Originally Posted by
Centaurus
So much valuable simulator training is wasted by a syllabus or check pilots that insists on lengthy checklists, lengthy taxying and lengthy briefings that take up simulator time when this time could have been much more productive such as practicing dead stick forced landings and final approach ditching on a simulated black night over the simulated ocean. There is real instrument flying skill needed to set an airliner down in the ocean. With the plethora of airline crews whose manual raw data instrument flying flying skills are seriously degraded by company imposed policy on full automation from lift off to touch down, there would be no hope for all the souls aboard
O sleeve valve, so much truth is such a short paragraph. We squander the asset of the 6-DOF devices to fly what we fly every day in service, wasting time running checklists that could be done in FTD's made of paper stuck on the wall, or in low fidelity flat screen systems. The greatest opportunity outside of a Pitts or a PA-18 to teach a pilot to fly is squandered with the APFD proving it more or less does what it is told (until it doesnt). none of the automation stuff needs to be done in hi-fidelity, it needs to be done in trainers that faithfully replicate the system functionality. The hi-fi systems could be used to assist in getting some basic handling competency back into the crews that is being removed by the insanity of operational procedures that remove the very skill sets that are the safety backstop of the operation. FOM rules that demand automation at all times is effectively a risk to the system through appeasement of those applying bandaids to the issues of crew competency.
AQP as it has morphed into nonsense is a risk to the industry, as is assuming audit has some equivalence with safety when implementation is not evaluated in a meaningful manner.
For those in the regulatory areas, please remove LOFTs from being required to be flown in hi-def systems, there is no rational justification for that. The ADM/NDM skill development can be done in FBT/flat screens, and arguably where those systems can permit drilling into system information, there is more merit in the lo-res FTD application to such training, as well as crew coordination training and or evaluation.
The majority of the bent metal comes from events where the humans somewhere in the activity have lost SA and have not recovered same in the time/height available. SA traiining can be done over a beer, or the lo res training devices.
Hi-res has validity to type training the first time round, and where ZFT is the game, then fidelity is important. However... for the beancounters that run airlines, Boeings are Boeings, and Airbus are Airbus... the waste in training and personnel on the basis that each aircraft type is magic is make work. A CBT and FTD with PTT's can give all that is needed to hop from one blender to another. The looniness that is the licensing system is a mill stone around the industries neck. System differences between one and another type are covered in the checklist that is called for when an issue arises; as often as not, the complications come from the human not adhering to the checklist as written due to their knowledge that may or may not be valid. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the time out of doing another type rating, but once the slot is found to make noise, the procedures that are followed are the same, do checklists, and don't do dumb things that stop the ride early. The sim time is too valuable to be wasted in rehashing stuff that has been the same essentially since Lilienthal was a lad. The best training I ever received was not on a plane or sim, it was sitting in a classroom with the Hamilton Standard governor cardboard model, which faithfully replicated the function of the system. It was so low resolution that when i spent time looking at an overhaul of the governor it was remarkable to be able to identify each part by function only but each one was different in location and construction to the training aid; the aid however made it possible to comprehend the failure modes that occurred routinely with the Detroit Diesels. SA doesn't need perfect fidelity, it needs a basis for a rational construct that is consistent with reality, nothing more. ADM/-NDM and SA training do not need or benefit from hi-res.
FWIW, the 6-DOF sims do not model effectively the loads imposed on the pilot in a number of flight conditions, those are best experienced in a real aeroplane, but preferably not the airliner, the checks are too time consuming following stall or hard mach buffet flight.