Small Turboprops Simulators

[Jumbo744]

Hello,

I am flying the B1900D and recently had to go to FlightSafety in JNB for a Prof check. Their sim is a Level D and I felt that it was quite unrealistic compared to the real plane in terms of handling. It was very sensitive. It took me a while to get used to it.

I'd like to know if Level D sims for small turboprops are generally realisitic or is that a normal characteristic? How do Jet sims compare?

Thank You

[TRY2FLY]

Saab 340 sim = CRAP

[+TSRA]

Sims for FBW aircraft = spot on


Sims for conventional aircraft = not spot on


The sim not reacting like the aircraft for conventional aircraft is why the first recurrent failure rate is so high in many countries. For your initial you don't know any different, so you fly the sim. For your first recurrent, however, you do know how the airplane responds, so you try and fly the airplane in the sim. Normally by the second or third recurrent, most guys and gals have it figured out and know to fly "the numbers" in the sim - that is, these settings will "null" out and give me a perfect steep turn, that sort of thing.

[Jumbo744]

aah thanks for your answer! I feel much better now because I was really unhappy with my session.

[AirRabbit]

OK – I can feel one of my “longer” posts developing at the ends of my typing fingers. My apologies to those who dislike my lengthy posts … but, it’s a malady with which I’ve been afflicted for most of my career.

Despite what some other “veterans” on this forum may believe with regards to simulation … Level D is the highest level of simulation available and requires the highest levels of data, testing, and comparison of any of the levels of simulation that are available. There is no simulator that will be exactly like the airplane in every single circumstance – particularly if you focus on some very specific nuance in any particular simulator. A simulator is a computer … not an airplane. But, when you look at the lengths to which everyone involved has to go to get the results for which each participant is responsible, and by that I mean the simulator designer, the data gathers meaning both the amount and kinds of testing required, the manufacturing and testing processes required at each phase, the installers, the tests required at each phase, the regulatory folks, and all the rest that are involved, and you understand the magnitude of the data that has to be acquired, reduced, compared, incorporated, and the tested both objectively and subjectively … the majority of knowledgeable folks will attest to the fact that any particular simulator (particularly those at Level D) are terrific examples of very close approximations of the airplane in both handling and performance.

For quite some time, almost everyone connected with simulation was very pessimistic about its use in pilot training and testing activities … and then, over about a decade of time, it seems that the tide turned … and it turned 180 degrees … now, instead of looking at simulation with a bit of skepticism, simulation is relied upon for more than what it should be … and by THAT I mean that often, after an accident or incident, the investigators want to immediately go to the nearest simulator for the airplane involved, set up a scenario that is as close to the circumstances as they can, and then make decisions based on what is seen in that simulation. In other cases, more and more, I see instructors manipulating the simulator controls and allowing the simulator to do the actual training of the pilots being trained. A simulator is a tool … just like a wrench or a hammer. When your car’s engine is malfunctioning, you don’t throw a couple of adjustable wrenches, a couple of screwdrivers, and a hammer or two under the hood and drive to work, expecting the problem to be repaired when you arrive. An experienced mechanic who knows the car and who knows how to use the tools to repair the existing malfunction is what is required – no two ways about it. Why should we treat a simulator – a VERY good tool in teaching pilots what they need to know – any differently? The most important feature about a simulator is that it is restricted to being used ONLY under the specific, the knowledgeable, and the competent direction of a qualified and experienced instructor. It is the instructor, using the tools (the simulation) that should be conducting the training. Again, no two ways about it.

No matter what simulator you get into … you can ALWAYS find SOME criticism – and the criticism may be quite valid – and you should note that I said “may” be quite valid. That is because in a simulator almost everyone is able to focus their attention on things that they might not focus on when flying the airplane. The mind is not only “a terrible thing to waste,” it is also very good at reminding anyone about what IS and what IS NOT real. Each time you get into a simulator, you KNOW you are not in an airplane – and that knowledge is filed away and it is used every second you are in that simulator. When any pilot gains enough experience in the airplane that they can begin to focus on other aspects of what is happening that, while likely related to whatever is going on, may not be critical or immersed in the task as hand, but with more experience, a pilot is more likely to note those kinds of not-immediately-critical issues. And when subjectively testing simulators THOSE very experienced pilots are used to examine not only the tasks at hand, but to also take into consideration those kinds of things that are recognizable even though not of a remarkable nature to those specific tasks. Those comments are then addressed, and hopefully adjusted, so as to provide the kinds of recognition factors that would be available in the airplane – even to that “below-the-surface” recognition factor.

The things that experienced simulator users tend to focus on run the gamut of the recognizable, the barely recognizable, and the “I-never-knew-that” things – which, together, go into the makeup of day-to-day flight operations in an airplane. When all of those things come together, the simulation result is pretty good. But, and again, no matter HOW GOOD the simulation gets, there will be some pilots with enough experience who will be able to note where there are errors – and even some without a lot of experience will continue to focus on those things that seem to be “strange” – and there are a lot of places that, because of the liberties that have to be taken to provide a level of simulation that pilot training demands and deserves, will be able to be noted when the focus is diverted due the recognition that “we really are NOT in the airplane … this is just a simulator.”

As you can tell, I have some really strong opinions on this topic … and that is because of the amount of time I’ve spent in conducting training and working with the various levels and requirements for simulation and how those requirements may be met, are met, and often, how that material has to be adjusted, or started from scratch once again. Let me know if you have any specific question about simulation, and I’ll try to provide you an understandable response.

[Jumbo744]

AirRabbit,

thank you very much for your post on this thread :D

[ZFT]

Whilst (as usual) Air Rabbit is very much spot on with his comments, it should be recognized that the difference between a Level D FSTD and a Level C in terms of handling characteristics should be virtually unrecognizable as they both use the same (level of) test data.

The only difference is additional data (and testing) requirements with sound and vibration.

Interestingly some turboprops do have better data than the FBW. ATR for example supply data for a complete deep tail stall and this is accurately simulated on ‘good’ FSTDs, whereas neither of the major jet manufacturers provide the FSTD manufactures with any data post stall and this is why even the latest ‘jet’ Level D FSTDs may be pretty unrepresentative for training outside of the normal envelope.

[AirRabbit]

AirRabbit, thank you very much for your post on this threadJumbo744 … you are most certainly welcome … and I was serious about the offer to attempt to answer questions about simulation.

Whilst (as usual) Air Rabbit is very much spot on with his comments, it should be recognized that the difference between a Level D FSTD and a Level C in terms of handling characteristics should be virtually unrecognizable as they both use the same (level of) test data.

The only difference is additional data (and testing) requirements with sound and vibration.

Interestingly some turboprops do have better data than the FBW. ATR for example supply data for a complete deep tail stall and this is accurately simulated on ‘good’ FSTDs, whereas neither of the major jet manufacturers provide the FSTD manufactures with any data post stall and this is why even the latest ‘jet’ Level D FSTDs may be pretty unrepresentative for training outside of the normal envelopeIt’s not often that I run across those who obviously know what they are saying when the conversation turns to simulation … what a breath of “fresh air” you bring, sir! And the differences you point out between Level D and Level C is exactly why Level D simulators support all the training and the evaluation check for virtually anyone, and the Level C simulators support the same things, but there are certain experience requirements that have to be met, depending on the type of training and checking under consideration … as indicated below:

LEVEL C Training and Checking Permitted
1. For all pilots, transition training between airplanes in the same group, and for a pilot in command the certification check required by §61.153 of this chapter.
2. Upgrade to pilot-in-command training and the certification check when the pilot—
a. Has previously qualified as second in command in the equipment to which the pilot is upgrading;
b. Has at least 500 hours of actual flight time while serving as second in command in an airplane of the same group; and
c. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane in this same group.
3. Initial pilot-in-command training and the certification check when the pilot—
a. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane of the same group;
b. Has a minimum of 2,500 flight hours as second in command in an airplane of the same group; and
c. Has served as second in command on at least two airplanes of the same group.Additionally, there have been on-going meetings and discussions regarding post-stall portions of flight and there are several sets of data that have been developed – several of my colleagues have worked their fingers to the bone specifically testing those data sets – over and over and over – and with the general release of either the specific program or instructions on how to formulate such a program may well entice additional and repetitive testing by everyone and their closest friends (and that will probably be a good thing) and after saying all that, my estimation is that there will be programs available for “post stall” and other, similar, “outside-the-normal-envelope” kinds of flight training that will be available relatively soon - and some folks believe they just might be mandated – at least to some degree. Those who have flown these scenarios have been dutifully and professionally impressed – and I’m describing pilots who have substantial experience in transport category, swept wing, turbojet airplanes, in full aerodynamic stalls … some to the extent that at least one pilot, when answering the question – how far into the stall have you taken this airplane? … his response was “a 3-turn spin” … and he was one of the ones who had a smile on his face upon getting out of the simulator just after having test flown the program. Fasten your seat belts, I believe flight training is about to get even more “real.”

[ZFT]

AirRabbit,

I wish I were as positive as you. Whilst there has been sterling efforts these past years by the likes of ICATEE and with the various on goings working group(s) all trying to determine just what and how to best use the training tools available now and how to develop them for the future, we still experience significant reluctance from both (major) FSTD and airframe manufacturers to really buy into this.

Only very recently when querying a major airframe manufacturer about approach to stall buffet during an initial eval their response was “We remind you that the simulator must be used in accordance with our Procedures: in case of an approach to stall, it is strongly recommended to release the stick when the “stall warning” is heard. The “stall warning” is triggered before any buffet or stall phenomena occur”

Nice to be told how we MUST use our device and certainly not what our TREs want. Of course this was the get out of jail card for the FSTD manufacturer too. This particular battle continues!

Of course this whole issue comes down to whether the industry is prepared to invest in advanced/additional training. My own view is that without regulatory mandates, very little will change. The FSTD manufacturers are all fighting for their business with recent new entrants polluting the traditional market place and in reality today the only delta between them is price. They are all capable of producing excellent Level D compliant training tools. Some are better for training than others but they are all capable of being qualified. There is no advantage for any of them in investing and adding to their bottom line whilst there is no regulatory need.

The airframe manufacturers too are reluctant to either gather or release the additional data for I suspect similar reasons.

There is no doubt that UR and LOC are critical areas that current training practices are totally deficient in as far too many recent, tragic events prove. Unfortunately, the cynic in me says that this will remain so until the FAA and EASA force the industry to take clear and decisive long term action.

I truly hope I am wrong.

[AirRabbit]

ZFT

Needless to say – you have a very contemporary, and a very accurate view of the circumstances facing our industry – and I, too, hope you are wrong … but I know that there are those who are working to provide at least the understanding of what it would take to gather, process, and use the relevant data that may be useful in programming and operating flight simulators. While I am fully aware of the accuracy of your comment and share your general pessimism toward the subject … the thing I am holding on to is that if we can, through whatever means possible, develop at least the methodology, and hopefully some kinds of examples of what that methodology may be able to produce … and then analyze and scrutinize the kinds of value (presuming there is value) by actually incorporating that methodology into regular flight training – there might be a lessening of the financial objections from the owners/operators or, at least, a recognition of the value available (and it would logically have to include a recognizable safety increase) by the regulators – that we will see the kinds of things that I’ve been a part of and others that I’ve seen, actually making it into routine training programs. There is no doubt that unless the regulators find it difficult to ignore the safety implications of NOT requiring such training program expansions, the likelihood of much of it seeing the light of day isn’t very impressive. Therefore, it continues to be up to the likes of you and me to keep pushing … and it reminds me of the old adage that says ….”if they won’t see the light, make ‘em feel the heat!” The problem, therefore, becomes one of learning how to make regulators recognize the accuracy of these kinds of concerns and point out the consequences of an increasingly inquisitive and a knowledgeable constituency – the membership of which is (and I sincerely hope it is) becoming more and more knowledgeable and more and more vocal on this and similar subjects.