Question on fidelity of Level B synthetic trainers/simulators
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question on fidelity of Level B synthetic trainers/simulators
Level B usually means certain sequences must be flown in the real aircraft. Typically three take off and landings. These presumably are assessable for purposes of having the type placed on your licence.
It follows that one reason for level B certification is the simulator fidelity characteristics on the runway do not reflect those of an actual aircraft type.
That being so, it could be argued logically that instructors/check pilots should not mark or assess students progress during the take off and landing run. That includes rejected take offs, and crosswind ops - since simulator certification does not include these manoeuvres. A syllabus of training that includes runway operations on level B synthetic trainers therefore becomes questionable?
It follows that one reason for level B certification is the simulator fidelity characteristics on the runway do not reflect those of an actual aircraft type.
That being so, it could be argued logically that instructors/check pilots should not mark or assess students progress during the take off and landing run. That includes rejected take offs, and crosswind ops - since simulator certification does not include these manoeuvres. A syllabus of training that includes runway operations on level B synthetic trainers therefore becomes questionable?
'A37' there are quite a few reasons why but one is that Cat B Sim's don't usually have side vision hence you can't keep the Rwy threshold or the Rwy environment in view whilst circling. It's as you say all about fidelity, creating a true environment of which Cat B's normally can't.
Wmk2
Wmk2
A3757,
The sad fact of the matter is that inadequate simulators are not unknown, and I have severe doubts as to the fidelity of some simulators here, that are approved by CASA to higher levels than B.
What's the point of having the current CASR 60 (since about 2003), let alone the new Doc. 9625, Issue 3 standards, if CASA are going to continue to allow the use of "simulators" that were originally FSD 1 "compliant", even though that standard was manifestly inadequate.
With the current rules requiring simulator use, if one is available, some "flight training devices" that should never be called "simulators" are in CASA "approved" use.
The worst example I have seen is a desk top device, actually not as good as I can buy at Harvey Norman, being used for training and checking for PA-31 operations.
The whole issue of negative training arises, I have seen some gross examples of the results of negative training from so called "simulators" in recent years.
Tootle pip!!
The sad fact of the matter is that inadequate simulators are not unknown, and I have severe doubts as to the fidelity of some simulators here, that are approved by CASA to higher levels than B.
What's the point of having the current CASR 60 (since about 2003), let alone the new Doc. 9625, Issue 3 standards, if CASA are going to continue to allow the use of "simulators" that were originally FSD 1 "compliant", even though that standard was manifestly inadequate.
With the current rules requiring simulator use, if one is available, some "flight training devices" that should never be called "simulators" are in CASA "approved" use.
The worst example I have seen is a desk top device, actually not as good as I can buy at Harvey Norman, being used for training and checking for PA-31 operations.
The whole issue of negative training arises, I have seen some gross examples of the results of negative training from so called "simulators" in recent years.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 26th Mar 2013 at 07:00.
