flight sims...good/bad?

[bobjim]

What do people think about the use of flight sims in training? And in particular, what do people think of hours in a flight sim standing in for hours the air? Is it workable?

[oldbeefer]

Sims are fantastic for emergency handling training and instrument flying. The most severe failures can be rehersed as often as required to get the procedures right and, hopefully, save the day when it happens for real! Also great for procedural IF and approaches - we have reached the stage now where IRT renewals can be done in the sim - all at much lower operating costs than for the real thing. In addition, weather can be what you want it to be!

[thelynxeffect]

Sims are fantastic, I try to get at least one sortie a week, you don't realize your getting better because the situations the sim guys give you get harder as you get slicker, as has been said before, you can load yourself up with weather, location, emergency types until your head explodes. I still get a warm feeling after I walk away from a 'successful' sim landing. No substitute for real flying though, except maybe a little IF sim.
:ok:

[Farmer 1]

Very good - up to a point. In fact, very good indeed - up to a point. I've only flown one (helicopter sim), and I could never confuse it with the real machine. So the situations, emergencies, etc. were always treated as training, rather than the real thing.

It is much easier, and more realistic, to practise various emergencies, as well as more routine training.

As already said, there are savings to be made in costs. Also with convenience. You can guarantee being able to fly whatever route, airport etc. that you want, and not be delayed by weather, other traffic, ATC or anything.

But, when all is said and done, it is a training aid, and being able to fly it cannot guarantee being able to do the same thing in real life.

[wishtobflying]

A simulator trains muscle memory, and is invaluable. Consider all the emergencies you can train for in a good simulator that you could never do in the real thing. Consider the running expenses of a simulator compared to the real thing. Consider the number of times you can crash a simulator compared to the real thing. (!) :ooh:

When was the last time you were able to fail multiple instruments in the real aircraft and, for instance, be in full IMC and watch the AI topple slowly, without warning, and learn to recognise the symptoms and be trained on how to fly the aircraft in that situation, and if it all goes pear-shaped, stop, get out, have a cup of coffee, then get back in and do it again?

Certainly, it's not the real thing, and even if it's the same type and same cockpit configuration as your normal office, it's effectively a different aircraft and shouldn't be confused.

Anyway .... I'm a big fan. :ok:

[Geoff Williams]

I have to agree that sims are a great tool for practicing systems emergencies and procedural stuff. But… a word of caution. As has been said they are not real aircraft. And as good as the techo guys are at doing the software, there have been instances where subsequent real events have caused a programming change to be made to the relevant sim.
Last ride I did in the C+ at WPB we did deck take offs at 12,700 lbs with a 15 kt tail wind and lost one engine at the point of rotation and flew ‘the sim’ away OEI and ‘lived’. Doesn’t mean the same might happen in the real world.
Certainly a great tool, but not totally definitive.

Geoff

[212man]

They are becoming even more valuable with the advent of modern glass cockpit aircraft, as there are inumerable failure modes that cannot be recreated in the real aircraft. In fact, there are many cautions, warnings and display symbols that a pilot will never see except in a simulator or in the event of the real failure.

Old or new, the benefit of LOFT and CRM assessment should never be underestimated, and one aspect of simulator based checks that is never represented in the aircraft: the P2 is a normal pilot, not a training captain (no rude jokes required!). Therefore, when a failure occurs the crew react as a real crew (fumbling through checklists etc) not the false situation that exists with a TC acting as P2.

The other benefit, generally speaking, is the simulator availability is more predicatable than using an aircraft; not weather, customer or serviceability affected (albeit sims go u/s too.)

I think, that as long as within sensible limits, one should not get to 'hung up' about how precisely a sim replicates some emergency behaviour. At the end of the day, it's your reaction, response and airmanship that is being assessed/trained.

[N Arslow]

As GW says, the techs are not infallible and the software can be wrong - although in my experience, not too often. They are exceptional training aids; a Level D device with all the bells and whistles particularly. Any level of approved device will make a helicopter pilot better than without sim time for sure, as long as the training is carried out well and the device is used within its limitations.
Watch out for the visuals close to the ground. Collimated displays have limitations whatever the field of view. And if you experience something different in the real aircraft to the sim let it be known so the software can be changed and others can learn from your experience. I have come across the "that cannot be right" by people accepting simulators only to find out that they were making an assumption based on an older sim they had worked with, so do not believe everything is correct. On the other hand and without better information to go on obey the number one rule of IF - trust the instruments!

[helopat]

I have to agree that sims are a great tool for practicing systems emergencies and procedural stuff. But… a word of caution. As has been said they are not real aircraft. And as good as the techo guys are at doing the software, there have been instances where subsequent real events have caused a programming change to be made to the relevant sim.
Last ride I did in the C+ at WPB we did deck take offs at 12,700 lbs with a 15 kt tail wind and lost one engine at the point of rotation and flew ‘the sim’ away OEI and ‘lived’. Doesn’t mean the same might happen in the real world.
Certainly a great tool, but not totally definitive.
Geoff

I think Geoff has nailed it!! FIRSTLY, a great tool for procedures training (normal, emergencies); SECONDLY, with the appropriate visuals and ability to programme weight, weather, etc, and outstanding tool for maintaining currencies such as IF and basic skills; THIRDLY, and probably most important (as a sim instructor I feel this is really the key point) people who create these pieces of kit are technoweenies (no offence) and generally not very current in the aircraft type that they're creating a simulator for...therefore, there will always be a disconnect between what the sim does (feel, performance) and what the aircraft does...recognising that there are differences determines what you can and can't do well in the 'box'.

On the whole, a good simulator is worth its weight in gold for training as long as you recognise that its not a replacement for flying.

My 3.1415 cents worth.

HP

[Shawn Coyle]

First of all, I have to state I work for a company that makes flight training devices, so take the following words in that vein.
It depends what you mean by simulator first of all - do you mean a (FAA) Level 6/7 Flight Training Device (FTD) or a Level D Simulator, or a JAA Flight Navigation Training Device (FNPT) or an FAA Advanced Aircraft Training Device (AATD)?
Each has it's own level of fidelity and is intended for different things.
An AATD or an FNPT is going to be good for teaching skills in general, but not specific to a model of helicopter. IFR training, or learning to hover are general skills. And these devices can be excellent for learning those skills. As a former test pilot for a major manufacturer stated - "No helicopter pilot should be in a real helicopter for the first 10 hours"
Since we're just getting devices like this into general circulation, they haven't had the impact on training that they deserve.
For FTD and Level D simulators - they are designed to duplicate exactly the handling and performance of the real thing - or at least they should. They are designed to replace flying time in the real helicopter for the purpose of getting a type rating (another subject for US operations). So they should be pretty exact as they will train things like muscle memory. If the performance for the Category A takeoff discussed before wasn't accurate, then someone should say something. You'll be learning negative things in the sim...
end of rant...

[The Rotordog]

After some disappointing experience with the first Frasca and ATC-610 sims, I viewed the arrival of these new "helicopter simulators" with something less than enthusiasm.

But there was something that nagged at me. As a fixed-wing pilot and member of the Experimental Aircraft Association in the U.S., I had given over 100 rides to kids as part of the "Young Eagles" program. I always put them in the "pilot's" seat and I always offered them the controls (they did not always accept).

Of the ones who did try their hand, I could always tell which ones played video games. Their hand/eye coordination was incredible and they picked up the basic relationship of control movement/airplane response very quickly. To repeat, without fail I could always tell which kids played video games and which did not. And I began to think that the next generation of pilots will have it a lot easier than I did back in the 1970's as I manhandled a Cessna 150 around the sky in my early hours, trying to figure out what did what at $35 of my high school salary dollars per hour.

And then...

And then the company I was working for recently got ahold of a FLY-IT. I was curious but not expecting much, and wasn't one of the first in line. A helicopter simulator. Yeah. Big deal. How good could it really be?

And then I "flew" it. Holy cow! You've got to try this!

No, it does not replicate any particular real helicopter. But the control responses to movements are correct and the simulation of sensations is startlingly real. You find yourself actually believing that the whole sim is pitching and rolling. I did an approach to a rooftop - unbelievable! At my urging, my boss (no slouch in the flight time department himself, including tons of fixed-wing jet time) got in and started having a ball. "This is realistic!" I scrunched the vis down to 1/4 mile and did an instrument approach to our local airport. Unreal! I mean...very real! (And great fun, by the way.)

As good as the FLY-IT is, it cannot teach things like LTE or VRS, nor can it simulate a host of other problems/situations that helicopter pilots are often required to deal with (e.g. gusts in a hover, different c.g.'s). And it does only have a flat screen (although this is not as big a limitation as you might expect). As a primary flight training device it is awesome. As an IFR trainer (initial or recurrent) they are invaluable for keeping the troops sharp on procedures.

I understand that the so-called "low-end" sims are improving even as we speak. The surprising FLY-IT sort of begat the Aerosim (which adds many features and a wrap-around screen). With improved graphics and control fidelity, who knows where they'll go next? But I know one thing: Put a zero-time student in one of these new sims *first*, and his training in the real thing will be much quicker.

Oh yeah, I'm a convert now, baby. I guess even us old dogs can learn new tricks.