Simulator Fixed vs Full Motion

[P06T]

Hi all,

I'm looking for feedback from people with experience in simulators. What are the differences between a fixed base sim and a full motion please? I'm well aware that one moves and that other doesn't but how different would you find yourself transitioning from one to the other?

Thanks!:ok:

[Groundloop]

Don't forget about fixed-base with motion cueing (not sure if that is the correct term). Flew a couple of circuits in the 737-800 sim at FTE and very quickly forgot it was not a full-motion sim.

[AirRabbit]

Hi P06T - Do you have any specific questions regarding the differences between a 'fixed base' device (normally called a 'flight training device' or 'FTD' and a 'full motion device' (normally called a 'flight simulator' or 'FS')? In the US there are 4 levels of simulators - (Level A - D) and 6 'levels' of FTD - (Levels 2 – 7 - don’t know why, but number 1 was ‘reserved’).

Flight Training Devices have no motion system at all. Flight Simulators at Levels A and B have motion systems that operate in only a limited way; that is, through 3 axes only … pitch, roll, and yaw. These devices provide motion 'on-set' cues only in those 3 axes. Simulators at Levels C and D provide motion ‘on-set’ cues in those same 3 axes, but also in the axes of heave (up and down), sway (left and right), and surge (forward and aft). Of course, ALL of the motion systems provide only ‘on-set’ cueing, because each of them have physical limits of movement … and the rate that the initiated motion on-set cue is removed must be taken into consideration with respect to the total distance that the motion actuator may be moved; that is, its physical dimensions. The rate that the provided motion cueing is ultimately removed – or stopped – has to be taken into consideration in the overall physical dimensioning of the actuators. But virtually countless amounts of experimentation and examination, trial and error, attempts made, repeated, modified, and re-attempted … all go into the final determination as to the size and the power that will be required to operate such systems.

There are some who are seriously of the opinion that motion on-set cueing is not required for adequate pilot training … and others who seriously believe that motion on-set cueing is absolutely required for proper exposure of pilots to the relationship of what is seen (in both the instruments and in the visual systems provided) to what is felt … kinesthetically. The history of these arguments is the substance of literally volumes of documents … both ‘pro’ and ‘con’ … with respect to the necessities of on-set motion cueing. Having been involved in training both with and without those kinds of motion cueing systems, and talking with other who have had the same kind of experiences, it if my professional opinion that the logic is undeniably in favor of requiring motion cueing – and the better the cueing the better the transition from the simulated to the real environments. I can provide professional after professional who have provided examples on top of examples of the problems encountered when pilots are trained completely either without motion cueing or with motion cueing that is improperly tuned and provided.

All of this is not to say that some of the training introduction cannot be accomplished in very basic kinds of training equipment. Of course, these kinds of equipment should not be thought to be absent any value – because that would be equally untrue. But, the fact remains that complete training without (or with malfunctioning) on-set motion cueing systems simply does not provide the level of pilot recognition and, from that, pilot competency, that is absolutely required to operate modern aircraft carrying passenger and freight.

[redsnail]

I would argue that a FTD is great for learning the aircraft's systems and checklist flows etc, but for learning how to fly the aircraft, full motion is required.

[ZFT]

I would argue that a FTD is great for learning the aircraft's systems and checklist flows etc, but for learning how to fly the aircraft, full motion is required.

I would suggest (and thus totally agree) that the purpose of an FTD/APT is exactly that.

[AirRabbit]

Hi 'redsnail' and 'ZFT' -

Thank you both (!!!) for posting what you did! It bolsters my hope that all is not yet lost in the world of pilot training. In the recent past I've seen so much advocating the total reliance on cheaper and cheaper simulation devices, one might think that this is the ‘wave of the future.’ This is, at least in part, due to the US FAA having been so accommodating of airlines jumping into what is known as AQP ... which was originally meant to stand for Advanced Qualification Program … but that acronym has been seen to represent ‘Awfully Qualified Pilots’ by some – and ‘Almost Qualified Pilots’ by others among the rank-n-file FAA inspectors in the US. This situation is primarily due to the FAA’s acceptance of lesser and lesser capable simulation for more and more training and checking credits. Under the AQP in the US, airlines have been given the authority to use non-motion FTDs not only for training, but for the proficiency check … and, in some instances, both the Airline Transport Pilot certificate check AND the Type Rating check on the airplane type. What’s the motivation? Of course – it’s money. An airline can purchase a very sophisticated looking piece of training equipment at some level of FTD for substantially less cost than a properly designed, built, and tested Level C or Level D Flight Simulator. And, of course, the owners/managers of these airlines recognize the cost/benefit aspects of using these lesser capable (and lesser cost) devices as long as the regulator accepts the results on a par with the use of the more sophisticated and vastly more realistic full flight simulators at Levels C or D. AND, these airline owners/managers regularly write or call senior FAA officials complimenting them on their foresight and professionalism for allowing these lower cost devices to be used to produce 'superbly qualified pilots' while doing so for less cost. Guess what that kind of input means for those FAA employees ...their respective managers are led to believe that these folks deserve promotions and pay increases ... at least bonuses. It's an 'unsaid' agreement of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.' So, thank you both for your understanding – and your willingness to say so!

[ZFT]

AirRabbit

As I’m sure you recall, it wasn’t just your side of the Atlantic that dumbed down the requirements to suit their own ends.

A few years ago (just before EASA) both the French DGAC and the NZCAA bowed to pressure from an aircraft manufacturer and permitted type ratings utilising non motion FSTDs only including the skill test!!

Motivation? Money of course plus vested interests.

[AirRabbit]

Hi ZFT –

Actually, I wasn’t aware of that … but, in retrospect, I’m not at all surprised. AND … it only goes to fortify my belief that if this ‘aviation industry’ is to improve and expand … heck, maybe even survive … it’s going to take a lot more folks who believe like you and I, that it must be based on the day-to-day actions of competent and professional folks in all aspects (flight deck, cabin, dispatch facility, towers, en-route centers, mechanics, and all the rest …) who recognize the importance, the functionality, and the majesty (if you will), of every aspect of the entire aviation industry … and the fact that it has taken, and will continue to require, those participating in it to function as a professional in the practice of the individual knowledge, skills, and abilities required by each separate task they are there to perform (where mine is clearly flight training and simulation) … and recognize that, as important as each of those tasks are, they are only a part of the larger picture … a larger picture that, once in focus, anyone on the “inside” viewing it will recognize the simplicity of its appearance and, more so, the satisfaction of knowing the level of knowledge, skill, and ability required of everyone involved, all of whom are necessary to produce such a result.

Thanks for taking the time to participate here – I know I’m not the only one who appreciates it!