Observations on use of training devices.
I post this in order to provide some background on what can be done with regard to 'ATD's', with a modicum of work and cost, and to comment on their effectiveness in non-traditional roles.
Around ten years ago now I was involved with an organisation that had both a SE & ME training programme. Traditional techniques were used, and they actively developed and updated their methodology, but all flight training was conducted 'live' on real craft.
As an engineer (and CPL ME), and a person who had prior research knowledge of simulators (via a university - NASA funded course) I was interested in the use of simulators or 'advanced training devices' at ab-initio and mid-level stages of training. However they were, and are, an expensive unit for any organisation to purchase, and the strictures around their official use (ie. to be recognised and counted as part of training regime) made things difficult.
Not to be deterred I spend some time, and not a little money, developing a full-sized training device, in this instance based on a C-172 primarily because that was a machine this place used for SE training. This machine was 'IR-capable' and was used for initial IR training, but in several instances we also used it for ab-initio work with some students who were experiencing particular issues.
In all cases the students found this to be valuable to them, and their flying developed markedly as a result of the time they'd spent with the FTD/ATD or whatever you want to call it. In some cases this was procedural work, in others it was application of techniques such as cross-wind landing.
The marginal cost of this was negligible yet the students learnt a lot in a short [inexpensive] time, and a 'safe' environment that could be paused to explain certain issues or techniques pertinent to them. Although it is an entirely non-scientific observation, based on a small sample, in my view this machine proved itself as a tool that had a positive input to the training programme and ultimately to a prospective pilot's progress, even though the time spent on it couldn't be 'counted' in their logbook.
The principles used in the mechanics of the SE machine I produced could easily be used with a ME machine and I would be happy to pass those on to anyone interested. That said I would say that this is now ten years hence and technology has developed to a point whereby I'd probably do things a bit differently.
In terms of applicable software I used both MS Flight Sim, and X-plane as the primary basis. I know some people will groan about the use of such 'toys' in this context, but remember I have some real evidence that shows it to be of significant benefit to trainees. Moreover the procedures used, and the actual device itself (which indeed used many parts from a real machine) made it very clear that it was not a gaming machine - and it was never used as such.
To go one step further on this, and make a suggestion; it may be useful for organisations such as CASA, CAA or whoever to consider developing a software and/or hardware scenario that could assist trainees at various stages of their career (including EFATO actions etc). In this I say that my view of development would be to actually take a lead role in code development either of a whole new software engine, or with regard to the open-source components of X-plane, MS Flight-Sim, Flightgear or whatever. Production of standard componentry for a hardware solution is a comparatively simple task today and something that could be entrusted to a competent mechanical engineer to manage, preferably with some aviation experience.
A combined and determined approach by such authorities, who typically have more money and 'clout' than most, could well see a positive and practical outcome in terms of improving training effectiveness and reducing training injury and/or fatalities.
FP.