What is the best use for a helicopter flight simulator

[mnttech]

My employer (US EMS operator) is looking at buying a full flight simulator (FAA Level D). What is the best use(s) for this device?
1. Procedures (Normal and emergency)
2. Instrument procedures
3. Landing at off site airports
4. Do not buy it, spend the money in training flights

[paco]

The only reason you would need a level D (as I see it) is to do type ratings. Some of the non-moving FNPT II are simply outstanding. I use my sim for CRM and a couple of other procedures.

My advice would be to pm Shawn Coyle. You can do a lot of what you want with one of those.

Phil

[Non-PC Plod]

The simple answer is:

- Anything you can't do or wouldn't want to try in a real helicopter
- Anything which is cheaper/quicker/more efficient to train in the sim than in a real helicopter

So, a sim particularly lends itself to training emergency procedures, as well as CRM, MCC, and to provide a challenging and realistic environment for line checks etc.

As stated above, these do not necessarily require investing in an FFS, which does not provide a huge amount of extra capability for the money.

[tottigol]

Not only type rating, as opposed to a non motion FDT, a FFS gives you credit for takeoffs and landings (just check the PTS).
Also tail rotor failures and malfunctions (like a seizing pedal) are just not realistic in an FTD, not to mention autorotations.

[paco]

Beg to differ - I did a comparison article many years ago for a Helicopter Magazine on non-moving sims, and you could indeed do acceptable engine offs and tail rotor failures on at least two of them (good autos in a sim depend on what you can see below the cockpit). One was the Frasca, and another was done by Steve Nelson which was 90% of the Frasca at less than a third of the cost. Trouble is, he wasn't a business man, but the technology is alive and well.

Phil

[Thomas coupling]

Very very few people buy Level D's - far too costly. Level B++ is about a third less and capable of achieving all that the FAA would require of the operator including the following 'credits':
Instrument approaches.
Night flying time.
NVD time.

In the future , various authorities will be affording direct credits for normal Day VFR regimes and flight time in the synthetic trainer.
[Currently this can only be achieved on Level D's].

In addition and as advertised beforehand, the sim will offer unparalleled training in bad weather and multi malfunction scenarios including but not limited to near catastrophic malfunction training.

Then there are all the human factors/CRM processes which can be practiced.

Bear in mind that major airlines train all their ab initio's on sims utilising up to 98% of their time on synthetic trainers before setting foot in the real McCoy.

DS (Dynamic simulators) are the future. Think of the savings one would make by removing each hour normally exercised on fleet a/c and flying it instead in the sim.

Level D, though - erm I think not.......

Remember the technology (and often, the money) is in the fidelity of the visuals and their Image generators, not the basic platform with its hydraulic electric jacks.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Simply put......allowing Pilots to learn how to think under pressure and make good decisions contingent to training, procedures, and policies.

No better place to determine if a Pilot has the ability to perform.

It will never replace the actual aircraft but mistakes are no where as near costly as in the actual aircraft.

That and they can be replayed.....over and over until the lesson sinks into the trainee.

[tottigol]

You can always settle for cheaper (as opposed to less expensive), however MAYBE in the future you'll be able to get additional credits in an FTD.
Pt.135 operators who went out and paid millions of dollars for those FTDs are now reverting to using their competitors Level D FFSs because of the additional credits.
Also, at least one modern medium twin airframe has as many as 7 Level D FFSs, versus one Level B (regarding which I hear scathing fitness reports). Why isn't everyone going the cheaper way?

BTW do you happen to know of any airline actually using FTDs versus FFSs for pilot qualification?

[mckpave]

I have to concur with Paco, I have a lot of experience with both FTDs and FFSs, in training and certification realms, and I came to the conclusion that an FTD is more cost-effective in my opinion. You must factor in the additional cost of the facility that houses the FFS and the extra cost of maintenance of the motion system, regardless of whether electric or hydraulic legs, it's still expensive and can be time-consuming.

As far as what to utilize it for well that's where quality syllabus development comes into play. Use a training pyramid, start with the basics like emergency procedures, autorotations, etc., then progress to scenario-based training events that emphasize CRM and decision making skills. Top it all off with an end-of-course scenario that is realistic yet challenges the pilot/crew. Most importantly, get feedback from each session and constantly freshen the courseware and actively develop newer training events based on the feedback.

Lastly, the simulator is only as good as the capabilities it has "baked in" so to speak. The sim should be fully capable of nearly all types of weather conditions, extremely accurate flight control modeling, a large database of system failures, and very importantly, an excellent, detailed visual database for conducting off-site operations. That last requirement can rate a discussion all its own and is unique to the helicopter world.

[tottigol]

McPave, the last paragraph you wrote applies to any decent FTD as well, even more so because the visual perception is not aided by the movement.
unless of course you are not just confusing with a glorified CPT.

[mckpave]

Yes of course tottigol, those capabilities are key to a successful sim of either type, FTD or FFS. Without them it really doesn't matter whether it has motion or not, the training will suffer.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I read this thread with some pleasure and some measure of frustration.

The world we inhabit as professional helicopter pilots has a very sharp 'sharp end' at which the very latest technology is being deployed to deliver competence at levels never seen before. We can combine the very best of SOP's and CRM/MCC and deliver the necessary tuition and consolidating experience in a way that is simply impossible in the real aircraft.

The best of the best are seriously impressive... but... the regulatory world surrounding the licensing of pilots, the initial issue and the subsequent TR's is so outdated and so full of holes that the vast majority of commercial pilots are not getting access to the best training. We have a situation where TR's on complex types are still allowed without recourse to a single FSTD session. Those that have taken that route are often the very poorest performers at Recurrent Training Sessions. IMHO this should not be permitted. If the proper demonstration of a pilots ability to handle malfunctions effectively is required then at least one or two sessions in an FSTD (FTD or FFS) should be mandatory for types such as the AW 139, AW 189, EC 225, S92.

The answer to MNTTECH's original question is to buy the best you can afford and use it for every aspect of training in which you can squeeze one ounce of benefit. They are fabulous tools and in the hands of an effective instructor workforce (don't get me on that one) can deliver stunningly good training value.

G.

[Thomas coupling]

Hear hear Geoffors :D

[mnttech]

Thanks to all for their input, including the PM's.

The answer to MNTTECH's original question is to buy the best you can afford and use it for every aspect of training in which you can squeeze one ounce of benefit. They are fabulous tools and in the hands of an effective instructor workforce (don't get me on that one) can deliver stunningly good training value.

Nice Geoffersincornwal