Mad (Flt) Scientist, I agree mostly with your comments – in fact, the only place that I would add (please note, that is “add” NOT “differ”) is that cause-effect models break down when trying to cater for abnormal conditions (just as you said) but they also often break down when the crew operates the systems incorrectly for the situation at hand.
lefthanddownabit, you also are quite correct in your summation of the various levels of simulation … for the JAA (soon-to-be EASA) standards. The US differs slightly in that the Level A simulator also has prescribed tolerances for objective tests, whereas, JAA merely requires CT&M for a majority of cases (…correct trend and magnitude).
As for my statement that “MSFS is not a simulation” being not true … You say,
The MSFS aero model works in just the same way as in a Level D sim, only the data has much less resolution, less complexity, fewer coefficients and is not validated by anybody. The MSFS flight model is very simplified, so no one should expect to learn much about aircraft handling from it. What you can learn is radio navigation, procedures (though not on the included default aircraft), etc.
In other words, MSFS is the same, just different. And the only places it’s different are data resolution, complexity, coefficients, and performance and handling to the extent that one shouldn’t expect to learn much about aircraft handling from it. Additionally, it’s not “validated” by anybody. OK. I think that’s probably a bit generous, but, in general, I agree with that. They are the same with those differences. The space shuttle and an RC model airplane are the same – just with some differences.
AHRS, I have elected to keep my identity and my employer’s identity to myself. I don’t want to have my employer feel obligated to defend itself against accusations or comments they might receive because of something I’ve said or implied. Therefore, you, nor anyone else, really knows if I know what I’m talking about or not – that is a given. However, if you choose, you can believe me when I say, I think I am quite qualified to make remarks about aircraft certification, simulation and its production and application, as well as pilot training with and without the use of simulation. I’ll let you read any of my posts here to see if I “appear” to be knowledgeable or not. Your choice. You choose.
Having said all that, while I applaud your efforts and your apparent success in getting through your flight training as you have, and I don’t say this to “pop your balloon,” there are others who have gone through similar flight training scenarios, and have done just as well, and have done so without the “benefit” of years of MSFS operation. So, I would submit that you are probably not quite as uniquely able (even if you do ascribe your abilities largely to MSFS) as you might think.
Also, I would suggest that you re-read my earlier posts. I’m not saying that MSFS doesn’t have any redeeming qualities – just that it does not substitute for the airplane for flight training activities. Any computer-based system, accurately programmed, can do wonders for systems knowledge, procedural steps, sequencing of events, etc. I have described such devices as computerized, animated, and interactive chalkboards – and I certainly don’t use that term in a demeaning manner. In fact I have been on a campaign for a number of years to have manufacturers of certain training equipment (CAE and FlightSafety come to mind immediately) that represent the cockpit of a given aircraft in a series of flat-panel displays (either LCD or Plasma) that are touch sensitive; and are programmed with the identical programming that is found on the legitimate Level C or D simulator – so there are no concerns about interoperability issues between systems, etc. I believe such devices can, and would, allow a pilot to complete training with less time in the aircraft or with less time in the Level C or D simulator – without having to have these new training devices meet any regulatory established standards and be qualified as some lesser level of “flight training device;” the caveat, of course, is that they DO, actually, function correctly. There are other pieces of training equipment that are similar, except they do not have the cockpit mockup with touch-sensitive screens. These cases involve the use of laptop computers (or desktop – dictated by preference), also have systems (often including avionics) programmed rather accurately, and are used for pre-classroom training by several major airlines and training centers. However, here too, the programming is based on manufacturer-supplied data and someone knowledgeable about what such programming should do has verified that programming. These devices are also very effectively used in these cases – but, again, there is no expectation that what is learned is complete and there is no implication that “flight training” has been initiated, let alone, been conducted.
So, because I really don’t know, it would be interesting to find out just who is it that verifies the programming and the interoperability between systems on any version of MSFS? Do you know? Does anyone know? I recognize that Mr. Gates and most of his senior staff at MS have enough clout, certainly enough money, to be able to hire or purchase whatever they want – up to a point. But I know for certain that the development of an accurate aerodynamic model for any given airplane simulation is a tedious endeavor that involves a lot of high-tech equipment and people knowledgeable enough to use it – not to mention access to and use of the appropriate airplane for a rather extended period of time – and the person who owns the airplane has to agree to having things done to his aircraft that are not typical – like drilling holes through the pressure vessel. Then this data is used to modify an aerodynamic program for the structure of the airplane involved, and eventually, a sophisticated, arithmetic representation of the performance and handling qualities of the specific aircraft is developed. When sold to a specific simulator sponsor (at least in the US, and I would assume it is true elsewhere around the globe as well) it is sold with proprietary rights that this aero-program be used ONLY on that single simulator and nothing else. That model, in today’s market, goes for something on the order of $1.5 million a copy. I wonder what that cost would be to MS if the manufacturer knew it was to be loaded onto a platform like MSFS and sold by the millions, if not billions, to interested parties such as yourself for something even like an order of magnitude MORE than you paid for your MSFS version.
Your comment about taking “two rookie pilots” and training them with only one having exposure to MSFS, has already been accomplished – or at least the experiment conducted was close to what you suggest. It was completed several years ago; and, if I’m reading your posts correctly, it was done in your back yard, I believe at the University of Cranfield. The basic experiment was to test the value of “training” on a computer based training device – complete with a computer generated instrument panel and an out-of-the-cockpit visual scene. There were two such computer based devices: one had a stick, rudder pedals, and a throttle; the other used a keyboard and mouse. Three groups of ab initio students were trained equally in ground school. The “control group” went from ground school to the aircraft where they were given a “trials-to-performance” test on 8 tasks commonly expected of private pilots. I don’t remember all the tasks but they were things like turns to headings; accelerate to a stated airspeed and then slow to the original airspeed; climb to an altitude and then descend to the original altitude while maintaining airspeed; interception of an electronic radial; steep turns; etc. The other two groups went to their respective computer-based training devices. Each student was given training on the accomplishment of all the maneuvers that they were to see in the airplane including the 8 which were to be compared. This training was an additional 4 hours per student.
When the trial groups went to the airplane they were given the same “trials-to-performance” tests. The first computer group did much better than the non-computer group did – reaching acceptable performance in about 2/3 of the number of trials taken by the control group. But what was interesting, was that the second computer group did just as well as the first computer group – reaching acceptable performance in about 2/3 of the number of trials taken by the control group. Recall, that the 2nd computer group “flew” the training device with a keyboard and a mouse! What this says to me is that additional training is probably valuable. But what was translated into the airplane was not due to the accuracy or the fidelity of the control method, as they were completely different. So, the additional training must have been realized in additional opportunities to see relationships between bank and pitch, relationships between pitch and airspeed, and so forth. What wasn’t accounted for in this additional experiment was, what would have happened had the “control group” been given an additional 4 hours of training, using a chalkboard, and emphasizing just those relationships? It would be an interesting experiment to try some day.
XPMorten, the links you provided take one to sites sponsored by organizations or persons with whom I am quite familiar. I know and have had extensive conversations with the owner of Fidelity Flight Simulation, Inc. and the developer of the Motus device. In fact, I “flew” the version of this device that was built as a “generic” version of a B-737 a couple of years ago, I think, at a WATS Convention in Montreal. As I recall, the device was not quite ready for sale – as it had only force transducers for rudder pedal use (the pedals did not move, they only recorded the amount of force applied) and, as I recall, the seats did not adjust. I asked the owner why he did not ask the FAA to evaluate the device as a Level 6 FTD and he indicated that it probably would not pass – and, besides, getting it qualified as a “generic” level trainer – at that time a Level 2 FTD – was easier in that no objective tests were required and only a cursory, subjective “flight” was required to “certificate” the line of devices. AND, the authorization issued by the FAA for its use in pilot training was at least as much – likely greater – than if it were qualified to Level 6 FTD standards.
And, the comments posted by
mutt were not, I believe, intended to be applied to any type of training outside of those who currently use the normally understood “flight simulators” for substitution of the airplane for training, testing, and checking authorizations. General aviation has always had a lesser level of restriction on training programs – in fact, a Fixed Base Operator, operating within the confines of Part 61 of the FARs does not need to have FAA approval for their programs. The Motus device must be used within a training center approved by the FAA under Part 141 of the FARs – which does require FAA-approval of their training programs. But, none of these schools, to my knowledge anyway, currently use anything like what major training centers or airline training departments use. So your links are really references to “apples and oranges.”
I Truly did not expect to get this amount of comment from my posts … but that is what forums like this are all about.