Helicopter Simulators and experience of same.

[kissmysquirrel]

Just wondering how many of the pro-pilots here have had experience of the full motion sims available today. I have a couple of questions:-
1. Did you find the training very useful?
2. Did you get to try situations which were not really do-able in the real thing?
3. Anyone had a bad experience in a sim?
4. How often do you think we should be doing recurrency training in sims?
Reason I ask no.3 is because during a recent sim ride, I just managed to stuff an S76 into the ground, nose first from 2000' after double engine failure because I made the 'fatal' mistake of pushing right pedal which caused the collective to pop back up. Nr droop below recoverable was so quick. :hmm: I never knew the S76 had such low inertia blades. I always thought getting away from R22's would mean no more Nr worries.

The full motion sim is able to give you a terrifying look (albeit very short) into what it looks like from the inside. Not pleasant to say the least. I learned something though so I guess they are good for purpose.

[verticalhold]

In the good old days plenty of time on 61, 332 and 76 sims. They gave you plenty of time to run slow time through anything which had come up in the last 6 months as well as some EOL practise.

I miss the quality of sim training and I really miss seeing how the aircraft responded during and after failures.

I believe sims are a real life saver.

VH

[Flingingwings]

KMS
Welcome back :E

One presumes you're having 'fun' :ok:

We'll compare those brief moments before the screen goes red when you get back if you like. :p

Visited your new place of work earlier today :O

[thecontroller]

errr, why is pushing the right pedal "wrong" and why does it make the collective pop up???

[Wizzard]

Here goes:
1. Yes, very.
2. That's what simulators are for.
3. Personally, no but there is scope to do so if as in your case the unexpected happens! Are you sure the rapid loss of Nr was representative of the real aircraft? I have used a simulator in the past where this was not the case, the Nr loss was so great when practicing double engine failures that we had to inhibit the loss of Nr protocol.
4. There is a school of thought that all LPC/OPC flights should be done in the sim but I think that at least one check every couple of years in the real aircraft helps to keep in touch with the real world.



Might I just add that one of my pet hates is when I hear pilots say "this is what happens in the sim so it must be real":mad:
The simulator is only as good as the data that was used to replicate the flight characteristics and the engineers who put the thing together. I have yet to find a helicopter simulator which is fully representative throughout the whole flight envelope - they're getting closer all the time but not quite there yet.

[SASless]

Simulators are the bee's knees for learning from your mistakes. Watching the video replay of your actions can be very informative. By informative I mean that thought you have when you see yourself do something incredibly stupid without knowing it at the time.

Sim training done the right way can be very rewarding.....done the wrong way it can be soul destroying.

The best use of a Sim was in recreating situations that led to fatal crashes. The best one I recall was using the 212 Sim at FSI/Bell to re-create the conditions of a 212 crash which occurred when a crew attempted to winch a load that was way too heavy and was unable to jettison the load by cutting the cable.

We altered the CG to match that of the operator's data for the crash and then attempted to fly the aircraft in that configuration. It was most informative and demonstrated a non-standard procedure could enable the aircraft to fly away but if standard techniques ingrained in pilots were used it would not.

Sims should be teaching devices and not merely Hi-tech torture devices.

[perfrej]

...but oh, how rewarding! In my humble opinion, a sim could be used for type rating, IFR training and - best of all - emergency procedures with no worries.

What struck me was two things:

1) The reality feeling. I missed out on a flare in a 412, made it a bit too high, and ended up falling staight down towards the runway striking at 2000 fpm. It was one of the scariest moments of my life. Felt so real...

2) The "un-reality" feeling. The sim is modeled after a specific aircraft. How come they missed (in a 15 megadollar thingy) the proper reaction to tail rotor input at high speeds? If you loose the tail in SAS Flight Academy's 412 sim at 100 kts, the thing starts spinning...

The landing on a ship thing was good, as was the white out conditions. What a training device! I think it could very well be used to do just about anything short of basic flight training.

[drakkar]

KMS
1) Let's try to simulate on a real A/C the total loss of the tail rotor on AS 332 for exemple....
2) Sometimes yes when, on the first FMS, aerodynamic was understood and reproduced by fix-wing engineer. The result was a super puma stalling like a jet fighter or flipping over on a dutch roll.
3) Some simulator can give you a kind of sea-sick, particulary if the motion system is too smooth. unfortunatly this feature is a part of the simulator design and will be probably never fixed.
4) Once a year would be perfect, doing training like emergencies, autorotations on a twin engines, fire procedures etc... All the stuff that cost so much in the real. The MCC also is very realistic on a FMS. 6 to 10 hours a year if the company can afford it.
Drakkar

[SASless]

How many 412's have you heard of that crashed after losing a tail rotor in cruise?

More than a few thus it makes one wonder just how realistic the Sim is for that event.

I am led to believe from what I have read.....the 412 trys to yaw to the point it then rolls over and goes almost inverted. There was a GOM 412 that did that but the crew was able to re-gain control after the upset.

Perhaps we might have a short discussion of the 412's real history regard loss of tail rotor components and/or a nearly instantaneous loss of tail rotor thrust in cruise.

[perfrej]

SASless... I was definately not aware of any specifics as to the tail rotor loss of a 412. Anyway, my instructor at the time (swedish army guy) ensured that it was flyable at speed, just like any other helicopter. I'm sure we both meant just losing the linkage to it, thus ending up with a spinning tail rotor with zero thrust. My guess is that it would take some serious tail rotor thrust to spin a 412 around its axis at 100 knots ;)

Fun day, though! Ship landing, 140 knots under a powerline, landing on a hospital roof, auto landing at 70 knots with screaching skids against concrete. Not to mention all the serious training in between!

[Ascend Charlie]

The Controller asked:
"errr, why is pushing the right pedal "wrong" and why does it make the collective pop up???"

All to do with the mixing box for the 76. A triumph of science and technology over common sense. Under most conditions, it does a great job of putting in compensatory inputs to cover the secondary effects of controls. But sometimes, you get an input you don't want - pushing the lever full down gives a pedal input, or conversely, a pedal input can move the lever. In tail problems, it is sometimes best to put your feet on the floor, to avoid giving yourself a scare when the collective moves uncommanded.

Simulators are a great teaching tool. Where else can you set your engine on fire and use the extinguishers to try to put it out? Or get a Txmsn Chip light, all the bad noises, oil pressure lights and such, and choose to ditch it in the Old Pacific Sea? Or have an engine fail just as you move off the edge of the Wall St Heliport, pop the floats, and plop into the river? It even bobs along on the water and makes bubbling noises.

What it is NOT useful for is the sim instructor showing how he can fly away from a tail fail in the hover - according to Saint Nick, the sim was never designed or expected to be flown in that area.

[SASless]

As goofy as this sounds....making an autorotation to the aircraft carrier model at night, no horizion... is a very good ending to a sim lesson.

It is not a situation one would ever dream of encountering....until you think about a forced landing at night with exactly one good spot to land to. Despite the aircraft complexity and the moving landing spot....it takes you back to helicopter 101.....the old grease spot on the windscreen concept....and doing whatever you have to in order to hit the mark under control.

Rarely did anyone make it the first time....but when told to think back to pre-solo days and the Instructor talking about the landing spot moving up...down...left and right.....the light bulb comes on in one's brain and second attempts were much better.

Start the exercise at an altitude of 5-6000 feet and shut both engines off using throttles, speed selects, etc.....and ride the horse down. The crashes can be pretty good too!!!

[kissmysquirrel]

Tks, Flingingwings. Yes, common red screen!! :hmm:
Isn't it great how the UK CAA have one way of doing things with regard to Group A performance and the Americans say, hey, we only do Group B and accept whatever happens. Group A? What's that?
IMHO I feel the simulators are a great way to practice for any eventuality but whether or not you would react the same in real life, or even be able to use the knowledge learned in the sim is another thing.
Isn't it great to know the S76 is not flyable with hydraulics out.
Hopefully by tomorrow afternoon I should be feeling a bit more confident (or terrified) about what I can do in the 76. All good stuff now the written exam is out of the way. JAA has 110 questions for type rating. USA have 20 questions on type. You got to love the CAA. :E

and Mr Lappos was in the house today but I missed out on meeting him.

[Flying Bull]

Hi kms,

> Just wondering how many of the pro-pilots here have had experience of the full motion sims available today. I have a couple of questions:-

In a former life the Lynx-simulator in Portland
and now the simulator at Marignane / France (Eurocopter)

1. Did you find the training very useful?
Yepp - had an actual engine problem (including shut down) about two weeks later on a totaly different helicopter, close to MTOW in a very hilly area.
But the steps to solve the problem were nearly the same as in the sim and I wasn't surprised seeing all those red and amber captions while shutting down in flight. The approach to a little airfield went like in training - nicely down in ground effect - and I actually didn't needed all the power allowed with one engine.

2. Did you get to try situations which were not really do-able in the real thing?
Another Yepp - all the nasty things with the tailrotor - from hover to forward flight - seeing, that you have a chance to survive, if you stick to the procedures (bad thing, I have often to operate outside the envelope, where you have a chance - but I know, when I leave the save side...)
Another thing - all the electrical nasty bits and fire in the helicopter.

3. Anyone had a bad experience in a sim?
You think the crashes - it feels not good - but with the right simcrew, they show you, how to avoid in future.
Nice little lesson learnt - even smal problems can kill you - if you don't think and just react.
Being Co-Pilot it started of with Battery hot - well, switched off, no big deal.
There came a generator failure - reset - wouldn't work, so shut it off - no big deal - but good point to head for home - wasn't far, we were in a curcuit.
On final, just selected the gear down, engine fire - no big deal, we're nicely lined up with the runway and we can do a running landing, so my pilot said shut the burning engine down.
Well - and suddenly all the nice colered screens went black, AP and SAS was lost - and evenso the pilot managed to fly to the runway, we crashed.
What had happend - we both assumed, that the fire came from the faulty generator - but it was the other engine. And - the gear wasn't fully extended, before I cut the engine and therefore all the powersupply left.
It would have been easy - just one second of thought - switching on the battery for a minute before shutting down - but who thinks about this bloody batteryswitch, when on fire?
Lesson learnt - react, when one/the engine is gone - but if you don't die immediatly, start to think a second or two, before operating any switches...


4. How often do you think we should be doing recurrency training in sims?
Ones a year 6 to 8 hrs - would be great. And if you calculate with a sharp pencil, you might find, that a simulator isn't that expensive.
Take the hourly costs of a normal training flight - including all maintenance - with the risk of bending or loosing the bird (look through the statistics) and the benefit to the safety for the case to be by a sim trained pilot, you'll might find that the sim hour isn't that expensive.
Especially if you don't order just one or two sessions but instead of that, ordering a higher number for all the pilots and may be even get a contract with the sim for a couple of years.
Bye the way, a sim hour brings at least the benefit of 2 1/2 or more real flying hours.

Greetings Flying Bull

[BJC]

perfrej, it actually takes a serious "lack" of tail rotor thrust to spin a 412 at cruise speed. In the case that I am thinking of a piece of the t/r blade came off, shortly followed by the entire blade. Our sim trg previous to that had taught us that we could fly out of this situation as you also suggest. Alas, as the two pilots learned, this was not true in most conditions. They died, but the crew in the cabin survived due to their attempt to crash level. Don't trust the behaviour of a simulator in emergencies such as this and don't make up new techniques because they work in the simulator. Its been said before, but a sim is only as good as its flight model, and until this crash there wasn't a lot of useable flight data on 412 tail rotor failures.
That being said, I just finished my annual sim trg in a level C sim and I wouldn't give that up for the world.

[perfrej]

I beleive the 212/412 sim at SAS Flight Academy is based on a specific individual for each config (212 and 412) and should thus behave "exactly" like those individuals. It is reasonable to assume that the manufacturer does not have accurate data for catastrophic failures, but the rest is supposively registered during tons of flight hours with a lot of measurement gear on the real ship.

Being an IT guy, I feed on technical details...

Bell/AB 412 SP/HP, 212
Full Flight Simulator FFS Specifications
Basic engine and options PT6T-3B (B412SP), PT6T-3BE (B412HP), PT6-3B (B212)
Manufacturer CAE Electronics
Computer IBM 6000 model 591
Motion axis, type 6 DOF Hydrostatic, separate 3 DOF vibration platform
Visual MAXVUE™ Enhanced B
Display configuration 5 channels, 210º/40º field of view, 2 chin window displays
Approval Equivalent to FAA level D (Visual: Equivalent to FAA level C)
Date in service March 1998
AP, F/D Sperry
Miscellaneous equipment/features WXR, FLIR, Hover Indicator, GPS, Chaff/Flare, NVG-compatible flight deck and
visual system, ITEMS, debriefing video equipment

[kissmysquirrel]

2. Did you get to try situations which were not really do-able in the real thing?

Maybe I worded the above question badly as i'm fully aware some scenarios couldn't safely or easily be replicated on the real a/c.

Anyway, i'm hoping to try some situations out which hopefully I won't encounter for some time yet, ie night rig app. go-arounds, but I have another question. Has anyone ever felt a bit of motion sickness up to a few hours after after leaving the sim. A bit like an equilibrium problem, and no, not due to the beers after training.

To any of you who have access to a full motion sim, or work for a company who gives you regular training on sim, what are the things you practice most or would at least like to have practice at?:hmm:

KMS

[SASless]

Sim Sickness is real. Even as a Sim Instructor I had a bout of it....pretty easy to cure....find a big thick Oak tree and hug it tightly for a bit.

Usually it is the 47 pints of beer the night before that gets you. Nice thing the law does not apply to Sims as it does for the real thing.

Visual maneuvers seem to be the usual cause....the Sim is moving but not like the visual shows it....your hind end is used to certain sensations when your eyes are telling your brain something else....add in the slight delay between the Visual responding to control movements as compared to the Sim response and you have a good start for Sim Sickness.

[kissmysquirrel]

So about 40 hours sim training in about 2-3 weeks could be the cause!!!
:{

ps, I ain't gonna be hugging no trees. People might talk.(more than they already do):E

[HOGE]

A "Stugeron" travel sickness tablet before a sim session cured my "wobblyness" and after a few sessions I did not need the motion sickness pills.

[bugdevheli]

I would be interested in comments regarding the following. A full motion hydraulicly assisted helicopter hover simulator powered by a small stationary engine. the machine would hover at 3 feet and rotate through 360 digrees. Its main purpose being to allow first time clients to practice coordinational skills at minimal cost. Toal cost of machine in the region £7500 and hourly running cost of £2 00. Thanks Bug

[michael_98101]

Wish my school had one. It sounds a lot cheaper and safer than mastering hover in an R22 for the first time.

--mj

[michael_98101]

As a student pilot, where can I go for simulator time to augment the time spent in real helicopters? My school has real helicopters only. I live in Seattle on the weekends but I travel around the US, Canada, and Europe for work.

--mj

[the beater]

There is a difference between a flight simulator and a flight training device.
In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained by swapping time in the helicopter you are training, for time in an FTD. I'm not aware of a simulator for an R22, but simulators cost so much to run that the only benefit gained is in practicing drills that you could not (or would not) simulate in the aircraft (EOL's in ME aircraft, ditching etc.). Save time - and money - and continue learning the procedures applicable to the type that you're learning in. Hovering, by the way, isn't that difficult - it only seems impossible at first - you'll be surprised at how soon it all 'clicks' into place.

[BRASSEMUP]

I've just flight safety in Arlington TX before. Google them for there contact. But it all depends on what type rating you have or want.

[Shawn Coyle]

The Beater:
I bed to differ on your comment that there isn't much to be gained from a Flight Training Device compared to the real helicopter. There are lots of examples of people spending time in something even more basic than a Flight Training Device (AATD in the USA, FNPT II in JAA countries) and then going out an nearly immediately hovering a real helicopter quite well. Ditto for a bunch of other training exercises - the device reduces the steepness of the learning curve and lets the training in the real helicopter be much more productive.
But it also takes good instructors to make that happen. Instructors who can use the tool well.

[paco]

I agree - The pilot who first petitioned the FAA to consider the fixed-base simulator as an "official" training aid, Mike Coligny, told me that he did 11 hours in the simulator before getting his hands on a real helicopter. After taking half an hour to get used to the pedal movements (they are different), he then went on to do a full commercial flight test, which he would have passed, said the examiner, except that he didn't have enough flying hours.

That was in a flyit - there are better ones out now!

Phil

[the beater]

I agree.
There is an advantage to using these devices to learn to physically control helicopters; but although mastering the hover in a FTD or similar will reduce the time spent in the aircraft, the time spent sitting in the real aircraft going through the start up and pre-flight procedures will never be wasted.
As an examiner, I have never failed anyone through their inability to hover, but I do often find that their knowledge of systems and/or procedures is lacking.

[Shawn Coyle]

The Beater:
The problem you describe about systems knowledge has little or nothing to do with simulators or FTDs, and more about ground school.
A good FTD will duplicate the action of the systems, but it takes a good instructor to think of things like bus failures or slow-overs of attitude indicators or other things that you can't ever practice in real life in the real helicopter.
But knowledge of systems in general is poor - I know of one large helicopter type that may still not have a good trainer for the FMS, and even the flight training for the FMS is sadly lacking. All the ground school was done by maintenance types, who while they had good knowledge of systems, couldn't describe the FMS at all.
We're nowhere close to the big airlines in this area, and we should be.

[michael_98101]

Thanks for all the responses.

Sounds like no clear consensus, and no place around here to get full-fledged simulator time. I'm surprised a simulator would be more expensive to operate than a real helicopter, what with the maintenance costs, liability, and all that. I just watched an R-22 autorotation training video pointing out that more accidents happen from practice autorotations than from actual engine failures.

I decided to order X-Plane, a joystick to use as a cyclic, a throttle controller (to use as a collective), and pedals. I'm not sure this will accelerate my actual flight lessons much but it looks like fun. With the Seattle* maps maybe I'll learn my way around the local airfields.

I tried to fly the R-22 built into the demo version of X-Plane and couldn't get far with the keyboard. There are various third-party modules to emulate other helicopters.

* Speaking of Seattle, I was on the observation deck of the Columbia Tower this weekend and disappointed not to see helipads on top of the other office buildings.

--mj

[blave]

I am a 190-ish hour pilot, who has been involved with PC-based flight sims for about twice as long as I've been flying the real thing.

I own both Microsoft FS (9, X, etc.) and X-Plane 8. I have spent many hours in the former (since version 3 I think) and a few hours in the latter (mostly due to frustration in the case of X-Plane), and I find the X-Plane flight model to (a) not be realistic and (b) to be a lot harder to fly than the real thing. I admire the approach that X-Plane takes to simulating a flying "body" but I think it completely misses the mark for helicopters.

MS FS certainly has its limitations and foibles, but I believe that it would result in less "negative transference" of basic skills than X-Plane.

Dave Blevins
USA

[Vertolot]

MHS,

I also think that the Simulator (level-D) is a life saver, ie. you can practise the hole procedure of engine fires, loss of tailrotor etc.

But my point is the following. It puts a big responsibility on the instructor, its no deal for an instructor to put the student "down on his knees" in a simulator....just put on an big amount of malfuntions and the student will mess up sooner or later.

When you train in the simulator you have to keep it realistic, do "one malfunction/emergemcy" at the time (of course a malfunction can lead to and will usually lead to some secondary problems as well).

So. keep it realistic!!

Thanks:sad:

Ps. what is the chances of getting double engine failure in a twin (ok, its possible but it will not happen very often), but its always good to exercise some autos!

[Shawn Coyle]

An interesting point - there are no certificated requirements to be a simulator instructor. Surprised EASA hasn't come up with something (oops, maybe they'll be lurking and start something....)

[212man]

Shawn,
where do you get that position from? What are SFIs, SFEs, if not certificated? Additionally, TRE/TRI authorities are either a/c only or a/c and sim. EASA doesn't certify flight crew yet either: it's still a JAR FCL function.

Admitedly, there are no additional requirements for instructors conducting non-regulatory training (i.e. not for an LPC/OPC or TR course) other than the simulator provider's own IOS course (which is largely for insurance purposes.)

[michael_98101]

Here's an update in case anyone's curious.

I downloaded another helicopter for X-Plane 8.6, a Hughes H500D, which seems very realistic and somewhat easier to fly than the default R-22. With no kinesthetic feedback and only one screen, it's still harder to fly than the real R-22 I'm training on. But if 10 hours of simulator time can save me 1 hour of lesson time I'm money ahead. Plus it's fun.

I took the springs out of my CH Products pedal controller and Flightstick. That made them a lot more like helicopter controls and I recommend doing this. Also, for now, I disabled wind gusts and set the controls to non-linear mode to reduce twitchyness.

With the H500D, the only thing that seems unrealistic is the lack of tactile feedback, and the one screen with no peripheral vision. It yaws in response to the collective, smooths out through translational lift, rolls to the right when exceeding Vne, sounds a low-RPM horn when the collective is yanked.... I guess it wouldn't fool a pro pilot but seems like a good learning tool for a low-hour student like me.

I'm going to try running on multiple screens next.

--mj