As I posted previously and reenforced by TTex600 there seems to a problem with training and the overall approach. First as I noted and then again by TTex600, the simulator training syllabus for most carriers (all?) seems to have frozen in time, something like 25-30 years back - there is a lot of engine out/engine fire/engine fell-off type stuff, but little related to high altitude/UAS/near-upset. Does the current training regime match the real world as it stands now? My opinion is engines are very much more reliable than might have been experienced 30 years back, so are all these engine out situations worth the sim time? You tell me - I'm not a pilot, but I build sims, and model all kind of engine malfunctions, but nothing at all related to stall buffet cues... (at least in the sound department, may be the vibration boys do?).
Secondly, I know of several simulators that can be rapidly reconfigured to alternate aircraft - the cockpit representation is generic, but can be set-up as a twin jet, twin turboprop, light-prop, well in fact pretty much whatever. Further though, the flight modeling includes extended envelopes, up to and beyond stall - since some of the types modeled can be flown into and recovered from such an upset. So my question for the gallery is: "Would such a simulator be seen as an important adjunct to the existing FFS Level D devices?". You might say, "why bother? Put the pilot in a real plane and do the same thing." But I can very quickly see the finance department jumping up and down at the cost - the sim can run near 24/7 (ok, 20/7 with maintenance downtime), but doesn't eat fuel or cost much to run (versus any aircraft) and doesn't run the risk of falling out the sky.... The cost of that sim, well depends on a lot of details, but it should be on the right side of $5M, maybe quite a bit below that if smart choices are made.
A quick costs calc: ($5M/(10 years*365*20))=$68/hr purchase cost... (assumes sim lasts 10 years, runs 365 days/year/20 hours a day)
- GY