I agree with Fuji. Flight training already has a fair record. It carries less risk than GA in general, which it also should, to protect the students. Weather is a big killer in GA and in critical weather school flights are just cancelled. A significant risk element is the instructor operating out of SOP, as in this accident. The two-pilot configuration in commercial flights probably reduces the pilot’s risk part somewhat. Looking at training accidents the difference in equipment between tired school airplanes and state-of-the art commercial transport planes does not play a big role. Of course there will be landing mishaps and the like during training, but most often there are no injuries. The most serious accidents happen when bad judgement is involved, as in this accident, and those should be preventable, also in training. So why not aim for a high level of safety, not far from what the commercial flights offers.
huv wrote:
So why not aim for a high level of safety, not far from what the commercial flights offers.
Yes. I partially agree that the same safety level as CAT will probably never be achieved in flying training. But at least we should do our best and try harder! Nobody would even consider doing “deep stalls” and Vmca experiments during the type rating course or during bi-annual checkrides in any B737 or A320 (the latter won’t even let you try that). So why on earth “must” we do that in piston twins. They are not approved for that and no approved training syllabus calls for it. For a good reason as this accident shows once again.
Indeed, if you review the fatal accident reports for the UK for flights involving an instructor in a MEP in aircraft with adequate single engine performance how many have there been?
If you also qualify that with CAVOK conditions, the answer may be quite low 
Otherwise, what about that one where the FI had advanced CHD and was believed to have become incapacitated and the student was not good enough to fly the plane alone.
However, the qualifier “adequate single engine performance” narrows it down a lot too, doesn’t it? I have close to zero experience of twins but have seen so many posts about most of them only just climbing on one engine.
Peter wrote:
However, the qualifier “adequate single engine performance” narrows it down a lot too, doesn’t it?
Almost all aircraft involved in MEP training have “adequate” single engine performance. They can achieve positive rate of climb which is all that is required. The usual C152 with an instructor and student weighing 95kg each and full tanks (which in some countries would mean “lightly loaded” 
) on a typical Florida afternoon with 35+ degrees Celsius climbs worse than a Piper Seminole with two POB and one engine windmilling.
NB: Off topic, but that reminds me of a not-so-lightly built friend who wanted to take a trial helicopter lesson while on holiday in Florida. With himself and his American instructor, well-fed and watered too, their R22 would not get off the ground a single inch. They had to push it back into the hangar and do their flight in an R44 …
You can certainly make MEP training very safe but I don’t see how you can make it as safe as CAT. Ignoring two crew effects and the orgsnisational factors which must improve CAT safety over training, the aircraft are harder to fly one engine out than a typical twin engine commercial jet. They also have reduced performance. The engines are also more likely to fail.
Yes we are talking small numbers but I still think CAT is an order of magnitude safer than MEP training or normal flight. And also much safer than even single pilot jet operations. But commercial training is very safe and as with all aviation we should continue to strive to make it practically safer while not doing so to the extent that risk is deferred until post qualification. For example if you never fly in any risky conditions, eg gusty crosswinds, the pilot never gets to gain any experience in them.
JasonC wrote:
For example if you never fly in any risky conditions, eg gusty crosswinds, the pilot never gets to gain any experience in them.
Sure. But accidents/incidents in this kind of conditions usually only result in blown tyres and bent undercarriages, rarely with casualties. And they do bend enough airliners in similar conditions too (so all that training does not really seem to help…), again usually without damage to persons and therefore statistically not relevant.
what_next wrote:
Sure. But accidents/incidents in this kind of conditions usually only result in blown tyres and bent undercarriages, rarely with casualties. And they do bend enough airliners in similar conditions too (so all that training does not really seem to help…), again usually without damage to persons and therefore statistically not relevant.
I remember once I flew with KLM from Amsterdam to Trondheim. It was blowing from SE with the usual gusty condition. Nothing severe, nothing I couldn’t handle in a light GA aircraft, I have flown in much worse, and with SAS/Norwegia/Widerøe even more so. The second officer flew, obviously young and inexperienced, and just couldn’t do it. I noticed it on long final, he just didn’t handle the aircraft right. I have no idea what he actually did. Just before touch-down, or what could be something remotely resembling a touch down, the engine spooled up and we went for a circuit. The captain announced that the next time we will make it, because he would fly himself. He did it really well, perfect landing, and I think everybody on board could feel he handled the aircraft better. Maybe this was your student?
I would much rather have pilots who can fly when I’m flying airliners. I would much rather they learned the needed stuff before they entered the cockpit as professionals, than do it with me and hundred others in the cabin. If this results in higher risk to students, instructors and their aircraft, I couldn’t care less. Rather them than me. I pay to get safe from A to B. The pilots get payed for doing it efficiently and safe.
LeSving wrote:
Maybe this was your student?
No. KLM train their own students… And quite a few airlines employ “MPL” (multi pilot license) students, who only ever flew something like 50 hours on a real airplane and not even bother to do their PPL checkride, as second and first officers. Didn’t I say in previous threads that as passenger I would prefer to fly on a pilotless airplanes anytime?
LeSving wrote:
I would much rather have pilots who can fly when I’m flying airliners.
I guess you must fly on business jets then instead of airliners.
Some headlines from MEP instructing…I think the local crew room may boast over 50,000 hours of MEP instructing…not all incident free. (Clarifier, am a small component of these). Also recall that the EASA MEP course is only six hours in the aircraft, of which 3 1/2 hours are on asymmetric drills.
EASA, and previously the CAA, like lots of asymmetric go around practice at 250’ AGL. The FAA, brought up on 150HP potato head Apaches, demurs and tries to preserve their instructors, so the asymmetric go around in an asthmatic piston twin is not part of the course. Note the DA42 AFM with the improved Austro engines, and not a shabby SERoC, has a recommended Asymmetric Committal Height of 800 feet AGL. The DA42 spends its life doing asymmetric go around in the IR, so this may have been inserted by the egsl department.
Instructors with a developed sense of self preservation will cover the live engine rudder to ensure the student doesn’t jab the wrong rudder on go around – this isn’t much help when your student is a weightlifter, and decides that he hasn’t pushed hard enough on the wrong rudder. Seeing the horizon at 70 degrees, asymmetric, at 200 feet agl, makes you want to re consider your profession. The message of lead with the rudder while gently applying power didn’t quite get through.
The other classic is hitting the mags instead of the fuel pumps, fortunately this occurs at 1000 agl, but invariably you have students who overdrill and want to show their kung fu skills in carrying checks as fast as possible.
Part of the course is a precautionary engine shutdown/feathering in the cruise, and yes little Sally/Johnny may on occasion feather one engine and pull the mixture on the other engine. L/D ratio on an MEP with one prop windmilling and one feathered is low single figures. Fortunately this exercise is carried out with plenty of height. You then on occasion find your MEP has decided it has a stuck starter when you attempt the re start.
Asymmetric work seems to reduce normal rudder skills (which unfortunately for the average student the rudders are used as foot rests in any event), with a tendency to either have rudder full on or not at all. One good IR student in a visual circuit overshot the centreline turning base to final – there may have been a muscle memory short circuit – as he decided the best course of action was to stomp on the rudder to regain the centreline. Having the slip ball exit right at 600 feet, asymmetric (albeit at low power), was more excitement than requested.
The best training twins climb single engine only when the aircraft is at blue line speed, and with a slight bank to eliminate side slip and reduce rudder drag. So carefully calibrating and co ordinating rudder is a key skill.
Given the hours of MEP training for the fATPL courses, the accident rate in Europe seems reassuringly low, which reflects that nearly all the training is aimed at CPL/IR, in reasonably good equipment. Despite this you have the accident of this thread and the Vmc demo related accident in Croatia in 2009. Not sure if there have been others in the last ten years. There may be a few more, but IR training related.
