the effectiveness of simulation remains with the instructor. Thus the issue is with the way the technology is used, not the quality of the technology.
alf5071h, whilst I 100% agree that without a competent and effective instructor the level of technology is immaterial, I would suggest that the effectiveness of simulation is based upon the technology and the way it is implemented, integrated and of course maintained with the effectiveness on how it is utilised (by the instructor) being the critical influence on the effectiveness of training.
I still remain a proponent of total quality in the 3 elements that I believe lead to the desired outcome of crews being trained to a level of competency that will ensure safe flight. The elements being the highest fidelity training tools, the most effective training programs and the most suitable instructors and examiners for training and checking. Any element less than ideal and the outcome will be compromised.
The big issue(s) as I see it is that the regulators and to a degree the major airframe OEMs and TDMs are either too conservative or just to slow to react to changes that the industry is crying out for. There’s lots of talk and has been for years with very little concrete action.
FSTD development by the TDMs (other than visuals) today is based upon efficiency and cost cutting not improvements in fidelity as the TDM market is now too competitive (and needs consolidation?) with the major airframe OEMs being the biggest benefactor with some 60% of an FSTD price going directly to them for P & D! These OEMs control the quality/fidelity of systems and aero simulation with the TDMs being integrators only. Yet today this data as supplied is often lacking with limited recourse for the operator to get resolution to even accepted training issues with known training issues often going on for literally years. (ARINC 610 implementation with B737NG FMS U10.x is a very good example).
FSTD fidelity improvements which should be regulatory driven are currently being operator driven and driven by that operators identified training needs (invariably by their instructors) but at a cost and in many cases, a high cost that has to be recovered.
Approved training programs typically are all based upon the OEMs recommendations and regulatory requirements and as has been clearly recognised by industry, the structure and content of training programs in use today is in many cases not relevant to current aircraft or operations.
Finally, the last element, the trainers and checkers. It is somewhat strange in this era of over regulation that any qualified trainer or checker can just climb into any qualified FSTD and train or check any trainee without any prior knowledge or experience of that FSTD. There needs to be some form of operators ‘license’ for SFI/TRI/TRE on each and every specific FSTD. This will encourage the operators and TDMs to standardise IOSs and will formalise instructor briefings on individual FSTD characteristics/discrepancies. (In our case we do offer such courses and briefings, not as a money making exercise but F.O.C. to ensure the instructors do get the best out of the FSTDs). It may also encourage the TDMs to listen to operators training needs more?
However, I would suggest that the regulations for FSTD standards both technical and operational already exist and just need to be enforced, not on the operator as such but onto the source of the problems. Likewise training programs relevance and instructor ‘licenses’ should be a regulatory matter and addressed accordingly.
IMHO only an effective regulator can make the necessary changes within the training industry that are both long overdue and desperately required. From our current experiences, their emphasis is more concentrated on their perceived benefits of training organisations complying with ICAO Doc 9859 v3 and not where it matters -
TRAINING.
As an aside, being in the twilight of my career one tends to reminisce (a lot!!) and only recently I was doing just that sadly at a funeral of an old ex colleague’s wife and we were discussing training in the early 70s. Then, by today’s standards archaic training tools, chalk and talk and a 3 axis early digital FFS with model board visual on difficult aircraft such as B707C operating in a difficult environment yet in many ways not a lot has actually improved. From memory the courses were quite similar, the instructors were all very competent and then, time (cost) wasn’t a factor. Certainly the desired output seemed to be achieved. The big difference then was that the operator was in total control of all the elements with the simulator manufacturers building what you specified, in house training programs designed to suit your operations/environment and instructors invariably highly experienced and knowledgeable of both the aircraft and simulator being in house staff again.
I’m really not sure which was/is better!!!