Profchecks
Elk jaar opnieuw, moet je een profcheck doen om de instrument rating op je single engine of multi engine brevet te verlengen. Ook dit kan bij Simulator Training Rotterdam. De simulator biedt hier veel toegevoegde waarde. Zo kun je zelf het vliegveld kiezen waar de profcheck plaatsvindt en kunnen de meteorologische omstandigheden ingesteld worden.

Vooral de tweemotorige brevetverlenging is nuttig om op de simulator te doen. Hier kun je immers de motor ook echt uitzetten en het is heel goed om ook eens een motorstoring te oefenen op het meest kritische moment, namelijk precies bij rotatie.
BRON: http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/

Simulator-Based Recurrent Training for Piston Singles and Twins

If you fly a multiengine aircraft or a high-performance single, you really owe it to yourself to take simulator-based recurrent training on a regular basis.
By Mike Busch
My first exposure to "serious" simulator training took place in October of 1987, about six months after I'd purchased my T310R. My motivation was the usual one: insurance. Despite the fact that I had 180 hours in type, 4,000 hours total, and 23 years of accident-free flying behind me, I was having a heck of a time finding aircraft insurance at reasonable rates. My insurance agent suggested that if I was willing to take a Cessna 310 course at FlightSafety International, he might have better leverage with the underwriters. Although the tuition was quite expensive, I rationalized that most of the cost would be offset by reduced aircraft insurance premiums and reduced wear and tear on my airplane. I needed to renew my instrument currency anyway, and the opportunity to fly FlightSafety's full-motion full-vision twin-Cessna simulator sounded exciting. So I decided to do it.
I wrote a detailed chronicle of that experience (
Training at FlightSafety) because it was a watershed event in my flying career. I'd considered myself a reasonably proficient pilot, but that initial experience in the simulator was truly humbling. I had no idea just how poorly my previous in-aircraft training had been in preparing me to handle real-life emergencies. By the time the three days were over, I became convinced that anyone who flies a multiengine aircraft without the benefit of regular simulator-based recurrent training is an accident waiting to happen. Since then, I've returned for regular sim training every six months.
What's wrong with in-aircraft training?
Until you've gone through serious simulator-based training, it's hard to appreciate just what a poor training platform your aircraft is. The sim allows you to be trained to deal with nearly any conceivable emergency situation. Perhaps a third of the malfunctions and emergencies we train for in the sim cannot be done in the aircraft, either because they're impossible to duplicate (e.g., overvoltage trip, induction system icing, propeller overspeed, left main gear won't extend) or are simply too dangerous to practice (e.g., engine failure immediately after takeoff, flying with a heavy load of airframe ice).
Other situations that we do try to practice in the aircraft can be accomplished only in very unrealistic ways. Shooting approaches under the hood is woefully inadequate preparation for doing the same thing in actual low-visibility conditions. The most difficult parts of doing this in a single-pilot cockpit — scanning between the gauges and the windshield and deciding whether or not adequate visual references are available to make the landing — are never practiced at all. The dismal G.A. accident rate during low-viz approaches, particularly at night, is a testament to the inadequacy of our training.
Another example: it's one thing for an instructor to slap a No-Peekie over the attitude indicator, and quite another for the horizon to gradually develop the "leans" and then subsequently start thrashing around to the point of distraction. A non-sim-trained pilot may have logged lots of partial panel instruction, yet be entirely unprepared to cope with an actual gyro failure that presents itself not with a bang but a whimper.
A good simulator allows you to train for these and many other real-world challenges in a highly realistic setting. It may seem odd, but in the ways that really count, simulator training is far less contrived and far more "real" than training in an aircraft.


A simulator also provides a far more efficient training environment than an aircraft. You and your instructor don't waste valuable time in taxiing out, waiting for an ATC release, or flying to the practice area or to an airport where the desired approach is available. In the same time it takes to fly an instrument approach in the aircraft and fly back to the FAF, you might do three, four or five approaches in the simulator. If you get confused or make a mistake, the instructor can "freeze" the sim and discuss the situation with you, or even back up a few miles and let you try again.
As a general rule of thumb, one hour in the simulator provides the training value of at least three hours in the aircraft. Sim training is such an intense experience that most curricula limit pilots to two hours of left-seat time per day. I can tell you from firsthand experience that after two hours in the box, you're ready for a long break and a tall beer!
Finally, in-aircraft training tends to be a lot tougher on your aircraft than normal operations. Stalls, slow flight, missed approaches and especially engine cuts can generate a lot of wear and tear on the equipment. If you want to stay proficient while at the same time treating your aircraft with TLC, you should seriously consider doing your recurrent training in a simulator...or in someone else's aircraft!