Originally Posted by mnttech
There of course are always at least two sides to any subject. Years ago, a local Director of Operations went to fly a major airlines “qualified” MD-80 simulator. During the engine out work, he stated that the simulator needed a lot of rudder to keep the aircraft straight. Upon further investigation, it was found that both engines center of thrust were about 10 feet farther out than they should have been.
Quite some time ago now, when I first qualified on the DC-9, the guys were going to issue me a DC-9 Type with my initial ATP, but it was going to be limited to Center Thrust. When I questioned them on that issue, they initially explained that the DC-9 was a Center Thrust airplane, and started to explain to me that it was because an engine out didn’t require a lot of rudder! One of the instructors happened to be standing right behind me – and I turned to get his reaction to that statement. He was dumbfounded! He insisted that they call the FAA HQ in Washington to check. The guy in DC said it was because the Airplane Type Certification Data Sheet had no “minimum control speed with an engine out” and gave the reference page.
The guys in the office I was in, pulled that manual off the shelf, and turned to the referenced page … and sure enough, there was no value typed in that spot! So the instructor grabbed the book and turned back to the previous section, which was Douglas DC-8, and turned to the same page. He found that there was no entry typed into the same location for that airplane. He merely pointed to the blank entry and asked if the DC-8 was also “limited to centerline thrust.” The guy on the phone asked the bloke in DC to turn to that same referenced page in the DC-8 section … and, after a couple of shuffled feet, he agreed that they could issue my rating and the ATP without a Centerline Thrust limitation. After that phone call, all the instructors and students in the office were describing the almost full rudder pedal deflection it took to maintain heading with an engine failure (simulated) on takeoff … and that was in a DC-9-15 (“-10 series” – no leading edge slats) and at training weights, speeds, and thrust settings. This was a training program that did not use a simulator at all. All of the training and the check was in the airplane.
Additionally, what I have seen, while it is certainly not in every case, but in a significant portion of cases, where crew members complain about the simulator, they are complaining because they are attempting to fly the simulator – as they remember their training – and not flying the airplane. Unfortunately, again, in my “not-so-humble-opinion,” at least some of the “training” that passes today is training to get through the training program or the check in the simulator … where at least some of the training, perhaps a lot more than “some,” is “default training” where the instructors rely waaaay too much on the simulator to do the training, while they simply push the buttons and type in the scenarios. These students then go out to fly the airplane – get comfortable in it – and come back to the simulator with a view toward trying to remember and recapture the feelings, the sights, the sounds, and their responses (as they remember them) in an attempt to fly the simulator … as they remember it. They normally wind up using a combination of what simulator techniques they remember and what they’ve come to expect in the airplane. As a result, they get confused and frustrated … and because they “know” they can fly the airplane, they blame their problems on the simulator.
Originally Posted by mnttech
I had a new dry lease crew come out of the simulator and complain it did not handle correctly. When I asked, I was told it was “not stable in the horizontal axis!” I replied, “Lateral or longitudinal, rotation of, or rotation around?” The crew walked away…
This is the kind of complaint that I was attempting to describe, above. It sounds like they really don’t know what the problem was. They didn’t even know what axis was involved. What they probably DID know was that they had trouble flying the simulator. Since they don’t have a problem flying the airplane … the problem MUST be with the simulator. They are completely unaware of why that is … when it is highly likely that the "real" problem is that they were incorrectly or incompletely trained.
Originally Posted by mnttech
I would say that simulation training is more of a group (pilots, instructors, certification, evaluation, maintenance, data gathering) effort than operating the actual aircraft.
THAT is the point that a lot of folks completely miss. If the work product made available from any of those sources has some rough edges, those edges will come into play in the simulator – it almost HAS to – but a competently trained instructor would recognize what the student is doing to compensate for the particular “rough edge,” and would explain what was happening, why it was happening that way, and instruct the student on the proper, airplane generated, in-put cues and what that student needs to do to respond correctly. If the student does what he/she was told to do by that competently trained instructor, that student will find that the control application response described by that instructor will provide the correct (desired) simulator response ... AND will get the correct response when flying the airplane.
When that student gets to the airplane, and sees the same circumstances, what is recognized will be like the instructor’s description, and the control applications described by that instructor will provide the proper airplane response initiated by that student. NOW, when that student returns to the simulator, and the same incorrect input cue is displayed by the simulator, that student should know what control application is necessary, apply it to the simulator controls, and the simulator will respond correctly … everyone is happy. All because of the competence of that instructor! That is what instructing is all about.