In this thread there has been a rather wide range of comments, where I believe that at least some of the opinions expressed are formulated more from rationalizing observed actions, and then compartmentalizing those actions into a predetermined set of “cause-effect” results, from which is postulated the “reason” behind the particular action or behavior recognized during training – often thought to be an inadequacy of the simulator itself. The danger in doing this is that it completely by-passes the 2 most significant factors present in any training scenario … those are:
1) the instructor’s talent, ability, and his/her knowledge of the simulation used; AND
2) the student’s repertoire of previously learned cause-effect functions, and any “cheat-sheet” functions the student believes might provide a better performance in “today’s” simulator session (I’ll likely have more to say on this subject later).
My education, training, and experience tends to question the accuracy of establishing neatly compartmentalized behaviors that are not easy to measure, technically or otherwise, and which, in turn, are not likely to be as definitive as imagined. Of course there are simulators that have shortcomings of all sizes, shapes, and descriptions – most stemming from the obvious fact that the simulator is NOT the airplane. As I’ve said multiple times in this forum and elsewhere, a simulator is a tool – albeit a very sophisticated tool – but a tool, nonetheless. A chalk board and chalk was/is a tool that was, and continues to be, at least to some degree, a successfully used tool in the training of pilots. We, as instructors are not in the business of teaching pilots to fly the simulator … our goal should be to teach pilots to fly the airplane. I probably need not remind anyone here that simulators have come an exceptionally long way since their initial use a long time ago. But, and as I pointed out in a recent post, while there are older simulators still in operation, most of which have been modernized and subsequently upgraded to meet more current standards (some of which are qualified today at Level C or Level D), perhaps the oldest simulator in the FAA inventory still qualified at Level A, a Lockheed JetStar, L-1329-23A simulator, is still regularly used to teach and test pilots on that airplane. Obviously, that is NOT the only training mechanism that is used to teach Jetstar pilots, but that specific simulator, as used by the assigned instructing staff, does the job it was intended to provide – day in and day out. My point here is that regardless of how accurate a particular simulator may or may not be, there are likely to be some, perhaps many, areas where any particular simulator does not perform, handle, respond … in general, “fly,” just exactly like the airplane being simulated. It has always been the goal of airplane manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training organizations, airlines, and regulatory authorities to maximize the benefits of the use of properly designed, constructed, developed, equipped, and used flight simulators to train pilots to operate the simulated airplane. This is only part of the reason that regulatory authorities (specifically the US FAA) has, over time, developed the currently existing regulatory structure that defines the requirements for putting an airplane flight simulator into service to assist in the training of pilots in the US.
My colleague, ZFT has pointed out that his experience has included “…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.” Additionally, he is of the opinion that there is a “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!” I suspect that even he might have at least some “second thoughts” about the accuracy of, and his choice of descriptors used, in describing his experience with simulation data and its sources – although, admittedly, it does communicate the level of anguish he feels over inaccurate simulator programming. Additionally, I share every bit of the same anguish – simply because anyone would desire perfection or at least a much closer approximation, even though it is well-understood that absolute accuracy is exceedingly difficult, and perhaps impossible, to achieve. However, rather than focusing all of my emotions and efforts on criticizing the way data is gathered, reduced, developed, and incorporated into a flight simulator, and insisting that I, or anyone else, be allowed the authorization to “adjust” that data to fit what I believe to be “more accurate,” I prefer to focus on ensuring that the instructors and evaluators who would use whatever level of such data gathering, reduction, development, and incorporation makes it into an operational simulator, are competently and completely trained on that particular simulator, including its short comings and its accuracies – with a view toward the intent of ensuring they will be fully equipped to use that simulator to its maximum capabilities to assist in training pilots to fly the airplane being simulated. I do this while ensuring that the data provider(s) is/are aware of the concerns that I and those with whom I work have noted the reasoning behind any “uncomfortable” aspect of the data as it exists as part of the simulator and leave those professionals to their respective professional capabilities to review, and, if appropriate, make any necessary, competent, and verifiable corrections to that data.
Everyone should understand that the US has moved from inspecting, evaluating, and qualifying flight simulation equipment through an “advisory” document describing the desired accuracies, to a regulatory requirement for the level of accuracy desired at each level of Flight Simulation Training Device. During the development of that regulation, the major airplane manufacturers, the major simulator manufacturers, many airline management representatives, several pilot organizations, and several airplane flight testing organizations directly participated in that development process – and the FAA managed to keep other regulatory authorities fully aware of the direction that the discussions were taking. Despite the regulatory aspect of the simulator data requirements, within those regulations, there are provisions for simulator manufacturers and airline/training organizations sponsoring FSTDs, to use data from sources separate from, and independent of, airplane manufacturers, as long as these organizations are able to provide a description of their processes for gathering, downloading, reducing, and developing such data into useable programming for the simulator.
Additionally, the recently published ICAO document for simulators was developed by a consortium of the same participants joined by several country’s regulatory authorities, all fully and quite successfully representing their own interests and being able to see, hear, and “feel,” the concerns of others who would be integrally involved in the development and use of such a document. Of course, with the degree of accuracy attempted and the range of operational environments in which the simulator will be operated, the amount and the subsequent accuracy of any data gathered is most challenging – and when the variable factors are introduced, i.e., structural expansions, contractions, squeaks, and groans; the altitudes, pressures, associated temperature ranges; the airspeed, gross weight, and airplane configuration differences, through which each simulator will be expected to provide accurate simulations – it certainly should be understood that providing precision in data accuracy is most assuredly attempted, and to a very great extent, achieved – knowing that corrections and variances are likely to be necessary – the overall process cannot help but be admired and respected by us all.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 14th Jun 2014 at 22:17.