Simulation or Flight
 

The next generation of aircraft. JSF, SABR, SCMR etc etc etc, will all come into service along with Flight Simulators which are JAR-STD 1A Level "D" certified and as such they are capable and probably will have Zero flight time.

The future JSF pilot is likely not to see the real aircraft until he has passed the course. and will complete his training in the simulator.

Even now, German Tiger aircrew only conduct 10% of their flying training in the real aircraft, the remainder is simulated.

Good idea or Bad?

Comments please

Simulation is fine and in some respects good fun. It also is a fab training aid. I enjoy going into the sim and like the battle between the Stude and the instructor. However, I didn't join the Navy to Fly a simulator.

There is a fine balance required here otherwise you will start to lose people.

Simulation is a useful training tool especially for complicated aircraft. The simulator can be used to demonstrate all manner of malfunctions and flying characteristics that cannot be done as easily or effectively in the real aircraft. For example, practice engine fires and engine failures in the real aircraft require instructors to either detail a long list of symptoms to the student or use some other method of indicating to the student that there is a problem. In a simulator the student gets all (almost) of the indications that would be in the real aircraft. However, simulation is not perfect.

Although a simulator may be classified Level D, zero flight time etc this can be a bit misleading. Level D really only applies for airline style 'fly the aircraft' training.

At present the jury is still out on standards for tactical simulation systems. Simulators cannot sustain G.

The point of all this is that a Level D simulator is still not enough for zero aircraft flight time training especially in the military environment. The point of the simulator is to enable the crew to operate the aircraft. The crew must go and do this in the aircraft and only be assisted by the simulator for currency and proficiency training. Organisations can either have smart people who realise this from the start or they can learn it the hard way.

PS I'd check the info on the German Tiger crews just to make sure the figure is not related to the lateness of their aircraft delivery. I'm pretty sure that they are not in a mature training environment just yet.

In fifty years times it will be seen as the half-way house to a true UAV, perhaps..?

Is it true that some Sims are run faster than real time, so that when a real emergency occurs, the pilot is able to react faster?

Personal view but a simulator is an aid - NOT a replacement.

There is nothing like the real thing as far as realism is concerned, especially in the tactical environment - but I do agree that a sim is a very useful tool for areas where the real thing is difficult to obtain in peacetime ie. threats and emergencies (obviously a real emergency suffices but who wants that!).

The problem (or maybe solution in other eyes) is that simulation is effectively cheaper than flying for most aircraft and that seems to be the bottom line.

could imagine it will become increasingly useful in tactical training also with the advent of NEC and networked operations. Personally, the biggest plus of the sim is I can push buttons to see what happens, or to see if doing things a different way will work to my advantage, things you generally cannot do in the air.

Could imagine they will become increasingly useful when going into different theatres as well for famil purposes?

Simulators are a very useful aid. The become even more useful when they are located in Swtzerland near the ski slopes.

CM

I remember at deadloss a few years ago, a plan being discussed to fly IRT's in the Sim, the idea was quickly quashed by those much more senior to me.

Have times changed or is a sim (no matter how good) no replacement for the real thing?

Our Sim is ZFT rated, and it is fine for initial training. The fact that it is harder to fly than the a/c is no bad thing. New pilots can make errors without endangering themselves and others.

A sim cannot, however, simulate Operational C2 R/T and pressures, or an NVG strip landing in high terrain, but as a procedural trainer, they are great value for money.

As long as actual flight is also part of conversion training, I don't see it as a problem.

The RAF needs to invest more in realistic full mission simulators and make better use of them. There is no reason why they could not replace some flying hours; however, both the aircrew and the aircraft need to be exercised regularly to achieve success. Aircraft that last flew last month are probably not going to work much better than aircrew who have not flown for a month.

The sooner simulators are linked together for full mission training the better. Then one will be able to practise war scenarios operating with real players and simulated 'real' weapons.

Simulators are only that - things that simulate reality.

...and have all the attraction that simulated sex has to anyone except a committed games playing nerd.

They will never replace the real thing.

Incidentally, although some Level D simulators might be ZFT approved under JAR-FCL, no RAF first tourist OCU student meets JAR-FCL ZFT trainee requirements.. But no doubt the bean counters won't want to know that - or accept compliance with ZFT rules.

Seeing as RAF pilots do not hold licenses, I think the JAR requirements are a bit of a red herring.

Beagle, you are right that they can never replace the real thing, but they do have the advantage that you do no die when shot down or you crash. They are an invaluable aid for training and developing procedures. Any fleet with a decent sim will always perfect SOP's in the sim before trying it in the a/c.

Cake and eat it time, eh P-T-G? As the minority airspace user, if MoD wants to play the big boys' game, it should do so by the big boys' rules. But no, it'll seize on anything which costs less, irrespective of the ultimate effect on cost/benefit. Same goes for operation of ETOPS aircraft; if they're not maintained in accordance with ETOPS rules, then they shouldn't be flown under ETOPS rules.

The basics can be learned in a simulator, as can abnormal procedures and some operational procedures. But there will still be a minimum level of experience and real world skill development which must be completed in a real aircraft.

The gleam in the beancounters' eyes at the thought of less flying hours and more UAVs need to be tempered by caution. In any case, who on earth would want to join a military flying organisation to fly simulators or aeromodels?

There are some things you can only EVER try (or want to) in the simulator.

I still have the chills when I think about the first time I was given a synchronising-shaft failure on the death-banana, and the whole world went upside down... flashing lights... cries for help...etc

Certainly focuses the mind on proper drills.

Interestingly, on one fleet when the IRTs which used to be conducted in the aeroplane were dumbed down and transferred to the simulator with its desperately unrealistic ATC environment, the ability of the more inexperienced co-pilots to cope satisfactorily with real-world flying in high density ATC environments became very obvious.

But you can't tell the beancounters things they simply don't want to hear about......

BEagle

'ability' or 'inability'??

ATC
 

In the sim I fly (Military), when conducting IF...the staff get an "ATC"er over to assist. Basically, his job is to gob off on the radio and make the simulation as real as poss. Because he is an ATCer and a familiar voice on the radio, it becomes very realistic....

In fact painfully realistic

Beagle - The IRT is a procedural test to a set standard. It should not be a capacity test of high workload environments.

A good ZFT sim is the perfect place for this. Our sim is far harder to fly than the a/c, and I do not consider an IMC EFATO in the sim to be "Dumming down". Perhaps you would like to come and try one, I can promise you everyone on our fleet hates them, as the sim is very twitchy. It makes you follow the correct techniques, or it will bite you.

Line training should introduce high workload destinations, with good supervision.

I agree that a degree of training in the a/c is essential, but I believe we would be wasting a huge amount of a tight budget if we did not utilise the sim fully.

One of the major advantages of the Sim is that you can practise the stuff that would occasionally kill you in the real aircraft and this applies also to the IRT where you can operate in the sort of weather you would divert to avoid. You can also get the 'victim' in situations where he experiences very real disorientation and you can overload him. Nevertheless, I prefer a system where the IRT is flown in both the simulator and the aircraft.