It would seem that, once again, my friend, Centaurus, has sifted the chaff down to the basic issue, when he said:
Originally Posted by Centaurus
It doesn't matter that modern simulators cannot replicate G forces. They certainly can replicate the instrument indications of an unusual attitude and effectively at that. It is a straightforward exercise taking less than ten seconds to barrel roll an airline simulator where the compass and artificial horizon still show the current attitude and heading. Freeze the simulator when the flight instruments show inverted, then discuss at leisure with the candidate the recovery action most suited for the attitude. Better still have the instructor demonstrate initially rather than trying to "talk through" the process as the candidate flies. It is all about interpretation of the flight instruments. Place the simulator in a steep spiral. Practice the recovery until competent. Repeat after me: "It is all about interpretation of the flight instruments..."
Not only does he capture the relevant truth about the value of simulation – he also points up the absolute necessity of using simulation only under the watchfully trained eye of a competent instructor – which does not occur when “simulator free-play sessions” are encouraged!
In the recent past, this truth has become increasingly more valid, and particularly so with the continued effort to improve the programming that goes into modern flight simulators.
Recently, on this forum, I posted the following comment:
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
Today, I know we have at least one, and now, I understand, a second, transport category airplane simulators (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 regarding how far he had personally taken that airplane into the actual aerodynamic stall … he answered, “a 3-turn spin.”
With little doubt, using the airplane for all training and checking would be most logically preferred – however, the simple fact is that pilots undergoing training are often guilty of making mistakes. In an airplane, mistakes can be fatal. However, using a competently designed, built, programmed, tested, and PROPERLY USED airplane flight simulator(and by properly used, I mean, training that is conducted by a completely trained and competent flight instructor) allows the “best of both worlds” (those being “reality” and “safety”) to co-exist.
While it is true that varying “levels” of flight simulation have been developed and are approved for use, one should not make the illogical supposition that one “level” is just as good as all the other “levels” – particularly when that supposition is derived from considering the associated “costs.” Each level of simulation has its own capabilities and its own limitations – and when used as authorized (but not beyond) the overall training experience can be as good as training only in the subject airplane - without having to deal with the problematic issue of fatal errors.
The question should be … what is the desired outcome of the training being conducted? And when all else seems to falter, the old adage rises to the surface … “when you think that training is expensive, compare it to the cost of a fatal accident.”