Simulator quality
Thread Starter
Simulator quality
How poor does a FFS haveto be before it is referred to the appropriate CAA?What deficiencies would it have to have before the authorisation is removed? I can think of one UK based but foreign owned FTO who really need to up their game.
Only half a speed-brake
Even the latest SIM certificates declare: 'primary reference document: JAR-STD A1. Googling that yields some results.
Another interesting link here: https://lisstdis.easa.europa.eu/stdi...php?r=std/list
Another interesting link here: https://lisstdis.easa.europa.eu/stdi...php?r=std/list
Thread Starter
Thank you for the links. The sim to which I am referring has awful lighting, equipment missing and it generates numerous faults that have not been inputted by the instructor. I think that it relects on the general poor standard and disorganisation of the owner.
Strangely for a UK based sim it has a DK approval.
If I was paying for it I would want my money back.
Strangely for a UK based sim it has a DK approval.
If I was paying for it I would want my money back.
N4790P
The latest FSTDs should have a primary reference document of CS FSTD (A).
The issue of Danish qualifications within the UK is somewhat interesting and of course clearly identifies the foreign operator in question.
ARA.GEN.105 20 “Principal place of business” is being abused by a certain foreign operator and is not being correctly enforced allowing non EU operations to operate within the EU and in this case the UK with apparent impunity and without any UK CAA oversight.
ARA.GEN.105 20 states that the “Principal place of business” means the head office or registered office of the organisation which the principal financial functions and operation control of the activities referred to in this Regulation are exercised. Clearly not!
Poorly maintained of poorly operating FSTDs are the sole responsibility of the FSTD operator. Their approved CMS determines maintenance and deferred defect practices as it is unrealistic for the TRE/TRI/SFI to know the contents of the applicable primary reference document and the relevant elements of Part-ORA. Additionally, today any Safety Hazards identified in training should be recorded and a means to record these be readily available to the instructor.
In theory, should an FSTD have a defect that takes its operational level below its qualification level, the operator should remove it from service. All defects must be recorded and deferred defect logs available for review by the instructor before commencing any training or checking as he/she is the only person that can determine whether the defect is detrimental to the particular training/checking detail.
The annual CMS audit by the NAA/EASA should test the robustness of these (and all other CMS/SMS) processes.
If this regulatory oversight is failing then the user does have recourse. Apart from raising tech log entries, refusing to use the device if it doesn’t meet training needs and raising Hazard reports, there is the IORS system.
This should at set alarm bells ringing somewhere.
The issue of Danish qualifications within the UK is somewhat interesting and of course clearly identifies the foreign operator in question.
ARA.GEN.105 20 “Principal place of business” is being abused by a certain foreign operator and is not being correctly enforced allowing non EU operations to operate within the EU and in this case the UK with apparent impunity and without any UK CAA oversight.
ARA.GEN.105 20 states that the “Principal place of business” means the head office or registered office of the organisation which the principal financial functions and operation control of the activities referred to in this Regulation are exercised. Clearly not!
Poorly maintained of poorly operating FSTDs are the sole responsibility of the FSTD operator. Their approved CMS determines maintenance and deferred defect practices as it is unrealistic for the TRE/TRI/SFI to know the contents of the applicable primary reference document and the relevant elements of Part-ORA. Additionally, today any Safety Hazards identified in training should be recorded and a means to record these be readily available to the instructor.
In theory, should an FSTD have a defect that takes its operational level below its qualification level, the operator should remove it from service. All defects must be recorded and deferred defect logs available for review by the instructor before commencing any training or checking as he/she is the only person that can determine whether the defect is detrimental to the particular training/checking detail.
The annual CMS audit by the NAA/EASA should test the robustness of these (and all other CMS/SMS) processes.
If this regulatory oversight is failing then the user does have recourse. Apart from raising tech log entries, refusing to use the device if it doesn’t meet training needs and raising Hazard reports, there is the IORS system.
This should at set alarm bells ringing somewhere.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multiple Faults in Simulator...
@Tubby
Any reasonable person may assume that when the device was purchased and installed - it functioned properly. After some general warranty period, Mx becomes the owner/operator's responsibility. Since very few have the in-house ability to maintain the machines, the operators are more-or-less forced to purchase Mx services from the manufacturer, over a very expensive undertaking.
If the simulator is in the horrible condition that you suggest, I'd suspect that the operator is cutting a few too many corners, does not budget properly and/or is attempting to extract a bit too much profit from its operations. While corporate headquarters location means very little, the physical location of the simulator means everything.
If you sincerely feel that the simulator's multiple defects are having a negative affect on the quality of the training provided, honestly good sir, I think you should call or write to the regulating authority in the country where the equipment is physically located, (your question suggests the UK). If the defects are as severe as you suggest, said authority can and will shut them down until the necessary repairs are made. Personally, I would do it in a flash!
Any reasonable person may assume that when the device was purchased and installed - it functioned properly. After some general warranty period, Mx becomes the owner/operator's responsibility. Since very few have the in-house ability to maintain the machines, the operators are more-or-less forced to purchase Mx services from the manufacturer, over a very expensive undertaking.
If the simulator is in the horrible condition that you suggest, I'd suspect that the operator is cutting a few too many corners, does not budget properly and/or is attempting to extract a bit too much profit from its operations. While corporate headquarters location means very little, the physical location of the simulator means everything.
If you sincerely feel that the simulator's multiple defects are having a negative affect on the quality of the training provided, honestly good sir, I think you should call or write to the regulating authority in the country where the equipment is physically located, (your question suggests the UK). If the defects are as severe as you suggest, said authority can and will shut them down until the necessary repairs are made. Personally, I would do it in a flash!
Last edited by No Fly Zone; 1st Feb 2016 at 06:33. Reason: Added one Additional Thought
Thread Starter
Thank you all for your replies. It is rather annoying that as a pilot under check you are having to deal with odd failures that the trainer has not inputted.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is one – only ONE – of the reasons that in the US, the regulatory authority, the FAA, has a specific team of inspectors – all of whom have been properly trained on, and are thoroughly knowledgeable about, what goes into the make-up and he operation of what is called an airplane simulator. Because of the varying needs of the industry, the US FAA has defined several ‘levels’ of simulation and requires an initial evaluation and regularly conducted recurrent evaluations on each individual device, conducted by one of those FAA inspectors. Each device is evaluated and provided a statement (some call it a ‘certificate’) where the appropriately applied ‘title’ grants a specific set of authorizations, and outlines what each, specific device is authorized to do and what may be credited toward pilot (or other crewmember) qualification, proficiency check and/or rating, and, importantly, each such device is subject to regular recurrent inspection/evaluations. Of course, no process is completely ‘fool-proof’ but if everyone understands the intent and complies with the requirements, there should be little opportunity for a device to be used incorrectly … and little chance that a correctly used device that is operating incorrectly … would contribute to the diminished proficiency of the flight crew. The overall thought and intent being that if such devices are examined and tested regularly and correctly, the chances of having unqualified crewmembers in an airplane cockpit should be dramatically reduced.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't do what No Fly Zone suggests, I would raise the issue with the sim centre next time you're there. There may be a glitch that they're not aware of. Even with the in-depth checks that AirRabbit refers, simulators are computers and sometimes a certain set of instructions sends the thing haywire.
For example, I teach in a simulator that when it is programmed for one specific airport it will not allow the right autopilot to capture the glideslope when the altimeter is set to anything above 29.92". It took me quite a number of sim sessions to identify it was the simulator and not the student(s). Because we are the only operator trying to run from this airport and in this configuration, and it was not an airport used during the regulatory reviews, it was not caught by the FAA or Transport Canada. The sim centre identified the issue as interference between the analogue simulator and the digital computer ...but it took them almost a month to find that out.
But, it's just like an airplane - if you don't tell the sim techs exactly what you're seeing wrong, they can't fix it...and a simulator is far more complex than the actual airplane!
For example, I teach in a simulator that when it is programmed for one specific airport it will not allow the right autopilot to capture the glideslope when the altimeter is set to anything above 29.92". It took me quite a number of sim sessions to identify it was the simulator and not the student(s). Because we are the only operator trying to run from this airport and in this configuration, and it was not an airport used during the regulatory reviews, it was not caught by the FAA or Transport Canada. The sim centre identified the issue as interference between the analogue simulator and the digital computer ...but it took them almost a month to find that out.
But, it's just like an airplane - if you don't tell the sim techs exactly what you're seeing wrong, they can't fix it...and a simulator is far more complex than the actual airplane!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+TSRA makes an exceedingly good point (!) Although writing up a problem in the Mx log is exceptionally important ... if the 'whole' story is not included in that write-up, the real problem could easily be lost in the remainder of the information that IS included. The Mx Techs have a very difficult job for the most part ... and those of us who use these machines would do well to remember that the more information that is included in a 'write-up,' the easier it will be for the Mx Techs to find, and then correct, the problem.
Thread Starter
Do you think it is acceptable for crews to use non-aviation headsets in a full flight simulator? One sim centre I use has decided to provide call centre headsets for the trainees.
Thread Starter
It doesn't work The headset is a walkman type and the earpieces are tiny and unless exactly positioned you hear nothing, especially if you are also wearing an O2 mask
Last edited by tubby linton; 18th Feb 2017 at 15:01.
N4790P
Do you think it is acceptable for crews to use non-aviation headsets in a full flight simulator? One sim centre I use has decided to provide call centre headsets for the trainees.
The regs are quite explicit.
N4790P
May I suggest it would be better addressed with their Compliance Manager? The poor sim techs are not the decision makers.
The CM is both responsible and accountable for this.
The CM is both responsible and accountable for this.
Problem with that is TRE's (and Captains) are very reluctant to put minor faults in the book. Obviously they are making commercial considerations in the real aircraft, but this should not apply in a third party SIM.
Those bloody typists headsets are virtually unusable - they haven't even got windsheilds on the mics - but most TRE's are not interested in what they regard as minutiae - they are more concerned about whether their two charges have passed their LPC. If I piped up and said that the microphones are virtually unlistenable to, and the cockpit lighting is terrible: the TRE would probably say 'That is the least of your worries, Uplinker, now what about that raw data NDB approach of yours?'
This is seen on the line too - minor faults such as poor audio quality, blown bulbs, dirty cockpits, cold cockpits etc, have to be extensively lobbied to get even a mention of them in the tech log. Often they say they won't put them in but will tell the next crew to put them in. The next crew forget, or can't be bothered at 0200 when their shift finally ends.
So, no paper trail, therefore no 'evidence' and therefore no maintenance action.
Thing is; the less we give our engineers to fix, the less the company will see a need to keep engineers on duty, so the fewer engineers there will be and the fewer faults will get fixed. This will become a descending spiral, and result in really big delays when something goes wrong which prevents us from dispatching but there are no engineers on hand. Ditto SIM faults which never get fixed.
Those bloody typists headsets are virtually unusable - they haven't even got windsheilds on the mics - but most TRE's are not interested in what they regard as minutiae - they are more concerned about whether their two charges have passed their LPC. If I piped up and said that the microphones are virtually unlistenable to, and the cockpit lighting is terrible: the TRE would probably say 'That is the least of your worries, Uplinker, now what about that raw data NDB approach of yours?'
This is seen on the line too - minor faults such as poor audio quality, blown bulbs, dirty cockpits, cold cockpits etc, have to be extensively lobbied to get even a mention of them in the tech log. Often they say they won't put them in but will tell the next crew to put them in. The next crew forget, or can't be bothered at 0200 when their shift finally ends.
So, no paper trail, therefore no 'evidence' and therefore no maintenance action.
Thing is; the less we give our engineers to fix, the less the company will see a need to keep engineers on duty, so the fewer engineers there will be and the fewer faults will get fixed. This will become a descending spiral, and result in really big delays when something goes wrong which prevents us from dispatching but there are no engineers on hand. Ditto SIM faults which never get fixed.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Under LGW Flight Path
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When completing the Tech Log after a simulator session how often do you give the full story. For example, I have seen "Gear operating slowly" but the tech log did not give details of airspeed, altitude, QNH, OAT, hydraulic systems serviceability etc. etc. All these are included in the gear operating speed model.
One item NOT included in the standard sim tech toolkit is a crystal ball.
If there is a problem, most sim tech are happy to talk it over with you (a good substitute for the crystal ball) but how often do you call them rather than write some cryptic (and often illegible) comment in the tech log before disappearing out the door.
One item NOT included in the standard sim tech toolkit is a crystal ball.
If there is a problem, most sim tech are happy to talk it over with you (a good substitute for the crystal ball) but how often do you call them rather than write some cryptic (and often illegible) comment in the tech log before disappearing out the door.
