ZFT, we are looking in the same direction, but many industry views place far too much emphasis on simulator fidelity (technological excellence) vice training program planning and instructors (as perhaps you might do).
All three components are required in proportion, but there is a tendency to downgrade those elements involving variability in human intervention – how good is the instructor day-in-day-out, does the training plan meet the need or are operational circumstances overtaking the plan.
The focus on technology is often reinforced by weak or less well thought-out evaluations of need, misjudging the diminishing value of fidelity against cost (time), and enthusiastic sales teams.
I agree that regulators etc are conservative and slow to react, but in this instance this could be of benefit to the industry; how much more can be spent on simulation.
A major problem facing the industry is that major accidents are poor indicators of specific or identifiable factors which could be amenable to training; accidents are increasingly systemic, the conjunctions of seemingly irrelevant issues not considered beforehand. These are increasingly difficult if not impossible to define, thus arguably unable to be simulated, trained for.
Some key drivers might be identifiable and included in training; e.g. automation surprise, but can simulation ever surprise a human to the edge of fear, or evoke similar emotions.
There remain significant limits to human performance, and even if a high level of behavioural training is achieved, consistent performance cannot be guaranteed in reality.
Is the underlying belief that bigger, ‘better’, shinier, technology, must provide better training, obscuring the need to consider if the current safety levels (although achieved by training) can be further improved by more training. There is a limiting point; are we at that point.
Last edited by alf5071h; 3rd May 2015 at 17:42.