Simulator re-current training - what is important to you?

[Centaurus]

Generally speaking, apart from specific type rating sequences, simulator training has descended into a box ticking series of exercises designed to meet regulatory requirements. There is no shortage of engine failures at V1, ILS in various configurations and lashings of automatics. These are spread among LOFT, cyclic training and base checks with most manoeuvres entirely predictable. Opinions vary widely as to their value in the long run.

With the introduction of GPS and EGPWS, the number of CFIT accidents are steadily decreasing. With perhaps 80% of simulator sessions being on automatic pilot, some pilots see a need to keep up basic handling skills, while others feel these are gradually becoming unnecessary especially in FBW aircraft.

Most of us learned to fly because of the joy and satisfaction of stick and rudder skills and not because of the joy and satisfaction of FMCS skills. So let me put this to you.

You are given two hours of "free range" personal practice in the simulator. There is no one around to laugh at you or criticise you.

List the exercises that would give you most personal satifaction whether they be stick and rudder skills or automatic pilot monitoring skills. Explain briefly the reasons for your choice.

[john_tullamarine]

My vote goes for figure-8 ILS touch and goes on a dual ILS runway (ie both ends - takeoff, clean up, reversal and down the opposite ILS). Single pilot, hand flown, raw data, minima set to 50ft and 150m (so one might actually stay on the runway during the reconfigure for the touch and go), nominal crosswind.

Simple reason .. this is the best I have found for honing and smoothing basic IF skills ... plus it's great fun once the cobwebs are swept out and the pulse rate goes down a bit .... (737) .. pity I haven't had the chance to do any in the past several years ..

.. I don't need anyone to laugh at me ... I can do that by myself ..

... and Centaurus has seen me when my skills have been down more than a bit after a break from flying ...

[Rainboe]

And damn good Engine Failures after V1 and after TO are a good way of testing the underarm sweat glands. You're right- sim training in the last few years has become box ticking with no element of fun or stretching flying skills. To the question near the end 'we have a few minutes- anything you'd like to practice?', the reply has to be 'no thankyou.' Practice anything to fill out time 'for fun' and make a balls up, and you may find you fail your check. It's like a driving test examiner saying 'you've passed (so far). Drive me back to the Driving Centre.' Decline! Say 'thanks, but YOU drive this one!'.

[SR71]

Hand flown, FD off, OEI, max xwind, intercepts to ILS or NDB followed by descent to minima (by Centaurus' definition, this is all single pilot IFR).

Repeat ad naseum.

Now try with all the EFIS U/S.

That'd make me feel warm and fuzzy at the end of the session if I did a good job. Chances are I wouldn't.

I'd also like the chance to experience an analogous situation to the DC-10 Sioux City and A300 Baghdad detail i.e., complete hydraulic failure.

[greybeard]

Thank goodness there are still thinking people out in the "real world".

I have retreated to the status of a full/part time Sim instructor for a variety of Contract Airlines, Western and Asian.
The BARE Munimum is what most pilots want to do, scripted if you please so there are NO surprises, particularly from Asia.
The basic task of an NDB NPA is for some as difficult as a moon shot for NASA, dont allow for wind in proceedure turns, can't do a min wx circuit, the sim is a bit hard for vis I know but I can assist with timing etc, sink rates in the Turn??, use of aileron on T/O and LDG in X-wind, use of more than idle reverse on S/E ldgs on shorter runways?????.
As for real time management and crew co-ord, well there we go.

Basic flying skills are on the way out, AUTOMATION COMPLACENCY has most crews firmly in its grip. what has also emerged is that even using the automatics, the basic geographical flight management is still not real sharp as it is not practiced.

WE FOLLOW THE LINE IN THE NAV OR GPS DISPLAY.

As for picking a map shift on an IRS (no gps update) equip, one in 5 may catch it.
Basic maths have disapeared, cant do a load sheet or fuel calc without a calculator, if an error is put in ??? may miss the "is it close" mental check.

Holding pattern geometry, WHAT'S THAT I was asked??, drift corrections??

Now to actually flying a OEI manual approach and horrors a manual missed aproach, an attack of the vapours comes on.

Ask the Seoux City guys, ask DHL at Bagdad, do we need these skills?? ONLY IF WE WISH TO LIVE ALL THE TIME WE WOULD LIKE.

I know we have highly reliable equip etc but the human side has gone backwards further than the good stuf has gone ahead.

All those who have the misfortune to cross my path will get a wakeup, all I can hope is that it lasts until it is needed

Cheers to all

[Flyrr100]

Straight and Level with a flight attendant sitting on the FA Jumpseat. (A319).

[JW411]

Rainboe:

Near the end "we have a few minutes is there anything you would like to practice"?

Provided that you have already successfully completed the mandatory items of your OPC/LPC, it does not matter if you make an imperial horlicks of such a practice. You cannot be failed for that.

For example, a raw data ILS is mandatory for the skill test only and not for a subsequent OPC/LPC. Therefore you could make a bit of a mess of a raw data ILS and it should not affect the outcome since it is a training exercise and not a mandatory exercise.

[Rananim]

LOFT exercises are always the best form of simulator training as they come closest to reality.And always one subtle failure as opposed to a multitude of problems.No briefing either as you dont get one in reality.For example,imagine a flight from A to B with a go-around at B due to a blocked runway followed by radar vectors towards rising terrain(ATC error).The instructor should aim to challenge the crew's situational awareness at the least inopportune moment but never in a contrived manner.

[john_tullamarine]

Rananim ... but a tad difficult to organise if you are in the box by yourself ....

[L G Cooper]

All of the above assumes some decent fidelity in the sim. Having flown (struggled) in a number of sims both fixed and rotary, I've walked away feeling less confident of my hands and feet skill than of my ability to manage various emergency scenarios. The control laws are not in harmony with the real aircraft and often I'd have to implemement short term work arounds that I'd have to undo on return to work.

That being said, engine failures with low minima in VMC with a turnback to the reciprocal or cross runway (for the all engines out case) or a OEI climb away IMC/VMC with high DA and rising terrain work me hard to meet the numbers and apply good judgement.

LGC

[Centaurus]

Apart from the sheer enjoyment of barrel rolls in the 737 simulator (off-motion of course) and very good in IMC for unusual attitude recoveries if caught behind an A380! - I found the following manoeuvres handy for keeping up stick and rudder skills in a raw data no automatics (not even autobrakes or autothrottle ) situation.

35 knot crosswind landing from 1500 ft on VASIS only (no ILS). This really exposes the difficulty of accurate visual centre-line tracking without the aid of an electronic display. Repeat approach this time on ILS raw data from 1500 ft Cat 1 weather minima. – good for rapid scan, but watch for it to go ape on becoming visual with the runway. 1500 ft is chosen because most simulators can be automatically positioned at 5 miles from the runway and it saves time.

Raw data take-off on ILS runway with simulator visual display switched off – ie total blackness. Keep straight on centre-line by scanning HSI localiser needle. Then proceed to fly 2000 ft circuit and intercept ILS by means of combination ADF and DME if available and land, flaring at 30-50 feet on radio altimeter.

After touch down keep straight on localiser applying reverse and manual brakes. On reaching zero ground speed, park brakes, get out of seat and switch on the visual display. If close to centre-line and stopped on correct side of localiser, beam with pride regretting no one to see what a good job you did – if not, weep bitter tears and try again. This is a first class manoeuvre aimed at increasing the rate of your instrument scan.

Position at 10,000 ft visually on dead side of 7000 ft runway and execute a dead stick landing. These landings have happened. Remember the “Gimli Glider” Air Canada 767 flapless dead stick landing? The captain later observed that if he had only been given the chance of just one dead stick landing in the simulator, he would approached the landing with more confidence. Now is your chance. If complete stuff-up, then try again until within a bull’s roar.

Slippery runway, strong crosswind landing flown from typical 1500 ft visually. This is to give you the practice at juggling reverse thrust back to idle in order to stop the aircraft sliding sideways under the influence of reverse, then going back to full reverse in conjunction with appropriate rudder pedal steering. Sounds complicated? You better believe it. If not, read the Boeing FCTM on the subject and you will see it is complicated and requires good stick and rudder skills. Practice until competent.

Immediate low level circuit after lift-off - the object being to get the aircraft back on the ground in minimum time commensurate with safe flying following (say) bomb threat or severe cabin fire after lift-off. Interestingly, some years ago, this manoeuvre was included by El Al Israeli Airline as part of command training on the 737NG. In the environment they operated in, one can see their reasons for practicing this manoeuvre. Sound handling skills should get you back on the ground within two minutes of the warning occurring on lift-off.

Set simulator up for five mile final again. Switch off all the visual lighting selections on the instructor panel except the landing runway. This includes taxiway lighting, airport lighting, visual horizon and enviroment (city and suburbs) lighting leaving a true black hole approach. Attempt a visual approach with no visual or electonic aids. The object of the exercise is to reveal the difficulty of flying an accurate approach angle without glide slope guidance. In other words avoid it.


There are other scenarios of your own choosing but all with the object of retaining basic stick and rudder skills that one day might stand you in good stead. Finally, a quote worth keeping in mind from that eminent test pilot Captain D.B.Davies in his "Handling the Big Jets"

"Do not become lazy in your professional lives. The autopilot is a great comfort, so are the flight director and approach coupler. But do not get into a position where you need these devices to complete a flight.

Keep in practice in raw data ILS, particulalrly in crosswinds. Keep in practice in hand- flying at altitude and in making purely visual approaches....as we get older we all become slightly more lazy, slightly more tired - and this is a bit of a trap.

The demand of jet flying can best be met by enthusiasm. Personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value because it is a built-in productive force, and those who have it do not have to be pushed into practice and search for knowledge. Enthusiasm thus generates its own protection. This is the frame of mind which needs to be developed for the best execution of the airline pilot's task.

[GlueBall]

Barrel roll;
deep stall;
all engines out dead stick landing from 10,000'

[Bumz_Rush]

a most refreshing thread

Sim checks, are as suggested a box ticking exercise.....I wonder if it would be possible to legislate for a "mandatory free time", of say 30 mins for the dead stick approach, etc, etc.

Normally by the end of the required sessions we are not very happy to sit and sweat for another 30 mins...but the best sim sessions I have ever had, have ben the dead stick approach, and the ONE engine take off.


How can we get back to flying the aircraft, rather than the computer....when it all goes wrong, usually the computer fails not the airframe.....

Bumz

[LEM]

Before 9/11 we sometimes finished our session by a free ride around Manhattan, passing under the bridge, in between the Twins, and eventually with a double flameout and landing at JFK.

Also flying THROUGH tall buildings was as exciting as stupid... but after 4 hours at 100% it was a well earned videogame.

Then we realized the visual display is duplicated in the control room, and wondered what the guy outside may have been thinking of us....


I like the scenarios suggested by Centaurus, and wish I could have more instructors like him.

Mastering the fundamentals of flying is what gives you incredible confidence, over which you can build all the rest.

[Caudillo]

Agree 100% Bumz Rush - excellent thread, good on you Centaurus for coming up with it!

[alexban]

when time remains at the end of the sim we usually have this 'what do you want to do,guys?' time.
It is the most fun and self confidence building flight i've ever had.No engine landing from different altitudes and distances from the rwy,different landing gear configuration landings,extremely strong crosswinds (we have a tre which had to land the real 737 at 59 kt crosswind) ,pilot incapacity after v1,followed by some major failure and SE ,single pilot landing.. or most lately:'you take off and land in one minute,no other requirement" -it's superb.
And yes LEM,the display is duplicated in the computer room.Last time we did a take off in FRA,and compulsory land in less than one min,I did a continuous left turn,at 500' ,60 deg bank,land at the middle of the rwy 25L in about 40 sec ,I found an A4 sheet of paper ,with the flight diagram depicted on it,waiting for us at reception when we exited the sim.And the guys there were quite smiling..they had some fun too,I guess..

[A37575]

Personal practice would include 250 knot idle descent IMC with speed-brakes extended then GPWS pull-up warning followed by immediate pull-up ensuring speed-brakes in after firewalling thrust and pulling up (all simultaneously where possible). Practice till perfect. And: All flaps up landing on minimum legal length runway.

[AirRabbit]

Gentlemen (and Ladies – assuming at least some of you are of the more gentle persuasion)

I completely agree with Caudillo – this type of information is truly valuable, and Centaurus, you know my interest and the importance with which I will take the information generated from this thread. Here’s hoping that more will join and add their thoughts as well.

The only word of caution I would offer for all the excellent suggestions here is the following: simulators, for all they are and do, are, after all is said and done, simply computers that are programmed to do certain things. Certainly, everyone here who is, or has been, confronted with periodic exposures to the dreaded simulator check or training period can verify, simulators have come a very long way in past 15 – 20 years. While everyone in the business continually strives to ensure that simulators are as accurate and as faithful to the handling and performance of the airplane as can be achieved, simulators are still limited in certain ways. Basically, the equations of motion used in simulation are modified with values from a specific airplane that are gathered during flight testing of that airplane. The more data taken, and the more that data can be found to be accurate (e.g., the same values found through repeated attempts), the more reliable will be the “mathematic model” of how that airplane performs and handles. However, you must recognize that this “accuracy” is ONLY available for those areas where data has been gathered. Because the airplane is flown during its development and certification in those areas prescribed by rule (and whatever else the airplane manufacturer deems necessary, if any) those are going to be the only areas where the simulation will replicate the airplane.

Going back to the “dark ages” of simulation, people were highly critical (and justifiably so) of either the handling or the performance of the simulator (or both) when compared to the airplane. Pilots were always citing the lack of realism and the inaccuracies of how the simulator “flew.” However, over the past 2 decades, these critical comments have been less and less, and pilots have become increasingly confident in what the simulator presents. We have touted the accuracy and reliability of simulation for so long now, and done so in such loud and authoritative voices, I believe we may have “over sold” our product in one key area. While the highest level of simulators available (“Level D”) is treated as though it IS the actual airplane, even this level is still made up of computers, programmed with data gathered during flight tests. If the Level D simulator is taken to a flight condition that is outside of the flight tested flight envelope, there is absolutely NO guarantee that what you will see/hear/feel is anything close to what you will get if the same circumstance is encountered in the airplane. Don’t get me wrong. We can extrapolate the data with all of the aerodynamic concerns raised – however, no one can confirm that what has been extrapolated is accurate. Of course, those data points immediately beyond the flight tested area are probably not terribly inaccurate, if they are inaccurate at all. However, the farther away from those flight tested areas you go, the less and less you can trust what you’re seeing and feeling.

Even in the “tried and true” acrobatic maneuver of a “one-g” barrel roll comes into question. While it is quite true that if a pilot were to maintain a “one-g” flight condition (give or take a fraction of a “g”) throughout a barrel roll maneuver, the airplane would never know the difference; there are some aerodynamic models that are dependent on pitch angle and roll angle relative to the horizon and side-slip angle relative to the direction of flight. If the aerodynamic model (“aeromodel”) in a given simulator is dependent on these factors, then a bank angle beyond some undetermined value (usually at or slightly beyond what is typically a flight-test maximum), modified with what has been flight tested, may wind up providing a calculation that includes “division by zero.” In such circumstances, there is no telling what the simulator would do or not do. For example, I’ve seen simulators that after having been "flown" to a given pitch and bank (beyond what you would see during normal flight) with no additional control input, just “stays” at that same pitch and bank … forever. Certainly no airplane would do that.

Other aeromodels that include true 360 degree pitch, roll, and yaw capabilities will certainly provide a resolution to the pilot input – whatever that input may be. However, once outside the flight tested parameters, there is absolutely no guarantee that what the pilot will see, hear, and/or feel will be anything like what s/he might expect under the same circumstances in the airplane.

It is for these reasons that there is a growing interest in what I believe is the mistaken practice of using airplane flight simulators as routine, post accident investigation tools. If the accident occurred without the airplane getting outside of its flight tested envelope and did not incur control deflections greater than those experienced during flight test – a simulator might be able to be used to significant assistance. Please note, I said “might.” And it will be a very safe bet that if the accident airplane got outside of that flight tested envelope and/or had control deflections outside of those same areas, what is ultimately seen in the simulator is not what the accident airplane did. So, some of the suggestions here, may be a bit beyond what you might want to do in a simulator. I would be very regretful if someone were to be having "fun" in a simulator after his/her check ride and later see the same (or very similar) circumstances, and confidently do what was done in the simulator, only to find that what happened was to make the situation worse -- and I'll leave any "extrapolation" of that to the knowledgable readers here. I'm just advocating that we not practice the wrong thing.

So, again, Centaurus, thanks for asking the questions, and I hope many more ideas are posted. Already there are some really good ideas for how a simulator can – and in my opinion – should be used, at least periodically, for pilot exposure to situations and conditions that might not otherwise be seen or recognized. Lets just do so knowingly and knowledgably. Please.
_______
AirRabbit

[ZFT]

AirRabbit,

A very nice analysis of the limitations of FFSs.

One point – There seems to be a popular misconception the Level ‘D’ sims have better handling characteristics than Level ‘C’ sims.

In reality (dependant upon the certifying authority) the only real difference in handling between the two will be will objectively matched motion buffets and some specific aero effects, but nothing to the basic handling qualities.

[redsnail]

Last recurrent I did we had some "play time" left over after the check. Instead of escaping to some cool drinks we used that time. We did some jet upset recoveries at 1,000' as well as some double engine failure with glide approaches.

That was fun.