An interesting thread that started off on crosswinds and ‘drifted’ or evolved into visual and general FSTD issues and to a degree, human perceptions with some good historical information.
Whilst I agree with much of what has been posted, I tend to see things somewhat different to AirRabbit mainly I suspect because we operate under different regulatory regimes.
The FAA (unless they have changes significantly from my albeit not recent experience) are quite rigid about objective matching of data and the QTG results are critical to a successful initial and recurrent qualification of an FSTD, irrespective of whether it be Level D or a lower level device and FAA approved devices performance and handling qualities tends to be very close to the approved data.
EASA whilst requiring the same standard of objective matching do now recognize the basically ridiculous situation that the airframe manufacturers perform flight tests and data gathering on non-production standard aircraft which almost always results in totally inaccurate or incorrect data (then used within the MQTG) especially in the areas of sound and vibrations, which of course are the unique areas that differentiate a Level D FSTD! (Almost without fail, every simulator that we have qualified these past few years had initially excessive sounds, typically aero and excessive buffets when perfectly matching so called approved data).
With a rationale and supporting data (not necessarily flight test) EASA will allow the operator to deviate from approved data and subjectively ‘adjust’ these areas to better match the real aircraft.
So what has this got to do with Xwind landings? Actually everything. Our internal process for checking a new FSTD from the OEM is once the QTGs are 100% complete is to expose it to as many experienced TREs, Engineering Test Pilots, Aircraft Acceptance Pilots etc. as practical and to get them to check its suitability for training as they deem fit. Again without fail, Xwind landings typically on contaminated runways are high on their list of areas that needs improvement. For such a critical area, the amount of test data and testing is actually quite poor. (This is also the time we get consensus on sounds and buffets across all areas).
Now life gets interesting because the industry ‘get out of jail card’ gets played by the simulator OEM and often the airframe OEM – “It meets approved data”. This issue is in many ways what holds back the fidelity of modern FSTDs. Strictly speaking the simulator OEMs position is correct as they are contracted to manufacture an FSTD to a defined regulatory standard (EASA, FAA, and ICAO) to a specific aircraft data pack standard (e.g. Airbus A320 Standard 1.9) and the aircraft OEM is not prepared to spend any (additional) money unless it really has to, especially on a mature aircraft.
If this FSTD was offered for approval now, unbelievably it would be qualified level D even though experienced trainers and test pilots have all stated that certain critical areas are non-representative of the actual aircraft. All the regulatory authorities could do is possibly to write up these areas within their subjective evaluation which could be subsequently cleared without any corrective action as “It meets approved data”. This is why the stranger, wangus, jwscud, FullWings and other posters all experience such appalling and totally unnecessary negative training.
Who’s to blame for this? Everyone. We the operators if we accept this, certainly the regulators for failing to ensure that FSTDs are suitable for training, not just meet the applicable standards and every TRE/TRI/SFE/SFI who fails to write up ANY deficiency EVERY time they operate an FSTD. (We implore our trainers to write up everything as this is the only way that we can improve the training experience).
As operators we have the ultimate responsibility not to put any device into training until we are totally satisfied that it meets all the training requirements and believe me, it is possible. On an FSTD that is now just over 2 years old, we forced the OEM to dramatically improve the Xwind model (and other areas of concern) away from data (which we accepted full responsibility for). We did receive some limited supplementary data from the airframe OEM and the net result is during these past 2 years, not a single handling related criticism or write up!! Yes, this incurred delays before it entered service and of course owners and shareholders were not pleased but IMHO it was worth it.
Of course it is essential that the highest quality visual systems are used as visual cuing, especially peripheral is an important element and wider and higher FOV displays which are now available seem to be of benefit. Better scene content, runway surface, runway markings, runway contaminations, edge lighting stalks, signage and marker boards correctly positions around the touchdown zone all seem to help with subconscious cuing.
Simulation is nothing but one big con job but apart from the obvious there is one other massive benefit. It is the perfect and only environment to do things wrong, either unintentionally and hopefully learn from it or deliberately just to see the result (we have a FSTD with very accurate post stall modelling and every trainee experiences a deep tail stall and recovery) but of course, the FSTD must be as accurate as it can be else the FSTD is always wrong, not the trainee!
It is important we do not lose sight of the prime purpose of flight simulation. It is to prepare, train and test crews for the safe operation of their aircraft to the required standard under all circumstances. This can only be achieved if every link in the chain is sound. Quality trainees, quality trainers, quality training programs supported by quality FSTDs result in safe operations. Lose quality anywhere and someone will be headline news.