Full Flight Simulators and realism of cues

[ross_M]

A naive question: When using a FFS for flight maneuvers and then if you experience the real thing, how realistic is it? I imagine routine ops are well simulated but what about more extreme situations.

With a 6 axis simulator and acceleration onset cueing I suppose things get pretty realistic but just was curious as to how much. Can it get to high / low g situations too? Or do these things not matter much when the goal is to actually train someone on a big aircraft.

[mixture]

Let's put it this way. During my first few hours of flight training, one of the first things the instructor told me was to "put away the sim" (although that was mostly because I was focusing too muchon the instruments rather than the VFR horizon flying that's required at basic PPL training level).

I did as I was told, and have never touched a PC sim ever since, and my flying only continued to improve during my training.

On the one or two occasions these days when I've had an opportunity to spend a few minutes on someone else's PC sim, I've always found them horrendously unrealistic, even ones like Xplane that make (or at least used to make ?) silly claims about how realistic they are.

Short and sweet, there's no comparison to the real thing.

Edit to add : Just re-read and you're mentioning the 6-axis stuff..... yes they are a big step up, but in the end it's just a computer simulation with lots of fancy algorithms and you're just sitting in a box on some hydraulic legs..... so there are limits as to how well you can simulate the realities of aerodynamics, weather etc. But as you suggest, the goals rather different in what the sims are used for, there's certainly no doubting they are a great tool in the training arsenal.

[PhineasC]

In the absence of replies from people who know what they are talking about I’ll give you my tuppence worth. I’ve spent some time on a 6 axis 747-400 simulator, I noticed there were program settings for turbulence and wind shear. As I understand it pilots are regularly tested in simulators I guess there would be no point unless they accurately replicated extreme situations.

Having said that the simulator was at one level the most expensive version of guitar hero ever but the sensation of movement is complete

[Nubboy]

Realistic enough for experienced pilots to do a full conversion course with type rating endoresment on your licence without even seeing the real thing. My first flight at the controls of a real live Airbus A319 was with a full load of farepaying passengers.

[ross_M]

@mixture: Right, I wasn't considering PC-sims but the real multi-million dollar big plane simulators.

@Nubboy, @PhineasC:

Thanks for the comments. When you actually experienced windshear, turbulence etc. in a real Airbus was it close to what the simulator threw at you? How about the deceleration in an aborted landing?

Can you simulate a depressurization and in that case do masks actually drop? Or imagine the Air France loss over the Atlantic: if you simulate a stall scenario like that and a high rate descent; does the simulator manage the rate of descent you would experience in a real incident?

Another question: Is simulation useful for taxi-training. Thinking of the recent tail-clipping incidents or runway incursions etc. are simulators of any help there? I'd imagine that to be tough because you need to model the sizes an visuals of all the other traffic on the tarmac too.

Apologies, if I am getting carried away with my questions!!

[PhineasC]

Not being a pilot all I can suggest is you get some time on a simulator, it may not be realistic but it feels it. It changed my perception of what pilots do and increased my respect for them enormously

[ross_M]

Not being a pilot all I can suggest is you get some time on a simulator

On my to-do list! :)

How expensive was it, BTW?

[PhineasC]

Flight Training at British Airways (http://www.ebaft.com/)

[windypops]

aborted take-offs in the sim and those for real are (from my experience) very close. Our company send us to Flight Safety for sim training, and they do have very good sims out there though.

Generally most things are pretty close, but there are some areas where it's noticeablly different. eg in the aircraft I can really notice any slight changes in G when I'm hand flying, but not so much in the sim. The sim is also more sensitive in pitch than the aircraft. Turbulence is a strange one as they can make it pretty rough in the box, but it's "different" to the real thing, I guess it's more random in the real world if that makes sense.

Smoke in the cockpit is not simulated so when that occurs it's exactly as you would get in the real thing :ok:. The drills are different though, in the sim it's get out (via the rope ladder if the airbridge is still up), sadly you can't do that in the aircraft.

Members of the public can hire sim time at European Skybus in Bournemouth, they used to have Boeing 747 and 737 for you to go and have a play. Actually it's not so much of a play, as they will actually instruct you in there so you get to do some "real tasks" which in my opinion is much more constructive and fun.

[Groundloop]

European Skybus in Bournemouth, they used to have Boeing 747 and 737 for you to go and have a play.

They still do - with a 747-400 sim due to arrive soon as well.

[ross_M]

Is water ditching a simulator scenario?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

does the simulator manage the rate of descent you would experience in a real incident?

It could, briefly. Then it'll hit the floor.;)

A sim is a pretty useful tool. You should really consider it as a procedural trainer. For practicing things like vital actions, SOPs, autoflight and other procedures it is a vital tool, where else would you do it these days?!

For replicating what you would see on the instruments it is pretty much spot on and very useful. Like stalling, you don't get the physical sensations but you will get the indications. I should clarify that and say that you will get the nose down movement but that's about it.

However, the sim tends to be let down with things like the correlation of movement and the visuals. There always seems to be a slight lag in one or the other which can lead to a bit of disorientation (sim sickness). Visual flying is a pain because of this lag and it makes it harder, not impossible, to fly accurately visually.

It is also missing vital clues. For example, an explosive depressurisation in an aeroplane is a bit of a shock, there are physical sensations from ear pain and farting that you won't get in the sim, the misting associated with the drop of pressure isn't there. All you really get is a prerecorded pfffft and the "up arrow" on the pressurisation panel.

You don't get things like shadow and light moving across the flight deck as you manuever.

All these things lend themselves to better situational awareness.

Does all that really matter? Well, IMO, not really. But it just goes to show that there are some things a sim can't do.

[SloppyJoe]

One thing sims can not do well at all is simulate G force +ve or -ve. Acceleration and deceleration are very good as it just tips you forwards or backwards and coupled with the visuals it feels as real (pretty much) as the plane. Is ok with turbulence, rolling into or out of a turn is also a descent effort on the sims part. Within the normal flight envelope it is very accurate with the performance, descent rates or climb rates, speeds for given power and altitude. Engine failures with damage are also ok as you feel the vibration and hear the bangs or pops. Its main goal it is very good at which is putting pilots under pressure dealing with emergency situations in real time with real (simulated) terrain and weather in the cockpit of the plane they fly.

Windshear is also pretty accurate with regards to speed loss/gain and altitude loss/gain.

Loss of cabin pressure is good as although you don't get the feeling in your ears/lungs etc you can practice the procedures with the masks. No the masks dont drop as in the cockpit you have a quick donning mask that you grab and put on your face, it is always there stowed right beside you. You do however push a button to drop the masks in the cabin (there obviously is not a cabin but you do have the button)

The way it does this is during the flight testing phase of aircraft all the data from every conceivable situation is programmed into the sim and updated with real data from situations once the aircraft is flying with airlines collected from flight recorders. They also use some wind tunnel data to put into the sim for situations beyond safe.

It is lacking once you go beyond what the test pilots dared to do when testing the aircraft as they will not do things that may result in a crash. If I got in the 330 sim tomorrow and did what the AF flight did I expect it would not behave in the same way as it is not something you do in an A330 so they have no data to put into the sim. I expect there may be an update from airbus once all the data from the black boxes is scrutinized so that the sims around the world can be more realistic in that scenario and maybe in a few months the sim will behave as the actual aircraft did.

The sim is very good for what it is intended, training pilots in normal and abnormal procedures.

[ross_M]

Thanks for the great explanations guys!

Just today, on another thread I read this quote:

Have watched many times in the sim (even with experienced crews) early fire drill actions leading to massive height and directional loss, resulting in a sim crash that in three cases, put it out of action for two days.

The "sim crash" part caught my eyes. Of course, you can crash a sim; but does this result in physical damage too? I was wondering about the part where they say it took the sim out of action for two days.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Well simulators break just as often as aircraft. Fixing it is usually a case of rebooting the 'puters. But very occasionally, with the use of a harsh manuever, it's possible to get the simulator to, essentially, fall over.

Then you have a crash on the inside and a crash on the outside!

Only happened to me once: Dunno what happend but it threw a bit of a spaz and left us hanging very nose down whilst the visuals inside were showing a steep turn to the left. Rather an odd feeling:yuk:

[ross_M]

Then you have a crash on the inside and a crash on the outside!


Seems like someone needs to develop a safe "flight-envelope" for the simulator! ;)

[+TSRA]

I agree with the posts above, that they are great for procedures and that certain manouvers - rejects being mentioned already, are well done. As it goes for training in Transport Category aircraft, there is no subsitute because the real thing is just too dangerous.

However, I find that it is the little cues that I miss in the sim that throw me off balance. For example in the Dash 8 you are sitting right above the nose wheel, and it gives you this little bump when you extend or retract it that the simulator does not reproduce, (same with the PTU) or the actual feeling that you get with the nose up moment when you extend the flaps - it visually reproduces it, but as someone already stated, with a small, but noticeable, delay. These events, whether a pilot realizes it or not, very quickly become cues to a part of a checklist that you do not realize when flying the line, but when you dont get them in the sim youre sometimes sitting there wondering what to do next - especially if the training is not going well!

As for turbulence, its more like sitting on your chair at work and bouncing up and down - not really realistic at all, although for some reason sim trainers always have it turned on!

To describe the sim sickness that someone mentioned earlier. My last ride in the sim (just last weekend) was the first time in almost 2 years that I have not been disorientated in the sim. For me it was always the rapid repositions following a sequence - I never threw up like some guys have, but it sometimes came very close (especially if you had the eggs beny and beans at the hotel in the morning!)

[mixture]

In the absence of replies from people who know what they are talking about I’ll give you my tuppence worth. I’ve spent some time on a 6 axis 747-400 simulator, I noticed there were program settings for turbulence and wind shear. As I understand it pilots are regularly tested in simulators I guess there would be no point unless they accurately replicated extreme situations.


They still remain simulators though. Those winds and turbulence you so proudly mention are still simulated.

If simulations were so perfect PhineasC, how come the MetOffice still can't manage to simulate the weather to predict it with precise accuracy on their £33 million supercomputer ? :E

[ross_M]

They still remain simulators though. Those winds and turbulence you so proudly mention are still simulated.


In the light of all this; makes me wonder how much of "real", non-sim aircraft time do you guys get? I mean, not counting revenue flights. Is there any opportunity to practice non-routine scenarios in real type flight? For every hour of sim training time how much "real" training time does one enjoy?

Judging by the cost of flying an empty heavy; probably not much, eh?

[+TSRA]

Depending on the level of the simulator and the operators training program, the only additional "in aircraft" training you may get is a couple of extra circuits in the aircraft following your initial training if the simulator is not certified for "Zero Flight Time" training.

So I guess to answer your question, none.

I mean, at our company on a longer leg if we are really bored and it is coming up to sim for one of us, we may pull out the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) and go through a couple scenarios - but we are a small company where all the pilots drink together and Im not sure this would work at say, British Airways. Additionally, I will occasionally pull out the QRH/SOP/AFM or FMS Manual, etc and have a read through just to brush up, but no we would never be putting along and bring the aircraft to the point of a stall, or pull one of the engines to Flight Idle or pull a circuit breaker just to see what would happen (although, I will admit to testing the fire bell to wake up a guy I was flying with when his snoring was so bad the Flight Attendant could hear it from her jumpseat)

At the end of the day the simulators do everything we need them to do such that the very minor differences between simulator and aircraft are not important when facing the real thing on the line.

[mixture]

ross_M,

You are dangling the hook, but I'm not going to bite.

Instead I'm off to other waters, probably never to be seen again in spotters. There seems to be too much of a tendency in these parts for people to dismiss as nonsense views that disagree from their own expectation of a reply.

[SloppyJoe]

One point to consider regarding simulators. Where I work if you are doing a sim session, even when they are throwing everything at you, engine fires, bad weather, high terrain and any other problem that could conceivably happen. If you crash it due to bad airmanship, loss of situational awareness or some other personal deficiency you are both (guy in left seat and also guy in right seat) immediately suspended from flying duties until what happened is thoroughly debriefed by the chief pilot and training manager and remedial training in the simulator provided and very thoroughly scrutinized by management pilots. Messing up in the sim can mess up your career as a pilot, that is how real it is for situational awareness, procedures and working through scenarios. If it was the guy in the left seat who crashed the sim or even if he just totally missed what was going on, chances are that after the extra training he will not be in the left seat any more.