Sims that look like the aircraft
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad_Jock - not all your arguements hold water.
With a GOOD FNPT II device you can do most of the things about which you are talking. As I said, you can build down to a spec if you want or you can have quality (ours is actually a full flight simulator, it is just qualified as an FNPT II(MCC) because we donīt need to spend the extra cash on the higher level of qualification - but all that fidelity is still there).
Visual systems can be used to exercise real world decision making - not "am I allowed to land?" type decision making when flying simulated IMC in a real aeroplane.
A motion system (ours has one) gives those seat of the pants cues that tell you when you are out of trim when asymmetric, you feel acceleration and deceleration etc.
Wind changes, turbulence etc - yes, we can do all that - windshear too! Variable visibility, exactly the right cloudbase and RVR available whenever needed to make the most of the training and achieve the required objectives. Dusk, dark, day - yes, got them all. Instant access to big airports and proper arrival/departure procedures - got that too.
If you screw up a take-off, you can get an instant reset, not spend 10-15 minutes getting round the radar pattern before you can try it again (how much does that cost you at 250 quid per hour? You work it out!).
You can't kill yourself and your instructor in an FNPT II - unless you trip over the step on the way down.
However, reading the post and the examples you quote, I think you could adequately simulate any of those scenarios in an FNPT II and anyone with decent flightdeck managment sklills would not be phased by items 4 and 5 in the air if he had had the opportunity to practice those skills in the FNPT II.
I agree - there is no substitute for the aeroplane and you need real airborne time to generate the correct feel. However, used as a combination, a GOOD FNPT II and aeroplane pairing will give you so much more. You can get more into your training day with an FNPT II - no time spent authing, doing externals, 20min hold at the end of the taxiway as they scrape up that Cessna 152 with the bust tyre.
Out of interest, do you have a job with an airline yet? If so, where did you do your type training and did you do it all on an aeroplane or use synthetic training devices?
With a GOOD FNPT II device you can do most of the things about which you are talking. As I said, you can build down to a spec if you want or you can have quality (ours is actually a full flight simulator, it is just qualified as an FNPT II(MCC) because we donīt need to spend the extra cash on the higher level of qualification - but all that fidelity is still there).
Visual systems can be used to exercise real world decision making - not "am I allowed to land?" type decision making when flying simulated IMC in a real aeroplane.
A motion system (ours has one) gives those seat of the pants cues that tell you when you are out of trim when asymmetric, you feel acceleration and deceleration etc.
Wind changes, turbulence etc - yes, we can do all that - windshear too! Variable visibility, exactly the right cloudbase and RVR available whenever needed to make the most of the training and achieve the required objectives. Dusk, dark, day - yes, got them all. Instant access to big airports and proper arrival/departure procedures - got that too.
If you screw up a take-off, you can get an instant reset, not spend 10-15 minutes getting round the radar pattern before you can try it again (how much does that cost you at 250 quid per hour? You work it out!).
You can't kill yourself and your instructor in an FNPT II - unless you trip over the step on the way down.
However, reading the post and the examples you quote, I think you could adequately simulate any of those scenarios in an FNPT II and anyone with decent flightdeck managment sklills would not be phased by items 4 and 5 in the air if he had had the opportunity to practice those skills in the FNPT II.
I agree - there is no substitute for the aeroplane and you need real airborne time to generate the correct feel. However, used as a combination, a GOOD FNPT II and aeroplane pairing will give you so much more. You can get more into your training day with an FNPT II - no time spent authing, doing externals, 20min hold at the end of the taxiway as they scrape up that Cessna 152 with the bust tyre.
Out of interest, do you have a job with an airline yet? If so, where did you do your type training and did you do it all on an aeroplane or use synthetic training devices?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So mad_jock, are you the consultant all companies use for recruitment? You know that all of them reduce your hours by any time in synthetic training devices (if you don't want to call them sims). I presume they all now use only real aircraft for type ratings now, if they do not trust training in synthetic training devices. Of course you could not go onto line training, flying passengers with only one landing of "...real experience" could you?
I believe you are absolutely wrong in one respect. a non-motion sim (most new FNPT2s seem to have motion as ours, but not the FNPT1s) gives absolutely no "seat-of-the-pants" input, as it never moves. Therefore it is a good way of teaching people to fly the instruments. When I had the leans in my IR training I just imagined I was in the sim and the controls did not move us at all, I was just flying the dials. It worked and I flew a near-immaculate trip, even though I had a reflection in the screens that my brain interpreted as the horizon, and I thought we were in a 20-degree right bank the whole trip.
The problem with real life is that in the early stages of training it can be too much, detrimental to training. Of course as you progress more can be added to a sim trip of unexpected problems and distractions (this certainly happened in my training at SFT, sorry to hear it did not in yours), and eventually everyone sees real life. What you put as a disadvantage is actually an advantage.
No-one is arguing for 100% sim on any of the training, or for courses to all go 40-hour sim, 10-hour real as is the max. The student must decide, but a more realistic sim is definitely better than a simple one for many areas of training, better than the real aircraft for some areas of training.
I believe you are absolutely wrong in one respect. a non-motion sim (most new FNPT2s seem to have motion as ours, but not the FNPT1s) gives absolutely no "seat-of-the-pants" input, as it never moves. Therefore it is a good way of teaching people to fly the instruments. When I had the leans in my IR training I just imagined I was in the sim and the controls did not move us at all, I was just flying the dials. It worked and I flew a near-immaculate trip, even though I had a reflection in the screens that my brain interpreted as the horizon, and I thought we were in a 20-degree right bank the whole trip.
The problem with real life is that in the early stages of training it can be too much, detrimental to training. Of course as you progress more can be added to a sim trip of unexpected problems and distractions (this certainly happened in my training at SFT, sorry to hear it did not in yours), and eventually everyone sees real life. What you put as a disadvantage is actually an advantage.
No-one is arguing for 100% sim on any of the training, or for courses to all go 40-hour sim, 10-hour real as is the max. The student must decide, but a more realistic sim is definitely better than a simple one for many areas of training, better than the real aircraft for some areas of training.
Of all the FTO sims I have seen Moggie - if its any consolation - your HS125 with proper motion is about the best.
Its probably a good thing that JAA has resulted in a massive improvement in synthetic and computer aided training in ab initio world. One of the few good things to be said for JAA.
WWW
Its probably a good thing that JAA has resulted in a massive improvement in synthetic and computer aided training in ab initio world. One of the few good things to be said for JAA.
WWW
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a FI moggie.
I must admit I have only used 3 FNPT II's all were over 2 years old so by modern standards a bit crap.
I still reckon you get better value for money with twin hours in your log book than FNPT time.
This whole business of FNPT's seems to getting into a bit of an arms race.
When talking to FTO's about the IR ask them if your allowed free solo time on the FNPT. I feel being able to practise as much as you like has more effect than all the visuals.
MJ
WWW how about a poll for IR wannabies on how they felt at the end of the minimum course hours.
1 FNPT 1 trained - felt ready for test.
2 FNPT 1 trained - felt they still needed more aircraft time.
3 FNPT II trained - felt ready for test.
4 FNPT II trained - felt they still needed more aircraft time.
I must admit I have only used 3 FNPT II's all were over 2 years old so by modern standards a bit crap.
I still reckon you get better value for money with twin hours in your log book than FNPT time.
This whole business of FNPT's seems to getting into a bit of an arms race.
When talking to FTO's about the IR ask them if your allowed free solo time on the FNPT. I feel being able to practise as much as you like has more effect than all the visuals.
MJ
WWW how about a poll for IR wannabies on how they felt at the end of the minimum course hours.
1 FNPT 1 trained - felt ready for test.
2 FNPT 1 trained - felt they still needed more aircraft time.
3 FNPT II trained - felt ready for test.
4 FNPT II trained - felt they still needed more aircraft time.
Last edited by mad_jock; 17th May 2003 at 02:29.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say, during the training stage I would plump for aircraft time over sim time. It is more realistic, heck, it is the real thing! Th e other problem of course is logbook hours. I have not met an airline employer yet who would be happy for you to count your sim time in with your total hours, but many fresh guys do add it in to their total and I understand where you are coming from. We've all been there desperate to have a few more hours in the total. I even had a Wannabee send me his cv for me to cast a critical eye over and I advised him to remove his 40 odd hours in FNPT type sims from his total. You may well be able to count some sim hours towards ATPL issue, but all the hirers I've seen don't count them. Hell, I've got a couple of hundred in full motion 75/76 sims but never count them into my total time.
They do serve a very good purpose however, the best thing being that they can be frozen whilst some issue is explained by the trainer and then unfrozen again after the conversation is complete.
Mad Jock. I know exactly where you are coming from regarding Sheffield, I flew in there several times during my air taxi days and the RT was particularly difficult.......much more so than Greek ATC who are well documented as difficult to understand!
Send Clowns. An interesting point to note is that the landing is the most difficult part of the flight to simulate correctly. I have still not flown a 757 sim that lands anything like the real aircraft. The best I have been in was Flight Safety Boeing's (My Travel) at Cheadle which came very close. I would hazzard a guess that that is one of the reasons why for your first full type rating on a large transport a/c you have to do 6 landings in the real a/c, despite having done hour upon hour in a zero flight time sim. Incedently I recently converted to the 767 and due to previous 757 experience was permitted to do my first 'real' landing with fee paying punters on board, little be known to them!
So all in all, you have to view them for what they are; a training aid for training in to fly the real thing. At an early stage in my flying career I'd want all the real flying I could get, but make sure you are well prepared before you go......perhaps by way of a little practice in a sim/ synthetic training device?!?!?!?
PP
They do serve a very good purpose however, the best thing being that they can be frozen whilst some issue is explained by the trainer and then unfrozen again after the conversation is complete.
Mad Jock. I know exactly where you are coming from regarding Sheffield, I flew in there several times during my air taxi days and the RT was particularly difficult.......much more so than Greek ATC who are well documented as difficult to understand!
Send Clowns. An interesting point to note is that the landing is the most difficult part of the flight to simulate correctly. I have still not flown a 757 sim that lands anything like the real aircraft. The best I have been in was Flight Safety Boeing's (My Travel) at Cheadle which came very close. I would hazzard a guess that that is one of the reasons why for your first full type rating on a large transport a/c you have to do 6 landings in the real a/c, despite having done hour upon hour in a zero flight time sim. Incedently I recently converted to the 767 and due to previous 757 experience was permitted to do my first 'real' landing with fee paying punters on board, little be known to them!
So all in all, you have to view them for what they are; a training aid for training in to fly the real thing. At an early stage in my flying career I'd want all the real flying I could get, but make sure you are well prepared before you go......perhaps by way of a little practice in a sim/ synthetic training device?!?!?!?
PP
PPRuNe Handmaiden
There is a massive difference between a simulator and a synthetic trainer. Most of what is being described above is a synthetic trainer.
They are useful tools and a good adjunct to the real thing.
Sims on the other hand are extremely close to the real thing. The Dash 8 sim I am familiar with is a zero flight time sim. First time I flew a Dash 8 for real had fare paying pax on it.
Synthetic trainers get you up to speed on procedures and the like. This means reduced training time in the aeroplane. ie things that the procedural trainer cannot replicate.
They are useful tools and a good adjunct to the real thing.
Sims on the other hand are extremely close to the real thing. The Dash 8 sim I am familiar with is a zero flight time sim. First time I flew a Dash 8 for real had fare paying pax on it.
Synthetic trainers get you up to speed on procedures and the like. This means reduced training time in the aeroplane. ie things that the procedural trainer cannot replicate.
