Why are we not using simulators for primary training?

[Paul Cantrell]

In the US, the FAA requires a substantial number of hours in an actual aircraft before you can be rated as a private pilot. Specifically, FAR 61.109 says a maximum of 5 hours of simulator time can be counted towards the 40 hours of flight time required for the rating.

My question is, why?

We have hit the point where simulators like Redbird's VTO can (they claim) realistically teach you to hover and do autorotations for $150,000. If the hardware (motion + visuals) is up to teaching hovering and autorotations, I'm curious how much it could take to get the model of the aircraft accurate enough to simulate all the required maneuvers?

As it is, unless you are a very large training academy or university, it probably doesn't make sense to purchase a simulator, because you can credit so few hours towards the rating. That in turn limits the numbers of simulators being sold, so companies like Redbird are far and few between, and also they probably can't afford the same level of detail to their simulation model that you can in a $10M sim. If the market for certified simulators was larger, we'd see more capable simulators for less money. The hardware is demonstrably up to the task for much less than the purchase price of one training helicopter. All we need is a regulatory environment which makes it cost effective to widely offer this kind of training.

SFAR 73 requires an R22 pilot transitioning to R44s to get 5 hours of dual (going from R44 to R22 you have to have 10 hours of dual). Seems reasonable that if you required a minimum of 35 hours in an R44 simulator and then 5 in the actual aircraft you could turn out pilots at least as well trained as we do today, for a lot less money. You might even consider requiring more hours in the simulator (say, 50 hours in the simulator) followed by 5 in the aircraft so that people would actually have more experience under their belts when becoming a rated pilot.

The upsides to this approach is that we could save people a great deal of money, we could increase the safety of training pilots, we could train lots of emergencies (like tail rotor failures) which are typically not trained nor tested for at the private pilot level, and we could graduate people with more aeronautical experience.

Obvious other advantages are a reduction in noise, air pollution, etc. by decreasing the amount of training flight time.

There is also an advantage to having one student observe another student being taught - while this is possible in a 4 seat helicopter like an R44 it's not possible in an R22, so the simulator would provide the same advantage. Additionally, being able to provide a video of the lesson to the student (hey, 4K probably has enough resolution to display the wrap-around video of the simulator at home to the student) so they can look at their mistakes at home (and listen to all the stuff the flight instructor was saying that they blocked out because they were task saturated! )

The one downside I can see is that the way the industry is currently structured, many new pilots get their first 1,000 hours by training student pilots. We can argue whether this is really the best way of training new pilots, but I must admit that I benefitted by this arrangement so I'm a little reluctant to now call for new commercial pilots to lose this avenue for gaining experience.

Ignoring the effect on new CFIs, what do people think? Would we turn out better pilots if we used advanced simulators for primary? What would it take to convince the governing bodies like FAA and EASA to aggressively embrace simulators for primary training?


VTO | Redbird Flight

[WillyPete]

Originally Posted by Paul Cantrell

SFAR 73 requires an R22 pilot transitioning to R44s to get 5 hours of dual (going from R44 to R22 you have to have 10 hours of dual). Seems reasonable that if you required a minimum of 35 hours in an R44 simulator and then 5 in the actual aircraft you could turn out pilots at least as well trained as we do today, for a lot less money. You might even consider requiring more hours in the simulator (say, 50 hours in the simulator) followed by 5 in the aircraft so that people would actually have more experience under their belts when becoming a rated pilot.

Alright, I'm an avid simmer (DCS) because I get to shoot things from a heli that is expensive to do and slightly illegal in the real thing. Too old for the military now.

Even with all the advances and the great breakthroughs in VR, the gap between reality and sim is still too great.

The greatest issue is standardisation.
$20k will literally put you in an f-16 cockpit with full working switches, MFDs, and triple projectors throwing an immersive view at your front 180 degrees.
https://viperwing.com/f-16-flight-simulator/

But do you assume these guys have their software set up properly?

Every new patch changes the flight profiles in DCS, touted to be one of the most accurate civilian sim products out there.

Who will inspect them?
If a Robbie doesn't meet standards you can end up dead, but who will there be to measure actual cyclic and collective response and travel on every sim?

I can walk from one robbie to the next at an airport, and aside from slight differences in engine power or control "stickiness" I can expect no change in their flight characteristics that would be discernible to someone at my level.
There are several Robbie sim models on as many flight sim platforms and they all behave differently. To get to your expected costs for the sim, many of these products would be implemented in switched "sim pits".

The upsides to this approach is that we could save people a great deal of money, we could increase the safety of training pilots, we could train lots of emergencies (like tail rotor failures) which are typically not trained nor tested for at the private pilot level, and we could graduate people with more aeronautical experience.

I got excited recently when MP studios announced they'd be releasing a Cabri G2 sim model, I was excited for a chance to practise exactly what you say would be a good thing - emergency procedures.
But they delivered it on P3D and FSX, both notoriously bad at delivering helicopter flight modelling.
The review of it looks positively rubbish. Pull up on the collective and you fly, right (power) pedal action doesn't even seem properly modelled.

If they can't model normal flight characteristics properly, there's no hope of modelling the response of a seized tail rotor gearbox.

I agree that being an invested flight simmer will reduce the time taken to familiarise with a helicopter and reduce the time to hover, but it requires a lot of time and money to get there.
For instance, how do you teach someone the use of the pedals properly when they have developed about 200 hours worth of muscle memory on a joystick twist pedal, never using their feet.
I'd even be prepared to claim that a simmer might be better suited to pilot UAVs from remote stations than fully qualified pilots. Perhaps a future for sims lies there.

Most of the developers are not pilots themselves, basing flight models off graphs and performance charts.

This is the expertise and skills that will be carried to the market were the FAA to endorse sims, and it's not good.
Accurate sims that would be suited to the task you recommend already exist and they are not cheap. This is unlikely to change soon.

[Twist & Shout]

I understand the level D SIMs cost circa $20M

[bigglesbutler]

The reason for the limit on sim time is because you can't learn everything in them. Sims are great for the logical and procedural based learning but that comes after you have learnt to hover. The seat of the pants and reality isn't there yet and I doubt it will ever fully take over completely, time will tell.

For now consider sims as adding value to your pilot adilities and not a substitue for basic training. Just my opinion though after using sims for the past 6 years.

Si

[Lonewolf_50]

Paul, how much time have you spent as an Instructor? The Navy does a blend of Partial task Trainers, Simulators, full motion simulators, and aircraft training to get the skills to "take" in the prospective aviator. It's a reasonably successful training model. (And in the T-6 syllabus the Navy and the Air Force put together, the USAF does something very similar). The Army does something like that at Ft Rucker.

There are things you can do in a sim that you won't do in an aircraft due to the chance to crash it.
There is no way to develop air sense without flying in an aircraft, and since I've flown and taught in both fixed and rotary wing, I'd say it's more pressing a requirement in rotary wing.

[Ascend Charlie]

As has been mentioned before, Negative Habit Transfer is something to be avoided. Learning to do things in a certain manner because that is the way the sim works, will cause confusion in the real machine when you put in your control movement and the aircraft does less or more or nothing at all.

A sim will behave the way it is programmed to do, and it is NOT exactly the way a real machine behaves. And unless the cockpit has a 360-degree visual ability, you will be missing a lot of very important visual cues and sensations from a real machine - sunlight through an overhead window, sounds of wind. Screaming instructor.

Sims are hugely helpful to learn systems operation and for instrument flying, but the real thing is needed for the real flying.

[helimutt]

You might like to check out this ink which appeared in my inbox this morning.


RYAN AEROSPACE (AUSTRALIA) - Helicopter simulation

Useful tools to get the basics down, but not really for someone who has never flown a helicopter before. You need seat of the pants feel and movement for that.

[paco]

I had some involvement in sims a few years ago, ending up with an article in a certain magazine.

The person who was responsible for getting the flyit sim certified was an aeroplane CPL who did 11 hours in the sim, 20 minutes in a real helicopter then took the CPL flight test and was told that if he had had the hours he would have been given his licence then and there.

But technology has moved on - the flyit was dead basic. I have a 206 sim here with proper controls and panels being used with the Oculus Rift (VR thingy) and a leap controller and the results are nothing short of startling, even with the FSX Beaver.

You can see there is a long way to go, but you can also see the potential. With X plane 11 on the S-76 you can even do NVG stuff. if I can get this pesky force feedback joystick working I will have a longline sim up and running.

So, they do have a purpose - to my mind, even though they are not exact models (and FSX/Prepar are dead in the water these days), they do make the time you get in a proper helicopter so much more productive. Athletes and musicians practice the same thing for hours on end - we don't because the costs are high, but when you have a sim costing $15 an hour to run, that improves things a lot.

[[email protected]]

We will find out next year in UK as the new Military Flying Training System (MFTS) kicks in - much of the training is synthetic (and not in FFS but part-task trainer type 'sims').

I don't think you can 'replace' any of the real aircraft training for many of the reasons articulated above - sim training is good for enhancing skills or consolidating drills and processes or giving the student an idea of what they will face in the airborne lesson.

I have yet to fly a sim that flys like the real aircraft - they are all (very advanced) computer games and relying too heavily on them (because they save money) will just reduce the overall quality of your training product for real world ops.

[gulliBell]

Originally Posted by Twist & Shout

I understand the level D SIMs cost circa $20M

Correct. And you can do all your training in the sim, including initial type rating and instrument rating.

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by gulliBell

Correct. And you can do all your training in the sim, including initial type rating and instrument rating.

But you wouldn’t want to learn how to fly in one.

[Twist & Shout]

Originally Posted by gulliBell

Correct. And you can do all your training in the sim, including initial type rating and instrument rating.

I did my entire AW139 type rating in the SIM. Including FAA flight test.
I would have had no hesitation in starting and flying away in the real thing immediately afterwards. The company I work for don’t do things that way, and I was lucky enough to do some dual in the airframe before being cut loose.

[EESDL]

First and foremost - there has yet to be a zero-houred sim in EASA land for new type ratings - i.e., you'll always have to get dirty before you can fly.
Secondly, $20million for a level D sim, behave yourself, where the eff did you get such rubbish?
More like 6-8 million.for a certified FFS-D.
Pprune is great for some things but really bad for others.....

[Paul Cantrell]

Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie

As has been mentioned before, Negative Habit Transfer is something to be avoided. Learning to do things in a certain manner because that is the way the sim works, will cause confusion in the real machine when you put in your control movement and the aircraft does less or more or nothing at all.

A sim will behave the way it is programmed to do, and it is NOT exactly the way a real machine behaves. And unless the cockpit has a 360-degree visual ability, you will be missing a lot of very important visual cues and sensations from a real machine - sunlight through an overhead window, sounds of wind. Screaming instructor.

Sims are hugely helpful to learn systems operation and for instrument flying, but the real thing is needed for the real flying.

So, people have been replying about a wide range of simulation... all the way from consumer games to Level D sims. I was thinking more toward the Level D in terms of fidelity. You don't need 360 degrees of visuals - we don't have that in the real aircraft. The Redbird VTO has 200° of horizontal field of view and 70° of vertical field of view. If that's not enough, it's close, and in this day and age simply a matter of adding a few more graphics processors and screens. I would postulate that vertically, you need to see a bit above the rotor disk, and right down to the chin bubble. Horizontally, not sure - I do know the Frasca cockpit simulator I used at Bell in the 90s didn't have nearly enough (it was a single projector), but it's difficult for me to believe you would need much more than 200°... I don't have much more than that in the L3 I fly... BTW, another reference to the Redbird VTO: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...copter-trainer

As for motion base, I read (but can't find) one of the Redbird execs saying they had to redesign the motion base in order to get the correct feel for a helicopter. My recollection is that it was the responsiveness that the existing fixed wing motion bases didn't supply - the helicopter needed a faster response time to give a correct feel. I also read that the design they arrived at also can be run from a regular electrical plug, i.e. it avoids having to have special electrical wiring installed, so it's probably a cost saving thing as well. I'm a little surprised that they think a motion base is required... I supplied computer gear to Boeing during the design of the 777 and got to fly their sims at Renton. Only one of the engineering simulators had a motion base (the 747 cab) the others were fixed and yet were totally convincing to fly (as well they should be - the test pilots got out of those sims and went and flew the real thing during certification).

As for the simulation needing to be EXACTLY the same as the helicopter, I disagree. If that was true, then learning in the R22 wouldn't be of any advantage to learning to fly a 407 or 412 or... name any other helicopter. But of course it is; there are differences and we train for that during differences training or type ratings, but the amount of negative transfer from learning one helicopter to learning another is recognized and trained for. I would assume that if you allowed 50 hours of sim and 5 hours of dual in the aircraft, that you would be covering exactly that during the 5 hours.

Originally Posted by WillyPete

But do you assume these guys have their software set up properly?

Every new patch changes the flight profiles in DCS, touted to be one of the most accurate civilian sim products out there.

Who will inspect them?
If a Robbie doesn't meet standards you can end up dead, but who will there be to measure actual cyclic and collective response and travel on every sim?

This is covered by the FAA in http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...E/Contents.pdf an AC. There are required qualifications for upgrades, and there are requirements for Recurrent Evaluations of the simulator, every 6 months unless you apply for some of the alternative processes.

Originally Posted by Twist & Shout

I understand the level D SIMs cost circa $20M

Yes, but an interesting question is how much of that is because of the complexity of older motion bases and cockpits? I interviewed with Evans & Sutherland back in the 80s when they sold visual systems for simulators for... it was either $10M or $20M at the time, just for the visual system. Now that performance is dwarfed with a single GPU, and systems like the VTO are running multiple GPUs... you can essentially scale the graphics as much as you want... several sims in recent years are using flat panel displays rather than projectors, so it's just a matter of how many panels you want to install...

Similarly, motion bases are much cheaper since people have started using electrical, rather than hydraulic servos. Also, I would claim that for training in a basic helicopter simulator, you probably don't need heave/sway/surge, but simply roll, yaw, and pitch motions (if that).

Finally, in sims like I contributed to at Boeing and Hughes (for the F/A 18 dome simulator) the cockpits all had all the avionics out of a real aircraft, i.e. hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of avionics. The cost of avionics in a trainer helicopter is in the tens of thousands, and many of them are simulated today with a flat panel display along with some knobs on a thin panel, i.e. the cost of the cockpit is much less than that of the actual aircraft. Some equipment like an approach certified GPS typically will use actual instruments (because it's too costly to simulate, although that has been done with the Garmin 430), but equipment like the basic pitot/static system, engine manifold pressure, attitude indicator... these can all be done quite inexpensively with flat panels today.

So the question is, if you can deliver a system like the VTO for $150,000 (and you assume those visuals and motion base are indeed good enough for primary training), then the question is how much the software to get Level D fidelity would cost? I think it's highly unlikely that you would need to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for the aircraft modeling software.

Originally Posted by bigglesbutler

The reason for the limit on sim time is because you can't learn everything in them. Sims are great for the logical and procedural based learning but that comes after you have learnt to hover

Of course, Redbird may be full of ****, but since they specifically designed the VTO for teaching hovering and autorotations, I would think they'll get sued if you can't in fact learn to hover in it. I'm actually not all that skeptical of being able to learn to hover in a simulator, assuming you have wrap-around visuals. Learning to attitude fly is mostly a visual skill, learning how to move the controls so that you see what you want to see out the window. There are other cues that we all use of course, but the visuals are by far the most important.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Paul, how much time have you spent as an Instructor?

I've been teaching for 30 years.

Originally Posted by paco

I have a 206 sim here with proper controls and panels being used with the Oculus Rift (VR thingy) and a leap controller and the results are nothing short of startling, even with the FSX Beaver.

I think I know the sim you are talking about - one of our customers was evaluating it to see whether it would be useful. I look forward to trying it myself, although I think it's a far cry from the sort of motion base sim I was thinking about. Still, it's an example of how much can be done today for modest costs - I can see lots of scenario based training being done in a basic simulator like you are talking about.

Originally Posted by alphanumeric

Learning to fly in a simulator from zero hours, then transferring to a real aircraft would make a PPL about £60,000

Not sure if you're saying that's a lot or a little! Here in the US, the basic FAA minimums will run you about $13,000 for a PPL, but people usually end up closer to $20,000. If you assume you could rent a capable sim for $150/hr you could save the average guy money, or you could give him 120 hours of dual in the simulator, plus 5 hours in the aircraft which arguably would make him a better pilot. Or, perhaps 90 hours in the sim and 20 hours in the aircraft (which is, probably, more realistic).

Nobody so far has responded to the part about how no junior instructor will want to be teaching in the simulator, because he won't be gaining PIC hours. And, at least in the US, there is a similar problem with the commercial pilot rating because you need 150 hours of "flight time" including 100 hours of Pilot In Command time... so unless the FAA changed those requirements to allow a substantial amount of that in a simulator, you might end up making the rating more expensive for the candidate.

[Lonewolf_50]

OK, thanks, I have a better feel for what you are trying to resolve.

Originally Posted by Paul Cantrell

I was thinking more toward the Level D in terms of fidelity. You don't need 360 degrees of visuals - we don't have that in the real aircraft. The Redbird VTO has 200° of horizontal field of view and 70° of vertical field of view.

Some of the sims I worked with in the early 00's had about 240 deg horizontal. Completely agree that one does not need 360.

I would postulate that vertically, you need to see a bit above the rotor disk, and right down to the chin bubble. Horizontally, not sure -

FWIW, I'd toss 240 out as "good enough" but my experience is well over a decade old.

As for motion base, I read (but can't find) one of the Redbird execs saying they had to redesign the motion base in order to get the correct feel for a helicopter. My recollection is that it was the responsiveness that the existing fixed wing motion bases didn't supply - the helicopter needed a faster response time to give a correct feel.

Sounds similar to the upgrade we had to the Seahawk motion based sim in the early 90's: went to a digital control loader which very much reduced the lag; very much improved the feel.

Only one of the engineering simulators had a motion base (the 747 cab) the others were fixed and yet were totally convincing to fly (as well they should be - the test pilots got out of those sims and went and flew the real thing during certification).

Your test pilots were not ab initio, but the mix of PPT/non motions sims/motion sims is a methodology that works successfully, but is not cheap.

As for the simulation needing to be EXACTLY the same as the helicopter, I disagree.

I am with you. As an instructor, I found that the critical crew building tasks had to do with how the systems worked and interacted; if the bird didn't fly exactly like the aircraft, "close enough" seemed to allow us to transfer the needed skills.

I would assume that if you allowed 50 hours of sim and 5 hours of dual in the aircraft, that you would be covering exactly that during the 5 hours.

In what skill area? Instrument flying or contact flying? (Arrgh, the old notebook I had on some of the ISD stuff is long gone, I don't know why I recall a 1.7 : 1 ratio .... so I can't offer that to be of any use.

I interviewed with Evans & Sutherland back in the 80s when they sold visual systems for simulators for... it was either $10M or $20M at the time, just for the visual system. Now that performance is dwarfed with a single GPU, and systems like the VTO are running multiple GPUs... you can essentially scale the graphics as much as you want... several sims in recent years are using flat panel displays rather than projectors, so it's just a matter of how many panels you want to install...

Yeah, ain't technology great?

Similarly, motion bases are much cheaper since people have started using electrical, rather than hydraulic servos. Also, I would claim that for training in a basic helicopter simulator, you probably don't need heave/sway/surge, but simply roll, yaw, and pitch motions (if that).

That depends; what are you trying to teach? (We had an instrument sim that used mostly vibration and seat movement rather than the enormous box up on servos that worked pretty well ... but that tech is two decades old. I think you are in a good position to be checking out some of the newer stuff)

So the question is, if you can deliver a system like the VTO for $150,000 (and you assume those visuals and motion base are indeed good enough for primary training), then the question is how much the software to get Level D fidelity would cost? I think it's highly unlikely that you would need to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for the aircraft modeling software.

IIRC, helicopter modeling software is a lot harder than fixed wing modeling software, but again my info is well over a decade old.

I'm actually not all that skeptical of being able to learn to hover in a simulator, assuming you have wrap-around visuals. Learning to attitude fly is mostly a visual skill, learning how to move the controls so that you see what you want to see out the window. There are other cues that we all use of course, but the visuals are by far the most important.

Hmm, can't say, since my ab initio began in a helicopter, not in a sim. Once I already knew how to hover, hovering in various sims wasn't such an issue.

I've been teaching for 30 years.

OK, wasn't sure based on the OP. Glad to see you've been passing along to the next generation of pilots. Thanks.

Not sure if you're saying that's a lot or a little! Here in the US, the basic FAA minimums will run you about $13,000 for a PPL, but people usually end up closer to $20,000. If you assume you could rent a capable sim for $150/hr you could save the average guy money, or you could give him 120 hours of dual in the simulator, plus 5 hours in the aircraft which arguably would make him a better pilot. Or, perhaps 90 hours in the sim and 20 hours in the aircraft (which is, probably, more realistic).

Getting the mix right and the cost "right" (I presume the target is "lower" to equal "right" ) will probably take some trying.


The volume of flight ops per calendar period versus cost of this sim gets to be pretty interesting. Had an experience about 15 years ago with a "buy versus lease" sim decision (C-12) that needed to upgrade the visuals so that some early contact/landing pattern work could be down loaded into sims. The idea was great, the economics was, quite frankly, unable to show any savings and indeed was going to cost us more.


It looks as though you are trying out a 2:1 or 3: 1 ratio of sims to aircraft flying? Am I guessing that right?

[paco]

Hi Lonewolf - my 206 sim has been put together by me - that's my other hat

I don't know if you've ever seen Steve Nelson's one - 90% of a Frasca for 10% of the cost. Shawn Coyle will know more of the details.

phil

[Paul Cantrell]

Originally Posted by TorqueStripe

Assuming you would have the possibility to train a PPL mostly in the sim with let's say 5 hours in the aircraft. Do you think that's enough to teach enough situational awareness/ADM/a good scanning technique? Not just talking about traffic which to a certain extent is simulated in higher level sims, but birds...cables...fences etc in confined areas...airspace around busy training areas? Risk management as well. There is no risk hopping in the sim...5 hours in the real aircraft I would consider very low for those aspects of training...it's either setting up for failure or may go the other way about not having/wanting to fly the actual aircraft with a single cloud in the sky ;-)

Those are good questions. Some of what you mention, I'm mostly thinking ADM, can probably be taught BETTER in the sim. The ability to set the weather/wind lets you conduct lots of scenarios that might not be such a good idea in the actual aircraft, and/or you can do several scenarios in a single lesson. You can actually let him get himself into a situation that you probably shouldn't let him get into with a real aircraft. Interesting question: at what point does doing that reinforces the wrong thing, i.e. that it's okay to go out in 1/4 mile and 40G55 in rain & mist? But certainly being able to simulate chip lights and low fuel warnings would allow that much more realistic aeronautical decision making practice.

Curious what you think would be adequate? Would 90 sim + 20 aircraft work? Just how much actual air time is required to teach those skills? In my experience 75% of the training time involves improving basic skills including handling emergencies, and while you are certainly continuing to push SA/ADM/etc., the main focus is on the skills building. So, if you build the skills in the sim, how many aircraft hours does it take to build the attitude towards risk management and safety that we want to instill?

[gulliBell]

MEDIA RELEASE - RYAN AEROSPACE / PFC Helicopter Simulator receives FAA approval / certification

A cheaper simulator option over a $20M CAE or Thales FFS.

The PFC Helicopter Simulator can be used for the following credits:

To name just a few, these credits include:

Instrument Proficiency Check, per FAA-S-8081 (latest version)
Instrument Rating: Up to 20 Hours § Private Pilot Certificate: Up to 2.5 Hours
Commercial Certificate: Up to 50 Hours
Airline Transport Pilot Certificate: Up to 25 Hours
Approved for use under the Part 141 Appendices as follows:

Up to 2.5 hours toward the total Private Pilot flight training time requirements
Up to 40% towards the total Instrument Rating flight training time requirements
Up to 20% towards the total Commercial Pilot flight training time requirements
Up to 25% towards the total Airline Transport Pilot flight training time requirements
Up to 5% towards the total Flight Instructor flight training time requirements
Up to 5% towards the total Flight Instructor Instrument flight training time requirements
Private Pilot Airplane Single Engine or Multi-Engine Class Rating Course - Up to 3 hours towards the flight training time requirements
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single Engine or Multi-Engine Class Rating Course - Up to 11 hours towards the flight training time requirements
Airline Transport Pilot Airplane Single Engine or Multi-Engine Class Rating Course - Up to 6.25 hours towards the flight training time
Up to 25% towards the total Combined Private Pilot Certification and Instrument Rating flight training time requirements

The CAE and Thales FFS you can do the whole pilot training course and get a helicopter pilots license and instrument rating without ever having flown a real helicopter. Which is why they cost $20M to get the simulation required to replace a real helicopter.

[ZFT]

Originally Posted by EESDL

First and foremost - there has yet to be a zero-houred sim in EASA land for new type ratings - i.e., you'll always have to get dirty before you can fly.
Secondly, $20million for a level D sim, behave yourself, where the eff did you get such rubbish?
More like 6-8 million.for a certified FFS-D.
Pprune is great for some things but really bad for others.....

Rubbish indeed. FSTDs are qualified, not certified and USD 6 to 8M is somewhat light, dependant on the datapack, could be very light.

[gulliBell]

Originally Posted by EESDL

...
Secondly, $20million for a level D sim, behave yourself, where the eff did you get such rubbish?
More like 6-8 million.for a certified FFS-D.
Pprune is great for some things but really bad for others.....

By the time you buy it, ship it, build a suitable building for it to live in, attach it to the supporting infrastructure required, and have it certified, and staff it, $20M is the number. Typically the helicopter sim is more expensive than the helicopter it replicates. But what would I know, we only operate 24 FFS-D.