Hi Bergerie1
Originally Posted by Bergerie1
I wonder whether instructors throughout the airline community are taught enough about the limitations of simulators. Are there still people out there who train inappropriately in areas beyond the flight envelope that has been programmed into their particular simulator?
First ... I'm not at all sure if everyone using a simulator is aware of what that simulator can and cannot do. To many, "if it happens in the simulator - THAT is what you can expect in the airplane." That is likely because someone, someplace, said that same thing - or something similar - and they have not yet seen (or at least recognized) anything to counter that understanding. I am quite sure that most simulator instructors would likely say that they are adequately trained – but my concern is that many (and only because it smacks of an insult do I not say “most”) are not fully informed about what the limitations are, and even those who do have some knowledge about some limitations, they likely have not been instructed on how they, as instructors, should deal with those issues … and I say this because simply acknowledging something like “…oh, don’t pay attention to that … that’s not the way the airplane does it ….” just doesn’t address the gap that now exists in the mind of that (those) student(s). However, like I indicated in my earlier post, there is now underway several individual efforts – some of which directly address the competencies of pilots, instructors, and evaluators.
Many instructors teach what they, themselves, were taught, and teach the way they, themselves, were taught. Most instructors are likely to have not taken the time to understand what it is they are teaching and what they are likely to see, and, from that make appropriate modifications to what it is they should teach and what it is they should expect. Interestingly, many of them might have a problem in explaining "why" they expect what they expect - other than "that's what the syllabus calls for."
For your information and your consideration, the Annual International Flight Crew Training Conference, a “premier” event in the Royal Aeronautical Society’s annual calendar is scheduled for Tuesday, the 23rd, Wednesday, the 24th, and Thursday, the 25th of September at the Society’s Headquarters in London. The plan is to examine the work undertaken by the International Pilot Training Consortium (IPTC) with a view toward seeking to determine what further work is required and under what auspices it should be conducted.
Originally Posted by Bergerie1
Is the industry doing enough to address the above issue?
Ouch – I guess the proper response here is “how much is enough?” Realistically, there is an on-going effort (see above) … which, in itself, says volumes to those of us who have been IN this industry for more than a little while. Will it be enough? That is yet to be seen. One good way to find out, would be to attend the conference and ask that same question.
Originally Posted by Bergerie1
Do we really need to spend the additional money to acquire test data in these extreme areas? Or would it be better to concentrate on teaching a greater understanding of the aerodynamic and control principles instead?
I’m not sure how to answer this question because as of now there are two aero-programs that are reported to be quite good in the stall / post stall portion of flight. It’s my opinion that the remainder of the flight envelope is pretty well addressed with appropriate data at the moment. Of course, there are a full range of simulators in operation at this time – and collectively they represent the full history of data gathering, reduction, modification, and incorporation into simulation. Unfortunately, not everyone who has flown an airplane simulator, has good experiences – and often it’s not the simulator’s fault. In some cases, at least, the simulator is used inappropriately or incorrectly.
The result, at least at some level, can be interpreted as the simulator being the target of the “negative” comments. In the cases I’ve seen personally, which is a substantial amount by most measurements, a huge portion of the reasoning lies directly at the feet of the individual students – primarily because of they are trying to “fly the simulator” instead of flying the airplane. That may sound “weird” to some degree – but I promise, there is more truth in that comment than there is “weirdness.” Overall, in those cases where it is clearly not the student or the instructor, I say for the most part, the “jury is still out” – as to whether or not the “fault” lies with the simulator itself – and I say that because sometimes the persons making the accusations don’t really know why they feel as they do.
A lot of folks do not know what data is collected, where it is collected, and how it is collected; nor do they understand where and how it is used in the simulation of an airplane. I really think most would be quite surprised if they were to read just what kinds of data are required, how that data is actually gathered, and how much work goes into converting all those numbers into a legitimate aerodynamic program. For those interested, I’d suggest checking the internet for the FAA’s regulations on simulators: It’s found at Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 60. Once there Appendix A addresses airplane flight simulators – and to really understand what is included, it’s necessary to read the WHOLE appendix – (sorry, but, it’s true).
Here's a link -
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
Do we really need to get the data for these “extreme areas?” I say, yes – primarily because the simulator is going to be put into those situations ... by error or on purpose, whether or not the person(s) in the simulator actually intended to get to and/or beyond those boundaries. And, because it IS a simulator, a lot of folks will take with them at least some aspect of what they saw, heard, and/or felt … whether or not the simulator was accurate or only partially so. Besides, it has always been a desire that students understand what an aerodynamic stall is, how to recognize it, and most importantly, what to do to recover the airplane to a safe flight condition. Without the accuracies provided by accurate data and programming … I think we’re still “whistling in the dark.” Besides, I'm of the opinion that there will always be a better, more accurate, more detailed, less expensive, etc. etc., manner found to collect the data and a better, more accurate, more detailed, less expensive, etc. etc., method of reducing that data into a useable simulator program. Someone once asked me if I knew how expensive training really was to an airline ... my answer (admittedly taken from an older and much more experienced aviator than I) was "...not really, but I'd bet it would be less than an accident."
Also, you might want to check that same document I referenced above to check on how the FAA, at least, deals with crosswinds, specifically how the data is gathered for that specific portion of the simulator’s programming.