professional direction I noted on the training topic is not the same as perhaps my personal opinion on the matter. You and I both know and endorse heavily Shane and Dave for Pilatus training. That said if I told all my 150+ Pilatus clients to use Shane and Dave exclusively because they are the best and will hands down get the best bang for their training buck - I would be doing them a disservice based on what the current underwriting climate wants to see (right, wrong or indifferent). So while I always reserve my own 'opinion' on the topic - professionally I have to give advice based on what will yield the client the best possible insurance options, lowest premiums and highest limits of coverage. Missed seeing you at NBAA this year?

I can see Penman's point. If insurance companies and training providers really want to make us safer, they would overhaul their programs. FSI is good, they have top notch facilities and equipment, but most of their instructors have never flown a PC12 before. When Tom Evans was at FSI (and Simcom), he added a LOT of value to the program because he was trained in the PC12 prototype and flew them ever since. But FSI has had a lot of instructor turnover and it hurts their program. The instructors can teach the class, but there is so much more they can add if they have experience in the aircraft. Insurance companies and training providers need to come together and agree on the right mix with sim and in-aircraft training. Maybe do a 6 month or 10 month rotation between the two.

When I left Simcom in April they told me the 850L simulator was going in for an upgrade to G600s because of the popularity of this config. Not sure of the status...

The avionics differences were one of the primary reasons I could never do useful simulator training in my Bonanza.

Michael, why did you have to hand fly? Autopilot kick off?

Apart from the fact that you can train dangerous situations safely in the sim, the quality of the instructor is the most important variable in the training exercise. I was very fortunate to do sim and in aircraft with an exceptional pilot, done at the airline that flys my type.

Tom, I'm with you bud, I know you are caught in the middle. What I'm advocating for is exceptional training. I think folks on this board want to fly good, I mean real good. I've had a number of PM's on this subject and folks thinking I should not be bashing Simcom or FS. What I'm saying is that in my experience, Shane or Dave, are simply way, way better instructors (and to answer you point JC, we do ground school as well).

How can I be bashing folks if I'm sharing my experience. I'm explaining what makes you a better pilot in the PC12. I'm explaining that the in aircraft experience with those two guys are way better than the SIM experience and as I've noted, the SIM does not fly like the airplane. It's also normally after ground, at night when its available, and frankly not suitable to me the paying frigging customer. I'm not saying that every single person with a CFII should be allowed to train in aircraft, but those that can do a great job, should be allowed to.

If Brent/JC or anyone says they fly remotely the same they're lying. In the in aircraft training, we're not practicing dangerous things. We stall the airplane, we practice engine outs, we fly approaches with screens off, trim runaways, all the stuff that you just don't work on in point to point flying. BUT NOTHING IS ENGINE OUT ON TAKEOFF for example. Once I leave from a training with them, I feel very, very comfortable in the airplane. I think everyone should get an opportunity to fly with those guys (and anyone else who's a very good instructor).

This is what we should be pointing out to the folks writing insurance tickets. It may seem that mountain flying is more risky, and it certainly is. You have to understand the weather, turbulence, mountain waves, etc. The other item is that we are also single pilot. That adds another level of training that is needed IMHO.

When I get back from session with Shane, I'm feeling way more confident, way more aware of my flying and what I should be doing and focusing on. If I want to fly more, then we do, if I'm struggling with certain flight characteristics, then we practice those. It's not easy, it's exhausting as a student, but crikey it makes you such a better pilot.

When I get back from sim training I got a bad back from the hotel, bad belly from the restaurants and a lighter wallet. If we have to do it to get insurance, then so be it, But I can say for certainty, that it won't make my flying better.

If insurance needs a box checked, then boom, 3 days at one Simcom/FS will have it checked. Won't make the stats better.

The opposite, it won't kick off, so you have no idea of the forces it's using. I like to hand fly just in case we get a nasty jolt and it's better to go up/down without stressing the airframe. The AP in the NG is a damn good one. It holds altitude like it's life depends on it.

There was just some nasty turbulence on the front range that day in certain altitudes. Had a 100knot tailwind to Newport once I cleared the front range. Did 1800NM in 5.25hrs.........made me want a jet!!!

I’d love to do in airplane if my insurance company is ok with it. I’m tired of Simcom and a year goes by in no time.

A lot actually. We revisit all aircraft systems, especially when I cannot answer a question directly.


Tom Hauge is my insurance agent. Best there is IMHO. I still believe it's important to get very good training. The older I get, the less cavalier I am training. I also enjoy training. Just got my RYA offshore yachtmasters ticket too........that was a two day ass kicking of note (on the boat too, you could simulate that too, but it just don't sail right)

Do it anways, with Dave, Shane or even Jeremy Taylor (that guys is one very good pilot and instructor too). You'll be amazed at how sharp your skills feel afterwards.

MP - Interestingly enough Shane reached out to me about a month ago on an article he is writing for the next POPA magazine (I wrote one myself in the last issue) but also inquired about getting in front of the various underwriting carriers. So at present he will try and sit down with as many as he can (those who will entertain a meeting) to pitch his program but also more importantly the industry shortcomings as he sees respects training and the training process (either recurrent or simply transitioning into the PC12). I really do applaud his efforts and we have extended a conduit for him with the insurers to see how many will embrace that discussion. There are of course no guarantees it will move any needles but I feel it is important they hear this type of feedback from the training outfits themselves.