AirRabbit,
Some very interesting and constructive comments and varying points of view are being raised. I think there are 3 issues that maybe need to be debated independently because maybe one size doesn’t fit all. These are the fidelity of FSTDs, their use and who uses/operates them.
The user/operator is very pertinent because whilst I totally concur with your view on the importance of “the instructor’s talent, ability, and his/her knowledge of the simulation used” the last element of this i.e. the knowledge of the simulation used can generally be available only to those operations that utilise their own dedicated FSTD trainers, typically training their own trainees on their own FSTDs and probably small fleet operators only requiring minimal FSTDs to support their training needs. With large fleets (requiring multiple FSTDs) or 3rd party training or with training organisations that have a high level of dry lease of their FSTDs, the ability to gather the knowledge of the simulation used is reduced significantly, sometimes down to zero with a TRI/SFI from a new or infrequent user possibly having no experience of a specific FSTD. Therefore the ability to brief trainees on the nuances of an FSTD is just not there. (Again I wonder whether differing regulatory cultures have a bearing as whilst under your regulations trainers and testers are appointed by their respective organisations, under EASA SFI/TRI are licenced and can train and test anywhere on any EASA approved FSTD of the type they are licenced on).
As a result, the only (realistic) mechanism of briefing non company instructional staff on the FSTD is via a deferred defects procedure at the briefing stage to allow them to ‘work around’ an issue or decline the FSTD as they wish.
The use of higher level FSTDs may be, I would suggest somewhat different across the regulatory/cultural divide, possibly more so now since the 1500 hrs requirement? Regulations already seem to accept that lower fidelity is acceptable for higher (on type) experience as a Level B FFS is perfectly fine for recurrency training and checking (Mechtronix even successfully persuaded some regulatory authorities to approve their FFT product without a motion system for recurrency credits I believe), whereas a Level C/D is required for a Type Rating.
An experienced (on type) trainee might/will recognise and accept FSTD fidelity issues, the less experienced may not and as some posters have indicated, this does cause them concerns. I would suggest that if it is possible to remove these fidelity issues as opposed to briefing the trainees on them, this is a far preferable solution. Certainly within the area we operate, (too) many of the trainees are lacking in the experience to differentiate and whilst there is no substitute for experience, quality training can at least offset this to a degree.
This lead us back into the fidelity issue. As much as you advocate expecting more from the instuctors, I advocate expecting more from his training tools too. Better and more intuitive IOS stations to allow him/her to concentrate on training, not operating. More desire from the airframe and FSTD OEMs to actually replicate the aircraft (where possible and within the obvious limitations, lack of sustained G etc) and a greater desire by the operators to correct (not adjust!) obvious deficiencies within existing data and not just to accept it as “meets approved data”.
There is a requirement on an initial EASA evaluation for the operator’s evaluation team to sign and submit an attestation to EASA that confirms that, amongst other items the FFS flying qualities represents the aeroplane being simulated (GM1 ORA.FSTD.115 Part C). Admittedly ‘represents’ is a broad term but our evaluation pilots will not sign their names to a devise that has obvious fidelity issues within the normal envelope that just shouldn’t exist and some of the items I cited before, namely sound and vibs are in our opinion, too basic to be briefed away when with effort they can be corrected.
You state there is no such thing as "too much" instruction. I understand your view and I would also state that you cannot have "too much" fidelity supporting those well trained instructors. Simulation has come a long way since the very first Zero Flight Time (ZFT) training success when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed at Tranquility Base, a procedure they had repeatedly performed on a simulator at NASA but their success was based upon the same requirements as today - quality trainees, quality trainers, quality training programs and quality training tools.