Re “In any case what is the point of attempting to give the pilot spacial disorientation in current jet transport simulators by making him go chin on chest and close eyes when the G forces involved cannot be replicated...” and the differing interpretations of the training objectives.
Simulators have significant limitations in generating meaningful disorientation, yet have advantages over actual flight training proposals by relating the experience to the type of aircraft being flown. Both aspects depend on how the tool is used.
Military training used (uses) the ‘eyes closed’ technique when teaching rapid situation assessment; which of course must precede recovery action. A significant aspect of closing the eyes was to remove the sequence of events leading up to the (unusual) situation which had to be assessed.
I recall that some definitions of situation awareness include … ‘in space and time’; thus a change of ‘space’ and the generation of events in the ‘absence’ of time (visual cues) add to the surprise and potential confusion of the unusual situation – disorientation, but not necessarily spatial disorientation.
Amongst the vast range of LOC recovery training materials focusing on handling skills, there is scant reference as to how to use instruments to assess the situation. Most procedures assume that instrument awareness is self-evident, but this may be far from the truth. Recovering on ‘tape’ instruments is not the same as with dials, EFIS PFD attitude displays claim improved awareness, but few pilots may have seen the ‘upset’ symbology (pitch chevrons) and a de-clutter mode is often a distraction – ‘what’s that, why, ….’; and is the dominating FD ‘command’ always removed – automation dependency!
Note for ICATEE, check some earlier presentations showing upset instrument displays – what happens if you follow the FD which is shown?
There are occasions in training where spatial disorientation can be induced, but also in actual instrument flying during initial training, and indeed subsequently in operations. These encounters reinforced the methods of situation assessment, where ‘fly the instruments’ has to be the primary activity.
I have often wondered if it is necessary to have been spatially disorientated (in training) in order to recognize such situations in operation; particularly where specific attention to instrument flight or even handing over control was required. I suspect that experience will always help and emphasis on good instrument flying skills and repeated practice remain key issues. [I have suffered disorientation and not recognized it].
As much as the industry calls for upset recovery training etc, the most effective safety activity may be to focus on good instrument flying skills and situation awareness training to avoid the upset situations. This does not exclude the need for recovery training. The principles of TEM relate to detect, avoid, and mitigate (recover), thus training should be prioritized in line with these, which might also be more palatable to the bean counters – cost effective training.