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