Centaurus (– and all the rest of the readers and contributors –)
This is one of the very best threads / series of comments I’ve read in quite a while. The interesting fact is that there isn’t a post in this thread (at least up to this point) with which I would disagree – even slightly! That is truly an amazing statement, from my perspective at least.
Those of us who have been around for a while have witnessed an evolution in simulation from what used to be, to what is available today … but, having been continuously involved in this specific aspect of the pilot training industry, I know, for a fact, that we’ve not reached the limits quite yet. Unfortunately, rather dramatic changes in realism achieved 30 to 40 years ago didn’t take a large amount of technology. Today, huge technology developments, serious amounts of professionally obtained and reduced flight test data, and very imaginative applications of both are regularly combined to achieve barely noticeable advancements in simulations. On the surface, it might appear that such advancements are not as beneficial as they once were. I assure you, this is not so! It’s generally not the easily recognizable changes in fidelity that have the largest impact on a pilot’s ability to recognize and assimilate such changes into his/her performance in either the simulator OR the airplane. It has long-been an understanding in the simulation industry that as the industry advances it takes “more and more” to achieve “less and less” – BUT, the significant issue is that often (not every time … but generally) these “lesser” advances are critical to a pilot’s ability to BOTH consciously AND subconsciously recognize and use the advances in the presentation of the simulated environment. This is because each pilot remains an individual … with individual preferences, and, therefore, individually devised mechanisms that he/she uses to take the information presented in the “real world” into his/her mental processing, from which each individual produces physical reactions/responses, again individually chosen, based on what that individual understands what has historically been used and relied upon to achieve the results that individual has desired. Basically, the goal of a simulator “engineer” is to reproduce in the simulator, ALL of the same things (plural) that happen in the real airplane – in the same sequence and same magnitude. This will allow each individual pilot to use those aspects of the presentations that he/she uses “in the real world” to provide information and allow that individual to make the same recognitions and comparisons he/she uses in the airplane to react/respond in the same manner and sequence he/she would were he/she in the airplane under the same circumstances. Long-time participants on this forum may recall my rather repetitive descriptions of “how to land an airplane.” The goal in those repetitious posts were to demonstrate that it is imperative to allow each individual pilot to pick and use the information sources that make the most sense to themselves – individually. Sure, an instructor can try to teach a student to do whatever task is at hand exactly the way that instructor does it – including the hierarchy of what informative sources that instructor uses (and many do only this). But INDIVIDUALS are not like anyone else – that is the definition of “individual.” My examples of “how to land” were an attempt to show how an instructor should allow the student to pick and choose what information sources are best understood by them – individually – while, at the same time – putting the airplane where it has to be to achieve the best airplane performance. It’s not rocket science – but it does take awareness and understanding. The exact same issues are prevalent in simulation. However, in a simulator, the student will only be allowed to select his/her information sources from those features that are present. If the simulator engineer/manufacturer didn’t include what that student would have selected in the airplane – that student is forced to use what IS available. Now, when that student gets into the airplane, that student is inevitably torn between using what he/she would have preferred to use, and ignoring that preference in order to use what he/she has been taught – which will invariably cause delay and lesser levels of precision and accuracy.
The ultimate is to use simulation that has as much of the real world incorporated into that simulation – such that the simulators response will be as close as humanly possible to the response of an airplane under the same circumstances. That will allow that student to pick and choose the information sources preferred – just as he/she would have chosen in the airplane. This is why I continue to harp on the fact that each instructor MUST know the limitations of the simulator and MUST instruct that student on the correct position in which he/she must place the simulated airplane (just like he/she would do in the airplane) to achieve the desired results.
There are on-going efforts to provide appropriate modeling and data to allow simulators to be able to be programmed in such a way that each student will have the best opportunity to see, and develop the correct response to achieve the correct airplane condition and position for each task … and these areas include gusting winds/crosswinds, aerodynamic stalls, and bounced landing recoveries. Stay tuned for additional simulator advancements!!!