Simulator Training for strong crosswind landings

[AirRabbit]

Bergerie1 and Centaurus

I probably should not be surprised that the 2 of you posted very similar comments in response to my rather “wordy” post. BOTH of you are right on target!! As I’ve said many times on this forum and in my regular discussions with members of the industry with whom I regularly interact … simulation is a tool … a very valuable tool to be sure … but a tool nonetheless. And like any tool, the user of that tool should be trained to know how to use it, what its capabilities and limitations are, and how best to take advantage of those capabilities and how to face, address, and compensate for its limitations. Unquestionably, one point that simply cannot be overstated and certainly cannot be ignored is that no matter the level of simulation, all simulation will have both capabilities AND limitations. And, of course, I’m not limiting my comments to using this tool for exposure to flight operations at or beyond the normal flight envelope boundaries – simulation tasks conducted well within the normal flight envelope do, and will continue to, demand the significant majority of training time.

Additionally, and most certainly, an increase in the amount and the quality of training within the normal envelope would prove to be valuable and I would never propose less training. Of course I am fully aware of the cost factors involved and I don’t advocate the indiscriminate increase in money thrown toward just any aspect of our industry. Any such commitment for increased funding should certainly have a very pointed target and, when and where possible, a description of the desired outcome. However, an improvement in a pilot’s understanding of any particular concept – particularly if such understanding allows that pilot to make or use better, or more applicable reasoning in their decision making and their skill levels when initiating any decision regarding airplane control in response to whatever is seen, heard, and/or felt during line operations would have significant benefit to the overall operation’s bottom line … first, in those rare times when there is a clearly identified instance that competent pilot response is necessary to prevent or to minimize the effects of any potential or actual circumstance that could or would have developed into a disaster, the value of such preparation would be easily recognized; and, second, but I think significantly, there is ALSO such benefit achieved even if the specific application of such decision making or control application cannot be specifically identified and/or measured. The thought here is that avoidance of the development of circumstances leading to a crisis may not be immediately (perhaps never) recognized, but is certainly every bit as important and beneficial.

Also, significantly, the points made by Centaurus regarding the application of simulation to basic level pilot training should not be dismissed, but should be recognized and embraced, fully. The caveat I continue to offer is two-fold: first, the accuracy of whatever is included in the simulation (even the basic “synthetic” replications described) should be championed to the greatest extent possible given budget constraints; and second, the training provided to the instructors using each piece of simulation equipment should provide complete understanding of both the capabilities and the limitations of the relevant training equipment. This instructor training should include appropriate methods and/or tasks to ensure that the student is properly trained and understands when, where, and how any simulation limitation, inaccuracy, or anomaly affects the presentation provided by that specific simulation equipment so that the student does not incorrectly believe, and therefore assimilate, an incorrect understanding that the airplane would present that same limitation, inaccuracy, or anomaly and negatively influence that student’s knowledge and understanding of the operation of the airplane being represented.

Also, I completely understand Centaurus’ concern about the potential paradox regarding instructor income … and my first “knee-jerk” would be to point out to the operators of such training facilities that any reduction in airborne training in an airplane, which certainly reduces facility revenue, is also a reduction in the direct operating cost to that facility. That reduction in direct operating cost may be used as a partial source of salary increase to instructors, who should, in turn, have to show more competency in using quality simulation equipment, as well as to cover the increased cost of such equipment. The difference that would likely continue to exist might be recouped by the attractiveness of overall reduced cost to students to acquire the desired pilot training (making the student more attractive to potential airline or airplane using companies) and thereby making the job-market more attractive and therefore generating more students seeking such jobs. My logic is that with better simulation equipment and better trained instructors using this equipment, doing so more easily and more regularly, is likely to result in better trained and therefore more competent student graduates, which, in turn, just might make graduates of such an operation more attractive to those who seek to employ persons with such quality training. And if that turns out to be true, word WILL spread and very likely attract additional students … that is providing we, as an industry, can point to the increased safety margins and competent delivery of reliable transportation services to the public.

OK … but it DOES sound good - and surely there is SOME level of legitimacy attached … right?