Aircraft accident investigation simulation

[runwayflea]

Can simulation enhance the quality of aircraft accident investigation management?

[Pilotage]

Yes.

Used intelligently!

What's the real question?

P

[Matthew Parsons]

Intelligent use isn't always well understood. A limitation of the simulators for this use is the extent to which they are accurately modelled.

An example of misuse happened on a helicopter simulator. A tail rotor fell off one of the aircraft and resulted in a fatal crash. To better prepare pilots for that scenario, the accident investigation and subsequent training was based on how the simulator performed, even though there was no confirmation that the simulator was an accurate representation of that failure.

However, studying human factors and procedures that contribute to an accident is a really good use of simulators.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Unless you're actually trying to determine "how did it look/feel to the crew?" or something similar, where you need a pilot involved, then use of a flight simulator may not add much, or even be misleading.

Use of simulation modelling - the models which are used for both engineering design and which 'drive' a flight simulator - is usually far more fruitful, because it's possible to better control the variables in the investigation.

Lets say you were investigating an accident at rotation. In the sim you could keep doing takeoffs and get a 'feel' for things, but each takeoff would have different crew behaviour and reaction times and so on.

With a (desktop) model, one could keep a standard takeoff technique, say, and vary other factors to determine their relative input to the end event. Or you could vary pilot inputs in a controlled fashion (vary the column force in fixed increments, etc.). It's a far more scientific and analytical approach, and likely to give a greater understanding, IMO.

I even query the use of a flight sim to "get inside the accident pilot's head" - the test crew KNOW they are in a sim, they know why (generally) and quite simply are different people with different experiences, reactions, biases, etc. It still ends up guesswork.

[ICT_SLB]

Wonder if there's some confusion between simulation and visualisation? None of the FDR downloading/analysis tools I've used is particularly user-friendly - and even if you're used to looking at graphs of parameters it can still be hard to see exactly what's been recorded and hence what was going on.

The Flight Sim-type visualisation tools as used by CASB & NTSB do aid comprehension as to what happened and thus the overall management task. As far as actual use of a simulator, I'm in agreeement with M(F)S - even reflying the scenario in a real aircraft is doubtful as factors like crew experience, weather, and even minor system differences can have big influences on the eventual outcome plus, of course, we don't want to add to the casualty list.

[fdr]

animation is dandy, but simulators tend to simulate simulators. Recall the Lauda 001 sim tests vs data. Additionally, simulators are limited in the accelerations that can be experienced, which becomes an issue particularly in rotary simulators, LTE etc, where the longitudinal acceleration in much greater in reality and can limit control application ie UH60 condition levers (& sundry EADS models of similar design).