Hi Bergerie1:
In reference to your quotes from Bill Wainwright …(I met Captain Wainwright when he was still at Airbus … although I understand he’s now moved to Boeing, and, of course, I wouldn’t desire to argue with his statements – particularly, as his vantage point is firmly, and rightly, based in the technicality of flight test data) … I would refer you to an earlier post of mine on this thread …
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
…today, I know we have at least one, and now, I understand, a second, transport category airplane simulator (the first one IS and I believe the second one is ALSO a B-737) that have an aerodynamic model installed that is accurate enough that the several test pilots (2 or 3 on the first, and likely up to 7 or 8 on the second) who have flown those simulators, have reported that the simulator performs and, critically, handles, as much like the airplane (the B-737) throughout the aerodynamic stall entry, the actual stall, and the stall recovery, as any anything they have seen. As an example of the competency of these pilots, one that I witnessed personally, when an interested observer quizzed one of these test pilots how far he had personally taken that airplane into the actual aerodynamic stall … he answered, “a 3-turn spin.”
This Thread; June 7, 2014 @ 19:23; Post#42
The 2 specific B-737s to which I referred in that post were, first, the B-737 located at the FAA’s Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, OK, and the second one is a B-737 located at the training facilities of Boeing in Seattle, WA. When I described the answer provided by one of the test pilots, during his demonstration of the simulator’s presentation of the stall and stall recovery when asked how much experience he had with stalling the B-737 and his response was “…a 3-turn spin…” that person was a former Boeing test pilot who, at that time, was an instructor/check airman at American Airlines, assisting on the development of the aerodata package incorporated into the B-737 simulator at the FAA Academy.
Simply because I haven’t been personally involved with this particular effort in quite a while now, I cannot be sure, but I would be more than a little surprised if I were to learn that the Boeing B-737 simulator in Seattle, having exactly the same goal as that of the simulator at the FAA Academy, having been flown regularly by the Boeing technical staff, including test pilots, has not been “flown” personally by Captain Wainwright. As I indicated in that post, these 2 simulators are currently (or were, at my last understanding) programmed with a wholly new aerodynamic program (and
not the same program) generated under a whole list of parameters to help assure that the result would provide aerodynamic response and “input cueing” to the pilots aboard, that are substantially more realistic in that portion of the flight envelope that is AT and BEYOND the traditional normal flight envelope boundaries. Significantly, with the involvement of anyone associated with such an effort, particularly if they report to someone like Captain Wainwright, I would be more than a little surprised if any release of such an aero-data program for training on stall/approach to stall recognition and recovery would be allowed if there were any significant hesitancies or concerns - unless, of course, there were adequate limitations and admonitions that accompanied such a release.
As I’ve said, and I think has been said by others here, a simulator is NOT an airplane. It is bolted firmly to the floor; it can provide definitive motion input cueing only through, and to, the limits of that motion system, with a limited magnitude envelope; can provide additional input cueing of both the simulator’s sound and visual systems and through the instrument displays. The key is to be able to provide input cues that are as close to the same cues that would be recognized in the airplane – and we must recognize that these cues are, and it must be understood why they are, limited to “on-set” only. For example, g-forces simply cannot be produced beyond those very briefly recognized at the on-set of the movement. As a result, anyone, particularly a pilot, is able, with relative ease, to recognize and consciously understand the inaccuracies between the airplane and the simulator. However, the simulator’s “pilot” occupants, particularly those who are, indeed, pilots, actually have the option of “playing the game;” that is, recognizing what the simulator is providing (i.e. “on-set” cueing) – which is very likely dead-on accurate at the very initiation of that cue, or, is at least accurate to within a very small deviation of what the “real” on-set cue would be.
Of course, if the occupant’s attention is focused on those differences, it merely reaffirms to that pilot, that what he/she is seeing, hearing, and feeling, is only a simulation and is not real. However, with a very minor adjustment in attitude or intent, basically a willingness to “play the game,” the simulator experience can, and often does, generate a MUCH more realistic response – to the extent that, according to some of the scientific/physiological data gathered, the pilots actually experience reactions quite similar to those experienced in the airplane, i.e., heart-rate and blood pressure increases and decreases, pupil dilation and restriction, breathing rate alterations, etc.
The admonition I continually repeat is that the student must “FLY” the simulated airplane JUST LIKE one would fly the airplane … and at least
some of the time that may require a gentle reminder by the instructor. However, this periodic instructor input has to be learned … that is, the instructor has to either recognize or be taught to recognize when a student in the simulator is “flying the simulator and not flying the airplane,” and then that instructor has to learn the best way to bring that student back to the business at hand … learning to fly the airplane, or flying the way they “know” to fly the airplane.
In order to do that, the instructor MUST know and understand the simulator’s tendencies – likely best understood by knowing how the simulator is programmed, what the limitations are in that programming, and the limitations of the simulator to replicate the actual airplane. And, that is in addition to being able to recognize an issue that I’ve only recognized in the last couple of years. This issue is that some students approach their simulator sessions armed with a whole litany of “cheat-sheet” methods to employ to assure, or at least to assist, in getting satisfactorily through the “mission” of completing the training or passing the check. Very observant simulator users are sometimes able to recognize how to “game the game,” by learning specific power settings or magnitudes/direction of control input, etc. and when and in what order those values should be employed by that student … and doing so will, at least most of the time, provide at least an acceptable presentation to an instructor or check airman who doesn’t recognize the use of such pre-determined values.
In case you haven’t guessed … I am a huge proponent of simulation … but I hasten to had that my support is specifically focused on the accuracy of the simulation (to the greatest extent possible); the abilities of the instructor/evaluator to know and apply the limitations of the specific simulator being used; and the student’s focus being on “flying the airplane” and forgetting (as much as possible) that he/she is actually in a simulator.