Simulation or Flight

[Mikehegland]

The next generation of aircraft. JSF, SABR, SCMR etc etc etc, will all come into service along with Flight Simulators which are JAR-STD 1A Level "D" certified and as such they are capable and probably will have Zero flight time.

The future JSF pilot is likely not to see the real aircraft until he has passed the course. and will complete his training in the simulator.

Even now, German Tiger aircrew only conduct 10% of their flying training in the real aircraft, the remainder is simulated.

Good idea or Bad?

Comments please

[hyd3failure]

Simulation is fine and in some respects good fun. It also is a fab training aid. I enjoy going into the sim and like the battle between the Stude and the instructor. However, I didn't join the Navy to Fly a simulator.

There is a fine balance required here otherwise you will start to lose people.

[Homer_Jay]

Simulation is a useful training tool especially for complicated aircraft. The simulator can be used to demonstrate all manner of malfunctions and flying characteristics that cannot be done as easily or effectively in the real aircraft. For example, practice engine fires and engine failures in the real aircraft require instructors to either detail a long list of symptoms to the student or use some other method of indicating to the student that there is a problem. In a simulator the student gets all (almost) of the indications that would be in the real aircraft. However, simulation is not perfect.

Although a simulator may be classified Level D, zero flight time etc this can be a bit misleading. Level D really only applies for airline style 'fly the aircraft' training.

At present the jury is still out on standards for tactical simulation systems. Simulators cannot sustain G.

The point of all this is that a Level D simulator is still not enough for zero aircraft flight time training especially in the military environment. The point of the simulator is to enable the crew to operate the aircraft. The crew must go and do this in the aircraft and only be assisted by the simulator for currency and proficiency training. Organisations can either have smart people who realise this from the start or they can learn it the hard way.

PS I'd check the info on the German Tiger crews just to make sure the figure is not related to the lateness of their aircraft delivery. I'm pretty sure that they are not in a mature training environment just yet.

[airborne_artist]

In fifty years times it will be seen as the half-way house to a true UAV, perhaps..?

[glum]

Is it true that some Sims are run faster than real time, so that when a real emergency occurs, the pilot is able to react faster?

[tradewind]

Personal view but a simulator is an aid - NOT a replacement.

There is nothing like the real thing as far as realism is concerned, especially in the tactical environment - but I do agree that a sim is a very useful tool for areas where the real thing is difficult to obtain in peacetime ie. threats and emergencies (obviously a real emergency suffices but who wants that!).

The problem (or maybe solution in other eyes) is that simulation is effectively cheaper than flying for most aircraft and that seems to be the bottom line.

[mbga9pgf]

could imagine it will become increasingly useful in tactical training also with the advent of NEC and networked operations. Personally, the biggest plus of the sim is I can push buttons to see what happens, or to see if doing things a different way will work to my advantage, things you generally cannot do in the air.

Could imagine they will become increasingly useful when going into different theatres as well for famil purposes?

[callsign Metman]

Simulators are a very useful aid. The become even more useful when they are located in Swtzerland near the ski slopes.

CM

[Skeleton]

I remember at deadloss a few years ago, a plan being discussed to fly IRT's in the Sim, the idea was quickly quashed by those much more senior to me.

Have times changed or is a sim (no matter how good) no replacement for the real thing?

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Our Sim is ZFT rated, and it is fine for initial training. The fact that it is harder to fly than the a/c is no bad thing. New pilots can make errors without endangering themselves and others.

A sim cannot, however, simulate Operational C2 R/T and pressures, or an NVG strip landing in high terrain, but as a procedural trainer, they are great value for money.

As long as actual flight is also part of conversion training, I don't see it as a problem.

[soddim]

The RAF needs to invest more in realistic full mission simulators and make better use of them. There is no reason why they could not replace some flying hours; however, both the aircrew and the aircraft need to be exercised regularly to achieve success. Aircraft that last flew last month are probably not going to work much better than aircrew who have not flown for a month.

The sooner simulators are linked together for full mission training the better. Then one will be able to practise war scenarios operating with real players and simulated 'real' weapons.

[BEagle]

Simulators are only that - things that simulate reality.

...and have all the attraction that simulated sex has to anyone except a committed games playing nerd.

They will never replace the real thing.

Incidentally, although some Level D simulators might be ZFT approved under JAR-FCL, no RAF first tourist OCU student meets JAR-FCL ZFT trainee requirements.. But no doubt the bean counters won't want to know that - or accept compliance with ZFT rules.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Seeing as RAF pilots do not hold licenses, I think the JAR requirements are a bit of a red herring.

Beagle, you are right that they can never replace the real thing, but they do have the advantage that you do no die when shot down or you crash. They are an invaluable aid for training and developing procedures. Any fleet with a decent sim will always perfect SOP's in the sim before trying it in the a/c.

[BEagle]

Cake and eat it time, eh P-T-G? As the minority airspace user, if MoD wants to play the big boys' game, it should do so by the big boys' rules. But no, it'll seize on anything which costs less, irrespective of the ultimate effect on cost/benefit. Same goes for operation of ETOPS aircraft; if they're not maintained in accordance with ETOPS rules, then they shouldn't be flown under ETOPS rules.

The basics can be learned in a simulator, as can abnormal procedures and some operational procedures. But there will still be a minimum level of experience and real world skill development which must be completed in a real aircraft.

The gleam in the beancounters' eyes at the thought of less flying hours and more UAVs need to be tempered by caution. In any case, who on earth would want to join a military flying organisation to fly simulators or aeromodels?

[Training Risky]

There are some things you can only EVER try (or want to) in the simulator.

I still have the chills when I think about the first time I was given a synchronising-shaft failure on the death-banana, and the whole world went upside down... flashing lights... cries for help...etc

Certainly focuses the mind on proper drills.

[BEagle]

Interestingly, on one fleet when the IRTs which used to be conducted in the aeroplane were dumbed down and transferred to the simulator with its desperately unrealistic ATC environment, the ability of the more inexperienced co-pilots to cope satisfactorily with real-world flying in high density ATC environments became very obvious.

But you can't tell the beancounters things they simply don't want to hear about......

[snafu]

BEagle

'ability' or 'inability'??

[hyd3failure]

In the sim I fly (Military), when conducting IF...the staff get an "ATC"er over to assist. Basically, his job is to gob off on the radio and make the simulation as real as poss. Because he is an ATCer and a familiar voice on the radio, it becomes very realistic....

In fact painfully realistic

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Beagle - The IRT is a procedural test to a set standard. It should not be a capacity test of high workload environments.

A good ZFT sim is the perfect place for this. Our sim is far harder to fly than the a/c, and I do not consider an IMC EFATO in the sim to be "Dumming down". Perhaps you would like to come and try one, I can promise you everyone on our fleet hates them, as the sim is very twitchy. It makes you follow the correct techniques, or it will bite you.

Line training should introduce high workload destinations, with good supervision.

I agree that a degree of training in the a/c is essential, but I believe we would be wasting a huge amount of a tight budget if we did not utilise the sim fully.

[soddim]

One of the major advantages of the Sim is that you can practise the stuff that would occasionally kill you in the real aircraft and this applies also to the IRT where you can operate in the sort of weather you would divert to avoid. You can also get the 'victim' in situations where he experiences very real disorientation and you can overload him. Nevertheless, I prefer a system where the IRT is flown in both the simulator and the aircraft.

[4Greens]

Another function of the simulator that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is it that has a role in "desensitizing". The first time you get a fire warning bell or a TCAS warning, it is best in a simulator. The initial sense of disbelief and lack of correct or worse incorrect response is better discovered in a simulator.

They are used in a similar fashion to train firemen and emergency workers to get used to loud bangs etc.

[BEagle]

If a simulator really is 'harder to fly than the a/c', then it clearly must lack the fidelity required for ZFT qualificiation.

Practise in the sim by all means. But when fleets no longer conduct 'route checks', assessment of the capability of inexperienced pilots to cope in a busy ATC environment has to be made in a meaningful way. Following a script from Hannover to Dusseldorf with 1-to-1 RT is hardly realistic....

Approaches to minima in poor weather can be a Basic Training Requirement; they do not need to be part of an IRT. In the days when the RAF could afford to do things properly, the VC10 IRT was:
Outboard engine failure on t/o at V1. Asymm initial climb and flap retraction. Restore engine. Join airways, follow route to carry out a fully procedural entry into the hold at a UK regional airport. Fly precision or no-precision approach, go-around, rejoin airways, fly to Germany, radar directed asymmetric approach (precision if non-precision flown at UK aerodrome), asymmetric go-around and further 'dealers choice' of approach to land.

So we'd do Leeds/Bradford and Wildenrath, Wildenrath and Lulsgate, Birmingham and Bruggen etc etc.

Took 6 hours - one 2 hour IRT trip to Germany, 2 hours on the ground, another 2 hour IRT home. Plus we also took about 12 stn pax to do a bit of DF shopping - typically, people who'd helped the sqn in some way or other. MTDs, firemen, ATCOs, stackers - everyone except those who regularly flew... It was an ideal opportunity to give those who deserved it some air experience and had huge 'added value' and goodwill value for stn personnel.

All gone now - thanks to the $odding beancounters and fun detectors. Yes, I know that RAFG has popped its clogs, but there are plenty of other mil aerodromes in Europe which could be used.

[soddim]

There is really no problem simulating 'real' RT congestion. All that is needed is a suitable tape inserted into the scenario. However, most RAF sims do not have a suitable tape because the 'system' does not produce one.

The 6-hour airborne IRT for the VC10 must be a prime example of where money could be saved by use of the simulator. Hate to think what the taxpayer was shelling out for each IRT.

[BEagle]

It was 2 hours there for one pilot, 2 hours on the ground, 2 hours back for the other. Not 6 hours airborne....

RTFQ!!

[soddim]

Show me the civil airline that can afford to leave an airliner on the ground for 2 hours while the crew do their shopping and I'll avoid buying their shares.

Get Real and Simulate!

[BEagle]

That's the time the engineers say they need to turn an old jet like a VC10!

Sod simulators - for anything except emergency training and some basic operational mission training.

An airline runs its aircraft virtually 24/7 and does not need to hold anything in reserve for surge requirements. Whereas an air force has (or should have if it can afford it) a fleet strength geared to cope with defined operational task needs. Which means that it will often have a/c sitting on the ground seemingly doing nothing when the pace of operational tempo is less than they were scaled for. Hence they can then be flown on MCT flights without any extra burden on the exchequer.

[soddim]

The sod simulators bit is the reason why the RAF does not make cost-effective use of them. In the early 70s the RAF fixed the result of a trial to use the F4 full mission simulator to replace airborne training and 'proved' that it was a non-starter. No surprises then that the Tornado F3 simulator was a static cockpit with no visual. Contrast that with the BWoS RSAF F3 simulator and I know which air force has the right approach to simulation.

I suspect that at the heart of this discussion there is a deep-rooted RAF prejudice against 'flying' the simulator and no aircrew want to entertain the idea that precious flying hours might be replaced by a ground-based training aid.

Whilst I shared those views whilst I was still young enough to be allowed to fly decent jets, I can see the advantages of full mission simulation in many training scenarios. Even if we do not use simulation to replace flying time we could still make better use of the airborne time we have by performing more training in the sim and concentrating our airborne time on more advanced mission training.

I understand that the tea bag sim is the bees knees as far as full mission training goes (not sure when it is likely to be built!). Maybe our taxes are going to be better used soon.

[Pontius Navigator]

Soddim, the Nimrod had a full mission simulator and needed several experienced instructors outside to provide the world interface. The Nimrod was easy because a lot of the time it was out of contact but as soon as it got into the close support game the sim staff soon became voice limited.

You cannot play a radio tape as background because that is exactly what it is - noise.

In the Sentry sim we had lots of ASOPs who operated from scripts. Even with 8 or more we were still limited on the amount of RT we could trhow up in the air. The background noise also had to be switchable. If the fighters shot down the bomber then the zippo calls and SAM engagements had to be switched off.

Great fun, cheaper than the real thing but it did need lots of hired help.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

I don't think the VC-10 sim is a good one for comparison, as I guess it is of a similar age to the a/c.

Our sim is pretty swept up (BTW, it IS ZFT and it IS harder to control than the a/c on EFATO - I have had both) and has full mission capability. It is used for tac/at multi-ship sorties, L/L NVG, AAR, and the whole conversion cse, with only 2 local fliers prior to LOFT.

I'm sorry, but you still can't justify a flying IRT if the sim is up to it. I agree, it sounds a good day out, but jollies were stopped years ago by the moral hoovers at ASCOT.

As I said earlier, some exposure to the aircraft is essential. Not only for handling, but for exposure to the whole dispatch? system, and whole crew flying.

If we did all our training in the a/c, then every sortie would require a qualified ALM, and they are a pretty scarce commodity these days.

In days of tight budgets, we cannot afford the luxury of "real" training. The money can be better spent on maintaining capabilities, and new kit.

[Synthetic]

Time to stick my head over the parapet I think. Some of your worst moments in a cockpit may have been my handy work (er sorry guys). I'm the token sim eng around these parts.

The info in this thread is interesting and potentially helpful to me in my work.

Sims running faster than real time? Some do but only to speed through boring bits of a sortie, or those with no training value. As far as I know, this is the only time speed-up is used. It was not intended to make life more difficult.

In some ways, simulators are inherrently more more difficult to fly. For example, the motion system (if fitted) cannot provide the full catalog of 'seat of the pants' inputs to the pilot, and you don't have to go back very to find some fairly dire visuals. As correctly identified, sustained high G simulation is not available (nor is it likely to be in the forseable future) due to technical and cost limitations There is also the posibility that parts of the simulation have, for one reason or another, been poorly modelled.

There is another problem with simulation. You guys know what you want the simulator to do. We probably know how to do it. Unfortunately, between you and Us, there are two layers of beurocracy and bean counters. Most of what I would consider to be my best work has been done when I have been able to short circuit this and deal directly with the people who are going to use the sim, and to an extent, those who are going to maintain it.

Oh yes - I too would be happier installing them next to ski slopes etc, however Military airfields tend to be in the back of beyond. That ball, I feel, is in your court:) .

[Skeleton]

As an ex "voice over" in the sim, I think Synthetic has called it about right.

At the end of the day they are simulators, and from what I saw on the flight deck side, some pilots hated it with a passion but lots didn't because from what I could see, they saw it for what it was - a training aid put in place for there use.

Is it real? Ask the crew that insisted on descending below there minimum safety altitude over the Grampians. Result one shaken crew and a salutary lesson learnt for the Air Traffiker on the outside.

The other thing I do remember after a certain incident in foreign parts, is lots of captains asking for a quick 15 minutes during which they "simulated" what had happened to the real crew, as one succinctly put it - "I want to know why and I want to make sure it does not happen to me"

They have there place and I am sure the technology is available to make them better, but that’s down to price I think we all know what happens when the beancounters at MOD buy something......


:uhoh:

[4Greens]

Those who believe the aircraft is the only place to practice should be reminded to look into the RAAF B707 accident off East Sale, Victoria, Australia. There was a demonstration of a Vmcg manoeuvre that resulted in the loss of the aircraft and five crew.

The aircraft had been taken over from Qantas who only ever practiced this in the simulator. Lots of lessons alround.

[BEagle]

We also transferred the vast majority of the 'riskier' elements of initial conversion into the sim. E.g. divergent Dutch Rolls, high IMN excursions, low speed buffet manoeuvres, stall warning and identification. On conversion, it was a balance between a/c and simulator which, in around 2000, was an excellent balance. All our pilot FIs insructed in both the simulators and the aircraft (a total of 7 different types at one stage!) as well as teaching operation of the a/c in its primary roles.

But the beancounters wanted more and more transferred to the sweat box, the experience level of new pilots had also reduced - as then did the experience level of the FIs.

Less experienced instructors instructing low experience ab initios and giving them less total stick time......

I walked.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Flight - everytime! And more of it, particularly at the elementary and basic stages of training. Use the sim for the really tricky stuff like double engine failures and pray that the sim replicates the ac on the day it happens for real :uhoh: :uhoh:

[propulike]

Depends on the sim!

The 'K' sim I remember was very good at teaching tech and procedures training but I never want to do another IRT in the d@mn thing! The newer ZFT sims, including the J's and I would expect the A400's, can reproduce the characteristics to complete the vast majority of multi-engine flying accurately and safely.

There is no need to waste fuel, flight time, noise complaints, engineering and extra crew by operating a real aircraft for most training tasks just because older aircraft (and pilots) have always done it that way!

[soddim]

BEagle makes a valid point about the experience of the instructors and the RAF did itself no favours in sticking sim instructors in the job when they had never flown the aircraft or operated in the role. However, now it has all changed with Thales running most of the sims and BWoS a few and they can draw their instructors from ex-aircrew and instructors on type, usually with loads of experience and approaching retirement.

It is also the case now that the company running the simulator has a vested interest in improving both the technical and operational realism of training. I believe as a result we are going to see the RAF get better value from simulation.

[BEagle]

"However, now it has all changed with Thales running most of the sims and BWoS a few and they can draw their instructors from ex-aircrew and instructors on type, usually with loads of experience and approaching retirement."

For the right price, terms and conditions, of course.... It sounds as though qualified instructors will be in considerable demand; best offer some decent salaries then, Thales and BWoS!

I used to get rather annoyed at having to 'unteach' some of the unofficial simulator flying training given by unqualified personnel to students on the course when they started using it as a very expensive CAI tool!

[Tarnished]

If I may I'd like to drag this discussion forward a few decades and make it a bit more fast jet orientated. I don't think anyone has touched on the benefit that simulators can provide in terms of mission rehersals or in sharpening some rarely used skills and techniques in advance of a particularly demanding or unusual sortie.

Both Typhoon and JSF (needs an name) simulation "suites" include in their specification the ability to a: deploy a sim to the war zone and b: allow realistic mission rehersal (including terrain, sensor and threat databases).

Another aspect I would like to put forward is the observation that simulators are just like any other computor/calculator - if you put rubbish in you get rubbish out. It is a sad fact the the majority of sim instructors are no longer on the cutting edge, nice RO post to see out the autumn years (I have no problem with that at all). Most squadron pilots would do everything in their power to avoid a tour as a sim instructor. But it is exactly that level of current knowledge (of operations not the mechanical idiodsycracies of the aircraft) that is required to maintain an adequate level of realism to the event.

Back to nostalgia, WIWOL I did a spell in the sim after my first crash!! I was the only member of the staff who had actually flown the jet! I did some digging around the console and found the sim could do far more than anyone ever knew.


Simulators have the potential to add value, but can never replace the real thing

T

[soddim]

Sorry to say, BEagle, although the terms and conditions are good, neither company is offering enough pay to get to choose who they want. However, in some locations there is an adequate supply of suitable instructors prepared to wind down in the simulator whilst enjoying some golf etc.

Just to add to the discussion on the future of fast jet simulation, I understand that the Typhoon is to be manned by an ex-aircrew console operator and the instructor will be in current flying practise on type. I have used this system before and it has much to recommend it.