Multi-million dollar simulators yet max crosswind practice is avoided.

[sheppey]

Discussed B737 crosswind landing technique during recurrent training in the simulator. The first officer who had recently completed type rating training stated his simulator training was limited to a 15 knot crosswind because the airline he was going to had a limit of 15 knots for first officers.
Seems a bit offside to certify a copilot to be second in command of a big jet and not train him to land at the max crosswind limit before signing him out with a type rating. Isn't that what simulators are for?

Following that through, it was revealed that in a disturbing number of cases simulator recurrent training and type rating syllabus rarely include max cross wind limit training. And that includes for captains. Why is simulator training so dumbed down that it becomes common for low hour pilots to be inducted into an airline yet never be trained in the simulator how to operate in a max crosswind situation?

[Artificial Horizon]

Quite common really, maybe because the simulator is still pretty unrealistic when it comes to turbulence and xwinds, nothing like experiencing it out on the line.

[decurion]

It is not uncommon that airlines limit the crosswind under which first officers can land. When they have flown for a certain amount of hours on the type or say a year after completing of the route training these limits can be lifted. However, these measures will vary for each individual airline.

Training crosswind landings on a simulator (even a level D) is not an accurate representation of the real world. This is due to the difficulty in modelling gust magnitude, duration, frequency, and direction in simulators. In reality the wind will also act on the different aircraft components separately e.g. on the fuselage, landing gear, tail section, engine nacelles etc. In the simulator these local effects are not taken into account. During the ground roll simulators are even less perfect. The quality of the mathematical ground model in combination with the motion and visual ques of a simulator is usually not high enough to allow sufficient confidence for use of training crosswind roll outs under slippery conditions. These limitations are often not fully recognised by the instructors and even the suppliers of these simulators.

Although simulators are excellent training tools there are some things that you need a real aircraft for.

[de facto]

In the chinese airline i work for, 30kts crosswind every 6 months check normally following FD off AT off visual circuit.

[Johnny Tightlips]

I have been on the 737 two years now and I have never done a max x-wind takeoff or landing in the sim or on the line. The best I've done is 30 gusting 42 but it was only 40 degrees off the nose, but it was a great experience and it was very rewarding to manage it reasonably well without any help!

However I would like to do a sim session where they could give me repeated max x-wind takeoffs and landings with the associated turbulence. I know the sim is not great for this kind of thing but it would still help when it happens for real.

[ZFT]

The quality of the mathematical ground model in combination with the motion and visual ques of a simulator is usually not high enough to allow sufficient confidence for use of training crosswind roll outs under slippery conditions. These limitations are often not fully recognised by the instructors and even the suppliers of these simulators.I disagree. These limitations are fully recognised by both simulator manufacturers and operators.

Whilst the airframe manufacturers (probably) have adequate flight test data for X winds at the edge of the certified limits, they typically only provide data within their data packs at fairly mundane levels.

The archaic regulations that govern simulation don't help either. There is currently nothing driving this industry into the 21st century. Despite massive leaps forward in technology, FFSs are still being accredited to regulations written when banking was thought to be an honorable profession and aircrews weren't prisoners within their own workspace!

Today's visual and motion systems are more than capable of providing the necessary cueing but there is no objective data provided to quantify or measure it against.

This is no different to unusual attitude training, accurate and representative severe engine vibration malfunctions and so forth which repeatedly get raised as FFS requirements. The technology exists, the regulatory requirement and supplied data does not.

Without both of these, nothing will move forward.

Simulation will never replace the 'real thing' but they are capable of providing so much more training value.

[decurion]

Dear ZFT,

I disagree. These limitations are fully recognised by both simulator manufacturers and operators. I am not sure what the basis is for this remark. Personal experience or results from a survey? I have seen several results from surveys conducted under training instructors and line pilots regarding the accuracy of simulators in representing gusty wind. The results indicate the many instructors believe that if they are able to program a simulator for a gusty crosswind situation it must be accurate otherwise they would not be able to do so. They were not aware of any restriction given by the simulator manufactures. Surveys amongst line pilots gave a classical result when asked how good the simulator represented gusty wind conditions. On a scale from very bad to very good the majority scored in right in the middle (neutral) with as many pilots finding it very bad as very good.

It can be quite difficult to get accurate wind models. It is not that the aircraft manufactures don’t have the data. Please refer to old studies like done by Boeing on this topic (results from this study are still used today in the level D simulators): Wind Models for Flight Simulator Certification of Landing and Approach Guidance and Control Systems (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA003801)

There have been numerous initiatives to improve ground modelling, however, the models used today are often not much different from those developed 20 years ago. See e.g.:

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/AGARD/AG/AGARD-AG-333///00FRONT.pdf (http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFulltext/AGARD/AG/AGARD-AG-333/00FRONT.pdf)

[FullWings]

My experience of x-winds inside and outside the box has been that sims are good for technique (if you've got one :rolleyes:) and not much else. However, IMHO, if you can get it in roughly the right place at the right speed when training, the real thing should work out OK.

I'm not surprised that a bunch of computers and hydraulics simulating another bunch of computers and hydraulics which is the interface to the pilot of a big lump of metal nailed to a wing experiencing all sorts of different air motions, doesn't quite live up to expectations...

[flyboyike]

In my experience, simulator crosswind practice is so unrealistic that it's all but useless. The box just doesn't seem to be able to model gusts very well.

[ZFT]

decurion,

Sorry, I confused you. I deliberately didn't highlight instructors in my cut & paste quote and thought my following sentence expanded that (now obviously not) because you are 100% correct. By operators I meant the FSTD owner/provider.

[kbrockman]

Simulators get real - Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2011/07/simulators-get-real.html)

[763 jock]

Almost 26 years associated with flying real aeroplanes, and I submit that the guys that complain the loudest about sim fidelity are the folks that can actually fly them!:}

[777AV8R]

Having done some work in flyouts on the 787 and involved in qualifications of other sims, it certainly isnt the modeling, QTGs or sims that are at fault. My experience is that the problem (at least on Boeings) lies with inexperienced instructors. It takes a good instructor to be able to teach crosswind/flare technique,and as a result, most instructors/standards departments, teach to what the can cope with.

Todays full flight sims are technological marvels. It's too bad that the pilots who fly them, want to bail out of them when they have extra time, at the end of a training session.

[misd-agin]

Started with 20 kts, then 30 kts, then 40 kts. Then the CKA said "anything you want to do/see?" ;)

50 kt crosswind, with braking action 'nil'. :ooh:

Pretty wild slip angles. :ok:

That's what sims are for.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

and others,

sims are computers and computers are great at regular calculations.

When cross wind, turbulances, sheer, and all the interesting factors are added, they do no have the data points to provide enough variable data to represent the complexity of non symetric air flow (as previous, on the airframe.

I always try to do max xwind, in the sim, cos it enables the pilot to demonstrate the CRM needed, the transition from 130kts to 60 kts is always fun to watch.
It helps build confidence.

Gulfstream are pushing a training plan, with real aircraft and overspped recovery, as well as high rate turns at hig altitude, as well as performance below V ref.

I hope that the data points from these exercises can be provided to the sim designers to ensure the accuracy of the simumators.

glf

[Slasher]

Sims were originally meant as a tool and a means of procedural training and checking of those procedures. It let problems, that would've been too dangerous to simulate in the real aircraft, to occur and have crews in real time trained to deal with them. If you blew the sim in the old days you had a final check of the same exercise in the aeroplane (at your own expense or not). In other words the aircraft had priority of skill checking over the damn box.

The level of sim tech has risen to the degree where almost all emergency and abnormal procedures can be covered. I have been emphasising PROCEDURES, not real life - no sim I have been in reproduces exactly how the aircraft really feels in strong x/winds, really severe turbulence, the chatter and clutter of ATC who may or may not understand English, REAL cockpit fires and smoke, etc etc, and how one gets that annoying but unavoidable "dizzy" feeling whenever one suddenly stops after heavily braking the sim during taxi or RTO.

And DEFINITELY no sim should ever be prostituted further to the point where its use permits full replacement of actual hands-on time for endorsement and/or LT purposes.

[Denti]

And DEFINITELY no sim should ever be prostituted further to the point where its use permits full replacement of actual hands-on time for endorsement and/or LT purposes.

You're a tad late there. Zero flight time training has been with us for more than 10 years.

[Centaurus]

Although simulators are excellent training tools there are some things that you need a real aircraft for

If what you claim (simulators do not have the required fidelity for crosswind landings) then this suggests the zero-zero flight time claimed by the manufacturers is bunkum and that regulators and airlines have been conned.
Some simulators do not have landing credits which is why pilots undergoing conversion are required by regulation to complete a certain number of take off and landings in the actual aircraft before being licenced to fly the type.

From your description of perceived poor qualities of crosswind landing fidelity in jet transport simulators, it would seem that pilots should have to complete a set number of crosswind landings in the actual aircraft before being endorsed on type. After all, the same principle applies to circling approaches where limitations to the visual depictions require pilots to demonstrate circling approaches in an aircraft - not necessarily the same type as the simulator. Admittedly it is not a flight fidelity issue but an outside view limitation where the airport cannot be seen over the shoulder.

From personal experience at strong crosswind landings real time in a 737 I have found the 737 Level D FFS I have operated have shown excellent fidelity in strong crosswinds.

The problem we often see in any full motion simulator with crosswind landings is not necessarily fidelity but a surprisingly number of pilots who are not only frightened of crosswind landings but simply do not know how to do them properly in the first place.

Hence the most frequent thing we observed is not only failure to round-out but failure to remove all drift before touch down. In turn this is caused by confusion on coordination of flying control input. This goes back to elementary flying school training where often inexperienced flying instructors themselves are frightened of crosswinds and avoid having to teach the exercise.

[A37575]

able to program a simulator for a gusty crosswind situation it must be accurate otherwise they would not be able to do so.

Just because there is a strong crosswind does not always mean it must be gusty. For the same reason when teaching pilots to land a jet transport (simulator) on an into-wind runway it does not need to be gusty. So if you are training pilots in the simulator how to land in a 35 knot direct crosswind that is all you need to teach the technique. You don't have to add gusts at all.

[ZFT]

If what you claim (simulators do not have the required fidelity for crosswind landings) then this suggests the zero-zero flight time claimed by the manufacturers is bunkum and that regulators and airlines have been conned. FFS manufacturers do not claim that their devices are “zero-zero flight time” only that they are capable of meeting the level D requirements of JAA –FSTD-A or FAA equivalent.

It is the operators responsibility to certify the device and the operators responsibility to certify his training programmes that collectively results in “zero-zero flight time” accreditation.

As I’ve stated previously, these current Level D requirements are archaic. ICAO 9625 Edition 3 was an attempt to more the industry into the 21st century but the regulatory authorities are all dragging their heels with the implementation and whilst the FFS manufacturers have adopted most of the recommendations and todays Level D sims are being built to Type VII standards, the testing and checking is still being performed against the old regs.

[decurion]

Centaurus (http://www.pprune.org/members/11325-centaurus)

From personal experience at strong crosswind landings real time in a 737 I have found the 737 Level D FFS I have operated have shown excellent fidelity in strong crosswinds.

It is well-known that it is extremely difficult for pilots to assess the accuracy of flight simulators. It is proven to be too subjective in many occasions. A study I have recently seen (done by a large airline) asked pilots about the accuracy of simulators in representing gusty crosswind. The outcome simply gave a normal distribution with the average at neutral and as many pilots saying it was very bad to very good.
If level D simulators/engineering simulators are good in representing gusty crosswind why are we still doing time consuming and expensive flight tests to demonstrate a certain crosswind?

It is interesting to have a look at the NTSB report on the B737 excursion. I picked a few lines from this report.

NTSB report AAR10-04, Boeing 737-500, NN186111, Denver, Colorado, December 20, 2008

Contributing to the accident were the following factors: ..... and 2) inadequate crosswind training in the airline industry due to deficient simulator wind gust modeling.

“the company’s 737-500 flight simulators (in which the captain likely accomplished this training) were not programmed to simulate gust effects below about 50 feet above the ground and, therefore, were not capable of replicating the complex disturbances that pilots would experience during takeoffs and landings in gusty surface winds.”... “Continental discovered that its FFS atmospheric model software allowed for only steady state wind inputs—no gusting winds—below 50 feet agl. Before this discovery, Continental’s simulator instructors were unaware that the simulator would not apply gusty winds below 50 feet agl, regardless of their manual inputs to the system.”

“Although much work has been done to improve the fidelity of flight simulators in recent decades, the NTSB is unaware of any recent efforts to improve the fidelity of the wind models used in simulators for the training of gusty crosswind takeoffs and landings.”

“After completing takeoffs in all four crosswind conditions, some participants stated that the task did not seem that difficult overall. They also stated that the simulator did not accurately reflect lateral forces, nor did it provide as good of a “seat-of-the-pants” feel for wind gusts as an airplane would.”

NTSB recommendations:

Gather data on surface winds at a sample of major U.S. airports (including Denver International Airport) when high wind conditions and significant gusts are present and use these data to develop realistic, gusty crosswind profiles for use in pilot simulator training programs. (A-10-110)

Require 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121, 135, and 91K operators to incorporate the realistic, gusty crosswind profiles developed as a result of Safety Recommendation A-10-110 into their pilot simulator training programs. (A-10-111)

[Centaurus]

the NTSB is unaware of any recent efforts to improve the fidelity of the wind models used in simulators for the training of gusty crosswind takeoffs and landings.”

For the sake of the discussion, let's forget gusts and concentrate on teaching the students how to manipulate the controls in a direct steady crosswind. Many pilots have significant difficulty in this area.

From the excellent points put forward in earlier posts I must say I am now confused whether full flight simulators have the fidelity for steady crosswinds. I accept that gusty crosswinds are a fidelity problem.

If steady crosswinds cannot be handled by the simulator then why do type rating syllabus and recurrent training such as LOFT, allow crosswinds to be set by the simulator instructor?

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Centaurus,

Have you viewed David Learmount's experience in post 12?

Sim motion can't be faithful due to the physical restrictions of the motion legs.
1) Turning on the ground is confusing because you inner ear senses the heading change in real life, but is absent in the sim.
2) Likewise the heading change during align in a big crosswind can not be felt.
3) No sense of long term delta g in the sim during TCAS Events, take off or landing.

So those clues you feel in your stomach telling you how hard you are pulling are missing, and so are the heading changes sensed by the inner ear. In real life you'll use those clues. In the sim - only the picture changes and corresponding flight instruments.

Provided you recognise those motion deficiencies, the sim is a very useful tool for teaching techniques. Experienced pilots find real flying easier to handle than the sim.

[misd-agin]

Anyone ever recall being scared in a sim? No. ;)

[Slasher]

Only once yonks ago during a B747 sim when the hydraulics
suddenly went completely nuts and the thing almost fell off
the bloody jacks!

[Centaurus]

Makes you wonder how the Space Shuttle crew handled their flight when the fidelity of their simulator was in doubt.

[Denti]

Flying simulators. Helps a whole lot .)

[Slasher]

In one old 727-200 sim we had at TAA you could roll it on its
back and fly the ILS upside down. Took some finesse and lots
of practice (I was just a sprog FO with only 3000 odd hrs TT
in me log book) but eventually nailed it to renewal standards.

[ZFT]

Centaurus,

Makes you wonder how the Space Shuttle crew handled their flight when the fidelity of their simulator was in doubt.

It was never in doubt. They had the ultimate in simulation – The C-11A Shuttle Training Aircraft. (I had the pleasure of seeing a presentation by the (newly redundant) Shuttle Project Manager a few months ago when he described how a Shuttle Pilot had to successfully accomplish 500 landings in the C-11A and a Shuttle Commander 1000 landings before an actual Shuttle launch. Very, very impressive).